Yellow is for politics

WASHINGTON – It's now plain that the administration's color-coded threat alert is more useful as a political barometer than a terror warning system.

Despite al-Qaida's bombing of Americans in Saudi, despite signs Osama bin Laden is still calling the shots, despite his renewed threats against America, despite increased terrorist "chatter," and despite the discovery of al-Qaida agents scouting new U.S. targets to hit, the Homeland Security Department has decided there is no need to raise the threat level from yellow to orange. The risk of a terrorist attack, according to your government, is not high right now.

Meanwhile, the State Department is evacuating Americans from Saudi Arabia and other places abroad, and the FBI is warning state and local police to be on the lookout for car bombers and bomb-laden planes buzzing around gas refineries and nuke plants.

Recall that as we went to war, the administration hiked the threat level to orange – high – warning that al-Qaida would use the war as a pretext for launching attacks against America. Homeland Security sent us scrambling for duct tape and plastic sheeting to protect us from nerve agents and other alleged weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein allegedly shared with bin Laden in their alleged terror co-op.

But the warning dovetailed nicely with the administration's main excuses for launching a preemptive strike on, and takeover of, Iraq. After the war, it was safe to lower it back to yellow, because our troops had driven Saddam from power and the threat had passed, or so the administration said.

In not elevating the warning now, the administration explains it has no specific and credible threats of terrorist attacks against targets in America.

But it didn't have any concrete threats when it raised the alert to orange during last year's 9-11 anniversary. That move was based on increased "chatter" among Islamic fundamentalists overseas.

Nor did it have specific and credible threats of a major homeland attack during the Iraq war. The justification for raising the alert to orange was based almost entirely on theory – a theory that never panned out, but one that helped convince the American people that al-Qaida and Iraq were linked.

Difference is, now the administration has a potential political liability going into the 2004 campaign cycle, and is loath to draw attention to it.

Al-Qaida was supposed to be "weakened," not revived; and bin Laden was supposed to be "on the run," not issuing new attack orders. Raising the threat level now would only confirm al-Qaida's resurgence, and call into question the administration's focus on Saddam while bin Laden was still on the prowl.

A similar political dynamic was at work last October – right before the mid-term congressional election – when al-Qaida blew up nearly 200 people, including several Americans, in Bali. It also attacked Americans in Kuwait, the Philippines and Jordan.

Even as the CIA director warned Congress that the al-Qaida threat environment was "as bad as it was the summer before 9-11," the administration chose not to warn the American people.

The White House explained that there were no specific or credible threats, yet the State Department cited "credible indications" of new al-Qaida attacks in issuing a 6-month-long "Worldwide Caution" that warned U.S. workers abroad to confine their activities to their homes and offices. In an update, it cited "the statement released by Usama bin Laden" in a tape-recording authenticated by the CIA.

So what would have been the harm in alerting Americans at home? None, really. The administration warned them unnecessarily around Sept. 11, 2002, and again during the Iraq war, without much harm (although many hardware stores refused to refund duct-tape sales, and some hapless souls entombed themselves in plastic-sealed rooms).

The potential harm last fall was political, just as it is now. Amplifying the al-Qaida threat and bin Laden's survival just weeks before the congressional election may have hurt the president's party at the polls, jeopardizing his chances at control of the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Most Republicans, at least the ones who listen to Bush dittohead Rush Limbaugh, were under the impression that bin Laden was not just on the run, but dead. Why spoil that?

But they can be forgiven for such wishful thinking (savvy Limbaugh notwithstanding), given how the president studiously avoided mentioning bin Laden by name, even while talking about the state of terrorism at the State of the Union.

Now the president himself is up for re-election. He doesn't want to run against bin Laden. Why put the orange or red spotlight on him?

Most Americans think their government would never play politics with national security, at least not after what happened on Sept. 11.

Sperry stood up to Clinton years ago and, I believe, was thrown off the White House Press Corp because of it. With that, he gained my respect. But I'm a bit leery about this theory. When the threat level is raised from yellow to orange, governmental agencies from the national to local levels operate differently. Of course I'm not privy to these operational details, but it is my understanding that they are quite costly.

Many of us, as post 9/11 citizens, are noticing more and alert to suspicious behavior regardless of the threat level. IMHO, the administration is being fiscally responsible in this case - not political.

Then bin Laden struck. Oops.

This passage should have been all you needed to see to understand the "agenda" of the person writing it. Conspiracy theories about the motives of the administration, the use of the snide reference to a pre-emptive attack, and the completely false assertion that "the threat had passed, or so the administration said". (I dare him to prove that, btw) Lastly, the casually cruel reference to the latest bombing with a childishly gleeful "oops", signals that this is a hit piece of the worst caliber.

Don't be so easily fooled.

I disagree. While I can't explain why we haven't changed alert level, I don't buy that we're downplaying the terror threat for political reasons. Not least because the election is a long way off still and a terror attack between now and then would be less damaging had the Administration prepared the people for it.

But just yesterday Bush repeated his mantra: We are in for a long war. It won't be won anytime soon. He says that every time the subject comes up. Sperry omits that from his piece because it weakens his case. I expect better from him.

Which brings us back to the terror threat level and a couple of theories. First is that al-Qaeda isn't really a threat anymore, but there may be splinter groups or wannabe's with evil in mind. Second is that whatever threat exists is the problem of the Saudis and that there is some unspoken truce that removes the U.S. from peril. Farfetched perhaps, but our recent access to new oil supply doesn't exactly hurt that theory.

Columnists have deadlines. They have to write about something. They need to grab the readers' attention.

It's important to remember that a "column" is not a "news article" --- it is an "opinion piece" crafted by the writer to sell his opinion.

That pertinent facts are omitted in his column, (see posts #3 and #4) --- just be glad that Sperry's deceit is in his column, not on the front page, like the NYTimes!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.