http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/30/ridge/index.html No surprise on Ridge, but last week there was speculation that Dubya was going to offer the DHS job to Joe Lieberman -- which would have had the tangential advantage of allowing a Connecticut GOP governor to name JoeMenton's replacement in the Senate. Some interesting other names on the replacement list -- Asa Hutchinson, Mitt Romney. Townsend would be another superclose Dubya insider, filling the ranks with another yes man.
The DHS is comprised of five major divisions or directorates: - Border & Transportation Security - Emergency Preparedness & Response - Science & Technology - Information Analysis & Infrastructure Protection - Management How do you grade Ridge on his leadership and effectiveness across those five divisions? I give him a flying ********ing "F" in all but the management; he certainly managed that alert system well.
But Mel, he had an impossible job. Merging all those already huge and entrenched bureacracies into one mega-agency while still managing to prevent further attacks is virtually impossible. There is no way that the person who presided over that was going to be successful. Luckily, we haven't been attacked again. Is that because DHS did a good job or is it because there hasn't been a concerted effort on anyone's part to attack us in a big way? Who knows. But of all the bozos in the Bush administration, Ridge is one of the few who didn't especially bother me.
I dunno, but I remember Bush saying in the debates that the only thing he got wrong were a few of his appointments. Evidently he was super-serious. Well, Rummy's job seems safe, so Bush is batting, what, one for twenty?
How would you have improved things? I ask out of genuine curiousity, not in a sarcastic way. I agree witht BarbaraJune that the job was nearly impossible.
Even if there has been this much turnover in previous administrations, I doubt there's ever been this much when we're "at war." That'll take some research to figure out, though.
Barb...let's talk about border patrol. Let's talk about plant control. How many airplanes have the hardened cockpit doors that Israel's airlines have had since the early 70's? Ridge should have been on the evening news RIPPING HIS HAIR out if he wasn't getting the funding he needed to take what to me are themost BASIC measures while we are off in Iraq to the tune of...how much now? Can't even remember. The fact that he wasn't doing that pulling his hair out, leaking funding inadequacies and their potential consequences, etc. - means one of three things, he didn't think to do that, he thinks that what he did was sufficient, or both (he didn't think to do that, but if he had, he would have ignored such thoughts as foolishness). In any case, he left the "Homeland" with as much work to do as when he started, a failure by any measure and any stretch of the imagination. He probably thinks that, like Ashcroft, all the work is somehow, osmotically, done.
I would have started with common sense things, some of which I mentioned above. Unless there's something BushCorp. knows that we don't (and, if so, why the "blanket alerts in response to general theats we've received), boarding checks for folks getting not just on planes, but on trains, etc., homeland security at plants, and not just pamphlets to security guards, I mean I really could go on and on. Why in the hell are NJ Rep. Bill Pascrell and other members of the Homeland Security Committee forced to write to Ridge to have him explain why Air Marshall funding is being cut? CUT? Why in the FVCK would Air Marshall funding be being cut? Ridge played BushCorp. politics with American lives, period.
In '72 every single one of Nixon's cabinet members left or was forced out. Not that that makes it a sinking ship or anything...
Just out of curiosity, how often do you fly? You said in a previous post that hardened doors have not been installed on US airliners. If I remember correctly (and I would be glad to be corrected) this has been required since 1 June 2002. I agree that there are a lot of other things that needed and need to be done, but some of the ones you highlighted were until last March under the Department of Transportation, which is headed by a holdover from the Clinton administration. It seems to me that Ridge was not ready for the amount of politics that is the norm for a department secretary in Washington. These folks have to be on the Hill almost constantly to protect their budgets and to maintain and solidify relationships with the congress. The Washington Post has said several times in the past that this was not Ridge's strong point and that he didn't like to be schmoozing congress constantly.
As of the above date the FAA and the DHS issued a press release submitting that 10,000 planes (of undetermined type and class) had been fitted with hardened cockpit doors. The ruling failed to include transport category aircraft at all, and in fact still does not include foriegn-operated transport category airplanes. On December 30, 2002 the FAA issued a final rule with a request for comments clarifying the applicability for cockpit security of foreign-operated transport category airplanes. The revision exempts foreign transport-category airplanes that were originally type certificated with a maximum passenger-seating configuration of 19 or less, which means that foreign operators utilizing business aircraft under CFR Part 129 do not need to meet the hardened cockpit door requirements as was originally stated in the rule. So, if a international mail carrier 767, configured to seat 4, gets hijacked by AQ, you'll know who to thank. I'm glad we agree on the obviousness of that truth. If we're not past blaming Clinton now, when will we be? Like I said, on all fronts except the duct tape one, a big fat stinking "F."
Thanks for the info. As a frequent flyer, the door hardening was one of the few things suggested that seemed to make any sense at all. Some of the other things, like stationing the NG in airports were clearly intended to give the non-flying public the impression that something was being done, while providing absolutely no additional security (and a lot more hassle) to flyers. This is pertinent because of your unfailing support of the Clintons and your constant attacks on the Bush administration. My point was that this is not an example of one party doing it better than the other.
Dude, I love you, and think that you bring at least a modicum (just a modicum ) of insight to this cluster, but if you can point to a single post of mine, ever, that unfailingly supports the Clinton administration, either directly or indirectly, I'll...I'll...I don't know what I'll do, but it'll have to top Gringo's avatar/sig homage to Segroves.
I think Barb's initial post nails it: It's an impossible position and, as it stands, a ridiculous propostion. The Ashcroft/Ridge DOJ/DHS power struggles were never resolved. In the end, they were decided on personality and political capital rather than any true hierarchy of authority between Justice and H.Security. Bush created this position and department to prove to the country he was doing something post 9/11. It's always been nothing but government via CYA and has slowly become a joke with the ever-increasingly pointless warnings and crossed-wires. But unringing this bell would be an impressive trick, to be sure.
It IS both of those to position that anyone holding such a position can GUARANTEE the safety of the "Homeland." That doesn't have much to do with the fact that Ridge could have done FAR more than he did though, and that he ought to be rebuked for spending so much time on duct tape announcements and terror alert levels, and not enough time on at least raising awareness of what really needed to be done just in terms of the obvious information already in the public domain. "F."