Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "I was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of 2004 Election
posted by: Scott P. 101 days ago
Scott P
Former head of the Department of Homeland Security Tom Ridge's, upcoming book, The Test of our Times: America Under Siege…and How We Can Be Safe Again contains the following tidbits of information:
"Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."
The most shocking and talked about revelation was the last one where he claims he was "pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."
The Boston Globe's article yesterday, also noted that Ridge claims to have "refused the entreaty [to raise the terror alert] just before the election from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft." The article also states that Ridge had his aids warn the White House that such an action would "politicize national security."
He may have resisted raising the alert this one time but what about all the other controversial terror alerts?
For example, one of Ridge's controversial terror warnings came two days after John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate and another came three days after the end of the Democratic convention. The political timing of these terror alerts is almost too convenient.
According to the Associated Press the controversy over the post convention warning was underscored by the fact that "the information was obtained in the past 36 to 72 hours, officials said Sunday, increasing anxieties about a potential strike. The Bush administration let a 24-hour news cycle pass before acknowledging that most of the intelligence, while recently obtained, was three or four years old."
Controversy surrounding the timing of previous terror alerts and announcements was not just held by top Democrats or aides of Kerry, "even some senior Republicans privately questioned Ridge's timing."
A 2006 Time Magazine article, entitled Toying with Terror Alerts did a great retrospective of the 18 months prior to the 2004 election. The article highlights the "warnings of terror attacks over the Christmas 2003 holidays, warnings over summer terror attacks at the 2004 political conventions, then a whole slew of warnings of terror attacks to disrupt the election itself."
After the election the author notes that the terror alerts went "out of style" and disappeared except for one instance of heightened alert in July of 2005 and then again in the summer of 2006.
Ridge's new revelation flies in the face of all his previous statements. For example, after the controversial terror alert was given on the heel of John Kerry's 2004 convention Ridge denied any such political pressure or politicization and stated, "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."
And yet here is five years later saying that not only did it happen but it was the impetus for his resignation a month later. Why is he revealing this now? Cynics will suggest that he is doing it merely to sell a book, but a look at this man's career reveals that he is not hurting for even the kind the money a successful book might bring in. He may not be Bill Gates but he is almost certainly not hurting for money. He also recently decided not to run for Senate (as if a pro-choice Republican could be elected in this day and age) so he has no known political aspirations.
Perhaps he feels guilty because he acquiesced so often prior to the night of the election and when it finally became more than he could bear he silently quit a month later. Unfortunately his silence then and his silence during the last four years of the Bush administration make him less than sympathetic.
Without having read the book and without further corroboration I am hesitant to simply accept his assertion though I do admit that it plays to my general distrust of the Bush administration. As Sen. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) stated, "What Tom Ridge disclosed confirms our worst suspicions. Just like they did in Iraq, the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence to cause fear in the public to further its political goals."
Lautenberg is no doubt referring to the many instances where the Bush Administration either exaggerated; cherry picked or lied about intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. I highly recommend reading Marcy Wheeler's book Anatomy of Deceit for an insightful analysis of the infamous "16 words" in the president's state of the union address given prior to the invasion of Iraq and James Branford's A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies.
Bush Administration use of propaganda to push for war was further established by another former Bush insider, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan whose book What Happened details the administrations use of distorted evidence to support a predisposed desire to expand the War on Terror into Iraq. According to McClellan, Propaganda, not fact, was used to make the case for war.
For example, the Bush administration tried to draw a direct link between Al Qaeda and the terror attacks of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein by claiming on September 25, 2002 that “Al Qaeda worked in concert” and on the following day stating that Iraq had a “long-standing and continuing ties to Al Qaeda” and that there were “[Al Qaeda] terrorist in Iraq. According to Rumsfeld, evidence was “bulletproof.” These claims have been proven false. The 9/11 commission could not substantiate claims that Al Qaeda and Iraq worked closely together. Even recent Cheney interviews have shown him admitting that there is no evidence of a link. What happened to bulletproof?
