So I’m listening to a live press conference where NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is describing the planned response to the Homeland Security Department’s announcement that
Reports indicate that al-Qaida is targeting several specific buildings, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia, Prudential Financial in northern New Jersey, and Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York.
The Mayor looks relatively calm and reassuring and noted again and again that people should plan to go about their normal day tomorrow (even in the areas targeted) but he wants them to know why they’ll see increased police presence, and why trucks will not be able to cross the Williamsburg bridge (I hope that doesn’t last long, I can’t find the Manhattan Bridge), and why things may feel a bit more tense.
In terms of using the alert system and communicating with the public appropriately, I give the Mayor high marks. I also watched a bit of Tom Ridge’s announcement (and couldn’t help but wonder what was going through his mind as he’s considering moving off to greener pastures). I also stopped and thought, “Hmmm… he too is doing this just right.” Statments like this do instill confidence that our government is working as it should:
Now, this is the first time we have chosen to use the Homeland Security Advisory System in such a targeted way. Compared to previous threat reporting, these intelligence reports have provided a level of detail that is very specific.
The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen, and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information. Now, while we are providing you with this immediate information, we will also continue to update you as the situation unfolds.
And he went on providing solid information that will help and challenge the average American citizen to do what they can to help prevent such an attack. Good stuff Tom. Way to go. And then, he lost me:
But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president’s leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.
We must understand? Why? Will that keep the terrorists from striking? If we understand that? This is politicizing the information in a gratuitous way. Just when you think the government is working as it should, they remind you, there’s no separating what they do from campaigning. There are some governmental responsibilities that should be “campaign free.” Ridge undercut the effectiveness of his message by suggesting we must understand Bush is saving us here. Immediately I distrust the other points he made. Sigh…
It is stupid for him to make that kind of statement. Many of the people who live and work around these targets are staunch Democrats who already distrust the administration’s timing of homeland security press conferences. Whether that’s right or wrong, their distrust is real, and Ridge should not give them any added reason for it.
But I take this one very seriously, because it’s SO much more specific than almost any previous warning. I don’t know what to do about it beyond keep my cell phone charged and carry a water bottle, but I take it seriously. (My office is in a nondescript building on a nondescript street at least 20 blocks from any of the targets they’ve mentioned.)
But I take this one very seriously, because it’s SO much more specific than almost any previous warning.
I do as well, which is why I was comforted to see the Mayor so calm.
When I first heard (as they were getting ready for the Mayor to speak), my first thought was to go demand the movie theater my partner was in stop the movie and tell him to come home (because I couldn’t reach him on his cell phone)…then I realized I didn’t know which movie theater he was in, and eventually I calmed down.
I remember what it felt like in the months just after 9/11 when we really expected another attack. We were all somewhat fatalistic about it, but we stayed in touch constantly. Now I’ve gotten used to believing it’s OK to let my partner be out of touch for a hours at a time without knowing where he is. I think I’ll get him a pager.
Shorter Edward: “I hate George Bush, therefore his administration should not take credit for their successes, few and far between though they may be.”
If the information about this attack came from someone captured in Iraq, that statement would be perfectly appropriate.
Bulls*** to the “shorter.” What he’s saying is why make the official announcement of the danger politicized at all, which will, among other things, make people take it less seriously, when it’s about a matter of grave importance. There is ample opportunity to get out the message that finally applying pressure on Pakistan and spending more money than the GDP of most nations will have some benefits in terms of intelligence. Political games are one thing when they’re statements from the white house on your tax refunds, but they shouldn’t be part of this alert.
What Carpeicthus said. Ridge took breaking news and turned it into a campaign ad. If someone wants to take credit for something, then there is a time and place for it. This was not it.
eh, I’m not sure what you wanted but given recent comments by Kerry & Co., “Security by Bush” is going to be a common thread over the next seveal months, given that the media is in Kerry’s pocket.
Sad. Very sad.
When the Secretary of Homeland Security gets up to do a terror advisory warning, that’s exactly what he should be doing, and that’s all he should be doing. When he stumps for Bush he can talk as much as he wants about what dazzling leadership Bush has provided, etc. When he’s on the clock and trying to warn us of threats against our nation’s security, he’s not supposed to be shilling for Bush, any more than he’s supposed to be hawking Diet Coke or plastering NASCAR-style ads over his suit. He’s supposed to be a public servant working solely for the public safety, not an ad for a re-election camapign. This is remarkably stupid and disappointing.
