Latest Alert Data Is, Like, Really Old

I really want to trust that the alerts aren't being politicized, but this just makes things seem all the more Orwellian. However, I understand the information, some of which was two or three years old, was also supplemented with more recent material. Let's hope so.

But, when you've got Tom Ridge singing the praises of George W., even as he delivers a new alert, well, that seems simply unwise and unprofessional:

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President’s leadership in the war against terror.

There's a time and a place for delivering such partisan cheerleading, but it's not when you're in the middle of elevating the threat level to each and every citizen and resident of the United States. Anyone in Ridge's position should be above that--Democrat or Republican. Trying to defend it is unconscionable.

Imagine if Alan Greenspan got up one day and said, "We're raising the interests rates again today. We must understand that we're doing this because of improvements in the economy directly related to the President’s leadership in the nation's economy." Of course, an improvement in the economy bodes well for the future while an elevated terror does not, but you can imagine the outcry. It's the same principle. Greenspan should abstain from political favoritism, and stick to the facts (and, as far as I know, he usually does).

Here, Ridge is inferring that he has the ability to warn us--to keep us safe--because of Bush's leadership. As if another President wouldn't do the same thing. It's his job as Commander in Chief!

Tom Ridge should either take a page from the Alan Greenspan book of statesmanship or change roles. Maybe see about an internship with Karl Rove.

Having said that, I don't necessarily attribute any sort of Machiavellian fiber to Ridge's statement. He usually seems a little more sober. Perhaps it's just political naïveté. Wishful thinking. Or blind allegiance.