Journalist Marc Ambinder reacts to the news that Tom Ridge admitted to politicizing terror alerts by giving the DFHs (the people who were right about Bush) another kick.
The news this morning that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge believed that President Bush and his top advisers manipulated the terror threat alert system for their political gain is really — and it ought to be — a major story. Ridge was in a position to know, for certain, whether this was the case. And though he’s hinted at it before, he now says, in his soon-to-be-released book, that he was pressured into raising the alert level before the 2004 election. Let’s see what Ridge actually writes before making too many conclusions. Let’s talk to other Bush officials and try to figure out whether we need to exercise caution about Ridge’s own perspective. For one thing, Ridge didn’t immediately resign. He resigned after the election. If he believed at the time that manipulating the terror alert system was damaging to the country, and he said nothing, and when he did resign, he said nothing, then he doesn’t come off as a particularly sympathetic figure. Ridge left the White House in 2005. He’s joined several corporate boards, has made a lot of money consulting on homeland security, and has been mostly silent. He’s probably been saving it for the book.
Journalists, including myself, were very skeptical when anti-Bush liberals insisted that what Ridge now says is true, was true. We were wrong. Our skepticism about the activists’ conclusions was warranted because these folks
based their assumption on gut hatred forPresident Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence. [Addition: That’s a hasty generalization. Many of the loudest voices were reflexively anti-Bush, but I can’t accurately describe the motivations of everyone, much less a majority, of those who were skeptical. There were plenty of non-liberals who believed that the terror threats were exaggerated.] But journalists should have been even more skeptical about the administration’s pronouncements. And yet — we, too, weren’t privy to the intelligence. Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a Democratic system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt, even having learned lessons about giving the government that benefit.
The addition of bold is mine, but the strikethrough and addition in brackets is from Ambinder. This occurred after a lot of people objected to what he said. I think Krugman says it best here:
But I’d like to return to one point: even after retracting his statement about people who correctly surmised that terror warnings were political being motivated by “gut hatred” of Bush, he left in the bit about being “reflexively anti-Bush”. I continue to find it really sad that people still say things like this.
Bear in mind that by the time the terror alert controversy arose in 2004, we had already seen two tax cuts sold on massively, easily documented false pretenses; a war launched with constant innuendo about a Saddam-Osama link that was clearly false, and with claims about WMDs that were clearly shaky from the beginning and had proved to be entirely without foundation. We’d also seen vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy. Oh, and Abu Ghraib was already public knowledge.
Given all that, it made complete sense to distrust anything the Bush administration said. That wasn’t reflexive, it was rational.