What Tom Ridge Actually Says In His New Book
In the summer of 2004, the Bush White House asked its Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to add three sentences to his announcement of an elevated terror threat alert for key U.S. cities. According to his new book, The Test of Our Times, Ridge did as he was asked, adding the following lines to his speech:
But 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. The reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home.
The lines added nothing to the American people's understanding of the threats facing the homeland. But they did have a clear political value: They were spoken just a few days after John Kerry accepted the Democratic nomination for president, and just a few months before George W. Bush would face reelection. Ridge denied at the time that he was doing anything political. "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security," he said.
Five years later, Ridge admits he inadvertently played a political card, and writes that he regrets it. He explains, on page 234 of his new book, a copy of which has been obtained by TIME in advance of its September 1 release:
In almost any other situation in government or anywhere else, praising the boss would not be an issue. But in this case, citing "the result of the president's leadership" was loaded with political implications, and this was not lost on our critics. John Kerry had just been nominated for president at the Democratic Party convention. Our announcement, as delivered with the loaded words, was seen in some as a way to divert attention from that event and to reenforce in the minds of Americans that--even as the Democrats enjoyed their hour upon the political stage--only the Republican incumbent could keep American safe. . . .
I am asked, as every public official is eventually asked, whether I have any regrets. I don't harbor many that relate to my tie in service to the country. But this was one of them. I should have delivered the threat warning just as we had written it, and apologized later to the White House for my "oversight" in failing to include those congratulatory words. But, at the moment, it all seemed like pointless, throwaway rhetoric. Politics was not on my mind; I had something more important to say. It just goes to show that there's no such thing as throwaway lines in these days of instant replay. There is no media or political tolerance for any mistake in judgment, apparent or otherwise, no matter the extenuating circumstances.
I was not surprised that Vice President Cheney used the self-praise in remarks given two days later. . . and that others were using it. "The president's leadership" was a free-flowing phrase in the administration, as it is in any administration. It was understandable and predictable that the campaign would laud the president. A new norm was emerging, and I learned a hard lesson.
In an interview with Marc Ambinder, Fran Townsend, a former Homeland Security adviser to Bush, says that the White House provided the language to Ridge only because he previewed his speech internally. "So I called him said, here's what I think should go in it," Townsend tells Ambinder. "It wasn't an order. I didn't regularly see his speeches in advance. He made speeches all the time without running it by us." This is less of a denial than a startling admission: Townsend, whose job profile had nothing to do with politics, is admitting that she wanted political language praising the President inserted into an election-year statement about new measures to protect against terrorist attack.
Elsewhere in his book, Ridge defends the administration's decision to raise the terror alert levels for key cities just days after the Democratic National Convention had concluded. He says he was alerted in late July 2004 that Pakistani officials had obtained attack planning material from computers belonging to Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, who was thought to be "among the next generation of Al Qaeda leaders." Though the records on the computer were three years old, predating the September 11, 2001 attacks, they contained more than five hundred photographs of potential targets and analyses of their vulnerabilities. The targets included a number of financial institutions, including the New York Stock Exchange, the headquarters of Prudential Financial in Newark, New Jersey, and the headquarters of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
"I knew going in that some people would dismiss the new intelligence as old intelligence," Ridge writes. "But no one in our department felt that way." It was in the announcement of this terror alert elevation that Ridge mentioned the "President's leadership in the war on terror."
Another controversial decision that Ridge mentions took place on the weekend before the 2004 elections, after Al Jazeera broadcast a new videotaped message from Osama Bin Laden. In a conference call the following day, Ridge writes, there was a strong disagreement about whether or not to raise the terror alert level just days before the election. Ridge continues:
[Attorney General John] Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the treat level, and was supported by [Secertary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, "Is this about security or politics?" Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president's approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.
The meeting produced no consensus, and therefore no recommendation to the president to raise the threat level. (Spokespeople for Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have adamantly denied that politics was a factor in the discussions, as has Townsend.) Ridge writes that one of his deputies, Susan Neely, later called Dan Bartlett, the White House director of communications, who was at the time flying with the president aboard Air Force One to a campaign event. Neely told Bartlett that the Department of Homeland Security opposed raising the threat level. "Bartlett told her that he would speak to the president and get back to her," Ridge writes. "By the next day, the whole idea of raising the threat level was dropped."
-
1
"We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security,"
PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
AP Online
02-17-2005
Dateline: WASHINGTONThen Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge talks with reporters in Ottawa inthis Oct. 14, 2004 file photo. Ridge, who told reporters "We don't do politics in the Department ofHomeland Security", met twice with GOP pollsters during a 10-day period in 2004. (AP Photo/Tom Hanson, File)
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge met privately with Republican pollsters twice in a 10-day span last spring as he embarked on more than a dozen trips to presidential battleground states.
Ridge's get-togethers with Republican strategists Frank Luntz and Bill McInturff during a period the
secretary was saying his agency ...-
1.1
Holy Crap!! You mean to tell me that Politicians are actually "playing politics" with an important issue?
.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/kit_bond_cia_torture/2009/05/13/214095.html
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/11/politics/main5152838.shtml
.
You mean to tell me when your Healthcare Reform is going down in flames, that you would try to bring in some other "issue" to cloud over the political landscape?
.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/12/torture/index.html
.
Now why would the Obama Administration play politics with such an important issue as torture?
-
-
2
"We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security,"
http://www.antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=9886
"Ridge chose to ignore our warnings and our recommendations," Ervin says. "He was details-averse, hands-off, and credulous."
Except when it came to campaigning for the president, that is.
Another Homeland Security official says Ridge used him and others as campaign props during the 2004 campaign.
In the summer of 2004, in the heat of the presidential race, Ridge's office in Washington ordered Eric Werderitch and two other U. S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) supervisors in Chicago to attend what they thought was a meeting with Ridge and the president. They were ordered to wear their uniforms. It turned it to be a campaign pep rally and photo-op for President Bush staged by the Republican National Committee to show law enforcement support for the president.
-
3
Apparently Scherer missed my earlier comment in which I pointed out that Ridge said something similar in December 2005.
.
For those Dems looking for a bright spot (from the Democratic perspective), both Ridge and Bush allowed massive illegal activity to continue at the border. -
4
"Thanks to President Bush's leadership, we will soon have incident-level interoperable communications equipment in ten high-threat urban areas – including here in Miami."
Sec Ridge 7-30-04
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0197.shtm -
5
From Ambinder's stenography at the link, Townsend said
" The storyline advanced by his publisher seemingly to sell copies of the book is nonsense. During the fall of 2004, Usama bin Laden and an American member of al-Qaida released videotapes that said in no uncertain terms that al-Qaida intended to launch more attacks against Americans. 'The streets of America will run red with blood,' al-Qaida warned. Given those facts, it would seem reasonable for senior administration officials to discuss the threat level. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible had that discussion not taken place."
Was Townsend acting as a CNN employee when she went on every single CNN news show to attack Ridge, or ws she doing double-duty as Cheney's spox AND her job at CNN? Does CNN normally allow their staff unlimited airtime in order to defend the Bush Administration?
Doesn't CNN have a serious ethical problem here with Townsend being sent out by Dick Cheney as the attack dog on the network where she works? Don't Wolf Blitzer and John Roberts have a problem with giving a member of CNN staff time on their show to be an attack dog for Dick Cheney?
-
5.1
James, Anderson had Townsend and Begalia on.360.
I was surprised, and I think Townsend was when he pressed her on the three year old report. She was not prepared and I thought did not come out looking very well. Her statements on the way the speech comments were added to the speech were a little different to the way Michael says she told Ambinder. -
5.2
caro,
I just question the ethics of allowing a CNN employee -- she WORKS for CNN -- to be out defending her former employer. serving as his attack dog, on the very network she works for. Was she there as a CNN staffer, or as a Cheney spokesperson? Does CNN allow their employees to act as political spokespersons in addition to their television gig? And what about the ethics of CNN allowing her carte blanche to appear on every single news show to engage in political attacks, as a , you know, employee of CNN.
.
Doesn't anyone see an ethical problem here? for the network that pretends to be the "balanced" choice? -
5.3
James, I did understand your point, I just wanted to tell you that someone did push back on her.
I do have a problem now as I cannot find the video with the two issues that I posted, so I cannot prove this. The video they still have up does not include this part.
I hope that they have another video or edited the one up as I do not want to think my mind is going after months of education on politics and reporting since the Democratic convention that I have found at swampland and the Internet. -
5.4
I wasn't arguing with you caro. I'm just apalled that no one (in the beltway) seems to have noticed this unethical practice. For example (LINK) an ex-Secret Service, Ron Kessler, wrote a book about how much Secret Service hated Jimmy Carter. Chris Matthews worked for Jimmy Carter. Is MSNBC going to allow Chris Matthews unlimited time on all of its programs in order to attack and smear this guy? Is CBS going to allow David Gergen unlimited airtime to formally attack someone who writes a book uncomplimentary to George HW Bush, his former employer? Is PBS going to allow Bill Moyer unlimited airtime to attack someone who wrote a book criticizing Lyndon Johnson?
