Podcast Interview: Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
EmailOn this week’s Political Punch Podcast, we spoke to Department of Homeland Security’s first Secretary, Tom Ridge, whose new book “The Test Of Our Times: America Under Siege… And How We Can Be Safe Again” has drawn some notice and criticism.
You can listen to the podcast on iTunes or by clicking HERE. The podcast was produced by Huma Khan and Lindsey Ellerson.
In his book, Ridge recalls wondering whether a push by Bush administration officials to raise the threat level just before the 2004 election was based in politics or national security concerns.
Ridge recalls a Cornell University study that found President Bush’s approval rating increased by nearly three percentage points each time the government issued a terror threat. He then recalls a conversation Cabinet officials had following the release of a video message from Osama bin Laden.
“On Friday, October 29, 2004, Osama bin Laden delivered a new videotape message that aired on the Arab language network Al Jazeera. The presidential election scheduled for the following Tuesday was tightening. The most recent polls had Bush leading Kerry by no more than two or three points. Having won my first congressional election by 729 votes and experienced the volatility of the election cycle during several campaigns, this race was literally a dead heat going into the final seventy-two hours,” Ridge writes.
"A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensued. (Attorney General John) Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld,” Ridge continues. “There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president's approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.”
I asked Ridge to tell us about that conference call.
“It is a dramatic weekend. It is the weekend before the presidential election. It is the same year that there had been an attack prior to the election in Spain,” Ridge recalled in the podcast interview. “There was a reason for us to call together the president’s Homeland Security Cabinet – basically that’s about two thirds of the Cabinet — to see if there was a consensus to raise the level of security and we raise the level of security when we change the threat level, so we felt very strongly there was no reason to raise it. Attorney General Ashcroft and Secretary Rumsfeld felt strongly that they should raise it – and again, these opinions were rendered back and forth on several times during a two year period whenever we saw something that was – that deserved discussion."
Ridge says that in the book "I ponder after it’s all over since, if I raise I’m the one that’s got to deal with the outcome and the states and everybody else and the consequence, 'Is it politics, is it security in the environment within which we’re operating?'”
He says that in the book “I’m not wondering whether or not Attorney General Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld are thinking anything other than security. We didn’t flip a coin to raise the threat level or to keep it low. We had a very thoughtful deliberative process and at the end of the day, while people are hyperventilating and trying to interpret what I wrote, the process worked, we didn’t go up and that’s what I mean to convey.”
“Is there any other reason that’s out there and perhaps this — expressed it unartfully — but I’m not suggesting that anybody in that room on that occasion or any other occasion was interested in doing anything other than the right thing to protect America,” he said.
Ridge, however, did point out a number of other decisions and tactics he did not agree with, such as the Republican party's 2002 Senate campaign against then-Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., that included a campaign with his face next to Osama bin Laden.
“After 9/11 – let’s be very clear about this — the whole notion of terrorism and what to do about it and how to deal with it, priorities in combating it etc. became very much a part of our political scenario and in politics – particularly in this day and age — everything is black and white, right or wrong, you or me. I like to think security is a lot of gray. It’s not as easy and it’s not black and white and at the end of the day some of the things we did right in the political world seemed to make sense to me and other times it didn’t,” Ridge said.
Ridge in the book also criticized the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program as unconstitutional.
“I believe the president felt from the a Constitutional point of view — in terms of providing for the common defense, he had every right to move ahead to that — to using that approach because the technology had outstripped the FISA Law – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” he said. “Everybody up on the Hill is saying, 'Well, you may interpret the Constitution that way but we’ve got a lawyer that says something else.'…I think they waited far far too long to engage Congress in the conversations.”
Ridge said the country is not any less safe under the new president but a lot more needs to be done in the security arena.
“I don’t think that President Obama fundamentally, in terms of the safety platform that we built to secure America, the relationships we have with the states and the locals, I don’t think that has changed. … I think we’re at least as safe as we were when he took over,” Ridge said, adding that there is “plenty of unfinished business.”
We also spoke to Ridge about the lack of intelligence sharing between government agencies, what went wrong during Hurricane Katrina, and much more.
You can listen to the podcast HERE or download it on iTunes.
-jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
“Obama’s job approval is down to about 50 percent. All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast.” – David Brooks, in the New York Times today.
Posted by: BH | September 1, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
EPIC FAIL on credibility.
Posted by: carl | September 1, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
Rasmussen today: 45% approve; 53% disapprove. 41% strongly disapprove.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 1, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
This Ridge guy is a LOSER !
He has NOTHING to offer this Country, or us, in general, with this lame attempt to “jump-start”, his flagging political career…such as that is, at this date.
Sucking up to TEAM OBAMA, isn’t going to endear him to the body politic. He doesn’t understand that they don’t want him, or anyone of his “type”, either!
The Mind boggles, that he, actually, felt this book was going to win him, even some temporary, “stardom” or attention.
He may be “Big” in PA, but this Country is better, for having sent him back home where he belongs.
