by JUDD LEGUM & DAVID SIROTA
On August 11, John Kerry criticized the Bush Administration for
blocking a bipartisan plan to give seniors access to lower-priced
prescription drugs from Canada. With almost 80 percent of Medicare
recipients supporting Kerry's position, the Bush campaign was faced
with the prospect of defending a politically unpopular position.
That same day, in an interview with the Associated Press, FDA Acting
Commissioner Lester Crawford said terrorist "cues from chatter" led him
to believe Al Qaeda may try to attack Americans by contaminating
imported prescription drugs. Crawford refused to provide any details to
substantiate his claims.
Asked about Crawford's comments, a spokesman for the Department of
Homeland Security was forced to concede, "We have no specific
information now about any Al Qaeda threats to our food or drug supply."
The Administration had brazenly used Americans' justifiable fears of a
future terrorist attack to parry a routine criticism of its policies.
How did it come to this?
Crawford's comments were the latest iteration of a political
strategy--hatched in the days after 9/11--that has spiraled out of
control. What started as an effort to leverage early support for the
President on national security issues has expanded into the
politicization of our country's safety and security infrastructure.
That process has damaged the credibility of the federal government and
made all Americans less secure.
Revving the Engines
In the weeks following 9/11, President Bush's popularity--which was
languishing at around 50 percent in August 2001--soared to 90 percent.
By mid-October 2001, support for Republicans in Congress--which was at
just 37 percent in August--had shot up thirty points. After Republicans
lost most major 2001 gubernatorial races to Democrats, GOP strategists
realized that the key to electoral success was tapping into the
post-9/11 fear of terrorism and focusing on security issues.
On January 19, 2002--just nineteen weeks after the 9/11 attacks--Bush's
top political adviser, Karl Rove, told a high-level gathering at the
Republican National Committee to "go to the country" and tell the
American people they can "trust the Republican Party to do a better job
of...protecting America." Soon afterward, Bush authorized the
Republican Party to sell photographs of himself aboard Air Force One,
looking concerned and talking on a red telephone to the Vice President
on 9/11.
As the 2002 midterm elections neared, White House political director
Ken Mehlman developed a secret PowerPoint presentation--which was made
public after being dropped in a park--urging Republican candidates to
highlight fears of future terrorist attacks. In the most outrageous
example, Georgia Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss, who had avoided
service in Vietnam, ran campaign commercials drawing parallels between
triple amputee Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland and Osama bin Laden.
President Bush reinforced these tactics by barnstorming the country--he
made seventeen appearances in the last week of the campaign
alone--emphasizing the threat posed by Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and
impugning the security credentials of Democrats. Campaigning in New
Jersey in late September, Bush claimed Democrats in the Senate were
"not interested in the security of the American people."
The strategy was successful, and on Election Day 2002, Republicans made significant gains in the House and Senate.
Getting Up to Speed
In January 2003, eager to repeat their success, the Republicans decided
to hold their convention in New York City in late August and early
September of 2004--the latest date a convention has ever been held. The
move insured that Ground Zero would be their backdrop on the eve of the
three-year anniversary of 9/11.
And it did not stop there. The Bush team's first political ads featured
grisly images of firefighters carrying flag-draped coffins out of the
rubble of the World Trade Center. But the spots backfired after
firefighters and 9/11 victims' families accused the campaign of seeking
to exploit the attacks for political gain.
Republicans were forced to adopt alternative tactics, this time through
mythmaking. In the spring, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma told a
group of Republicans that "if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin
Laden wins the election." He was echoed by the right-wing media. One
nationally syndicated columnist wrote, "Which candidate does our enemy
want to lose? George W. Bush." Fox News pundit Monica Crowley similarly
observed, "America's adversaries want to see John Kerry elected." Later
that month, Republican political operatives commissioned an
"independent" poll that purported to find that "60 percent of
registered voters believed that terrorists would support John Kerry in
this year's presidential elections." The poll was so suspect that only
the right-wing media reported it. But it helped advance the story.
By May, CNN Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena "reported"
that there was "some speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better
chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House."
The Bush campaign, meanwhile, sought to bolster this speculation with a
new barrage of campaign advertisements distorting Kerry's voting record
on defense and intelligence issues. All this despite Bush's January
2002 promise that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use the war [on
'terrorism'] as a political issue."
