• 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

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.

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.
Click to expand...

From the original article:

Bush's former homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, told the Associated Press today that politics never played a role in determining alert levels. She noted that in the weeks before the electio two videotapes, including one from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, were released that she said contained "very graphic" and "threatening" messages.

"Never were politics ever discussed in this context in my presence," she said.
Click to expand...

From an article in Dec. 2003:

Terrorist logic is to disrupt the 2004 election | Oakland Tribune | Find Articles at BNET

Terrorist logic is to disrupt the 2004 election

We can't know whether terrorists will strike during the coming presidential campaign, the first since the beginning of the war on terrorism. But the recent terrorist bombings in Istanbul, which took more than 50 lives, make it easier to imagine something similar happening here again. And history suggests that striking during major elections is an effective terrorist tool. It suggests that the way in which we respond will determine whether we're capable of winning this war.

Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of them specialists in security and terrorism-related issues. Almost three-quarters of them predicted the United States likely would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004. A similar number predicted the assault would be greater than those of 9-11, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction. It was the sense of the group that such an attack likely would generate additional support for President Bush.

These are serious people, not prone to hysteria or panic -- military officers, policy-makers, scientists, researchers and others who have studied such issues for a long time. They know that in country after country, elections have held an irresistible lure for terrorists.

From the terrorist perspective, attacking in an election year makes perfect sense. The objective of terrorism is not so much to strike a blow against a particular physical target as it is to strike a psychological blow against a target audience. Elections heighten the stakes because a blow during an election is a blow against a society's political foundations.
Click to expand...

In light of this, don't you think it's pretty obvious that we would see an increase in threats and corresponding alerts in the months leading up to the election? To me, this offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for why we saw an increasing number of alerts that dropped off after the election.

If there's an obvious explanation in front of me, I'm not going to go out of my way to find a conspiracy.
 
EgoffTib said:
Can you try to cut the hyper partisan nonsense? The media will spin anything to make a buck. Anything.
Click to expand...
I agree with NYC about the publisher but sometimes the media buries huge/sensational stories. Compare the coverage that Anita Hill got with the coverage that Juanita Broadrick got.
 
Everyone knows that the Bush Admin politicized EVERYTHING they did/controlled so this is no revelation.
From...starting un-called for wars to firing U.S. Attys for not going after Dems to using intelligence agencies for political reasons to.....You name it.
It was a totally political & illegal administration.

Full Stop...The End
 
EgoffTib said:
Can you try to cut the hyper partisan nonsense? The media will spin anything to make a buck. Anything.
Click to expand...

It's not nonsense, it's the truth. The media, as well as every liberal on the internet ran with this BS story, waving around as the proof against Bush they had been waiting for. All they had to do, was take 2 seconds to actually read what the man said like I did, and they would have seen that he wasn't accusing anyone.

So why do you suppose all the libs completely misinterpreted what he wrote? It's easy... Because they were blinded by hate, and they didn't want to know the truth.

I'm sorry if the facts about your people upset you... I suggest you hang with a more honest bunch that doesn't use hatred as their guiding force.

.
 
Devil505 said:
Everyone knows that the Bush Admin politicized EVERYTHING they did/controlled so this is no revelation.
From...starting un-called for wars to firing U.S. Attys for not going after Dems to using intelligence agencies for political reasons to.....You name it.
It was a totally political & illegal administration.

Full Stop...The End
Click to expand...

A perfect example that fits well with my post above.

.
 
Devil505 said:
And absolutely true to boot! (you don't really deny that, do you??....Really??)
Click to expand...

I don't deny at all that you are trying to turn this into another "I hate Bush" thread, just like you all do with nearly every thread, on just about every possible topic.

It's what you people do.

I know this may come as a shock to you... But George Bush isn't president anymore. The good news is, there are professionals that can help you with your obsession.
 
Grim17 said:
I don't deny at all that you are trying to turn this into another "I hate Bush" thread, just like you all do with nearly every thread, on just about every possible topic.

It's what you people do.

I know this may come as a shock to you... But George Bush isn't president anymore. The good news is, there are professionals that can help you with your obsession.
Click to expand...