I could go on but I think my point is made. There is substantial evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated the Iraq threat and downplayed the dangers and costs of an occupation in order to manipulate public opinion. So I think I have no choice but to give significant attention if not immediate credence to Tom Ridge's assertion that the Bush Administration tried to politicize the terror alerts to affect the 2004 election.
If you want more dynamic damning evidence of public manipulation by the Bush Administration check out this old clip from Countdown With Keith Olberman:
Why would terror alerts help the Bush Administration?
The Associated Press (AP) noted that, "Each time President Bush raises fears of a possible attack, the political debate shifts from his most troublesome issue (Iraq) to one of his strongest (the war on terrorism) while Democrats fight their impulse to question the president's motives."
The AP further noted that terror alerts "came three days after the close of the Democratic National Convention, which helped increase Kerry's terrorism-fighting poll ratings and less than two weeks after a scathing report by the Sept. 11 Commission." Both conveniently timed.
I ran a cross tabulation of data from the 2004 American National Election Survey taken during the 2004 election. I found that voters over all trusted Republicans to handle the War on Terror 41.2% to 25.5%. Democrats trusted Republicans: 9.6% to 51.2%. Independents 34.69% to 22%. Republicans 83.77% to 2.03%.
This data clearly shows that the terror issue is a strong positive for Republicans and thus George W. Bush. In today's partisan climate it is no small thing when 12% of independents favor one party over another on a vital issue, even more interesting was the fact that almost 10% of self-identified Democrats also thought the Republicans could do better. So clearly there is a motive i.e. something to be gained.
It is true that Kerry did not receive an exceptional convention bump but "his support among voters increased four percentage pointswhile Bush's dropped by an equal amount, about half the historic average" after the convention and prior to the terror alert on two days later on August 2nd. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that the terror alert cut short the effects of the Democratic Convention and assisted George W. Bush with his own larger convention bump in September.
Nate Silver's analysis of the convetion bumps from 1984-2004 in The New Republic, shows that the candidate who received the highest convention bump also won the popular vote (not necessarily the election).
Further empirical evidence can be found by looking at this great timeline which illustrates the convenient timing of the terror alerts
A truncated version of the timeline looks like this:
"July 6, 2004 -- Kerry names Edwards as his running mate.
July 8, 2004 - Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions.
July 11, 2004 -- Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack.
----
July 22, 2004 -- The 9/11 Commission releases their findings. While many criticize the commission for not going far enough, their report includes many examples of inaction and lack of leadership from the Bush administration.
July 26-29 -- Democratic Convention shows party unity and strong leadership. Kerry/Edwards provide electrifying acceptance speeches. John Kerry's acceptance speech is praised even by some conservative analysts. Campaign appearances immediately following the convention draw larger-than-expected crowds.
August 1, 2004 -- White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever.
August 2, 2004 - The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas.
Later it is revealed that much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert was three or four years old.
Same day - Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, visit the Citicorp Building in New York City. This is one of the buildings that Tom Ridge implied was under a dire and imminent threat from terrorists. It seems odd that the President's daughters would be allowed to visit a building supposedly about to be attacked by terrorists."
Not surprisingly Frances Frago Townsend, former Bush Homeland Security Advisor denies such allegations but what would one expect? Did Scooter Libby come out and admit his role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame? Did Clinton immediately cop to his affair with Monica? Did Nixon admit to being a crook?
As I said at the top, I am not convinced that Ridge's assertions are true but I do think there is substantial empirical evidence. An accusation such as this coming from someone holding a cabinet level position cannot be ignored.
I know there are those out there that want us to look forward and forget the past but I cannot conceive of doing that. Most actions involving the breaking of a law occurr in the past. Should the government officials only face the music when they are caught red handed? Clearly U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will have to add this to his running list of Bush era investigations i.e. torture, illegal firing of U.S. attorneys, etc.
Read more about the Ridge book here.
"Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was "blindsided" by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."
The most shocking and talked about revelation was the last one where he claims he was "pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."
