Homeland Security chief sees no immediate need to react
If they had a good report from someone with a proven track record, they would raise the threat alert to orange immediately.
- Vince Cannistraro, a former top CIA official
I can appreciate the dilemma faced by those charged with protecting our Homeland's Security. They need to look as if they are on top of things without spreading unnecessary rumors of impending doom. Yet, in a case such as this, isn't that exactly what is being done?
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. attorney general and the FBI director asked Americans on Wednesday to help find seven people possibly linked to al-Qaida terrorist plots aimed at national celebrations and key events in the presidential campaign.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said at a news conference that "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicated that al-Qaida plans to try an attack on the United States in the next few months.
But Tom Ridge, the Department of Homeland Security's director, did not raise the terrorist alert level from yellow to orange, creating questions about how threatening the Bush administration considered the new intelligence.
"There's not a consensus within the administration that we need to raise the threat level," Ridge said in a television interview. "We do not need to raise the threat level to increase security. Right now, there's no need to put the entire country on a (elevated) national alert."
So why, then, was this news conference even necessary? Either there is a threat or there is not. Either we have something to fear or we do not. Rather than raising the generic specter of some ill-defined boogeyman, wouldn't it make more sense to wait until there is something perhaps a bit more concrete to work with? Cry "wolf" often enough, and eventually people stop paying attention. I'm not saying that information should not be shared with the public, but it would stand to reason that it could and should be done in a way that doesn't raise unnecessary fears. Now all we have is the intimation that al-Qaeda may well attack somewhere sometime this summer. That's nice; which hole in the dike do we need to put our finger into?
I don't expect anyone to tell me exactly the when, where, and how of the next attack. It's just not that simple, and I recognize that. Even so, this constant din of vague, unfocused threats runs the risk of gradudally deafening Americans to legitimate and serious threats. Of course, there IS a Presidential election underway, and the Bush Administration DOES have a vested interest in being viewed as vigilant, no?
