Ridge: Be Afraid . . . Sort of Afraid

[kmusser]

Reposted from Wonkette:

"This message from Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge must make the cubicle jockeys at Citicorp's headquarters feel better: "Just by showing up at work you have made a powerful statement that [the terrorists] will not succeed."

It would make an excellent epitaph, really. Then again, a terrorist attack still seems pretty unlikely; would so many government officials be showing up at Citicorp if it were? If they're not being more overtly reassuring, it's only because it's harder to believe that you're really sending the terrorists much of a message "just by refusing to be intimidated by four-year-old information that's clearly being used for political purposes."

Sure, there are mixed messages here -- Bush says America is "a nation in danger"/Hey, you wouldn't want to miss Hawaiian shirt day -- that's only because the administration wants us to panic, but not enough to actually do anything. Except, you know, vote for Bush. "

Comments

To play Devil's Advocate

[dwarfrage.livejournal.com]

How many years ahead did they plan for 9/11? 4-5.

How often do building change location, position or shape? Not all that often.

Yes, some of the information may be out of date, and require updating, but the gross details remain the same as it's related to massive architecture.

Re: To play Devil's Advocate

[kmusser]

How many years ahead did they plan for 9/11? 4-5.

Early planning began 2 years before the attack, actual casing of targets began 6 months before the attack. (according to the 9/11 report)

What I don't like is the administration policy of keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear. I don't think warning people about a vague unspecified danger that they can't do anything about serves any useful purpose. The latest warning had a specific target, but still no timeframe associated with it - there was no reason to think an attack was any more likely now than it has been for the past couple of years, which leaves politics as the only real reason for the timing of the warning.

Re: To play Devil's Advocate

[dwarfrage.livejournal.com]

Neither do I. However, I can understand it. They got hammered on the "you should have warned us" bit. Yes, if they had put all the fact together they would have a more cohesive warning, but they didn't so they didn't have a cohesive threat.

So now? Those who yelled at them for not warning when the adminstration only had nebulous concerns are getting exactly what they asked for. Frequent updates whenever something "decently" profiled comes up.

And now they are getting hammered by the "You cry 'wolf' too often!" crowd. It really is a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Except now, they are engaging in Gov't favorite pasttime: CYA.

Re: To play Devil's Advocate

[winterbadger]

from the Post

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

I'd agree (and the article does too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35466-2004Aug2.html) that the planning data may still be valuable, but the release of information, the heightening of security, seems very oddly timed.

Why heighten security *now*? Absolutely *nothing* that's been released that I've seen, including Ridge's justifications, indicates they had any indication that any action was planned in the near future related to these targets. The only thing that's changed from the day before they captured this chap in Pakistan is that they now know AQ was casing these buildings several years ago. So the new security is because we just found out about this? Does that mean this higher level of security around these buildings will continue indefinitely? Until they are attacked? Until after the election? Does this mean that every time we discover AQ has been checking out a location, it will go on high alert until... when? This seems like a gift to the terrorists, an invitation to drive us insane with leaked or captured plans for attacks on one target after another.

The *most* cynical construction I can put on this is that it's timed to drive all the post-Democratic convention news off the air. The *least* cynical is that it's a total CYA move, that after the pounding they feel like they've taken for not being prepared for 9/11, the Administration feel compelled to issue an alert every time something might happen, so that if it does no one will be able to say afterwards, "Why didn't you tell us?"

Of course, the question won't be "Why didn't you tell us?" It's going to be "Why didn't you tell us anything *useful?" and "Why didn't you stop it?" Much harder questions to answer; but then the Bush WHite House is good at simply ignoring questions they don't like.

The other observation I'd make in an attempt to be fair is that the change in security status has very real and specific meaning for law enforcement and security personnel; they should now be doing X instead of Y. But most people see a great deal of hoopla being made about the change in color code and say, "Yes, but what does this mean for me?" To which people like Ridge can only helplessly say, "Nothing really; keep on doing what you're doing." They're sort of stuck. If they only issue the alert to law enforcement, then it will leak out and someone will suggest that they are doing this "secretly"; if they announce it publicly, then everyone freaks because they don't know what the change in status means *they* should do.

But, hey, a cleft stick is just what you need to trap a snake...