• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ridge backpedals on pressure to raise terror alert level

Grim17

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ridge backpedals on pressure to raise terror alert level
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON — Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, speaking for the first time about accusations made in his new book, says he did not mean to suggest that other top Bush administration officials were playing politics with the nation's security before the 2004 presidential election.

"I'm not second-guessing my colleagues," Ridge said in an interview about The Test of Our Times, which comes out Tuesday and recounts his experiences as head of the nation's homeland security efforts in the first several years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


Full Story
Click to expand...

I knew this was just another case of "Wishful thinking" by the hate-driven left. They latch on and twist anything they can, to feed that hatred that has so dominated them over the last 8 years. Just like the dozens and dozens of other attempts they've orchestrated to destroy Bush, predictably, this one fails miserably.
 
Gee... I hate to say "I told you so", but...

Grim17 said:
Ridge did NOT accuse the Bush White House of political use of terror alert system

The quote from Ridge's book that has the left celebrating stated:

“There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None.” He then says, “I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’ "​

Notice he doesn't point any fingers, reference any incidents or conversations, nor does he offer evidence of any kind to back up that claim.

There's a reason for this... It's because it was just a passing thought based on the fact that he didn't feel the threat level needed to be raised. It wasn't an accusation.

The reason I know it wasn't an accusation, is because Ridge stated very definitively earlier in the book, when addressing allegations that political pressure had been applied to raise threat levels, said:

"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."​

So there you have it...

All this false hype is designed to appeal to Bush haters on the left, to sell a few books.

.
Click to expand...
 
Ridge in this radio interview, backs up the fact that he isn't accusing the administration of trying to politicize the terror alert system.

.
 
This may very likely end up killing the "terror alert was politicized" story as much as Dan Rather screwing the pooch killed the "Bush was AWOL" story. However, it should be understood that just because both news stories were botched doesn't mean that the stories themselves don't have at least a grain of truth to them. Anyone who doubts that that the sons of rich and powerful people very, very frequently got a free card out of serving in Viet Nam, or that tools of fear such as the terror alert system can be politicized are pretty naive.

And prerequisite header: Democrats do it too yadda yadda yadda, wacka wacka wacka.
 
The dude wrote it in his book. Give me a break. He's now backpedaling because someone probably called and cussed him out. You don't write something in a book and then go... oops, just kidding. It's a purposeful move.
 
I think he must have gotten a call from the leader of the (R) party, Rush.
 
Grim17 said:
No he didn't. That's the point I made last week.

Those of you on the left just see what you want to see.

.
Click to expand...

And you don't think the right does that too? Seriously?
 
the makeout hobo said:
And you don't think the right does that too? Seriously?
Click to expand...

The topic here is the Ridge book.

I realize that many people fall for this tactic of changing the subject, that the left so often uses when their backed into a corner, to but I'm not one of them.

Address this topic please.

.
 
Glinda said:
I think he must have gotten a call from the leader of the (R) party, Rush.
Click to expand...

:rofl Yep, Libruls just caint hep theyselves; the new farcical hyperbolic BS being that Rush is the leader of the Republican Party: take me to your l e a d e r.

But isn't it just like an "open minded" and "tolerant" Librul to just discount anyone who doesn't agree with them?

:2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
Yep, Libruls just caint hep theyselves; the new farcical hyperbolic BS being that Rush is the leader of the Republican Party: take me to your l e a d e r.
Click to expand...

Ok. You got me. Technically, Rush is No. 2. According to a poll completed by the conservatives at conservativeoutpost.com, the overwhelming consensus is that NOBODY is the leader of the Republican party.

Rush Limbaugh - 25%
John Boehner (GOP House Leader) - 3%
Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate Leader) - 3%
Michael Steele (RNC Chairman) - 12%
There is no leader - 56%
Click to expand...

:rofl

But isn't it just like an "open minded" and "tolerant" Librul to just discount anyone who doesn't agree with them?
Click to expand...

Who's discounting Rush? I'm saying he's large and in charge!
 
Ridge conclusively states in this interview last night, that he was not accusing anyone from the administration of trying to politicize the terror alert system.

I would say ladies and gentlemen, that this attempt by the left to once again destroy George W. Bush has failed, and can confidently say "Case Closed" on this issue.

.
 
formerroadie said:
The dude wrote it in his book. Give me a break. He's now backpedaling because someone probably called and cussed him out. You don't write something in a book and then go... oops, just kidding. It's a purposeful move.
Click to expand...
I'm not 100% sure that he's back pedaling. All that we really know at this point is that he disagrees with the publishers. That's not back pedaling.
 
formerroadie said:
The dude wrote it in his book. Give me a break. He's now backpedaling because someone probably called and cussed him out. You don't write something in a book and then go... oops, just kidding. It's a purposeful move.
Click to expand...

What he wrote in his book is that "he wondered" something. No big deal. Why people would play air guitar over this is baffling.
 