Having said that, to any New Yorkers not taking this seriously because of Ridge’s statement–don’t be stupid. They’ve given us specific information and they’ve told us the source for it. That Ridge needs to throw in the obligatory all-hail-Bush line in there does little to change this.
And I doubt many people are ignoring it. I mean, I know someone who works within a block of all of the targets they’ve named in New York, and one of the ones in DC, and have no reason to believe that’s above average. It does wonders for your perspective.
I will say, it demonstrates the uselessness of the color-coded alert system. New York’s been at orange all along, and they’re not going to raise it all the way to red, so we’re at some sort of reddish orange (coral? crimson? flame?).
They will not risk raising it to red for fear of panic; they will not risk lowering it below yellow because how bad do they look if there’s an attack? So it’s a two-color system, and one that gives us no specific information about what to do.
eh, I’m not sure what you wanted but given recent comments by Kerry & Co., “Security by Bush” is going to be a common thread over the next seveal months, given that the media is in Kerry’s pocket.
That may be the most egregious misuse of the word “given” I’ve seen in years.
Shorter Phil: I love Bush campaign ads and want to see them everywhere.
I love Bush campaign ads and want to see them everywhere.
It isn’t that media is (or isn’t) going to cover a story (favorable or unfavorable) on each candidate, it simply reflects the inherent preferences of the media as described by the NYT, Finding Biases on Da Bus
Guess it all depends on your definition of “Given”, like CBS askin Kerry to rephrase his comments after the fact.
It isn’t that media is (or isn’t) going to cover a story (favorable or unfavorable) on each candidate, it simply reflects the inherent preferences of the media as described by the NYT, Finding Biases on Da Bus
Guess it all depends on your definition of “Given”, like CBS askin Kerry to rephrase his comments after the fact or how about equal time on Sixty Minutes.
Sorry for the double post.
Shorter Jesurgislac: “I still think Phil is a Republican, which makes me a) ignorant, b) stubborn, or c) some inimitable combination of the two.” Even shorter Jesurgislac: “I’m rubber, everyone else is glue.” Get a new shtick, kid.
What he’s saying is why make the official announcement of the danger politicized at all, which will, among other things, make people take it less seriously . . .
It isn’t my fault if people are willing to cut off their noses to spite not only their own faces, but someone else’s.
Speaking of advertisements, Ridge should have discussed this, Agencies Shared Intelligence That Led to New Alert
at length (given Dean’s and Kerry’s response to the info).
Funny how a good story sometimes just gets in the way of your political thread.
Timmy,
Oh for f**k’s sake, when the press decides to actually renew its coverage of Abu Ghraib, and the investigation that the White House is stonewalling, you can wake me up with yet another complaint about liberal bias. When they decide to cover “extraordinary rendition” you can wake me up with yet another tiresome complaint about liberal bias. When they decide to cover the fact that we relied on a probable Iranian spy to invade Iraq, you can wake me up with yet another complaint about liberal bias. When they write a coherent policy story you can wake me up with yet another complaint about liberal bias. When they broadcast the second most important speech of the convention (Obama’s) instead of devoting 4x as much coverage to Teresa Heinz Kerry sassing a reporter, you can wake me up with yet another complaint about liberal bias. When they challenge Ed Gillespie or whichever other RNC talking head on a blatant inaccuracy on their talk show, you can wake me up with yet another complaint about liberal bias.
Wake me up when you can show in any liberal source the reach, inaccuracy, or blatant partisanship of Fox News. Yes, most reporters are personally liberal–though their publishers aren’t, and that has an effect. They’ve also overcompensated for years of cynical bias charges by failing to call a spade a spade or a lie or a lie. In U.S. journalism there are two sides to every fact. In U.S. journalism the arguments of Democrats and Republicans are treated as equally plausible and equally extreme and equally honest, no matter what. In U.S. journalism a Bush ad intercutting footage of Democrats with Hitler speeches is equivalent to a Kerry ad making fun of Bush’s fiscal policy. In U.S. journalism the only measure of a story’s importance is how many other newspapers have covered it, or how many press releases or talking points you get about it.
I don’t claim they are conservative, except Fox News, the NY Post, and other supposedly “fair and balanced” sources which are more conservative and just plain worse than any source is liberal.
I claim they do a terrible job, and it’s lucky for your party they do. The GOP could never, ever have succeeded in fooling so many of the people so much of the time with a competent press corps.
So just spare me.
(It’s also utterly irrelevant to the subject of this thread.)
Phil, for once you’ve got a point: I could better have conveyed my meaning by saying “Give the Shorter… format a rest. As a response to an intelligent, well-thought out post, it makes you look like a twit.” Which I am sure you do not wish to do.
Katherine,
You go girl!
Katherine, I’m just wondering, as we approach 11 September, if the media is going to remember how our nation was attacked and why. Will we revist the event via video, which is always the very best way to tell a story.
You will have to point out blatant partisanship of Fox News (are you referring to the current video running the liberal funding circuit) as compared to CNN or MSNBC (I don’t believe any of the Fox journalists are going to give a speech at the RNC). The NYT has admited its liberal, as has ABC.
There is a book coming out on Kerry sometime this month, do you think it has a shot on Sixty Minutes. I don’t and I’m not complaining just a fact of life.
The fact is, there is nothing wrong with Ridge crediting the Bush Admin with the breaking news, just an opportunity to even the playing field (my point on the leanings of journalist).
Shorter Edward: “I hate George Bush, therefore his administration should not take credit for their successes, few and far between though they may be.”
Believe it or not Phil. I’m actually more disapponted here than trying to score points. Bloomberg is a Republican, and he’s supporting Bush, and I gave him high marks without any disclaimer. Of course he didn’t try to campaign for himself or his party during his announcement.
The point is it’s human nature to take something less seriously when it comes packaged so partisanly. I agree with Katherine that New Yorkers, New Jerseyians, and Washingtonians would be idiots to dismiss Ridge’s warning because he stumped for Bush during it, but he stirs up resentment and anger by doing it this way.
I don’t see, among all the “Sad. Very Sad.” comments anyone explaining why a campaign pitch in the middle of an announcement as important as this IS actually appropriate.
Anyone?
Oops, wrote too soon. Timmy does feel it’s appropriate.
I solemnly disagree. It’s unprofessional.
Unprofessional, naw, my only problem with his statement is he didn’t go into enough detail (see 8:36 am post). He should have discussed the improved communications amongst the intelligence agencies due to the implimentation of the Patriot Act and the leadership from the WH. If for no other reason than to blunt statements like this.
Pretending that the media is a big liberal conspiracy is simply another form of right-wing propoganda. And its serves the purpose of propoganda, which is to blind one’s mind to actually thinking about the facts and issues.
There is no liberal equivalent to Fox, which sets the standard for the deceitful presentation of opinion as “news.”
In the conservative lexicon, “liberal media bias” has come to mean somebody other than Fox.
If for no other reason than to blunt statements like this.
So it’s all politics all the time then?
There’s no setting during which the Administration should just do it’s job and then later address it’s critics? They should pre-emptively address their critics in their day-to-day responsibilities?
Sorry, again, that’s unprofessional.
The FAA just released a statement concerning flight safety:
Starting Monday a recording concerning inflight safety will play on all domestic flights:
“The airplane you are now flying in is a safe as possible due to the personal efforts of our president, George W. Bush.”
Bloomberg, on the other hand, is doing a very good job indeed.
example 1:
“Let me assure all of New York one thing,” Bloomberg said at a press conference Sunday. “We are deploying the full array of protection. We will spare no expense.
“Get up tomorrow, go to work and enjoy the freedom terrorists find so threatening.”
example 2:
“As a show of support, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, once a Wall Street trader himself, will ring the exchange’s opening bell this morning.”
One interesting note in the coverage this morning: it is up to the mayor & the police commissioner to decide whether to put NYC on red alert. I wonder if that will come up during the convention. I still don’t know what red alert entails.
I don’t see, among all the “Sad. Very Sad.” comments anyone explaining why a campaign pitch in the middle of an announcement as important as this IS actually appropriate.
That assumes that everyone accepts as valid the premise that it isn’t, and is required to argue against that premise. Maybe I’ve just grown too jaded for my own good, Edward, but I expect this stuff to be politicized. It’s what politicians do.
So it’s all politics all the time then?
Apparently, Edward that is how your team want to play it, so game on, I didn’t set the rules.
You compare this to the 1944 election, when the war was the primary concern. Dewey didn’t bring up Pearl (more importantly that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl before the event, Marshall asked him to remain silent on the subject, which Tom agreed to).
Apparently, Edward that is how your team want to play it, so game on, I didn’t set the rules.
Ah, so Ridge had no choice but to politicize the announcement, eh? That’s your defense of this?
That assumes that everyone accepts as valid the premise that it isn’t, and is required to argue against that premise.
I’m ASKING why it would be appropriate. If you disagree with me on this point, please explain why. I’ll consider your response, honestly. I just don’t think “Ridge had to do it to pre-emptively answer his critics” is a particularly convincing argument.
That’s your defense of this?
Actually, my defense of this, is that you are overplaying your hand.
If Ridge wants to send a message, he needs to do a much better job, that the receipt of information was due to a change in the intelligence culture and their ability to communicate with the other agencies of the executive. And it isn’t politicizing, it is giving background on how the information was obtained and what has changed since 9-11.
Politicizing is the Democratic insistence on questioning the timing of every bit of information. The problem with that strategy is it looses its edge, when timing clearly comes into play and I suspect it will.
Actually, my defense of this, is that you are overplaying your hand.
Nope. I’m very disappointed. I was watching and admiring Tom Ridge for what looked like an excellent job of communicating this new information and what was being done by it.
Honestly, I was impressed and appreciated his excellence.
Sorry if it strikes you as partisan that I responded so strongly to the interruption for a campaign ad in the middle of his announcement…I thought he was simply doing what we PAY HIM FOR, which, and this may come as a surprise to some, is NOT to campaign on tax payers’ money and time.
Timmy
Let me get this straight. You’re claiming that the government, not the committee to re-elect, is FORCED to include partisan campaigning into terror warnings because democrats and others let people know that they don’t agree with the current administration’s policies?
Ha ha ha
We pay Ridge to provide information and informing the public who was responsible for the information, how are methods have changed since 9-11 and the overall role of the Executive, there is absolutely nothing wrong about that. Afterall that is what Tom is being paid to do.
Eh, carsick eh you may call it partisan, I’m just giving another reason why the response is not outside the bounds of the season.
You mention “the season” yet want to deny that it’s partisan?
Ha ha ha
What season would that be? Summer? Early Fall?
Tom, by the way, is not paid by the president. He is an employee of the government and his paycheck comes from our taxes. His job is not to report on “the overall role of the Executive.” His job is to coordinate the nation’s efforts in securing our homeland.
His job is not to report on “the overall role of the Executive.”
Says who, Bush has carved out two of his Secretaries from the political process (Powell and Rummy, given the war) all the other Secretaries are involved (as they were in the previous admins) as cheerleaders.
I don’t see that here:
SEC. 102. SECRETARY; FUNCTIONS.
(a)(1) There is a Secretary of Homeland Security, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) The Secretary is the head of the Department and shall have direction, authority, and control over it.
(3) All functions of all officers, employees, and organizational units of the Department are vested in the Secretary.
(b) The Secretary-
(1) may delegate any of his functions to any officer, employee, or organizational unit of the Department;
(2) may promulgate regulations hereunder; and
(3) shall have such functions, including the authority to make contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements, and to enter into agreements with other executive agencies, as may be necessary and proper to carry out his responsibilities under this Act or otherwise provided by law.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0602/061802hsleg.htm
You didn’t just pull that out of the air did you?
Absolutely not, now if you are telling me that Secretaries don’t (or can’t) represent the entire Executive. They you haven’t been paying attention. Wait, we have an answer.
BQE to Tillary – Manhattan bridge enterence is near the exit.
Timmy
ZZzzzz…
Perhaps you’re right.
Perhaps it will be best that every time there is a raised terror alert it should be brought to us with a reminder like those political ads, “I’m George Bush and I approve this message.”
It may not enhance his new “President of Peace” branding campaign and it may not advance his chances for winning the election but …you know… since the democrats had the gall to disagree with him during an election campaign it would be okey dokey with you.
BQE to Tillary – Manhattan bridge enterence is near the exit.
Much obliged!
e
Katherine and Edward,
On a personal note: My seven year old and I are coming to NYC in two weeks (pre-convention) to see some friends and for myself a little business.
Yesterday’s announcements left me curious about the ‘show of force’. This is my son’s first visit and I’d rather it not be tainted with too much frightening imagery.
Anything much different than usual?
Also, anything you recommend for kids? We’re already planning on the Staten Island ferry and playing a little toss in Central Park. I used to live deep downtown so we’ll be visiting the twin towers memorial and seeing how Fulton Fish Market’s doing (is it still there?). Anything current that comes to mind would be greatly appreciated.
Hey Carsick,
I think you’d notice more “scary” things if you commute normally. Otherwise two policeman at a subway entrance may not seem unusual to you. I’ve seen armed National Guardsmen at some stops (especially the closer you get to downtown), and they make me uncomfortable, but because there’s so much else to look at normally, your son may not place much emphasis on them.
Bottomline is you can miss parades of 500,000 people happening two blocks away in New York and never be the wiser, so it’s possible to go through your day and not see much in the way of increased security. Having said that, the classic tourists attractions, like the Statue of Liberty, will undoubtedly have longer lines etc. And the Madison Square Garden area is already a mess, so I’d avoid that if you can.
As for recommendations, Times Square is much more family friendly lately, so if you like lots of people, it can be fun. Lots of new family oriented places. Central Park can be good as you know, but I’ve seen it tucker kids out who aren’t in a stroller, as it’s not that easy to get in and out of there unless you take a taxi. Having said that, the Zoo’s a favorite there. The Natural History Museum is always a hit too.
For more up to the minute events you can’t beat TimeOut New York’s Around Town section.
Thanks Edward. We’re staying in Hell’s Kitchen so we’ll probably avoid the financial centers and the touristy stuff well… that’s why we go on the ferry. I’d forgotten about the zoo though.
Moe can chime in too. I don’t want to seem partisan it’s just I’m not really sure if he lives in the city. But, in case he does, Moe please offer any suggestions you have as well.
The Staten Island ferry is a great idea. Free, no less.
The Natural History museum is a lot of fun. The new planetarium is supposed to be good, though exorbitantly priced–it may be a suggested donation, though, so if you’re willing to withstand a nasty look….
The Bronx zoo is better than the Central Park one, but too much of a hike for a short trip–the Central Park one is small but actually pretty nice.
I love the walk over the Brooklyn Bridge, and it’s on a walkway well protected from traffic, but there are a lot of cars whizzing by near the entrance and it’s in one of higher-alert parts of the city. (You take the 4,5 to Brooklyn Bridge.)
There’s also Coney Island–it has the aquarium and the Brooklyn Cyclones’ minor league team as well as the beach and the amusement park. You can reach it by subway. but it’s a very long ride.
Don’t know if the Mets or Yankees are in town. It’s disloyal of me to say so, but Yankee stadium is nicer than Shea–leaving aside all the triumphalist Yankee history, which is a downside for me, there are relatively few bad seats & it’s a pretty stadium. Both are on the subway, but the trip to the Bronx is quicker than the ride to the end of the 7 train.
My parents used to take us to FAO Schwarz & tell us it was a “toy museum”. They closed for renovations for a while, though; I don’t know if they’ve reopened.
Timmy: Katherine, I’m just wondering, as we approach 11 September, if the media is going to remember how our nation was attacked and why. Will we revist the event via video, which is always the very best way to tell a story.
Are you kidding me? The media may or may not show video of the attacks — they’ve got some strange ideas about what constitutes “appropriate” footage — but if you think for one moment there won’t be endless tributes, memorials, remembrances, honorings, encomia (and any other words you want to yank out of the thesaurus) in the run-up to 9/11, you’re off your friggin’ rocker.
[And that’s leaving aside any priming of the pump courtesy of the Republican Convention or any other political shenanigans. Lord knows how much that’s going to ramp up the general festivities.]
Phil: That assumes that everyone accepts as valid the premise that it isn’t, and is required to argue against that premise. Maybe I’ve just grown too jaded for my own good, Edward, but I expect this stuff to be politicized. It’s what politicians do.
I note that your response doesn’t answer Edward’s charge: whether you expect politicians to behave in this manner doesn’t actually speak to whether you regard this as acceptable behavior.
Frankly, Anarch, I don’t accept much of anything that politicians do as “acceptable behavior” anymore, but I don’t see much reason to get all het up about it, either. The power structures are in place, Democrats and Republicans have assured that everyone else is shut out (why the hell should someone on the ballot in all 50 states not be invited to the debates?), the pendulum does its mighty swing, and that’s that. The fact that people still act surprised by it amazes me more than anything the Parliament of Whores does.
The fact that people still act surprised by it amazes me more than anything the Parliament of Whores does.
The question then becomes, do you consider all unacceptable behavior to be equivalent? That is, do you believe there are no different levels of unacceptable behavior? No degrees of greater or lesser unacceptability?
Thanks Katherine,
The Yankees are out of town and as a Reds fan my son might enjoy watching the stars but I would quietly seethe.
The Mets? I agree their stadium is not a magnet so we’ll skip their home game.
The Brooklyn Bridge. Great idea. We already walk the bridges locally so that’s a terrific suggestion. Of course we’ll have to keep our eyes open for stalled cars or unclaimed backpacks.
I’ve always liked the storybook quality of the Central Park zoo despite its small size and limited variety. Maybe the Bronx next time.
Thanks again to both of you. Hope the weather isn’t too hot and humid.
Oh good grief…
Pre-9/11 acts led to alerts; Officials unsure spying on buildings continued