Ridge is one of those turn-coat PA Republicans, like Arlen Specter, who does NOT have ANYTHING, in common, with the GOP. He is a crass Opportunist, who actually thinks saying the things, as he says in his book, will make him popular.
He is the Un-Obama politician, who is saddled with his un-trustworthy, and shifting loyalties.
I hope the voters in PA, shove him back under the rock, from which he has been hiding in, since is dismissal, from the Department of Homeland Security.
Posted by: MikeLI | September 1, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am
I don’t really care if Bush was playing politics with his fear traffic light. I kinda thought any thinking person already assumed that was going on. If it came out he orchestrated the timing of Bin Laden recordings being made public or something, that would be a big deal. But since that threat level warning is and was meaningless, who cares?
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am
MikeLI:”This Ridge guy is a LOSER !
He has NOTHING to offer this Country, or us, in general, with this lame attempt to “jump-start”, his flagging political career…such as that is, at this date.”
Sure toss him on the “LOSER” pile with Paul O’Neil, Anthony Zinni, Richard Clarke and any other ex-administration member even slightly critical of the Bush administration. Odd how Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc never had this problem with the professionals they actually worked with being “LOSER”s who later made up unflattering stories about their competency and/or motivations.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 9:54 am 9:54 am
“The latest Zogby Interactive poll of 4,518 likely voters conducted from August 28-31 found 48% disapprove and 42% approve of the job Obama is doing.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 1, 2009, 10:04 am 10:04 am
Yeah, I think I’ll pass on listening to the podcast. And reading his book.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 10:05 am 10:05 am
This isnt about Obamas Approval ratings you wing nuts, This is about how Bush and His Administration Used Politicts and FEAR MONGERING To win the Election! thats what the Republicans do, They FEAR MONGER Try to scare you. look at them with the Healthcare Debate trying to scare old people about death panels,Medicare cuts,Illegal aliens covered, FEAR MONGERING REPUBLICANS Thats how they campaign and you gulliable people fall for it!
Posted by: Angie in PA | September 1, 2009, 10:19 am 10:19 am
It sounds like Bush had a real Team of Rivals.
They argued their points with each other. In this case, Ridge won.
Posted by: MayBee | September 1, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am
MIKEL
He resigned he wasnt dismissed, He resigned because he knew what the Bush Admin was doing and it wasnt right and Cheney talks about Obama playing Politicts with the Torture. Meanwhile thats all Cheney did with 911 Play Politicts!and FEAR MONGER
Posted by: Angie in PA | September 1, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
Left wing liars trying to cover for Obama and his choice of communist advisors to his administration.. This is getting toooooooooo good….Hmmmmmmmm Tell me again why we need a national civilian force funded like the military? Who are you afraid of Obama? Seniors refusing to die? next up.. billboards with Van jones and Obama hugging LMAO. time left on this post 5-4-3-2-1
Posted by: windturbines on cape cod..finally | September 1, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
“Tell me again why we need a national civilian force funded like the military?”
windturbines on cape cod..finally | Sep 1, 2009 10:30:55 AM
? We have many civilian forces funded like the military – police, teachers, firefighters, Congress, etc; all typically have funding structures similar to the military. We’re not a military dictatorship, so although we have a well funded military the civilian government is primary.
Personally, although I am an Obama supporter, I am in favor of more reliance on civilian forces (which have many different overseeing elements) than the military (which has a single commander in chief – the President) domestically. As the Founding Fathers knew well, the military should have little to no domestic function. The reliance on them for disaster management has crept into clean up and long term aid, which is a worrisome (making an active service combat trained soldier a New Orleans police officer is a Bad Idea).
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 10:40 am 10:40 am
than the military (which has a single commander in chief – the President) domestically
=========
Well….yes, but
The National Guard, when used domestically, is under the charge of the Governor of their states.
Posted by: MayBee | September 1, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
National Civilian “Security” Force. You left out part of it. Why do we need a “security” force as well funded as the military? The federal government does not provide the police, firefighters, school teachers (security force?), etc. So, once again, why does Obama need a National Civilian “Security” Force?
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
One way to stop the rumors you’re a secret Muslim? Celebrate Ramadan while avoiding the National Prayer Day Breakfast.
“In the evening, the President will host a dinner celebrating Ramadan and highlight the contributions of American Muslims in the State Dining Room. The President’s remarks will be pooled press.”
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Judging by the interest shown Mr. Ridge on this thread, his book will not be a #1 bestseller. Bummer.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
“National Civilian “Security” Force. You left out part of it. Why do we need a “security” force as well funded as the military?”
Axey | Sep 1, 2009 11:03:15 AM
*I* left part of it out? You’re absurd. Anyone who cares what Obama really said, I recommend you hit the Cheney-recommended Factcheck site to get the truth (Short version: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.)
Our diplomatic corps (which was included in the definition of civilian security force in the speech you refuse to accurately cite) is our first line of intelligence gathering and outreach – of course it should be expanded. Likewise the Peace Corps is critical to winning hearts and minds. Americorps is a proven program, where the government can buy good talent cheap and put it to use where our nation needs it.