Grim17 said:
Ridge conclusively states in this interview last night, that he was not accusing anyone from the administration of trying to politicize the terror alert system.

I would say ladies and gentlemen, that this attempt by the left to once again destroy George W. Bush has failed, and can confidently say "Case Closed" on this issue.

.
Click to expand...

Silly Grim, you think Liberals care about the truth and the facts. :2wave:
 
Food for Thought:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp10_1.pdf

But take away the data about approval ratings and simply examine the timeline of terror alerts. This shows that , come summer of 2004, in the run-up to the Presidential election, the frequency of terror alerts dramatically increased. In my view, this is an illustration (though of course it does not prove) that Bush indeed used terror alerts politically. Not to boost sagging approval ratings, but to maintain a climate of fear in this country, since fearful people rally around their leaders, no matter who they happen to be.
Click to expand...

B and B: Politicization of terror alerts

While this is hardly conclusive evidence by any measure, it is extremely sketchy that there was no monkey business when there was a significently disproportionate number of alerts leading up to the Nov 2004 election with very few following it in the following years. Bush not leaving office means we're more safe when Bush was in office? That makes no sense.

I can't seem to find the raw data though. Anyone have the complete list of terror alerts?
 
Grim17 said:
I knew this was just another case of "Wishful thinking" by the hate-driven left.
Click to expand...
Can you try to cut the hyper partisan nonsense? The media will spin anything to make a buck. Anything.
 
Glinda said:
Ok. You got me. Technically, Rush is No. 2. According to a poll completed by the conservatives at conservativeoutpost.com, the overwhelming consensus is that NOBODY is the leader of the Republican party.

:rofl

Who's discounting Rush? I'm saying he's large and in charge!
Click to expand...

As proof for your claim, you just cited an online poll with 91 respondents from some website that I've never heard of.

Seriously, spend some time reading this: Sampling (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
EgoffTib said:
Can you try to cut the hyper partisan nonsense? The media will spin anything to make a buck. Anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly - this wasn't so much the "hate-driven left" as it was the "profit-driven book publisher"
 
obvious Child said:
Food for Thought:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp10_1.pdf



B and B: Politicization of terror alerts

While this is hardly conclusive evidence by any measure, it is extremely sketchy that there was no monkey business when there was a significently disproportionate number of alerts leading up to the Nov 2004 election with very few following it in the following years. Bush not leaving office means we're more safe when Bush was in office? That makes no sense.

I can't seem to find the raw data though. Anyone have the complete list of terror alerts?
Click to expand...

Wtf is this person on about?

But take away the data about approval ratings and simply examine the timeline of terror alerts. This shows that , come summer of 2004, in the run-up to the Presidential election, the frequency of terror alerts dramatically increased. In my view, this is an illustration (though of course it does not prove) that Bush indeed used terror alerts politically. Not to boost sagging approval ratings, but to maintain a climate of fear in this country, since fearful people rally around their leaders, no matter who they happen to be.
Click to expand...

Terror alerts occurred with increasing frequency as we approached the first presidential election since 9/11, and the only reason that this writer can possibly fathom for why this happened is a desire to maintain a climate of fear? Seriously? This is just embarrassingly bad logic.
 
RightinNYC said:
Terror alerts occurred with increasing frequency as we approached the first presidential election since 9/11, and the only reason that this writer can possibly fathom for why this happened is a desire to maintain a climate of fear? Seriously? This is just embarrassingly bad logic.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, especially when you compare them to the terror alerts in the years following 2004. Even if he's not correct about the reason for fear in particular, it is exceptionally fishy that there was a significant spike leading up to the election and then for the next couple years only a handful of alerts petering out to the point few can remember any after 2004. Furthermore, as the study I posted shows, every alert does cause an increase in approval.

What's your argument for why there was a significant spike prior to the election and then virtually nothing after? I find it exceptionally hard to believe that terrorists just stopped planning things after the election and we stopped looking for them. We were no more safer in the summer of 2004 then we were in the winter of 2005.

And coming from an administration which had no problems with using falsehoods in its justifications (especially after Rummy's statement where he admitted part of his job was to lie to the press), it does logically conclude that there was politicization of the alerts.
 
Grim17 said:
Gee... I hate to say "I told you so", but...
Click to expand...
It seems the article you used in the OP commits the same sin of sensationalism.
One can't exactly 'backpedal' from something that hasn't actually been said in the 1st place.

It is important to remember what axe almost all media and publishers have to grind--the drive to profit. These days, eyes mean money.
 
obvious Child said:
Not necessarily, especially when you compare them to the terror alerts in the years following 2004. Even if he's not correct about the reason for fear in particular, it is exceptionally fishy that there was a significant spike leading up to the election and then for the next couple years only a handful of alerts petering out to the point few can remember any after 2004. Furthermore, as the study I posted shows, every alert does cause an increase in approval.
Click to expand...

I have to tell ya, I can't remember any ever. The terror alert could have been on brown (that's the color for real ****ing bad, isn't it?) and I doubt anyone would have noticed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom