Seems like there is further remarks from Ridge tht do not coincide with the article last week...
The source of disagreement
In the book, Ridge details what caused the internal debate about the threat level -- a new videotaped message from Osama bin Laden delivered on Oct. 29 and aired on Al-Jazeera.
The message, Ridge wrote, was predictably critical of Bush and carried a threatening tone. "Was it a precursor to another attack?'' he asked in the book.
But Ridge wrote that audio or videotapes from bin Laden or his lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were nothing new. There had been nearly 20 since 9/11.
"A threatening message, audio or visual, should not be the sole reason to elevate the threat level,'' Ridge wrote.
In the book, Ridge said he and his leadership team participated in a secure video conference with other administration officials and listened to a discussion about the possibility of raising the threat level.
"A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensued. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics''' he wrote.
Ridge told the Times-News that no one person -- not even the president -- had the unilateral authority to raise the threat level. It required a consensus among designated Cabinet members, including himself, though it didn't have to be unanimous, Ridge said.
No consensus was reached at that session, and Ridge wrote that he was grateful that FBI Director Robert Mueller agreed with his position.
Asked why he didn't publicly reveal the news at the time, Ridge said it wasn't the only time the parties discussed the threat level via secure video conference but didn't change it.
"There was no reason to discuss it because we didn't go up. There were more discussions that resulted in not going up than resulted in going up,'' he said.
What made this situation unusual, Ridge said, was the timing a few days before the presidential election.
-------
Can't the explanation be just what he expressed above?
We could discuss that some folks got excited to bash Bush some more over the article last week.
But this one does not seem to fit the bill.
