...no terrorist worth his salt will be able to tell that this building is, in fact, a border crossing station...

Especially a terrorist from Canadia.

Have you considered the use of decoys? Could we not emblazon abandoned warehouses or tumbling barns with the words "United States" in bright yellow caps and thus draw the terrorists to those targets?

Could we paint a giant United States on foreclosed properties and cleverly entice our enemies into solving the problem of too many available houses?

And as a California resident I think a giant US sign might spruce up our state house.

I thought this was stupid at first blush, too. Upon further reflection, though, it doesn't seem ridiculous to think terrorists would be interested in damaging the building so that the large "UNITED STATES" was mangled. It would be a potent image for propaganda purposes, i.e., to show the U.S. itself as damaged and weakened.

The Department of Homeland Security is removing the words “United States” from a New York border station for fear that it will make the station a terrorist target.

Typical move from B. Hussein. The fact that he is a racist foreigner has already made the country vulnerable to attack. This is just a diversionary action.

no terrorist worth his salt will be able to tell that this building is, in fact, a border crossing station…

Problem is, Janet Napolitano, who carries very little salt thinks this is really helping in protecting the Nation.

@Baily:

Problem is, Janet Napolitano, who carries very little salt thinks this is really helping in protecting the Nation.

Have any evidence that she ordered it?

Have any evidence that she ordered it?

I have absolutely none.
But you know what, sport, I never said she ordered it.

This is just security theater to cover up the significant error made in the planning of the station. Obviously, the built it too close to the road. If only someone had been thinking from the get-go.

But you know what, sport, I never said she ordered it.

Well, any evidence that she "thinks this is really helping in protecting the Nation"?

Such idiocy in government is proof positive that government should be limited as much as possible, including this bone headed Obama care..........

Well, any evidence that she "thinks this is really...."

Sport,
I am not playing your silly ass game. I voiced my opinion and I stand by it.

Let's hide our name, that's not letting the terrorists win, no sir.

I voiced my opinion and I stand by it.

Nice trick with one foot on the ground and the other in your mouth.

I was just explaining to my American government students that bureaucrats are risk-averse. I now have a good example for my fall lectures.

Such idiocy in government is proof positive that government should be limited as much as possible...

When we see cockups in the business world, we never hear that such things are proof of idiocy in that sector and that it should be limited...such theories only seem to apply to government...

Problem is, Janet Napolitano, who carries very little salt thinks this is really helping in protecting the Nation.

Asking for the proof that she really thinks this is hardly playing a "silly ass game", but making such a claim and not being able to prove it certainly is...

Mithras:

I had the same feelings. Then I was reminded that the 9/11 hijackers targeted 'symbolic' targets for propaganda purposes.

This doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Rather, I think it decreases the chance that some random idiot will seek to blow up this crossing for propaganda's sake.

Also, why is it that we even need to be wasting tax dollars with a huge United States sign anyway? Is the flag flying outside not enough? Do we need to put this sign up on every government building? Should we also start mandating that all citizens wear US Flag lapel pins? Just another thought that crossed my mind.