The Terror Alerts (NYT Mega-Barf Editorial)

New York Times | 08/05/04 | New York Times

[conservative in nyc]

The Terror Alerts

Published: August 5, 2004

ur lives have changed so much since Sept. 11, 2001. We know that we may never again be free of the threat of terrorism. It's been a tough adjustment for everyone, and the burden on President Bush is especially heavy. Given the unprecedented circumstances and the costs of making a mistake, it's easy to understand why the administration has had so much trouble managing the way it informs the public about potential danger. But after 17 months in which alerts blinked from yellow to orange and back a half-dozen times, the White House should be past its learning curve. It isn't. The events of this week showed starkly that the system is not working.

The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack. But the delivery of the message was confusing. The color-coded threat chart doesn't serve the purpose for which it was invented, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is hopeless as a public spokesman on this issue. The Bush administration needs to come up with a method of communication that informs the public in a calm, clear way. Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign.

The alert system has always rested on a precarious balance. Local officials must have up-to-date information about possible danger. Private citizens need to know, too, so they can make informed choices and be on the lookout for trouble. But it is possible to go overboard. Ratcheting up the warning level creates huge costs for city and state governments. And if Americans are warned too often, and too shrilly, they will become inured to terror alerts.

In the past, Mr. Ridge and others have talked ominously about intelligence that they have routinely described as the most alarming since 9/11, without providing details. This week they were specific: the five financial institutions were in danger of being bombed in the "near term." The terror alert was raised to orange for those sites in New York, Washington and New Jersey. But things quickly lapsed into confusion. For three days, officials at news conferences and background briefings said their concerns were based on new information, then old information, then back to new information. Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday.

Mr. Bush should junk the color bars, which are now of use mostly to late-night comedians. Ordinary people have no way of calibrating their lives to the color ladder. It does them no good to be told to be scared, more scared or really scared, especially when they are also being told to act as if nothing's wrong. Unless the government is prepared to tell people to stay home from work, there's no reason to keep lighting the terror lamps. What we need is information that we can use, not another shot of adrenaline.

We would have been happy last weekend if a senior official more adept than Mr. Ridge had called a news conference to say what the government knew and what defensive measures had been taken. Instead, he spoke in apocalyptic terms, then produced an "intelligence official" who offered more detail and more alarming words, anonymously. Later that day, and on the next day and the day after, other officials spoke off the record, providing additional information that made the situation seem much more complicated.

There's a practical aspect to the terror alerts that the administration must address to demonstrate its own commitment. The higher alert levels require local governments to take enormously expensive actions, for which Washington is not paying its share. The Homeland Security Department has made it clear that New York City is the spot that comes up most frequently in terrorism-related intelligence, yet money continues to be doled out in a manner that has much more to do with elections than genuine danger. It's shocking that Washington has not followed through on its own information by underwriting the protections cities need to stay safe.

Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances. It is a challenge complicated by the fact that he is running on his record against terrorism and is using images of 9/11 and the threat of more attacks to promote his candidacy. The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda.

Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation. On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''

It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

Americans are stone-cold serious when it comes to potential terror attacks - there is no need to worry about making them pay attention. We have learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to value every day in which nothing terrible happens as a gift and an opportunity. The Bush administration has been given the same blessing. Every morning the president and his deputies are challenged not only to renew their war against potential terrorists, but also to earn the confidence of the people they aim to protect.

[conservative in nyc]

Where to start... Where to start... Oh! It's the Slimes! The most important stuff is always at the end...

Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue.

What history? Continuing...

There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances.

Nope, that's not Bush's history --- just a statement of how the Slimes thinks it knows best how to run the White House. Continuing...

It is a challenge complicated by the fact that he is running on his record against terrorism and is using images of 9/11 and the threat of more attacks to promote his candidacy.

So President Bush is running on his record? That's still no history. But at least he's not running away from his record, like Mr. Kerry (except on Vietnam, of course)! Continuing...

The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda.

No, that's not history either, just a typical tired Slimes statement that Bush lied and people died. Next paragraph...

Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation.

Such as which terror alert? Still no history. Just a bald face statement. I guess repeating it twice makes it true. Continuing...

On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''

Still no history. Mr. Ridge gave a campaign pitch? Funny, I didn't see it. I guess Governor McGreevy (D/Corrupt-NJ) gave a campaign pitch too with his press conference. Funny how that happened. Next paragraph:

It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence.

Oh. I guess Mr. Ridge made one comment about the President's leadership in the war on terror or something. I must have missed that. But there's still no history. Continuing...

The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

Finally, some history -- but not what the Slimes thinks. I guess we're not supposed to learn from what happened in Spain and just let the terrorists waltz in and blow up stuff because it's the right thing to do! I'm still looking for proof the President historically raised the alert level when politically expedient, though. Final paragraph...

Americans are stone-cold serious when it comes to potential terror attacks - there is no need to worry about making them pay attention. We have learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to value every day in which nothing terrible happens as a gift and an opportunity. The Bush administration has been given the same blessing. Every morning the president and his deputies are challenged not only to renew their war against potential terrorists, but also to earn the confidence of the people they aim to protect.

As I suspected, no history --- just Slimes assertions of history that doesn't exist. The terror alert level was generally increased around public holidays and when chatter increased. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a Slimes editorial board's argument!

[Fenris6]

"But after 17 months in which alerts blinked from yellow to orange and back a half-dozen times, the White House should be past its learning curve"

Maybe Bush should have let one through? Maybe the stupid hateful Left needs to recognize that Al Queda is after population centers - cities in the "blue" states.

I'm really surprised AL Queda hasn't gone after Hollywood. They are the ones who poison the world with "american" filth.

[musicman]

BTTT !!

[dead]

The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

Dark hints, like the 200+ dead Spaniards.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

The New York Times -- "All the News the DNC tells it is fit to print"

What a joke the Slimes is. Bush got specific information about a terrorist plot. We all know it doesn't matter how damn old the news is because of Al Qaeda's MO. So when that argument fails they go with the.. Bush is trying to scare the public argument to get reelected.

Now, if Bush didn't raise the threat level in NY and Washington (NY was already at Orange, which the Slimes neglects to tell the reader), and an attack happened... who would the Slimes blame? Hmmmm.. me thinks Bush.

It never matters to the DNC's paper of record. It's always Bush's fault.

[Tamzee]

Well done, thanks.

This editorial is just par for the anti-American course... the NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger said years ago that, if North Vietnamese and American soldiers came across each other in Vietnam, he'd rather see the North Vietnamese soldier kill the American than vice versa.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz052003.asp

[crazycat]

The knee jerk reaction, that the new terror alert was political, has boxed these morons into a corner.

More and more details are coming out, eg.it looks like we in the UK have grabbed a serious Al-queda terrorist, on new info that has come from Pakistan.

The Slimes and the Dems now look, to any normal minded person, that they are playing politics with the terror war.

[Teplukin]

Agreed, the stuff about Bush using terror alerts as politics is garbage. You are totally spot on about that.

But let's face it, these terror alerts impose real costs on doing business in Manhattan, by delaying commercial shipments, and hiking costs for increased police presence. They also aggravate the tension folks feel.

So like a typical regulatory mandate from the federal government, terror alerts impose significant costs while providing few benefits. Myself, I would prefer the Feds simply find the terror cells & terror supporters & wrap them up, without so much hoopla

[GraceCoolidge]

Perhaps it would be easier to keep the terror alerts separate from the presidential campaign if the Democrats weren't always saying that the alerts are politically motivated? Just a thought.

I also liked this: For three days, officials at news conferences and background briefings said their concerns were based on new information, then old information, then back to new information. Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday.

The terrorists are very inconsiderate. They need to make a plan and stick to it. All of this gathering information, then holding off, then updating it, is making it very difficult for our President to respond in a manner satisfactory to the NY Times.

[bondjamesbond]

You're right about the Times Editorial. I typically only read the second-to-the-last-paragraph. The preceding is the lattice of lies to butress the case, and the last paragraph is empty pontificating to make sure everybody sees the NYTimes Editorial Board as the ultimate Voice of Authority.

So, the critical second-to-the-last paragraph...

It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

The first sentence properly belongs in the previous paragraph, but it is necessary to break it out to accomodate the NYTimes Editorial drip-drip-drip argument style. It does not belong in the critical second-to-the-last, but to have it all by itself looks too high school.

