Former Homeland Security Inspector General pressured
By on May 1st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Former Homeland Security Inspector General pressured
to “tone down criticism of security failures” before 2004 election, ABC News reports. Clark Kent Ervin says he was confronted personally by then Secretary Tom Ridge “to intimidate me, to stare me down, to force me to back off, to not look into these areas that would be controversial, not to issue critical reports.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Boys will be boys. What do you expect when you’re running for the biggest job in the world? If Kerry could have done something, he would have. All he has is that stupid salute, “Reporting for Work” from the convention.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pmBoys will be boys.
Comment by RayFromGA — May 1, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Ray you make me embarrassed to live in Georgia.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:29 pmcheck out this site – has abc decided to grow a pair???
May 1st, 2006 at 2:38 pmthis story and others … w o w
Ervin says he believes another 9/ll hijack attack could be carried out. “I am quite confident that it could be done again,†he tells ABC News.
Hey Ray, do you feel safe?
May 1st, 2006 at 2:42 pmToo late….once again. Why can’t anyone come forward when something can be done about these things?
May 1st, 2006 at 2:45 pmToning down the ineptness of this administtration is tough work. Politically motivated cover-ups are hard work. By the way, has anyone been scared by a terror alert lately? After the 2004 elections I haven’t been as scared. Hhmmm.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:47 pmthat abc site had a story on Bush’s un-warranted domestic spying too… I hope this keeps up, the truth needs to get out there so people realize these crooks need to be impeached
May 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pm#1…. don’t you mean, “Cheaters will be cheaters?”
May 1st, 2006 at 3:14 pm#6
Funny you should ask. Look what I found when doing a bit of research a few minutes ago; this is from August 2004:
Bush administration officials used Sunday’s talk shows to defend last week’s heightened security alerts in three cities and to underscore the administration’s focus on terror threats.
“You have to go out and warn. You have a duty to warn,” national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
The decision to raise the alert level to orange, or elevated, for specific buildings in New York City; Newark, New Jersey; and Washington, D.C., has been criticized because it was based at least partly on information three or four years old.
Rice conceded that the surveillance of the buildings by al Qaeda operatives dates to before the attacks of September 11, 2001.
“But the information that there were plots under way that might relate to the pre-election period came from multiple sources, and active multiple sources,” Rice said.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/terror.threats/index.html
Funny that neither Condi nor the administration could have…no, wanted to…put forth that same effort after receiving the PDB of 8/6/01. As I recall, the info contained within was also based on “historical” information.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pmAnd speaking of people coming forward…remember this?
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or “high” risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
“More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,” Ridge told reporters. “Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert). … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?’ “
May 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pm#10
May 1st, 2006 at 3:44 pmWC,
Interesting info. I am in NYC and I seem to recall some buildings put onto alert and the NYPD was a little miffed about it because of how old the intelligence was but they still had to put in extra man hours and extra security all because someone in DHS wanting to make it look like they are doing something.
Before a troll calls me out on it, the source for the info in #10 is:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm
May 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pmdlet,
That is exactly what Ridge says he wanted to avoid. From the same article (not sure if you read it):
In most cases, Ridge said Homeland Security officials didn’t want to raise the level because they knew local governments and businesses would have to spend money putting temporary security upgrades in place.
Oh, and this little tidbit (again, from the same article):
The level is raised if a majority on the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I take it that Bush has the final say. Which is the way it is supposed to be. Which is another way of saying that Bush himself overrode the DHS.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmAll he has is that stupid salute, “Reporting for Work†from the convention.
Comment by RayFromGA — May 1, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Kerry’s salute beats Bush’s SEVEN minute blank stare………….
May 1st, 2006 at 4:58 pmI find it odd that the terror alert level hasnt been raised since the election, with one exception- we ’sympathy raised’ it when London was bombed in July 05. It really smacks of political deception- regardless of the facts, theres no denying how it looks. And that in and of itself is bad enough.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:01 pmThe Decider decided to sit there and finish “My Pet Goat”. He heard all the voices, sayin stuff like ‘The nation is under attack’, but in the end, the Decider makes the decisions. The Decider needed to know what happens to the goat.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pm#14 – Ohhhh, SNAP!
May 1st, 2006 at 6:07 pm#3 Don’t worry, we all have our inbred trailer trash.
#1 That would be “reporting for duty”. You know, because he actually…um…served?
May 1st, 2006 at 7:29 pmBy all means, don’t tell the truth — they “can’t handle the truth!”
May 1st, 2006 at 7:51 pmWe’re lying our asses off here in the White House, we can’t have you undermining our efforts with the truth.
Is it any wonder that the WH and the press were not thrilled with Colbert’s truthiness last Saturday night?
Marie at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Stephen Colbert gave a Truth-o-cution to the washington establishment; press, white house, congress, pentagon, and apologists…you know the backwash.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:04 pm