...Like many of us, the NYT's editorial staff doesn't appear to be convinced by the Repugnicans faux outrage. But where was their skepticism in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003? Bush didn't just begin to use 9/11 in this political campaign season, he used it from the very beginning, in his first post 9/11 speech to the nation. Rove had no doubt informed him that this was his opportunity to do something he hadn't managed to have done ... be a legitimate resident of the White House. In the aftermath of a heinous attack on our nation, the man was almost giddy as he blathered on about how his administration now had a focus. Everyone knows merikans stick by their pResidents in times of war, all he had to do was milk it for 3 years - and that he has done. If someone could locate raw footage (something that hasn't been scrubbed like Shrub's military records) of this appearance it would make a powerful ad for MoveOn to produce, playing a sequence sans audio so the context of his speech (and apparent elation) is unknown and then playing the sequence again with sound and context. This man has done two things since the Supreme Traitors placed him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Campaign and vacation.
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.[Nitpicker emphasis]
Wednesday, August 04, 2004