In interview with Ridge, CNN's Meserve ignored his 2005 admission that Bush administration pressured him to raise threat levels
SUMMARY: CNN correspondent Jeanne Meserve interviewed Tom Ridge, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about the department's decision not to raise the national threat level following Osama bin Laden's recent warning of future attacks against the United States. However, Meserve failed to ask Ridge an obvious question about his 2005 admission that, while head of the DHS, he had regularly been pressured by the Bush administration to raise the threat level even though he did not believe that the intelligence warranted it.
On the January 20 edition of CNN's Your World Today, homeland security correspondent Jeanne Meserve interviewed Tom Ridge, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as part of a report on the DHS' decision not to raise the national threat level following Osama bin Laden's recent warning of future attacks against the United States. Meserve aired Ridge's opinion that the threat level should not be raised "based solely on the [bin Laden] tape." But, while interviewing Ridge about the threat-level decisions, Meserve failed to raise an obvious issue with Ridge: In May 2005, Ridge told an audience at a Washington, D.C., forum that while head of DHS, he had regularly been pressured by Bush administration officials to raise the threat level even though he did not believe that intelligence warranted it.
In her report, Meserve noted that the primary reason cited by U.S. officials for not raising the threat level is that "there is no intelligence indicating an attack plan is in motion." She went on to air clips from separate interviews with Ridge and deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch, both of whom agreed that the bin Laden tape did not require any change in the level:
MESERVE: Counterterrorism officials say there is no plan to raise the national threat level at this time because there is no intelligence indicating an attack plan is in motion. And they have seen no upsurge in so-called chatter.
CROUCH: We're probably not going to be changing the security level simply because we don't see in this particular document a particular threat. It's a general threat.
MESERVE: Six times, specific, credible intelligence triggered boosts in the threat level. The seventh time, last summer, it was hiked as precaution after the London train bombings, but only for transit. It has never been raised solely because of a tape from Osama bin Laden. And it shouldn't be this time, according to the man who created the system.
RIDGE: Based solely on the tape, absolutely not. It's not news that we're a target. It's not news that he would say publicly that they continue to plan for attacks in the United States.
But Meserve ignored that Ridge himself has previously called into question whether those six decisions to boost the threat level were, in fact, justified by the intelligence available at the time. At a May 10, 2005, forum in Washington, D.C., Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that he had been responsible for repeatedly raising the threat level during his tenure at DHS, according to a USA Today article posted online that day:
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.
[...]
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?' "
The White House immediately "dismissed" Ridge's allegations, according to a May 12, 2005, Chicago Tribune article:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday that threat-level decisions are based on recommendations from a high-level council that gathers information about potential terrorism. When Ridge was in office, he was on the council with other key administration officials.
McClellan dismissed the notion that the White House pressured the council into higher levels of security.
"No one suggested that," he said.
Although clearly relevant to her examination of the decision-making process behind the threat level, Meserve made no mention of Ridge's 2005 comments and apparently did not ask him about them.
Further, in asserting that "specific credible intelligence triggered" the previous boosts in the threat level, Meserve ignored the fact that the information has in some cases been found to be years old and out-of-date. On August 1, 2004 -- shortly after the Democratic National Convention had concluded -- DHS raised the alert level for financial institutions in New York and Washington, citing "unusually specific" intelligence. But days later, it came to light that the information that led to the warning was actually "three or four years old," according to an August 3, 2004, New York Times article.
Such revelations have led some to speculate that political motivations may lie behind the terror alerts. On the October 6, 2005, edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann documented 13 "coincidences" -- instances characterized by "a political downturn for the administration, followed by a 'terror event' -- a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning."
Since the Threat Level is basically meaningless, it is fit to be used as a propaganda tool alone.
Have Americans been instructed what various threat levels call for? What, just "more" or "less" caution? In what way(s)? Avoid travel? Put 911 on the speeddial? Put off shopping sprees? Buy some more duct tape and plastic sheeting?
The "Threat Level" idea is a farce, folks. If they were serious, they would publicize specific behaviors related to the various levels, and ENFORCE them.
Since there is no behavior related to the levels, then it's basically a tweek button for the Bush Administration to tell Americans to be OFFICIALLY more scared. Just be more scared, that's the ticket.
It's time to drop this failed and useless "system", which has no practical value to any Americans anywhere, with the possible exception of an administration which is invested in manipulating FEAR levels for purely political gain.
I agree, the "elevated" threat level status before last years elections were a political move by the administration to keep 9-11 in the forefront of the voting public. I didn't think much of it at the time until the levels suddenly went back to normal after the election and basically haven't been elevated since. It's pretty transparent.
On the other hand, if the admin were to set out "guidelines" for each elevated level and use "enforcement" as you say, I have no doubt there would be more "civil liberties" violations banter from the left. Perhaps justifiably so. So I highly doubt you would be in favor of such a move by GWB.
You make a great point.
IF this Administration were to put into effect various enforcements for various levels of "threat", it would have an impact that they would have to carefully justify.
For example, of "ORANGE" called for bridges to be shut down, or for flights to be cancelled, then the administration would have to be able to demonstrate their "evidence" which would convince a reasonable citizen that their cautionary actions were necessary.
This is the administration that has us mired in a WAR on the basis of dire threat of WMDs, and connections with Bin Laden by Saddam Hussein. Shutting down the nation on the weight of this level of credibility would be politically suicidal.
