In the 1997 movie “Wag the Dog,” a wily political consultant and a big-time Hollywood producer concoct a fake war to cover up a presidential sex scandal. In 1998, when President Clinton ordered military strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response to terrorist attacks on U.S. sites abroad, some critics accused him of trying to divert attention from his own sex scandal.
After a new terror alert was issued Sunday for financial landmarks on the East Coast, similar charges surfaced. Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean gave voice to the conspiracy theories, suggesting that such terror alerts were a “trump card” for the administration when “something happens that’s not good for President Bush.” Others have suggested the White House is mounting a re-election bid predicated on public fear.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has wisely distanced himself from such irresponsible remarks. “I haven’t suggested that and I won’t suggest that,” Kerry told CNN.
That’s smart for two reasons. First, if an attack were to occur, such shortsighted criticism would create an instant and profound backlash. Second, criticizing the administration for doing what most Americans demand–that is, timely, focused warnings on potential terrorist attacks–is misguided, if not worse.
But the debate persists over whether the warnings issued last weekend had a political hue. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge didn’t help his boss when, in the midst of announcing the alert, he squirted in what amounted to a George Bush testimonial. “The kind of information available to us today is the result of the president’s leadership in the war against terror,” Ridge said. He would be wise in the coming weeks to stick to facts and skip the campaign commercials.
It is the height of cynicism, though, to suggest that the terror alert was prompted by political timing or political considerations. It was prompted, from everything we can see, by recently received and credible evidence of specific danger.
The government and the American people are still learning how to evaluate the risks of terrorism and the warnings about its possibly imminent approach. There’s a risk in raising alarms that come to nothing, lest people come to discount them. But if the government had received information about Al Qaeda surveillance of specific buildings–no matter how old the information was–and had not revealed it, the government would have been negligent.
Security was ratcheted up; people went to work. It would be tragic, though, if cynicism about political motives behind alerts somehow convinces Americans that the danger is illusory.