.
CNN has hired up most of the ex-bushies who didn't end up on Fox, and they have a real problem allowing all these people WHO WORK FOR CNN to go out and act as Cheney attack dogs. Everyone in the beltway pretends that there is nothing at all wrong with this. Or they are afraid to say anything.
-
-
6
Even more than any discussion of the politics of terror alerts, this just points at how incredibly ham handed and ultimately vulnerable the administration (and by extension the American people) are.
.
So we find a 3 year old list of targets in a known terrorists computer. First off, we had the terrorist himself in custody AND any terrorist with two brain cells can change targets at a moments notice.
.
So other than fufilling the need to do something what could the terror alerts possibly hoped to accomplish.
.
They literally made us less safe. Instead of leadership, BushCo was showing utter ineptitude.-
6.1
Seriously, this is like locking the barn door three full years after the horse is stolen. It's insane.
-
-
7
Five years later, Ridge admits he inadvertently played a political card, and writes that he regrets it.
How do you regret doing something indavertently?
No. What Ridge regrets is whoring himself out for advancement in a political party with which he is increasingly out of step. If the GOP wasn't in full-on meltdown mode and Ridge was,instead serving as McCain's V.P. right now...let's just say that Ridge's faux concscience wouldn't be keeping him up at night.
-
8
I guess I'm glad Ridge is acknowledging this, but it would have been so much better not to have been sucked into this vortex to begin with.
-
9
Shhhhhhhhh, nobody tell Michael...[THEY'RE ALL F#CKING LIARS, professionally speaking].
.
Oh cr@p, I guess that makes me a crazy hard lefty and Scherer a skeptical (though very serious) journalist. And the beat goes on...-
9.1
Shep-san, if you're still up, check out Le Krug on "Reaganism"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
-
9.2
Brilliant, as usual.
-
9.3
I like the phrase "Church Of Reagan" to describe the phenomenon. It's entirely Faith Based surviving even as it's been completely discredited by actual events.
-
9.4
I think the Bush years pretty much proved that their deifining "values" are little more than fealty to the (authoritarian) leader and hatred of the perceived "enemy", i.e., liberals, Democrats, Muslims, and the brown person du jour.
-
-
10
[...] Speaking of Marc Ambinder, this analysis of Fran Townsend’s remarks in an interviewer with Ambinder is spot on (from Michael Scherer, [...]
-
11
Little bit late for Ridge to pose as a whistle blower. Just sayin'.
-
12
Obama basically fires CIA, warps War On Terror into Neighborhood Watch on terror, seeks more e-mail over-responders: http://tiny.cc/oyhmz
-
13
Amazing! From Hula's link:
The Justice report is said to reveal how interrogators conducted mock executions and threatened at least one man with a gun and a power drill. Threatening a prisoner with death violates US anti-torture laws.
Of course waterboarding differs from threatening a prisoner with death in vitally important ways.......?
-
14
Deja vu.
1.Former Bushie (in this case Tom Ridge) is selling a book where he reveals Bush misused his power (in this case w/ the terror alerts)
2. Complicit corporate media embarks on damage control by going after Ridge. Townsend realizes her reputation is in the toidy bowl and trapped rat that she now is, attacks Ridge with a vengeance. CNN wants to protect their partisan hack-rat's reputation & gives all programming over to her for her war on Ridge.
4. Public distrust of CNN in particular and corporate media in general sinks even lower.
Meanwhile, alternative media (like Link TV) picks up more viewers and the progressive blogs get more readers. -
15
I don't understand the rabid pursuit of Ridge in the corporate media. He is making money off of his job in the White House, but isn't that one of the perks of being an appointee. The conservative blogs were quick to discredit Ridge's person, but John Dean makes a great point in this video about the legal similarities to Watergate when it comes to manipulating a government agency.
-
16
[...] he was pressured to raise the threat level prior to the election proves out, as suspected, to be less impressive on careful review. Once when Ridge was about to raise the threat level, right after Senator Kerry [...]
- michaelscherer @alangrayson TIME told your story (http://bit.ly/cdG9qb), tho not how you would have told it, here: http://bit.ly/YSRHh - 3 hours ago
- michaelscherer RT @PElliottAP: Obama makes surprise visit to White House briefing room. Tune in. - 5 hours ago
- michaelscherer RT @ryssiebee: 92 magazine covers, 10 years, 2 minutes. http://bit.ly/5d7oCo - 8 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS