An election for questions

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced Aug. 1 that the U.S. intelligence community had obtained "new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaida would like to attack." These targets included U.S. financial centers in New York, Newark, N.J., and Washington D.C.\nWhile recently obtained, this new and unusually specific intelligence turned out to be dated -- three or four years old, but updated in January of this year.\nAnd then damage control was needed when everyone decided to kick the newly heightened security alert around like a political football.\nHoward Dean, the former governor of Vermont, questioned the "unusual" timing of the release, a mere few days following the Democratic National Convention in Boston, and claimed that when something goes poorly for President Bush, he plays his "trump card" -- terrorism.\nRidge, who said the Department of Homeland Security doesn't play politics a few days after he had praised the president's leadership when he announced the new alert, went on the defensive, saying while the intelligence was old, the threat was real.\nRetired Gen. Merrill McPeak, Air Force chief of staff during the first war in Iraq and a Kerry supporter, said he did not think the Bush administration raised the terrorism alert for political reasons, but added, "Isn't it a sad fact that the question even arises?"\nSad? Sure. But necessary? You bet.\nWe don't know why the most recent alert was released when it was or how credible the threat was. The media, of course, does not have unfettered access to intelligence information, Some of us do take the government at its word; others want to, but are unsure; and still others don't believe the government. \nBut we do know we're in a political season of catch-22's. What we do know is if the intelligence community hadn't released the information, and then the financial centers were attacked, the intelligence community and the Bush administration would have been roundly criticized for withholding information. (It's a public relations problem that, no matter who occupies the White House after Jan. 20, will persist.)\nReleasing the information was crucial. We support the release of as much as possible, cutting security officials a little slack as they precariously balance the release of necessary information with necessary secrecy.\nBut this election, more than any other in recent memory, deserves tough questions that may not sit well with people on either side of the aisle. If security is going to be the topic de jour, then all questions about security deserve to be on the table, even ones that inquire the motivation and the timing of alerts. It does not reveal an inherent bias within the journalist to ask "Why?" The relationship with the press and the government must always remain adversarial.\nThere's nothing wrong with asking why something was done. The popular adage goes, "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." The media must do its job and ask tough questions, unpopular questions or questions that might even label someone as "unpatriotic." It's the necessary price to pay for living and working in uncertain times. \nThe IDS Editorial Board voted 11-0 on this issue.