Just a few facts to digest.

The election was less than two weeks ago. President Bush won an impressive victory under less than ideal circumstances. The war in Iraq had been going poorly, the economy was underperforming and this country was deeply divided.

Fighting terrorism was one of the most often cited reasons that Bush voters gave for making their choice. For people who put terrorism toward the top of their issue list, Bush was the clear choice.

The bloody assault on Fallujah began right after the election.

The terror alert status for financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J., was lowered Wednesday from orange to yellow.

Before the election, a parade of federal officials warned that al-Qaida might launch an attack in an effort to influence the outcome. Over and over again, the threat was described, and the train bombings in Madrid were used as an example. In Bush campaign ads, the wolves – read terrorists – were at the door, waiting for a chance to attack the United States.

Now Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his handwritten resignation letter to the president, says, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.”

It makes sense that threats that might have been timed to the election would dissipate after the vote. But the facts, as they have lined up since Nov. 2, cast the entire threat-level system into doubt. We may never know whether politics motivated our threat-level assessments, but it sure looks that way.

Copy the Story Link