Tom Ridge's new book talks about the politics of the controversial color-coded national warning system. The first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security says as the 2004 elections approached, he was lobbied heavily...even pressured by certain Bush administration officials...to raise the threat level. They were concerned about a warning Osama Bin Laden had apparently issued about President Bush. The warning said, "As you spoil our security, we will do so to you".
Ridge's book, "The Test of our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again", said then-Attorney General John Ashcroft "strongly urged" that the threat level be raised. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agreed in what Ridge said was a "vigorous, some might say dramatic discussion". Ridge disagreed with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and got support from the FBI Director at the time, Robert Mueller. The DHS Secretary sent word to the White House that DHS "strongly opposed" raising the threat level. The matter was dropped. The threat level was not raised.
As shouldn't be a surprise, Ridge's disclosure about the threat level debate has stirred yet more debate. On ABC's Good Morning America, Ridge said "a lot of people are hyperventilating about that passage". Yet, Ridge says the system worked; there was discussion, disagreement, then a decision.
We suspect the same type of debate occurs regularly across the country about whether to adjust alert status and issue notifications. It should. In the end, someone of authority makes a decision. In this case, it appears the President made the final decision with a strong recommendation from his DHS Secretary.
Whether the decision to raise the alert level was right or wrong, we say good work by DHS and by the President...and good work by the Attorney General and Defense Secretary for presenting an alternative view. That's what officials in positions of responsibility with divergent opinions are supposed to do.
As much as it appears from the surface that the system worked in this case, let's not get too excited about it. The color-coded alert system is still badly flawed. One of the most significant gaps is its inability to be addressable. What could be threat-worthy in one area may not be in another area. As it stands, when the threat level is raised, it's raised across the country...regardless of its nature. That can create anger among local public safety officials, forced to move into action (sometimes expensive action) when they may not be impacted by the threat at hand. We suspect that's one of the reasons the threat level is seldom adjusted.
So, while we are second-guessing the Bush administration's handling of the threat level for the 2004 elections, let's not forget that the system itself is flawed. And, let's keep the pressure on for fixing it. It shouldn't be too difficult, and certainly is important.
All the best,
Rick
Top
Ridge's book, "The Test of our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again", said then-Attorney General John Ashcroft "strongly urged" that the threat level be raised. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agreed in what Ridge said was a "vigorous, some might say dramatic discussion". Ridge disagreed with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and got support from the FBI Director at the time, Robert Mueller. The DHS Secretary sent word to the White House that DHS "strongly opposed" raising the threat level. The matter was dropped. The threat level was not raised.
As shouldn't be a surprise, Ridge's disclosure about the threat level debate has stirred yet more debate. On ABC's Good Morning America, Ridge said "a lot of people are hyperventilating about that passage". Yet, Ridge says the system worked; there was discussion, disagreement, then a decision.
We suspect the same type of debate occurs regularly across the country about whether to adjust alert status and issue notifications. It should. In the end, someone of authority makes a decision. In this case, it appears the President made the final decision with a strong recommendation from his DHS Secretary.
Whether the decision to raise the alert level was right or wrong, we say good work by DHS and by the President...and good work by the Attorney General and Defense Secretary for presenting an alternative view. That's what officials in positions of responsibility with divergent opinions are supposed to do.
As much as it appears from the surface that the system worked in this case, let's not get too excited about it. The color-coded alert system is still badly flawed. One of the most significant gaps is its inability to be addressable. What could be threat-worthy in one area may not be in another area. As it stands, when the threat level is raised, it's raised across the country...regardless of its nature. That can create anger among local public safety officials, forced to move into action (sometimes expensive action) when they may not be impacted by the threat at hand. We suspect that's one of the reasons the threat level is seldom adjusted.
So, while we are second-guessing the Bush administration's handling of the threat level for the 2004 elections, let's not forget that the system itself is flawed. And, let's keep the pressure on for fixing it. It shouldn't be too difficult, and certainly is important.
All the best,
Rick