The Boston Globe's article yesterday, also noted that Ridge claims to have "refused the entreaty [to raise the terror alert] just before the election from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft." The article also states that Ridge had his aids warn the White House that such an action would "politicize national security."
He may have resisted raising the alert this one time but what about all the other controversial terror alerts?
For example, one of Ridge's controversial terror warnings came two days after John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate and another came three days after the end of the Democratic convention. The political timing of these terror alerts is almost too convenient.
According to the Associated Press the controversy over the post convention warning was underscored by the fact that "the information was obtained in the past 36 to 72 hours, officials said Sunday, increasing anxieties about a potential strike. The Bush administration let a 24-hour news cycle pass before acknowledging that most of the intelligence, while recently obtained, was three or four years old."
Controversy surrounding the timing of previous terror alerts and announcements was not just held by top Democrats or aides of Kerry, "even some senior Republicans privately questioned Ridge's timing."
A 2006 Time Magazine article, entitled Toying with Terror Alerts did a great retrospective of the 18 months prior to the 2004 election. The article highlights the "warnings of terror attacks over the Christmas 2003 holidays, warnings over summer terror attacks at the 2004 political conventions, then a whole slew of warnings of terror attacks to disrupt the election itself."
After the election the author notes that the terror alerts went "out of style" and disappeared except for one instance of heightened alert in July of 2005 and then again in the summer of 2006.
Ridge's new revelation flies in the face of all his previous statements. For example, after the controversial terror alert was given on the heel of John Kerry's 2004 convention Ridge denied any such political pressure or politicization and stated, "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."
And yet here is five years later saying that not only did it happen but it was the impetus for his resignation a month later. Why is he revealing this now? Cynics will suggest that he is doing it merely to sell a book, but a look at this man's career reveals that he is not hurting for even the kind the money a successful book might bring in. He may not be Bill Gates but he is almost certainly not hurting for money. He also recently decided not to run for Senate (as if a pro-choice Republican could be elected in this day and age) so he has no known political aspirations.
Perhaps he feels guilty because he acquiesced so often prior to the night of the election and when it finally became more than he could bear he silently quit a month later. Unfortunately his silence then and his silence during the last four years of the Bush administration make him less than sympathetic.
Without having read the book and without further corroboration I am hesitant to simply accept his assertion though I do admit that it plays to my general distrust of the Bush administration. As Sen. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) stated, "What Tom Ridge disclosed confirms our worst suspicions. Just like they did in Iraq, the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence to cause fear in the public to further its political goals."
Lautenberg is no doubt referring to the many instances where the Bush Administration either exaggerated; cherry picked or lied about intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. I highly recommend reading Marcy Wheeler's book Anatomy of Deceit for an insightful analysis of the infamous "16 words" in the president's state of the union address given prior to the invasion of Iraq and James Branford's A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies.
Bush Administration use of propaganda to push for war was further established by another former Bush insider, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan whose book What Happened details the administrations use of distorted evidence to support a predisposed desire to expand the War on Terror into Iraq. According to McClellan, Propaganda, not fact, was used to make the case for war.
For example, the Bush administration tried to draw a direct link between Al Qaeda and the terror attacks of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein by claiming on September 25, 2002 that “Al Qaeda worked in concert” and on the following day stating that Iraq had a “long-standing and continuing ties to Al Qaeda” and that there were “[Al Qaeda] terrorist in Iraq. According to Rumsfeld, evidence was “bulletproof.” These claims have been proven false. The 9/11 commission could not substantiate claims that Al Qaeda and Iraq worked closely together. Even recent Cheney interviews have shown him admitting that there is no evidence of a link. What happened to bulletproof?
I could go on but I think my point is made. There is substantial evidence that the Bush administration exaggerated the Iraq threat and downplayed the dangers and costs of an occupation in order to manipulate public opinion. So I think I have no choice but to give significant attention if not immediate credence to Tom Ridge's assertion that the Bush Administration tried to politicize the terror alerts to affect the 2004 election.
If you want more dynamic damning evidence of public manipulation by the Bush Administration check out this old clip from Countdown With Keith Olberman:
Why would terror alerts help the Bush Administration?
The Associated Press (AP) noted that, "Each time President Bush raises fears of a possible attack, the political debate shifts from his most troublesome issue (Iraq) to one of his strongest (the war on terrorism) while Democrats fight their impulse to question the president's motives."
The AP further noted that terror alerts "came three days after the close of the Democratic National Convention, which helped increase Kerry's terrorism-fighting poll ratings and less than two weeks after a scathing report by the Sept. 11 Commission." Both conveniently timed.
I ran a cross tabulation of data from the 2004 American National Election Survey taken during the 2004 election. I found that voters over all trusted Republicans to handle the War on Terror 41.2% to 25.5%. Democrats trusted Republicans: 9.6% to 51.2%. Independents 34.69% to 22%. Republicans 83.77% to 2.03%.
This data clearly shows that the terror issue is a strong positive for Republicans and thus George W. Bush. In today's partisan climate it is no small thing when 12% of independents favor one party over another on a vital issue, even more interesting was the fact that almost 10% of self-identified Democrats also thought the Republicans could do better. So clearly there is a motive i.e. something to be gained.
It is true that Kerry did not receive an exceptional convention bump but "his support among voters increased four percentage pointswhile Bush's dropped by an equal amount, about half the historic average" after the convention and prior to the terror alert on two days later on August 2nd. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that the terror alert cut short the effects of the Democratic Convention and assisted George W. Bush with his own larger convention bump in September.
Nate Silver's analysis of the convetion bumps from 1984-2004 in The New Republic, shows that the candidate who received the highest convention bump also won the popular vote (not necessarily the election).
Further empirical evidence can be found by looking at this great timeline which illustrates the convenient timing of the terror alerts
A truncated version of the timeline looks like this:
"July 6, 2004 -- Kerry names Edwards as his running mate.
July 8, 2004 - Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions.
July 11, 2004 -- Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack.
----
July 22, 2004 -- The 9/11 Commission releases their findings. While many criticize the commission for not going far enough, their report includes many examples of inaction and lack of leadership from the Bush administration.
July 26-29 -- Democratic Convention shows party unity and strong leadership. Kerry/Edwards provide electrifying acceptance speeches. John Kerry's acceptance speech is praised even by some conservative analysts. Campaign appearances immediately following the convention draw larger-than-expected crowds.
August 1, 2004 -- White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever.
August 2, 2004 - The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas.
Later it is revealed that much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert was three or four years old.
Same day - Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, visit the Citicorp Building in New York City. This is one of the buildings that Tom Ridge implied was under a dire and imminent threat from terrorists. It seems odd that the President's daughters would be allowed to visit a building supposedly about to be attacked by terrorists."
Not surprisingly Frances Frago Townsend, former Bush Homeland Security Advisor denies such allegations but what would one expect? Did Scooter Libby come out and admit his role in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame? Did Clinton immediately cop to his affair with Monica? Did Nixon admit to being a crook?
As I said at the top, I am not convinced that Ridge's assertions are true but I do think there is substantial empirical evidence. An accusation such as this coming from someone holding a cabinet level position cannot be ignored.
I know there are those out there that want us to look forward and forget the past but I cannot conceive of doing that. Most actions involving the breaking of a law occurr in the past. Should the government officials only face the music when they are caught red handed? Clearly U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will have to add this to his running list of Bush era investigations i.e. torture, illegal firing of U.S. attorneys, etc.
Read more about the Ridge book here.
Read more: politics
comments
Tom Ridge, hometown boy, just did what he was told to do, like everyone else in the bush & co. administration. He was a good 'soldier' in bush's 'army'. As for bringing charges against those guilty parties, They should be tried, convicted, locked up and the key thrown away. 'Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.' We as a country can't afford to repeat the last 8 years. Pres. Obama needs to investigate those charges and see that those guilty are convicted.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Yawn; we knew they used terror threats to their political advantage -- then and now.
Tom will sell some books, great for him.
