5/28/2004
Tom Ridge, resignation, and Ashcroft/Mueller
Watching Secretary Ridge answer the legitimate questions which seemed not to be coming from Charlie Rose's usual anti-conservative mindset, it struck me that her was the man entrusted to "mobilize and organize our nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks" [from the DHS web site].
It further struck me that no one -- aside from this fellow -- had yet called upon him to resign. Why not? To be fair, if they want the heads of John Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Tenet, then what of Secretary Ridge. Perhaps because he is not perceived as being as threatening as the others.
And there is the mild flap over Ashcroft and FBI Director Bill Mueller sounding a terror alert without first consulting Secretary Ridge. Evidently, Ridge thought that Ashcroft and Mueller were going to discuss simply the seven wanted fugitives, not tinker with how alert Americans were to be. In fact, on ABC's Good Morning America Wednesday, the Secretary said that the threats we faced were "not the most disturbing that I have personally seen during the past couple of years."
The following is from Representative Chris Cox (R-California):
"The reason that Congress created the Department of Homeland Security is that we need to merge the various parts of government responsible for pieces of the war on terrorism into one coordinated effort," said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the homeland security committee.I personally see this as the three men doing what they believe is their responsibility, and we know that Ashcroft and Mueller would have had to go through Ridge if they wished to raise the security alert level.
Cox said it was "regrettable" that Ridge did not appear with Ashcroft and Mueller "because their separate public appearances conveyed the impression that the broad and close interagency consultation we expect ... may not have taken place in this case." He noted that the 2002 law creating the department puts the secretary in charge of issuing "public advisories relating to threats to homeland security."
Has Tom Ridge been given protected status by the Dems and the media, similar to that Secretary Powell enjoys? Is the (collective) press attempting to portray Ridge as insulated from what is really going on in the Bush Administration, much as they have done the same to Powell?
0 comments





