I’ve been berated at least a little for showing even the slightest amount of loyalty toward Tom Ridge. In some ways I can understand the sentiments when I hear him being referred to as “one of the bad boys” in the Bush administration, but knowing him as our governor, I had trouble buying into that mindset. While a loyal member of the GOP, I still saw him as a bit of a square peg when it came to fitting in with the rest of the party.

And after reading his book, I know I was right.

Long ago I learned that what people didn’t say could be more important than what they said, particularly in politics. The Test of Our Times could be a textbook for a class on recognizing those situations. First and foremost, readers have to consider the book in context, with the realization that the author is a politician who actually tried to be honorable. His definition of honorable includes standing on the side of the “official” story from his superiors whenever he was not privy to what was going on behind closed doors. And finally, the personal is not political for Ridge – this is not a confessional book, and it is unlikely that anyone who doesn’t already know his personal views on homeland security (or anything else for that matter) will learn them.

Now, as long as readers approach this book in context, it is an excellent collection of snapshots of what it was like to start a new department in our Federal Government. Although Ridge never comes outright swinging at Bush, there is an edge to the narrative. It becomes abundantly clear from nearly the start, that while he respects Bush, Ridge was often confused about what was actually going through the mind of the President.

Contrary to what the public saw in the early days and months immediately following 9/11, there was a great deal of resistance within the government towards Ridge and his department – conflicts that apparently continue today, if to a lesser degree.

Not having any historical data to go by, or any real sense of what it would take, we nevertheless provided a rough estimate of $10 billion…Bill Parrish and I, along with former General Bruce Lawlor, my first chief of staff…went to the White House for a meeting with Andy Card, Karl Rove, representatives from OMB, and a few others. When I argued for the money, the others in attendance said it was “too much.” The push-back was focused on the reimbursement of state and local agencies. I said, “We can’t ask or expect governors to be able to pay for what we are asking that they do under Liberty Shield, which is, after all, a federal operation.” In the end OMB agreed to $6.8 billion.

The previous passage is a fair example of the resistance Ridge met regularly on all fronts. He chronicles tales of turf wars in the world of intelligence, and various arguments about money – everyone was for what needed to be done, but no one wanted to pay for it. The public saw the cleansed version of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and were meant to believe that their leaders were all on the same page when it came to protecting them. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Ridge bore the brunt of the public ire over unpopular measures that had to be taken to increase security, but one can wonder how many would have complained had they known his standards.

A passing grade required a perfect score. Two out of three wasn’t good enough.

Will the new measure make us safer?
Will it be consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law?
Will it have good or bad economic consequences for our country?

And while we would be subject to scrutiny and criticism regardless of the perfect score, knowing that the measure had passed this test provided a comfort level about doing the right thing. However, we were accountable publicly for all security measures regardless of origin.

If taking responsibility for the actions of others doesn’t cause people to think twice about Ridge’s integrity, perhaps his thoughts on one of the least-liked policies of the time will.

Under no circumstances can we voluntarily surrender a constitutionally protected right. Thomas Jefferson and our Constitution describe these rights as “inalienable.” And as previously mentioned, Benjamin Franklin cautioned: “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

After I left the administration, the White House inquired if I could publicly support the President’s use of FISA. I said I could and would but felt it was imperative the White House work with Congress to amend the FISA statute to comport with the new electronic means of surveillance and the original congressional intent. At that point they lost interest in having this discussion. I never got a call to defend their use of FISA.

That is just one example of the differences of opinion that occurred between Ridge and the Bush administration, but is one reason why it does him a disservice to immediately lump him in with the true believers of that administration. Another surprise for readers may be on Iraq.

DHS was never involved in any of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq…I never participated in any of the National Security Meetings prior to invading Iraq. That is not a complaint. It’s just a fact. I knew little more than what Secretary Colin Powell shared with the world in his speech to the United Nations. Powell’s statement coupled with my cynicism about the United Nations and its ability to offer little more than meaningless, unenforceable resolutions led to my conclusion that preemptive action was warranted.

Admittedly, the relationship between the Saddam regime, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 was tenuous, if at all. If our intelligence community had hard evidence of such a linkage, it would have been wise to share it, not only with me, but with the rest of the world.

It is always in what isn’t said. “If” remains one of the largest words, and in this case, it holds the possibility that our security as a nation was left in the hands of a man who wasn’t privy to some of the most important information our government had on terrorists and potential threats to our safety. In spite of this, Ridge has remained loyal to the men he served, and has not used his book to enumerate their shortcomings.

The Test of Our Times is arguably the best “tell-all” book on the Bush administration precisely because it does not tell all. It is not for the faint of heart, nor is it for readers with an unshakable preconceived notion that the author is nothing more than a fellow felon from the previous administration. Ridge should go down in history as the politician with the patience of Job, but more likely, he will be little more than a footnote. Regardless, at the time that we needed it most, he was the politician who left politics at the door when he went to work each day to protect the citizens of this country. That is more than can be said of many others from that administration, and it is frightening to consider where we would be if someone who played the partisan politics games had been in Ridge’s place instead at the beginning of DHS.