If we're just expending lives of our young people in a foreign land full of foreigners, that's one thing. Interfering with an American's desire to do as he wishes is an entirely different problem ... people would take THAT seriously.
So, I agree with you entirely.
During the Cold War, students were instructed how to hide under their desks in response to a nuclear attack, and were told that warning would come only if extremely credible. I think we all knew that these measures would be mostly useless, but at least there was a PLAN.
This Administration doesn't have the trust level to implement even such a useless plan.
The "THREAT LEVEL" system, with its rainbow of colorful emotional triggers, should be ashcanned. It won't be, as long as Bush sees political propaganda value in its carnival ability to signal SOME into near panic of FEAR, since FEAR is this administration's number one political asset.
However they are used or mis-used to frighten the public (I think they are too, Tex), the threat levels do have somewhat more concrete meanings for federal agencies with respect to their activities: [link to www.dhs.gov]
that it's a political tool. If these threat levels have meaning for federal agencies, that's fine, but why make them public? The only possible answer is to keep the public afraid, and to constantly remind gullible voters that Bush is "protecting" us from turrists.
I agree. They could still have the guidance for federal agencies without having to spook the masses with ambiguous color schemes. As Tex noted, what the heck are we to make of changes in the "threat level"? The only message is "be more afraid, kiddies. And know that Daddy (Bush) is protecting you from the turss."
"I agree, the "elevated" threat level status before last years elections were a political move by the administration to keep 9-11 in the forefront of the voting public."...by bruce1ace
=====
I'd also AGREE, and add that THIS was probably one of the MOST flagrant attempts from the Bush administration to PLAY on our FEARS.... It got SO obvious that it was purely political that I was surprised that it didn't BECOME a major issue during the campaign...I don't recall Kerry or ANY top Democrats pushing Bush&Company on this. Or have I simply forgotten?
I also find it mystifying why this was not a major campaign issue. The flagrance of the manipulation cried out for address. Another dropped ball.
The mainstream press falls into two categories these days. (1) Gutless and ineffective or (2) A blatant propaganda tool for the GOP. Ironically, the Conservatives have managed to do what they falsely accused the Liberals of for years; they've co-opted the Press and now use it as a tool of policy and misinformation. 1984 is on our doorstep. Unless the Democrats or some other third party can take over one of the houses of Congress, we're screwed.
Surely now that Bush & Cheney are defeating the "terrorists" in Iraq, illegally wiretapping anyone who reaches out and touches anything suspicious, and capturing dozens of Number Two al Qaedas, the Threat Level will now be REDUCED to blue, not increased to red. Right, Tom, Dick and George?
Dear Dave,
Sorry we are unable to deliver on your request to set the terror level to blue. Don't forget there are still the '06 midterm elections and we must keep people terrified.
Thanks for your suggestion,
The Bush Administration
Dear George,
You can't even do a nice bluish-yellow? I expected to be feeling "guarded" by this time-more than four years after 9/11.
If I were Abramhoff, I'd be asking you for a refund.
...of being told to be afraid. And I'm tired of seeing liberties sacrificed for safety. We can't be safe. We might as well accept this. I would rather be free and imperiled, than be shackled and safe.
Bush, with fear, has domesticated many Americans. We have become a nation of sheep, huddled by fear and lulled to sleep by big screen televisions.
And we have forgotten what the Constitution demands of us.
"I would rather be free and imperiled, than be shackled and safe"
I don't think it's even shackled and safe. Under the illusion that George and Dick are keeping them from harm, their admirers don't realize that they are becoming more and more shackled but yet are still just as imperiled-if not more so-than they ever were. We're no safer four years after 9/11, and with its main perpetrator still on the loose.
Yes, Chicago Dave, I am more shackled, but less safe. I did note that none of us are safe and none of us ever can be. That's the nature of life.
"instances characterized by "a political downturn for the administration, followed by a 'terror event' -- a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning."
Ooo, I'm glad that MMFA has that Olbermann document on file for those who missed it. I must have been watching his show that night because I remember that stinging riff on "coincidences", it was an awesome compilation.
I just find any of these tapes by Bin "Hidin'" to be highly suspicious. The timing of their release is pause for ponder for sure. I guess we'll just have to TRUST the CIA's word that the tapes are for real and that Bin Laden is still breathing.
I heard a voice analyst interviewed who said that the CIA is refusing to release the data by which they verify the Osama tape as "genuine". Of course, they cite "national security", but once again, all we have is their assertion that it really is him. Is this another "slam dunk?"
I re-read 1984 a few weeks ago. It's like the Bushies are using it as a playbook. I believe on page 158 speaks to the tactic of constantly promoting an enemy threat that will keep the masses in a high state of fear and consequently the population gladly hands over power to a small few that they believe will protect them. It's quite unnerving.
What, you're not suggesting that just because Bush/staff has been caught with collaberative britches down violating antiwiretapping laws they swore to uphold (except during "terrorist surveillance"), that somebody is releasing an old tape kept on hand for just such an occasion? Oops, Olbermann's piece at [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] did show a history of that, didn't it? Well maybe they would do that, but surely they wouldn't fabricate evidence of a threat, would they? Oh, well I guess Secretary Powell sort of helped them out on that score, too. Well, renews when you lack new news.
or simply lazy reporting? How can we be sure? Either way it's inexcusable and contributing to the dumbing down of the public which suits Republican needs quite nicely.
BOTH