You know what I mean...

The second statement, that the Director of Homeland Security should not be a campaign surrogate, is obvious. Everybody would agree with that. The problem is, he has not been in the past and will almost certainly not be so in the future. Tom Ridge has a job to do, and I am sure he is doing it, full time.

The last statement, however, is the critical bit. Al Qaeda obviously has plans to hit us before the election. One thing you can count on with these terrorist SOB's is that they have only a few pages in their play-book. The pre-election bombing worked in Spain, so you can bet your bottom dollar they will try the same trick in the United States in the run-up to November 2.

This leads to two questions. First, what do you do about it? And second, what will be the political fallout if and when it occurs?

The President is deadly serious about preventing this bombing. He will do all that he can to prevent it, but he will not lie and say that he absolutely can prevent it. Part of prevention is a heightened state of awareness of the people. If the President ignored the obvious, he would be derelict in his duty. Which brings us to the aftermath.

One of the reasons the Spanish bombing had such a dramatic effect is that the Spanish people thought they were safe, and were rudely shown that the government could not protect them. The government had been issuing statements that there was nothing to fear and that the elections would not be attacked. When the bombings happened, they looked like fools, and their defeat was inevitable.

If the President follows the NYTimes Editorial Board's advice, and minimized any public warnings in order to make sure there is no political impact of the heightened state of awareness, he will put himself in the exact same position as the Spanish government was before those bombings. When the attack comes, he will look like a fool, and his defeat will be assured.

Which would suit the New York Times Editorial Board just fine, of course...

[livius]

Myself, I would prefer the Feds simply find the terror cells & terror supporters & wrap them up, without so much hoopla

I'm sure everybody would prefer that, but it's easier said than done, and in the meantime, our citizens and infrastructure must be protected.

These terror alerts are costly: but think how costly a successful attack would be, not even in terms of human lives, but in terms of its effect on trade and the markets. Our swift and firm reaction after 9/11 maintained confidence in our business and financial system, and it is crucial to keep that confidence. Police overtime is nothing compared to the cost of loss of confidence in US stability and order.

[livius]

Actually, the Spanish bombings were so effective only because the Socialist party and the "peace groups" (very influential among university students) capitalized on them immediately, and even used them as a platform for launching cell-phone coordinated street mini-riots in various cities on election eve and even election day, including harrassment of people perceived to be probable PP voters. That's exactly what would happen here.

Ironically, I think that if the Times keeps scoffing at the possibility of election day attacks, this would really do a lot to keep the left from capitalizing on them, if they should occur. The element of surprise was crucial in Spain, and I think that's been taken away in this case.

[True Capitalist]

Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign.

It's the NYT that irresponsibly and desperately tried to tangle the alert up with the presidential campaign!!!

Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday.

Again, it's the cynical NYT's attempt to politicize the alert that leads their readers to be confused. The NYT's efforts to unseat Bush is undermining our national security!

[Flipyaforreal]

"Mr." Bush?.....sigh

[ballplayer]

How does the New York Times not know that these warnings when they came didnt prevent an attack? Of course they dont, and they can with the help of hindsight just blather

[mewzilla]

Be interesting to see where the fishwrap runs the Albany story....

[rhema]

[JimRed]

Please, please, if it MUST happen, let it be the Times Building!

[Jhensy]

What garbage. I work in a midtown Manhattan skyscraper; no one stayed home Monday, everyone shrugged off their concern -- in fact, everyone discussed the details with a sense of relief that concrete, tangible Al Qaeda plans had been found, exposed, and hopefully thwarted.

These same creeps at the Times will be the first ones to scream "WHY WEREN'T WE WARNED???!!!" when something terrible inevitably occurs.

[livius]

The wonderful thing when nothing happens is that you are free to say there was never any problem in the first place.

That's why BJ Clinton never dared to take any action against the threats, because he was not a leader and was afraid of the political consequences. He just hoped that the inevitable attack would not occur on his watch (having ignored several that occurred outside of the country), and as always, he lucked out. Actually, we lucked out, because having non-leader Clinton in charge at such a moment would have been a disaster, and probably we would have had many more attacks since then.