Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Politicizing Intelligence? Security and Partisan Politics

The first 10 days of August 2004 revealed Democrat-Republican conflicts on several security issues, including the 9/11 Commission report, the increased security threat, and the Bush administration’s nomination of a new CIA director.

Everyone is concerned about security, so to win votes, the parties are trying to convince us that one candidate will make us secure and the other will put us in danger.

But we know that neither candidate will make us 100% safe a 100% of the time. And neither candidate will deliberately jeopardize our safety. With that in mind, we can look at the strategies of each party, and see how safety, a common concern, has become a partisan issue.

9/11 Commission Report

Both John Kerry and George Bush have publicly approved of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation for a new National Counterterrorism Center and National Intelligence Director.

Kerry’s widely publicized endorsement of the Commission’s recommendations helped him in the polls; data show that people see Kerry as more assertive in the war on terror than they did before, narrowing the gap between Kerry and Bush on the issue of security.

Though Bush supports some of the Commission’s recommendations, he has not accepted all of them. Bush is concerned about giving the National Security Director power over security and intelligence funds. Bush’s position on the 9/11 Commission report is not well understood by the public, according to The Washington Post.

But to show that Bush is moving forward on the issue of security, the administration decided to proceed with the nomination of Representative Porter J. Goss to head the CIA.

For more on the 9/11 Commission’s final report, click here.

Timing is everything

Nominating Goss helps Bush to appear assertive about reforming security. In addition, the nomination headlines buried stories about Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi’s meeting.

Pelosi called for a special congressional session in which house members would interrupt their summer vacations in order to pass security reforms before the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks. This too is an attempt to show Americans that the party is serious about security.

Nominating a new leader

George Tenet stepped down from his post as CIA chief on July 11, 2004, after months of criticism that the Central Intelligence Agency failed on 9/11. His likely replacement, Porter Goss, served in the CIA for 10 years and was responsible for congressional oversight of the CIA since 1997. Since the 9/11 report concluded that congressional oversight failed prior to the 9/11 attacks, many feel that Goss is a poor choice.

Democrats charge Goss with being strongly partisan, and many argue that the CIA chief should be anything but. The agency needs to form good relationships with officials from both parties and to make choices based on facts, not elections or party politics.

Also at issue is the CIA itself. No one knows just how that department will change if a new National Counterterrorism Center is created or just how the CIA director would work with a National Intelligence Director.

The Senate must approve Goss before he becomes head of the CIA. Although Democrats don’t favor Goss, they are expected to support his nomination; they do not want to appear to be obstructing homeland security.

Although Democrats could filibuster the nomination, Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, suggests that the Democrats will agree to Goss, as long as Bush agrees to accept the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations in full.

A pressing issue

Democrats and Republicans agree that security is the nation’s most pressing issue. On Sunday, August 1, 2004, the Bush administration raised the threat level to Code Orange for Washington D.C., northern New Jersey, and the financial services sector in New York City. The rest of the country continues to be at Code Yellow.

Code Orange indicates a high risk of terrorist attacks. The Bush administration decided that raising the threat level was worth the cost to national morale and to the economy, since the Al Qaeda plans were extraordinarily detailed and complete.

But some question the timing of the code change; it directly followed the Democratic National Convention and therefore stole the spotlight from Kerry and Edwards. Governor Howard Dean of Vermont insinuated that the White House manipulated the release of information to aid Bush’s campaign. There is also a question as to the urgency of the information, since it is 3 to 4 years old. However, it is reportedly new to domestic security advisors and could be related to current Al Qaeda plans, since the group often takes several years to plan an attack.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge denied any politicking. Republicans pointed out that the information did not only inspire the orange alert, but also led to the questioning of 12 men in Britain and to one arrest.

The code change also caused the Dow Jones industrial Average and the Nasdaq to fall.

How valuable is the color-coded terror alert system?

The Department of Homeland Security explains that raising the threat level allows for increased protection in and around buildings that are at risk and raises awareness for employees, residents, customers and visitors.

Residents in these areas should expect to see special buffer zones that secure building perimeters from unauthorized cars and trucks, restrictions to affected underground parking, security personnel with identification badges and digital photos to keep track of people entering and exiting buildings, increased law enforcement presence, and robust screening of vehicles, packages and deliveries.

But some say that this system does little to inform of terrorist threats and often causes Americans to feel afraid and helpless. In an August 11, 2004 opinion-editorial in The New York Times, Phillip Bobbitt, law professor at the University of Texas and author of "The War on Terror," suggests a three-tiered alert system to replace the single color-coded one.

Bobbitt distinguishes between informing, alerting, and warning. He suggests that the government should inform the public about types of threats, alert federal and local officials when something may happen -- but there is no indication of where or when, and warn the public directly if there is specific information about a location or time of attack.

What do you think is the best strategy for informing the public about terrorist threats? Discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums.

To inform yourself on security and other Life Issues, use WomenMatter as a resource.

You can also sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted. Be sure to register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 8/17/2004