Speaking at a panel discussion in Washington yesterday, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge showed that the CYA imperative didn't end with his term in office:
Via USAToday:
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.
...
"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?' "
More on the flip - with poll!
Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for fluctuations in the alert levels, but didn't identify specific cases where the alert was raised against their recommendation.
Unspecific and self-serving as his comments were, they still tend to confirm that fluctuations in the alert levels had less to do with risk analysis than political imperatives.
The WaPo picked up a brief item from Newsday, headlined "Ridge Defends Color-Coded Alert System."
The NYT website appears only to have picked up an AP story on Ridge's comments here, which does contain this tidbit:
"I think people focus too much on the colors," Ridge said. "It could be colors, it could be numbers, it could be animals. I don't care what you use to designate the trigger. But it's what kind of information do you share when you raise the threat level that I think is more important to the public. ... They want more information." [my emphasis]
Okay, I'm voting animals. How `bout you?
Update [2005-5-11 9:34:58 by Hprof]: Headline corrected--his comment was "For that?" not "For what?" Sorry for that and for earlier formatting woes in story. Think I've got them under control. This is what I get for trying to blog after a 5 am wakeup call from my 9-month-old.