Go read the actual speech.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
A couple relevant paragraphs from the speech that is grist for the current Republican fearmongering:
“We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.
We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.”
Oooo, scary.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
===We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.===
What national security objectives have “we” set that we need something other than the military in order to achieve it?
====We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.===
Thanks for providing the quote so I didn’t have to.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Axey: “What national security objectives have “we” set that we need something other than the military in order to achieve it?
====We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.===”
So now you’d have all diplomats replaced by the military? Have inner city crime ridden areas be provided with teachers by the military? Have the military teach villagers in Togo how to rotate crops (and appreciate Americans and their culture) by the military? Have the military perform clean up work after a flood in Iowa? Have the military man relief tents during wildfire fighting efforts? Have the military run housing inspections after a hurricane?
Or you’re a fool and think security is just about pointing a gun.
“Thanks for providing the quote so I didn’t have to.”
I provided it, but apparently you didn’t read it.
“And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.”
Those sentences are not together in the same paragraph by coincidence. I’ll leave it up to anyone reading to decide who is dishonestly representing the intent of this speech.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 11:35 am 11:35 am
I’ll just point out he went off-script that day. He wanders off repeatedly and reveals stuff he probably would rather he hadn’t. And I know his prepared remarks were on corps. Lots and lots of them. I don’t understand what they have to do with “national security”.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 11:37 am 11:37 am
===Or you’re a fool and think security is just about pointing a gun. ===
A “civilian national security force”.
“Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded”.
==== I’ll leave it up to anyone reading to decide who is dishonestly representing the intent of this speech. ===
That’s good. Since you seem to be a mind reader where Obama is concerned. He should have stayed on script.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
“That’s good. Since you seem to be a mind reader where Obama is concerned. He should have stayed on script.”
Axey | Sep 1, 2009 11:42:28 AM
If he was off script, he had astonishingly (and unusually) good grammatical structure. And you answered NONE of my questions – do you not consider the ‘war for hearts and minds’ important in the fight against terrorism, or do you think our military should be out there recommending crop rotations to subsistence level farmers rather than the Peace Corps (or would you prefer someone like the local Imam or druglord)?
His entire speech is available, July 2 Colorado Springs.
Posted by: jhw539 | September 1, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
-We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.-
Yeah, worked so well in NOLA. Bush’s fault and all that. God forbid people take care of themselves.
Posted by: Lazy | September 1, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
===(which was included in the definition of civilian security force in the speech you refuse to accurately cite===
Why do you continually accuse me of not accurately citing Obama? I provided his words, exactly as he said them.
“civilian national security force”
An exact quote. You are the one that leaves out his words. First you used the benign “civilian forces”. I pointed out you left out “security”. Now you leave out “national”.
I do not want a “civilian national security force” “Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military.
I read today where Holder is starting the process though.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
===If he was off script, he had astonishingly (and unusually) good grammatical structure.===
His remarks that day were released ahead of time. As you say, look it up.
===And you answered NONE of my questions -===
I answer your questions all the time. You don’t like my answers. I do not want a “civilian national security force” “Just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military. Whether they go by the name Organizing for America or some other name. When Obama uses the term “national” I tend to use the most obvious definition. National Guard. National Weather Service. Arlington National Cemetery. I don’t hear the word “national” and think Afghanistan.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
Axey,
I don”t like your attitude. Don’t you know the gov’t is the solution to all our problems? I’m loving this. Liberals used to hate the military and National Guard, now they want another one! Kent State Part II!
Posted by: Lazy | September 1, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
“And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.”
Oh, how wonderful!
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 1, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
===I don”t like your attitude. ===
I hope you don’t think you’re the first to say that to me.
=== Don’t you know the gov’t is the solution to all our problems? ===
Not from where I come from. The scariest words in the English language are still “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.
===Liberals used to hate the military and National Guard, now they want another one! Kent State Part II! ===
Yeah, well go visit the thread about how Obama is killing more terrorists than Bush did if you want to see a truly remarkable turnabout. And truthfully, from both sides. I applaud Obama for carrying on with Bush’s policies with regard to the WOT all the while making the left think he is different and defending him for killing more people than evil Bush/Cheney. That, my friend, is an achievement.
Posted by: Axey | September 1, 2009, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
The thing I love most of all about the catastrophic drop in this man’s approval is that the goofballs think it’s because lies are being told about him, and a gullible public believes those lies (while somehow rejecting Obama’s own lies).
That’s not what’s happening. “Conservatives” now have a plurality in all fifty states. They are rejecting this president’s agenda, and they are rejecting it flatly and out of hand. He can buy all the TV ads he wants about his health care proposals; it won’t do him any good. People know what he’s selling, and they’re not buying.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 1, 2009, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
With approval near ninety percent
Harry Truman was a popular gent
But within just a year
Fell ‘neath fifty, oh dear
And term 2 had a deeper descent!
Posted by: Commie Coyote | September 1, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
“And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.”
True.
Posted by: julieterra | September 1, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm