Don't believe everything that you read or hear, Part 1

"Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge says he successfully countered an effort by senior Bush administration officials to raise the nation's terror alert level in the days before the 2004 presidential vote." Ridge says this in his new book. However, the woman who chaired the meeting at which this was said to have happened tells a somewhat different, and more believable, story: Frances Townsend: Tom Ridge has it wrong.

Why do I believe her? First off, as Ms. Townsend points out, raising the threat level probably would have been perceived as political, producing a negative effect, rather than positive, for Bush. People realized this, making it a non-issue for those in the meeting. Someone in the comments to the later news article misunderstands what Townsend said in the interview, saying that she contradicted herself about politics being discussed in the meeting. First she said, "Not only do I not think that it – that politics played any part in it at all – it was never discussed.... There was no discussion of politics whatsoever." Later she says, "not only was there no discussion in those meetings, the discussions on the margins...there was concern if the intelligence supported raising the threat level it might actually be to the detriment of President Bush because people might perceive it being political."This last was incorrectly interpreted as taking place in the meeting in question, but any discussion of politics was between participants in a series of meetings outside of those meetings. If Ridge was right, and there were politics involved in what the threat level was set at, it would have influenced it to be lower, not higher.

Second, I don't see what Ms. Townsend has to gain by disputing this claim by Tom Ridge. Ridge, on the other hand, has a book to sell, and possibly a reputation for independence to support.

Third, I can see a scenario where politics was involved, but politics between departments, not involving the electorate. Or, I could see it as professional caution or paranoia, since the two that wanted to raise the threat level--Ashcroft and Rumsfeld--were quite likely to be blamed if something did happen and the threat level had not been raised.

Fourth, Bush has been blamed for so many things that it is easy to blame him or something and be believed. One of the best ways to be listened to is to blame Bush for something. The press automatically assumes Bush was wrong and the person laying the blame is a hero. And all the brainless ones out there follow right along....