I disagree. I'd compare it to a national "Amber Alert" which has proven to be very effective.

I don't think I'd compare it to missing children. First off, the scale of things is different. Second, it's a far more simple situation, people know what they are looking for and what to do in a missing child scenario. With the terrorist situation we don't have any simple guidelines and people may report anything that they see as strange. It's far too taxing on the system and those who are working it. It's way too sloppy and makes no sense. We need a focused effort. Plus in broadcasting that we know something may happen it's like an alert to the terrorists to tighten their own security measures and let's them know we may be coming. It disposes of the element of surprise that can work as a big advantage to our anti-terror professionals. It's a system that just seems like a "don't blame us we warned you" type of deal. As we've all agreed it's going to be hard to prevent attacks. I agree with Brad that it's not something limited to Republicans, it's a lazy bureaucrat's "don't blame me" dream. Nobody wants to get blamed and that was the issue we had was so many people just looked to point the finger after 9/11.

We may disagree on the pros and cons of the system but for now it's all we've got standing between us and another attack.

Which kind of sucks doesn't it?