No surprise there.
The DHS itself is a failure. A bunch of window dressing designed to feed more taxpayer dollars into a farce of an agency engaged in theatrical performances of epic proportions.
.
Yep. And The first head honcho - Tom Ridge, in my opinion was not even close to genius.
Bush should have let the FBI, Department of State, and Secret Service take care of Homeland Security, instead of creating a new cabinet position.
Give the funding to them, and let them take care of Homeland Security.
They already have investigative experience, are knowledgable, experienced at gaining intel, and have the resources to do the job. The only problem I would have seen....at the time, is manpower ; BUT , Homeland Security being new - they would have had the same problem.
I am thinking right off the top of my head , by additionally funding FBI, State, and Secret Service it would have been cheaper than creating a new agency - Personnel, staffing, buildings, vehicles, computers and ect. However expensive supporting three already EXPERIENCED agencys...but not as expensive as creating a new agency. The Federal Agencys - FBI , Secret Service, State.....already understaffed and overworked in my opinion - would have liked the additional funding and increase manpower.
Investigations, Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, along with threat surveys and analysis. People already trained, and already having the right equipment, and experience - could get more answers, and evidence ; and be more reliable to the American public.
Since the FBI is responsible by charter for intelligence gathering in the United States - a senior FBI offical could be the Special Agent in Charge. He or she reports to the Director of the FBI.
Tom Ridge was no leader by any means in my observations. Nor was he "Up to snuff" on intelligence or National Security matters. Security is a frame of mind in alot of instances, and you have to have the proper frame of mind. He was not even close in my opinion.
He supervised people, whom performed jobs and tasks, he was not even vaguely familiar with. In some instances - it helps to have some experience in a certain field, before you lead others...or tell them what to do. This helps leadership wise, and lets you have the respect of your peers and subordiantes. From the beginning it was evident that Mr.Ridge was a " Short timer ". I guess it is exciting to be in the loop when it comes to National Security and Intelligence, and have the privledge to brief the President of the United States.
When Mr.Ridge spoke on camera to media outlets, I believe he did not seem certain in his speech, nor was he assertive enough in his statements to be believable. It was like he frequently made media speeches amd spoke with "Doubt".
He spoke as if there was alot doubt in his explanations, and some statements was " Pulled out of the air ". Like the "Color Scale" he made for terrorism - it was something to throw at the American people to justify that DHS was doing its job. He needs a class on sincerity in my opinion.
When a Federal Agencys I.G speaks , people darn well better listen. From the lowest employee , to the politicians. Sometimes when they ( I.G ) speak , it hurts later. And it hurts alot. Few times when an Inspector General ( Federal ) issues a report, someone is held accountable. They are good at assigning the blame, and with the blame comes detailed facts. In some instances, heads roll, and careers are permanently ruined - not only criminally, but also due to financial iresponsiblity. It was Federal monies they misused / abused / overspent, or failed to account for. When it is gross negligence, or malicious - they most usually go ape crazy. REMEMBER - the Inspector Generals office has bosses, and they have to account for themselves and show progress, and how they protect the U.S Government, as well as the agency it is charged with overseeing.
FF - Medic !!!
