You'll recall I reported last night that the Bush administration botched the UK effort to thwart the London Tube and bus bombings last week.
Well, I was just alerted by Jamie McCarthy to a reporter's question posed to former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge on September 16, 2004 about the botched effort.
Note Ridge's incorrect assertion that as a result of the leak and the overall US bungling there was in essence no harm, no foul as a result - i.e., everything worked out okay anyway. Wonder if the Bush administration is going to retract that now.From the US Embassy Web site in Britain:
QUESTION: Richard Norton-Taylor of The Guardian. Could I follow up that question, and some concern has been expressed probably normally privately here about the amount of information America.... people say maybe the Americans say too much, phrases like crying wolf were mentioned and so on. I just wondered if you had any comment on that?
SECRETARY RIDGE: Well, I believe you're referring, probably, to some background information that was shared, no-one really knows the source. But I know there was the regrettable disclosure of information that British officials would have much preferred to remain confidential, at least during the time of apprehension and the decision-making as to whether or not they should be held and then charged. And I assure you it wasn't part of any public pronouncement relative to raising the threat level from the Department of Homeland Security. And there was clearly an insensitivity by the individual who disclosed that information to the process and to the demands on our friends who are co-operating with us in terms of their own legal process. So the expression of displeasure based on the leak or that source of that information being made public, and the potential to complicate the life of the authorities in Great Britain, frankly, was an appropriate expression of disappointment and displeasure. I have no argument with that.
There is a different process here. We need to be respectful of the legal and the constitutional means by which we conduct our business and I'd hate to see that kind of that situation recur with the frequency or the severity that would impair the extraordinary collaborative relationship we have. So I can say, from my perspective, the public expression of disappointment and displeasure was appropriate. As it turned out, all's well that ends well, but understanding the restrictions and the conditions under which your law enforcement community operates in this country, we should do everything we can to avoid compromising or undermining it, period.