But the images, partisan attacks and myths were not improving the
President's poll numbers fast enough to counterbalance damage brought
on by violence in Iraq and a sluggish economy. On May 16, a new Gallup
poll showed the President's job-approval rating had fallen to 46
percent. Days later, as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was taking its
toll on the White House, the media uncovered new information suggesting
that responsibility for the scandal reached to top Administration
officials.
In short, more was needed.
Overdrive
This is when mounting evidence began to indicate that the timing and
substance of the government's terror warnings were being driven, in
part, by political considerations.
On May 26 Attorney General John Ashcroft held a dramatic press
conference announcing that Al Qaeda was "almost ready to attack the
United States" and had the "specific intention to hit the United States
hard." But Ashcroft did not provide any new or specific information,
the Homeland Security Department did not raise the terrorism threat
alert level, and a senior Administration official told the New York
Times that there was "no real new intelligence" to substantiate the
warning.
In July, two days after Kerry selected John Edwards as his running
mate, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge held a press conference of
his own to say that "Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry
out a large-scale attack in the United States." Again, he did not
elaborate on what was new about his statement and was forced to admit,
"We lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack."
That same month, The New Republic reported that top Pakistani security
officials were being pressured by the Bush Administration to announce
the capture of high-value terrorist targets during the Democratic
National Convention. The White House responded with a standard denial,
and the rest of the media ultimately brushed it off as an
uncorroborated conspiracy theory.
But on July 29, just hours before Kerry's keynote address, Pakistan
announced the capture of Al Qaeda suspect Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani.
Curiously, he had been apprehended five days earlier. Even more
suspect: The announcement was made at midnight Pakistani time, when
most Pakistanis were asleep, but at the perfect time to coincide with
America's prime-time television news schedule.
A few days later--during the period when attention to nominee Kerry
would traditionally lead to a bounce in popularity--Ridge announced
that he was raising the threat level in New York City, Northern New
Jersey and the District of Columbia to "Code Orange." He claimed the
threat level was being raised because of "new and unusually specific
information about where Al Qaeda would like to attack." Undermining his
claim that "we don't do politics in the Department of Homeland
Security," he wove a campaign-style endorsement of the President into
his warning: "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," Ridge declared just a few breaths after invoking
frightening images of "explosives," "weapons of mass destruction" and
"biological pathogens."
But Ridge neglected to mention that most of the information was at
least three years old, much of it surveillance data that had been
collected before 9/11. Ridge also conceded that New York City--which
was already at "Code Orange" before his announcement--would not raise
its level of alert.
A week later the right-wing media did its best to deflect the
embarrassment by once again dredging up the myth that a vote against
Bush is a vote for terrorists. The conservative Washington Times ran a
front-page story quoting Bush officials as saying that in the upcoming
election, "the view of Al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'" Again, they
provided no proof to back up the claim.
Speaking to voters in Iowa on September 7, Cheney expressed what is now
the very public message of the Bush campaign: "It's absolutely
essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right
choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that
we'll get hit again. And we'll be hit in a way that will be
devastating." In other words, vote for us or you'll die.
The double talk and political opportunism by the Administration on
these issues go beyond poor taste. By sending conflicting messages to
the public, Administration officials create confusion about what
actually poses a threat. Beyond that, each unnecessary warning produces
"threat fatigue"--the tendency to ignore warnings when they are
repeated--in the American public. That means Americans will become less
receptive to truly urgent terrorism warnings when they arise. And if
recent polling is any indication, this erosion in public confidence is
already occurring. A new survey by Columbia University found that 59
percent of those polled would not evacuate their town immediately if
directed to do so by the government.
This is not to imply that the threat of terrorism isn't real. There is
no reason to doubt the staff statement of the bipartisan 9/11
Commission that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are
"actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass
casualties." That means the government has a solemn obligation to do
whatever is required to protect the American people from this threat.
But there are now justifiable doubts about what is actually dictating
our government's actions. Today critical decisions appear to be guided
by political operatives instead of terrorism experts. And in the long
run, that has weakened national security--the very issue Republicans
want so desperately to call their own.