Realizing the supposed good intentions of these long-range, terrorist warnings, can someone explain how the average citizen is supposed to use and/or act on this info? Okay, so based on very hazy yet "credible" intelligence (remember the last time we were told about "credible" intel.... WMD anyone?), Al Qaeda could possibly attack the U.S. sometime this summer. Yet, what are we actually supposed to do with that knowledge? Cancel vacation plans? Why is it the federal authorities can't just diligently do what they have to do to thwart such an attempt and leave the American people to go about their everyday, busy lives? That's what they get paid for, right? And now we have a multi-billion-dollar department to specifically protect our homeland, right? Didn't the Clinton administration perform "silent" terror intercepts on more than one occasion??

I can propose at least three reasons for the very-public release of these warnings:

1) It's a very easy way for Ashcroft, the FBI, etc., to make Americans aware that they're doing something to prevent terrorism ("Wow, our tax dollar is being well spent.... they're working hard to protect us!")
2) If anything were to occur, it provides political cover (unlike 9/11, this time they could say, "Hey, it's not like we didn't warn you!")
3) With the election fast approaching, it's a well-known fact that the incumbent stands a much better chance of getting re-elected if the country is currently under some kind of threat of attack. In other words, fear favors the sitting president (and majority party, for that matter). Thus, Bush Inc. wants the country to constantly be reminded of imminent terrorist attacks and to remain "vigilant," keeping them in a steady-state of mildly paralyzing concern. Voters will then be too afraid to favor a change with regards to the highest office -- best to just "stay the course."

By most accounts, these warnings are simply a campaign tactic, nothing more, nothing less.