But rehashing the Bush years needs to stop. We have too many challenges, the Dems could be more united and effective in handling them. So Bush/CIA/Abu Ghraib/Whatever commitee hearings are a diversion and a waste of time and money at a time of economic crisis.
We gave Dems huge power and a clear mandate (read: an unambiguous job description.)
Back to work assholes: Human rights (gay, white male, green, etc. Same rights for all.); Stop the cash and blood letting in Iraq/Afghanistan; REAL healthcare reform (for us, not insurers); Reverse wealth polarization (end Bush tax-cuts) and thus restore middle class wealth and security.
No more diversions. Do the job.
Jim
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
There is always the possibility of America going to war with Iraq whether there is a 9/11 or not. The focus is not about the war on terror but actually to rid Saddam and its foes because they caused so much embarrasment to the Republican Adm in the various decades. I would definitely say the war with Iraq was actually what CIA termed as "black ops." Of course with 9/11, the panic button on terror just went automation. Conservative Americans and Americans in the Mid West were easily swayed by this notion. Fence sitter voters as well. Only those that constantly scanning reports or those aware of situations were skeptical about the whole event.
I believe that people like Mr. Tom Ridge is sensible and logical enough to acknowledge what is urgent and what is dangerous. Now if the Bush Adm did not push the panic button, one wonders how was he going to beat the Kerry/Edwards ticket...even then he needs the beilligerent votes in Florida to tie him through.
As for some you may think that Mr. Holder may not appoint a Special Prosecutor and hold inquiries...well, you are wrong. The attorney general implied this morning that a special prosecuting attoney will be appointed soon and an inquiry on all the reports will take place. Lets us all have some faith in the OBAMA Adm., times are hard.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
It does little good to point out these revelations when we all know that Obama and Holder are going to turn a blind eye. No investigation will occur and any member of Congress who tries to push for one will be lambasted by the mainstream media as someone who has a partisan axe to grind.
Unfortunately, Scott was all too right when he asked if politicians only pay the price if they are caught red handed.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
well now there's a major shock - the Bush administration lying and manipulating to achieve power! NOT someone from that administraton who has damaged this country so badly needs to be held accountable.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Sablicious K. Your very sarcastic...I noticed your comments on another issue. I don't blame you but...
No, none of this is a surprise but it does deserve more than just sarcasic remarks. WHY, because the reality is Bush was voted into office twice. Were the American people dupe? Yes. But honestly I thought we were smarter and the fact that we could be dupe indicates to me that it could happen again.
It is best that these things are brought to light so the American people can see how close they came to losing it all. We need to understand how easy it was, for the Bush Administration and the folks they worked with, to decive folks.
It can happen again. Even though I did not voite for Bush either time, what has happen will make me ask more questions, do more homework, and listen very closely to try to separte the rhetoric from reality before I vote for anyone.
I said we almost lost it all; what I was referring to was the America that was founded on an idea, an idea that had never been tried. An idea that cost those dearly who put it together. They gave as our Declaration, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
We are very lucky today and we should be ever diligent today and all the tomorrows to come. It could happen again and the outcome could be worse.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Anybody with honest sense knows Cheney masterminded 9/11 and how it was hushed up before it could be broadcast, and how those buildings were imploding BEFORE the planes ever hit them. Cursed be that damned Bush administration and its crime after crime after crime and having gotten by with every one of them.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
The TRUTH is now shown. W & Co., are the near downfall of America. Need to indict them & bury them so deep, gotta pump daylight to them. Such anti-Christ & anti-American.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Shock. Horror. The 'Bush elections' were rigged. I can hardly contain the hysteria that ferments within me... -_- *nods off*
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Its nice to have what we believed all along turn out to be true! You had to be blind not to see the coincidences! This revelation proves many things! Among them is that OUR government will stoop to any level to control our citizens! Using fear and terror alerts is the perfect tool of manipulation! It also showed that many americans are spineless skerdy cats afraid of their own shadows! Lets face it...we all miss those obscure terror alerts! You know the "we've heard terrorist chatter about an attack but we dont specifically know where, when or how but something is going to happen"!!! lol
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1227939