Blumenthal on the political terror alert

[Cocoa]

I'm really surprised at the extent to which the taboo has been lifted on saying this kind of thing. It seems only the RWers and the TV whores are denying this alert looks fishy.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/08/04/terror_alerts/print.html

The fog of war has descended over the campaign. Within 72 hours after the Democratic Convention ended, the Department of Homeland Security declared a new terror alert, jacking up the color-coded level from yellow to orange, verging on red. The cause, the government reported, was that the computer of an al-Qaida operative captured in Pakistan contained precise information about threats to five financial institutions in New York and Washington.

Then additional information was released: The intelligence was mostly three to four years old (was the World Trade Center in this latest batch of targets?), al-Qaida's surveillance of U.S. buildings had been mostly conducted through the Internet and other "open sources," someone had opened the computer file again in January of this year for uncertain reasons, and Pakistani officials said that the captured material indicated no new al-Qaida planning.

The effect of the alert has been to throw the presidential campaign into turmoil and momentarily freeze it. John Kerry < http://dir.salon.com/topics/john_kerry/> decided to accept the administration's explanations and timing at face value. He could not be seen as veering into an Oliver Stone script, flailing at shadows of paranoia. His critique of Bush's war on terrorism must be made with iron discipline, based on the facts at hand, not the suspicions in mind. Yet other Democrats have felt free to voice their views that the administration is using the situation for political advantage. The steam puts additional pressure on Kerry, who has to hold fast.

In part, the level of partisanship has increased because of the clumsy performance of Tom Ridge, < http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/03/26/ridge/index.html> the secretary of homeland security, who turned the alert announcement into a political rally. "We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror," he said on Aug. 1. Several days later, Ridge held another news conference, at which he declared, "We do not do politics at the Department of Homeland Security." With that the alert rose to the risible.

more...

[Hoping4Change]

1. What got me is that Clinton stands firmly behind Bush and this

alert. He said so on Letterman last night. He could have been alot more nuanced. Why didn't he at least speak out about the media? Was anyone else angry about his comments?

[Cocoa]

2. I never looked to Clinton as any kind of authority

I never listened very closely to much that he said, or worried very much about it.

[Hoping4Change]

3. Actually not do I but I was dismayed that he did not use that

opportunity to raise some real concerns about Bush. It was impossible to tell that he was the person who gave such a strong speech at the Convention.

[jacksonian]

4. ex-presidents have unusual weight in foreign affairs

issues and should be deferential. This would not be a good thing for Clinton to speculate about, I mean, who knows WTF is going on.

Another day will come when we'll have to take another president's word about something. That's the whole problem with the wolf game; bad shit happens in the end. But since Bunnypants has decided to make Homeland Security into Photo-op Central - somebody has to say something.

Go Howard.

[Manix]

6. yes...let Dean be the bomb thrower!

[Miss Authoritiva]

5. Sending mixed messages with the DHS Mixmaster Deluxe

I just went back to reread the transcript of Ridge's announcement (see the DHS website pressroom), and I was struck by Ridge's use of "new information" and "immediate information." Not much wriggle room there. It would have been more accurate to say that the DHS had reached a new conclusion about previously obtained information and thus were immediately conveying it to the media. While accurate, though, it's just not sexy.

The other thing that struck me upon rereading the official DHS explanation of the color-coded threat levels is that in telling us "to go about our usual business," government officials are contradicting and undermining the very guidelines presented in the threat level assessments. Sticklers would point out that officials should be cancelling the RNC convention in New York at this point.

Really, we're going to need a bigger box of crayons.