U.S. Has Received Additional Credible Threats of Attacks. New information amplifies on the sense of imminent threat the gov’t had announced earlier this week, and points to a possible attack by Sunday. But the euphemistic “senior gov’t officials” report that the information on which they base this assessment is “an accumulation of tidbits”, and frustratingly fragmentary. The Sears Tower in Chicago, Disneyland and Disney World are all mentioned but other sources downplay the information. They take pains to say, also, that there is no data linking the anthrax cases to the terrorist threat. NY Times [“FMHreader”, “FMHreader”]

The Times itself has editorialized that it is unlikely terrorists would target the supermarket tabloids. But William Powers, for one, finds it more plausible. They are both pillars of American morality and symbols of its frivolous excesses, he says. National Journal [via Romanesko]

My sense is that, if they are saying there are credible immediate threats, it is axiomatic that they know more than they are willing to tell us — cf. the delay in making news of the NBC anthrax case public — which makes sense from the point of view of the devil you know being worse than the devil you don’t (don’t let the terrorists know you’re on to their planned targetting, so they don’t change on you). The administration hasn’t found a safe path through the minefield between telling us too much and too little. There may not be a unified policy on this account either, as leaks — e.g. the unnamed sources who seem to be keeping the Times informed — would seem to indicate. Although the leaks don’t tell us much either…

Here’s a vignette from life during wartime. The Times has another headline today that filled me with a mixture of hope and curiosity, White House Said to Have Plan to Cover New Attacks. Looking at the article, however, I deflated when I realized they were only talking about insurance coverage.