As Atrios
informs us, the Washington Post (or rather, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post) wants Howard Dean to
shut the hell up and stop criticizing our Dear Leader for his phony, suspiciously-timed terror alerts. It just isn't nice.
I have a slightly different view, which I've shared with Mr. Hiatt and will now share with you...
Dear Mr. Hiatt,
Your unsigned Post editorial of 8/2/04 states, in part (emphasis mine):
It is important that prominent Democrats such as former governor Howard Dean refrain from observing, as Mr. Dean did, that "every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," because that would imply that no terrorist threats, however serious, should be taken as such.
It is equally important that the administration not politicize its warnings, because to do so would weaken them.
In his statement, Mr. Ridge stayed away from politics, although he did, as in the past, find it necessary to attach a list of his homeland security achievements along with the warning, which did reduce its impact.
Quoting Mr. Ridge directly (emphasis mine):
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.
I have a few questions for you.
Mr. Hiatt, exactly what interpretation of the bolded statement above allows you to conclude that Mr Ridge "stayed away from politics"?
In regard to your use of the words "equally important" above: Do you really believe that our elected leaders should be held to the same standard as prominent citizens who may criticize them? Isn't it in fact the president's job to meet a much higher objective standard in issuing terror warnings, regardless of what his critics may be saying at a given moment?
When evaluating the propriety of Democratic remarks such as Mr. Dean's, do you think it is worthwhile to investigate whether the facts and circumstances support making such statements? In other words, are you merely calling for Democrats to back up their accusations with evidence, or are you demanding that they suppress even well-founded criticism "for the good of the country"? The latter would certainly be a curious exhortation coming from any member of the free press, let alone the newspaper that broke the Watergate story.
Do vagueness and groundlessness also undermine official terror alerts, or are such flaws irrelevant as along as the warnings themselves aren't overtly "politicized"? For example, does it alter your view to learn (as we now have) that the information recovered in Pakistan and used as the basis for the latest alert was in fact four years old and contained no actionable grounds to support specific urgency in August 2004?
Finally, if an official terror alert is later found to be entirely specious upon sober examination of the facts, who will communicate this to the public now that you've gaveled prominent Democrats to silence? You?
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX