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!
"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.
BTTT !!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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...
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!
"Mr." Bush?.....sigh
Be interesting to see where the fishwrap runs the Albany story....
Please, please, if it MUST happen, let it be the Times Building!
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.
It's about time that the Times connects the dots.
I escaped from New York Tuesday morning after helping my daughter move to Brooklyn. While I was ther I was internet deprived and only knew about the terror alerts from the tabloid headlines (Jitter City). No one there even mentioned it.
Leaving Brooklyn by car was a nightmare. The BQE expressway was parked solid Tuesday morning while trucks attempting to enter Manhattan were routed to a single bridge and inspected.
I noticed there have been some interesting changes at the interstate highway truck weigh stations. At some stations the trucks aren't even required to stop, but they are routed past a science fiction array of devices that could be cameras, radiation detectors, or anything you could imagine.
Major bridges have signs saying no cameras, no video.