Go to Orange on data that's 3 years old?
I don't think so. Ridge better have some current intel revealing that the info has been updated and placed into a more current scenario, or he , along with Bush, just lost a ton of credibility.
UPDATE: Instapundit thinks that criticizing DHS for upping the alert based on old info shows that the critics aren't serious.
He's wrong.
I'm all for keeping the people informed, but there's a difference between notifying people about intelligence you've uncovered, and upping the threat level when you, according to Ridge, have no specific information as to timing or planning. By all means, inform the people affected that they are targetted. Announce to the world that you have this information, which serves the dual purpose of keeping the people informed, and discouraging the terrorists from continuing with that particular plot. Use the intel to "connect the dots" and perhaps prevent an attack.
But raising the threat level to Orange should only happen when you have credible information that an attack has been planned and or initiated, otherwise it begins to lose credibility and seriousness. Now, Ridge is in the awkward position of either maintaining an Orange level in the affected areas for years, or quietly dropping the alert level when it becomes too expensive to maintain.
It's a no-win situation for DHS.
And, I have to wonder, why does DHS keep shooting themselves in the foot like this. Is there nobody there who knows anything about public relations? They had to know that the age of the intel would come out; why not make it part of the initial briefing, and deny use of it to your opponents?
UPDATE 2: OK, I guess I might have to take it all back. Via SayUncle, I found this:
More financial institutions than previously disclosed may be at risk of attack, and an al-Qaida operative has told British intelligence that the group's target date is early September, intelligence sources said yesterday.The operative, described as "credible" by British intelligence, told his debriefers that the attack would take place "60 days before the presidential election" on Nov. 2, according to a former senior National Security Council official. On Sept. 2 President George W. Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden.
In other words, despite some of the intel being gathered three years ago, we apparently have good info that it is being used to plan a current attack, one that has been scheduled.
My apologies to Mr. Ridge.
I still wonder abotu the PR aspects, though.
Posted by Rich at August 3, 2004 12:41 PM | TrackBackI see you offer you apologies to Tom Ridge. Ask yourself, does information have a half life? If so, what kinds of information decay? What does not? The Allies planned D-Day for two years. Would Von Rundstedt have ignored those plans had they come into his hands on May 18th, simply because his copy was dated April 1942? Of course not. One possibility I imagine, just my musings, is information indicating that plans worked out several years earlier, are being implemented?
Or, from another perspective. If the administration wanted to put out spurious information to discredit the Ketchup Boy, something he seems to exceed at with no help,(perhaps his highest skill), would it take the form of a false alarm? Would that work better than anything else? If so, why? I would pick at him for other things. There was, for example, in his entire acceptance speech, no good words for the Soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq in support or praise of their accomplishments. That's truthful, and damning.
One possibility I imagine, just my musings, is information indicating that plans worked out several years earlier, are being implemented?
Isn't that exactly what I said? IN order for a raised alert level to be justified, there had to be some information that the old intel was being used currently. Based on British intelligence, it was. Hence my apology.
And I wasn't suggesting that it was a ploy to make Kerry look bad, and there's nothing in my post to indicate that I was. Instead, I characterized it as a tactical error on Ridge's part. Again, that's why I apologized to him.
Discrediting Kerry had nothing to do with the action or my post.
Posted by: rich on August 3, 2004 11:16 PM