Tom and his Magical Crayola™ Box

Isn't it amazing, just as the revelation that the latest terror alert is based on 4 year old data, gives the American people second thought about the alleged immediacy, White House apologist McClellan comes up with new date, just discovered and as fresh as a newly harvested cucumber. Amazing! Unfortunately, they cannot give us any details on this new information--guess we'll just have to trust them.

[Dr Dave]

The main editorial from the New York Times, August 5, 2004. Read at your own risk the twisted opinions of this liberal rag. As you do, think on Tom Ridge's quote, "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security," which appeared twice on the front page of this selfsame newspaper earlier in the week:

August 5, 2004
The Terror Alerts

Our lives have changed so much since Sept. 11, 2001. We know that we may never again be free of the threat of terrorism. It's been a tough adjustment for everyone, and the burden on President Bush is especially heavy. Given the unprecedented circumstances and the costs of making a mistake, it's easy to understand why the administration has had so much trouble managing the way it informs the public about potential danger. But after 17 months in which alerts blinked from yellow to orange and back a half-dozen times, the White House should be past its learning curve. It isn't. The events of this week showed starkly that the system is not working.

The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack. But the delivery of the message was confusing. The color-coded threat chart doesn't serve the purpose for which it was invented, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is hopeless as a public spokesman on this issue. The Bush administration needs to come up with a method of communication that informs the public in a calm, clear way. Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign.

The alert system has always rested on a precarious balance. Local officials must have up-to-date information about possible danger. Private citizens need to know, too, so they can make informed choices and be on the lookout for trouble. But it is possible to go overboard. Ratcheting up the warning level creates huge costs for city and state governments. And if Americans are warned too often, and too shrilly, they will become inured to terror alerts.

In the past, Mr. Ridge and others have talked ominously about intelligence that they have routinely described as the most alarming since 9/11, without providing details. This week they were specific: the five financial institutions were in danger of being bombed in the "near term." The terror alert was raised to orange for those sites in New York, Washington and New Jersey. But things quickly lapsed into confusion. For three days, officials at news conferences and background briefings said their concerns were based on new information, then old information, then back to new information. Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday.

Mr. Bush should junk the color bars, which are now of use mostly to late-night comedians. Ordinary people have no way of calibrating their lives to the color ladder. It does them no good to be told to be scared, more scared or really scared, especially when they are also being told to act as if nothing's wrong. Unless the government is prepared to tell people to stay home from work, there's no reason to keep lighting the terror lamps. What we need is information that we can use, not another shot of adrenaline.

We would have been happy last weekend if a senior official more adept than Mr. Ridge had called a news conference to say what the government knew and what defensive measures had been taken. Instead, he spoke in apocalyptic terms, then produced an "intelligence official" who offered more detail and more alarming words, anonymously. Later that day, and on the next day and the day after, other officials spoke off the record, providing additional information that made the situation seem much more complicated.

There's a practical aspect to the terror alerts that the administration must address to demonstrate its own commitment. The higher alert levels require local governments to take enormously expensive actions, for which Washington is not paying its share. The Homeland Security Department has made it clear that New York City is the spot that comes up most frequently in terrorism-related intelligence, yet money continues to be doled out in a manner that has much more to do with elections than genuine danger. It's shocking that Washington has not followed through on its own information by underwriting the protections cities need to stay safe.

Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances. It is a challenge complicated by the fact that he is running on his record against terrorism and is using images of 9/11 and the threat of more attacks to promote his candidacy. The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda.

Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation. On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''

It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

Americans are stone-cold serious when it comes to potential terror attacks - there is no need to worry about making them pay attention. We have learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to value every day in which nothing terrible happens as a gift and an opportunity. The Bush administration has been given the same blessing. Every morning the president and his deputies are challenged not only to renew their war against potential terrorists, but also to earn the confidence of the people they aim to protect.

[clinthopson]

I got a ticket the other day for running a red light.

I told the officer that I thought the yellow light would change to orange before it went red.

Thanks for posting that, Dr. Dave. I think more people are on to the Bush regime's little tricks than they imagine.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Thanks for posting that, Dr. Dave. I think more people are on to the Bush regime's little tricks than they imagine.

This is one of those times, Chris, when I wonder if you're more interested in "issues" or just slamming Bush.

I agree that the color system should be junked. I agree that Congress should appropriate funds (and the president should initiate the request for a bill) so that local governments can cover the cost of responding to heightened alerts, however they are expressed. Slamming Ridge as part of "the Bush regime's little tricks" without offering something of substance seems like somewhat of a cop-out.

