Administration Played Politics With Terror Warnings
This just in from Captain Obvious: The color-coded 'Terror Alert' system's real use was to frighten and manipulate the American people.
The two most questionable threat escalations came at crucial junctures for Bush. One, in February of 2003, came just as Bush was trying to rally the nation for war in Iraq, and the second, in August of 2004, in advance of Bush's Republican convention, where GOP officials dwelled on the war on terror. (Bush's handling of the war on terror consistently ranks as his highest scoring response in voter surveys.)
But now Ridge concedes he often thought the evidence used to up the terror threats was weak, and that the warnings were raised over his objections. "The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says," reports today's USA Today.
The two most questionable threat escalations came at crucial junctures for Bush. One, in February of 2003, came just as Bush was trying to rally the nation for war in Iraq, and the second, in August of 2004, in advance of Bush's Republican convention, where GOP officials dwelled on the war on terror. (Bush's handling of the war on terror consistently ranks as his highest scoring response in voter surveys.)
But now Ridge concedes he often thought the evidence used to up the terror threats was weak, and that the warnings were raised over his objections. "The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says," reports today's USA Today.
posted by Management at 4:59 AM
2 Comments:
Ridge reveals clashes on alerts
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.
Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
Revising or scrapping the color-coded alert system is under review by new Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff. Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said "improvements and adjustments" may be announced within the next few months.
The threat level was last raised on a nationwide scale in December 2003, to orange from yellow — or "elevated" risk — where the alert level is now. In most cases, Ridge said Homeland Security officials didn't want to raise the level because they knew local governments and businesses would have to spend money putting temporary security upgrades in place.
"You have to use that tool of communication very sparingly," Ridge said at the forum, which was attended by seven other former department leaders.
The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Ridge and Ashcroft publicly clashed over how to communicate threat information to the public. But Ridge has never before discussed internal dissention over the threat level.
The color-coded system was controversial from the start. Polls showed the public found it confusing.
Contributing: Associated Press
Who played politics with terror warnings?
The same day a major new survey confirmed that it was 9/11, and the wartime culture following the terrorist attack, that provided President Bush and Republicans with their biggest political advantage in recent years, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge admitted that he often argued with top administration officials who pressed for the color-coded terror threat levels to be raised -- level changes that, according to polls, routinely translated into political gain for Republicans.
The survey was conducted by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and it highlighted the strong gains Republicans have made, particularly among swing voters, since Bush took office. "The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, helped redraw the political landscape in America, giving President Bush and the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats," is how the Washington Post summarized the findings. "The survey underscored how important the issues of terrorism and national security and Bush's personal appeal were in helping the GOP put together a winning coalition of voters in 2004."
And what was one of the most effective ways to remind voters about the looming threat of terrorism? Homeland Security's color coded warning system, which became controversial. Not only were the dire warnings criticized by emergency preparedness officials for their vague instructions, but from Democrats who accused the Bush administration of playing politics with the yellow ("elevated") and orange ("high") warnings. Research showed that when the threat level was raised, Bush's approval ratings the following week would increase in the Gallup polls.
The two most questionable threat escalations came at crucial junctures for Bush. One, in February of 2003, came just as Bush was trying to rally the nation for war in Iraq, and the second, in August of 2004, in advance of Bush's Republican convention, where GOP officials dwelled on the war on terror. (Bush's handling of the war on terror consistently ranks as his highest scoring response in voter surveys.)
But now Ridge concedes he often thought the evidence used to up the terror threats was weak, and that the warnings were raised over his objections. "The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says," reports today's USA Today.
According to the report, Ridge was trying to debunk the myth that his Homeland Security Department was responsible for the yo-yoing warning system. In the end, the threat level was raised if the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council favored it and President Bush agreed. Among those on the council were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert)," said Ridge. "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'"
But Ridge's candid comments also raise questions about his own actions. Time and again when he was in charge of Homeland Security and he was pressed on the quality of the evidence behind raising the threat level, Ridge adamantly defended the decision. For instance, in December 2003 when the threat level was yet again raised, Ridge insisted "strategic indicators [of an attack], including al-Qaida's continued desire to carry out attacks against our homeland, are perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11th, 2001."
But it now appears, based on Ridge's own admission, that he didn't always believe the explanations he was giving in public.
And while Ridge always insisted Homeland Security didn't "do" politics, the fact is he met privately with Republican pollsters last year before embarking on more than a dozen trips to battleground states.
Post a Comment
<< Home