Silly Thinking
*with Jim Farris*
2011751 Curiosities served
ST1on1: Tom Ridge
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Read/Post Comments (0)
St1on1
Now, from our New York World News Headquarters in New York, sitting in for Connie Chung who is on vacation, is Garrick Utley.
GU: Good afternoon, I’m Garrick Utley, filling in for Connie Chung, and happy to be here at ST News.
A week and half ago we had another Terror alert warning, this time with more pointed information about where the attacks would take place and how they would be carried out.
Then, a few days later, we found out that the information was four years old and many in politics thought the announcement was partisan politicking, and was not a sincere security warning.
Here to discuss the ramifications of this current Terror Alert is Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge.
Good afternoon Secretary Ridge.
TR: Hello Garrick.
GU: Mister Secretary, was this latest warning a real warning or was it old information “fluffed up” to steal the headlines?
TR: Garrick, we don’t play politics at the Department of Homeland Security. It was a real warning based on pertinent information that we thought was vital to this country's security.
GU: But, the information was four years old wasn’t it?
TR: This information was, in part, four year old information, coupled with important “new chatter” we discovered after some recent arrests in Karachi, Pakistan, and London, England. Even though we had the information already, this new information made us feel vulnerable.
GU: What was the new information?
TR: we don’t play politics at the Department of Homeland Security. The new information, from highly placed sources from Al Qaida, confirmed the four year old information. And lead us to believe the old information was updated and new and would lead to a new imminent attack.
GU: So the old information made more sense coupled with the new chatter you heard.
TR: There is no old information in the department of Homeland Security. All old information is labeled “new”.
GU Why is that?
TR: Because all old information is new. To us. It’s all new to us. After 9/11 all old information is new and imminent.
GU: Why is that again?
TR: Because new information that we get is labeled “New New” and old information is labeled “New”.
GU: And so…
TR: Connect the dots Garrick. If we differed “old information” and labeled it “old” it would be thought of by us as “old”…
GU: But it is “old”.
TR: Ah ha! That’s where your wrong Garrick. That’s what Al Qaida and Sadaam Hussein would like us to think but it’s not. It’s “New”.
GU: But if you label “Old” as “ New” aren’t you, in effect, labeling it as “old”?
TR: That’s what Sadaam would like us to think.
GU: So….
TR: we don’t play politics at Department of Homeland Security.
GU: I… You…. Well that’s all the time we have today on “One on One”. Thank you Secretary Ridge.
TR: My pleasure Tom, nice to be with you.
GU: Uh, thank you. I’m Garrick Utley, sitting in for Connie Chung, ST News.
ST NEWS. IS!
Now, from our New York World News Headquarters in New York, sitting in for Connie Chung who is on vacation, is Garrick Utley.
GU: Good afternoon, I’m Garrick Utley, filling in for Connie Chung, and happy to be here at ST News.
A week and half ago we had another Terror alert warning, this time with more pointed information about where the attacks would take place and how they would be carried out.
Then, a few days later, we found out that the information was four years old and many in politics thought the announcement was partisan politicking, and was not a sincere security warning.
Here to discuss the ramifications of this current Terror Alert is Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge.
Good afternoon Secretary Ridge.
TR: Hello Garrick.
GU: Mister Secretary, was this latest warning a real warning or was it old information “fluffed up” to steal the headlines?
TR: Garrick, we don’t play politics at the Department of Homeland Security. It was a real warning based on pertinent information that we thought was vital to this country's security.
GU: But, the information was four years old wasn’t it?
TR: This information was, in part, four year old information, coupled with important “new chatter” we discovered after some recent arrests in Karachi, Pakistan, and London, England. Even though we had the information already, this new information made us feel vulnerable.
GU: What was the new information?
TR: we don’t play politics at the Department of Homeland Security. The new information, from highly placed sources from Al Qaida, confirmed the four year old information. And lead us to believe the old information was updated and new and would lead to a new imminent attack.
GU: So the old information made more sense coupled with the new chatter you heard.
TR: There is no old information in the department of Homeland Security. All old information is labeled “new”.
GU Why is that?
TR: Because all old information is new. To us. It’s all new to us. After 9/11 all old information is new and imminent.
GU: Why is that again?
TR: Because new information that we get is labeled “New New” and old information is labeled “New”.
GU: And so…
TR: Connect the dots Garrick. If we differed “old information” and labeled it “old” it would be thought of by us as “old”…
GU: But it is “old”.
TR: Ah ha! That’s where your wrong Garrick. That’s what Al Qaida and Sadaam Hussein would like us to think but it’s not. It’s “New”.
GU: But if you label “Old” as “ New” aren’t you, in effect, labeling it as “old”?
TR: That’s what Sadaam would like us to think.
GU: So….
TR: we don’t play politics at Department of Homeland Security.
GU: I… You…. Well that’s all the time we have today on “One on One”. Thank you Secretary Ridge.
TR: My pleasure Tom, nice to be with you.
GU: Uh, thank you. I’m Garrick Utley, sitting in for Connie Chung, ST News.
ST NEWS. IS!
Read/Post Comments (0)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