If he says nothing, and we are attacked, you'll probably be the first in line to bash him. If he errs on the side of caution, he's a re-election tool for the president. I've yet to see any evidence that Ridge is complicit in hyping terror alerts as a way to boost the president's re-election odds. In fact, I believe he's leaving the post after the election, so why bother with the subterfuge?

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

This is one of those times, Chris, when I wonder if you're more interested in "issues" or just slamming Bush.

I agree that the color system should be junked. I agree that Congress should appropriate funds (and the president should initiate the request for a bill) so that local governments can cover the cost of responding to heightened alerts, however they are expressed. Slamming Ridge as part of "the Bush regime's little tricks" without offering something of substance seems like somewhat of a cop-out.

If he says nothing, and we are attacked, you'll probably be the first in line to bash him. If he errs on the side of caution, he's a re-election tool for the president. I've yet to see any evidence that Ridge is complicit in hyping terror alerts as a way to boost the president's re-election odds. In fact, I believe he's leaving the post after the election, so why bother with the subterfuge?

JMJ, everything these people do reflects on Bush and his group, so it is nigh impossible to level criticism at Ridge's representation of Homeland Security without it also being a critique of the Bush regime. It is so easy to relegate everything to some sort of "Bush bashing," implying that we all have it in for the guy and that it some kind of personal hatred of him. The fact that Bush supporters fail to recognize is that here is a man who was appointed to a position that one normally is elected to and who has in the past 4 years, or so, abused that position. I need hardly tell you that he and his neoCon associates have destroyed the image of our country abroad, lost important allies, created a quagmire in Iraq, etc., etc. In other words, there is much to criticize and nothing that I can think of to laud.

If the Bush people, including Ridge, are in a damned if you do-damned if you don't position, it is one that they have themselves created. All the lies, all the deceits, all the little trick are coming home to roost.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Chris A

JMJ, everything these people do reflects on Bush and his group, so it is nigh impossible to level criticism at Ridge's representation of Homeland Security without it also being a critique of the Bush regime. It is so easy to relegate everything to some sort of "Bush bashing," implying that we all have it in for the guy and that it some kind of personal hatred of him. The fact that Bush supporters fail to recognize is that here is a man who was appointed to a position that one normally is elected to and who has in the past 4 years, or so, abused that position. I need hardly tell you that he and his neoCon associates have destroyed the image of our country abroad, lost important allies, created a quagmire in Iraq, etc., etc. In other words, there is much to criticize and nothing that I can think of to laud.

If the Bush people, including Ridge, are in a damned if you do-damned if you don't position, it is one that they have themselves created. All the lies, all the deceits, all the little trick are coming home to roost.

What specifically (other than the stupid color alert system) has Ridge done that makes you think he's engaged in dirty tricks? By your reasoning, every member of the Clinton cabinet is complicit in the Lewinsky affair.

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

What specifically (other than the stupid color alert system) has Ridge done that makes you think he's engaged in dirty tricks? By your reasoning, every member of the Clinton cabinet is complicit in the Lewinsky affair.

Sorry to say, JMJ, but that is apples and oranges. The Lewinsky affair had nothing to do with running this country--it was a dumb personal indiscretion that Clinton desewrved criticism for (but not impeachment nor the Starr circus). The dirty tricks--if, indeed, that is what we have here--is not something I blame Ridge for creating, but he presumably acts at the behest of the regime. Throwing in a campaign-type spin for Bus is another matter--it was entirely out of place and quite possibly something he did without instructions from higher ups.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Sorry to say, JMJ, but that is apples and oranges. The Lewinsky affair had nothing to do with running this country--it was a dumb personal indiscretion that Clinton desewrved criticism for (but not impeachment nor the Starr circus). The dirty tricks--if, indeed, that is what we have here--is not something I blame Ridge for creating, but he presumably acts at the behest of the regime. Throwing in a campaign-type spin for Bus is another matter--it was entirely out of place and quite possibly something he did without instructions from higher ups.

It was the underlying principle I was getting at-not a factual side-by-side comparison, but whatever. I still don't see any substance to your argument that Ridge is playing dirty pool with the terror alerts. Seems more like a "guilt by association" argument to me. And I don't mean to imply that such an opinion is irrational, given the nature of politics. I just disagree, that's all.

[Dr Dave]

Can we agree that it was foolish of Ridge to endorse the President on an occasion that should have been free of political advantage-seeking?

Calling it a "dirty trick" seems a bit over-the-top. Ridge is just a numbskull.

And as the Times editorial points out, he really better not use these warnings to endorse the President's policies, because that will shrivel what little credibility the Bush Administration has left in this matter.