But he's the real subject of this thread & his regime almost destroyed this country! (kinda hard to forget that)

(Ridge's moment of honesty...(b4 the GOP got to him) is just the latest in a string of former Bushies who are blowing the whistle on that corrupt regime)
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
The topic here is the Ridge book.
Click to expand...

Is it? Really? Coulda fooled me. Cuz the subject of nearly all of your posts is...

the hate-driven left

They

them

Those of you on the left

the left

them

the left

every liberal on the internet

they

them

you people



Generalize much?
 
RightinNYC said:
As proof for your claim, you just cited an online poll with 91 respondents from some website that I've never heard of.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant. I did not assert that the poll was scientifically conducted, nor vast and wide-ranging, and do not consider it so myself. Nor do I consider Rush Limbaugh to be the man behind the curtain who, with full approval and cooperation of our literal political leaders, manipulates government and society as he wishes (I give no credence to nutty conspiracy theories of this sort). He's nothing more than a hyper-partisan entertainer to whom enormous numbers of conservatives give credence, and at least some fealty.

Clearly, a certain number of average everyday conservatives equate "most influential/powerful" with "leader." And I think it's safe to say that Limbaugh is one of, if not THE, most influential and powerful Republicans extant - a leader of sorts. Further, the literal leader of the Republican party considers Limbaugh to be a leader of his party (see quoted material below).

The nifty poll I linked to proves this, if even in a small way (I used it because the fact that more than half of the respondents voted "Nobody" was so hilarious :lol: ). Of course, there are much better examples of Limbaugh's public influence among powerful conservative politicians, which is a lot more frightening than the fealty he enjoys from the average everyday radio listener:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” --Politico
Click to expand...


Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) apologized Wednesday to “my fellow conservatives” for comments critical of talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh – saying he sees “eye-to-eye” with Limbaugh and that his remarks defending House Republican leadership came across more harshly than intended.

“I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent,” Gingrey said in a statement.

“Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination,” Gingrey said.

* * * * *

Responding to President Barack Obama’s recommendation to Republican congressional leaders last week that they not follow Limbaugh’s lead, Limbaugh said on his show that Obama is “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party.”

Gingrey came to his leaders’ defense.

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said.

“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell,” Gingrey said. --Politico
Click to expand...


Like an iceberg, I suspect the portion of personal/private fealty some Republican leaders give to Rush (i.e., not exhibited publicly) is vastly larger.
 
We all have to wonder how much credibility Ridge actually has, when he writes this: "Is this about security or politics?"

But then later, says this: ""I don't think it was ever politics."

He's a tool. And a soft one, at that.

Gee, who would EVER be so silly as to accuse politicians of being political?!?
 
Last edited:
niftydrifty said:
We all have to wonder how much credibility Ridge actually has, when he writes this: "Is this about security or politics?"

But then later, says this: ""I don't think it was ever politics."

He's a tool. And a soft one, at that.

Gee, who would EVER be so silly as to accuse politicians of being political?!?
Click to expand...

I disagree that Ridge is a "tool", but rather the one's desperately trying to imply that the terror warnings were a successful sinister political Bush strategy (mind you according to these same “tools” he is a moron) that caused John Kerry to lose the 2004 election; now that is truly the definition of a "tool."

:2wave:
 
RightinNYC said:
In light of this, don't you think it's pretty obvious that we would see an increase in threats and corresponding alerts in the months leading up to the election? To me, this offers a perfectly reasonable explanation for why we saw an increasing number of alerts that dropped off after the election.

If there's an obvious explanation in front of me, I'm not going to go out of my way to find a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but why was there only three or four after the election until Bush left office? There were something like 6 or 7 leading up the election and only a handful after. That would imply there were not threats after the election despite the US being no more safer than it was before the election. That terrorists were no longer coming after us after the election or that we stopped looking. I find that INCREDIBLY difficult to believe.

Furthermore, I stopped trusting anything that came out of the Bush administration a long time ago. Just because they say they never did it doesn't mean squat to me, especially after Rummy stated on record his job was to manipulate and lie to the press.
 
Alright......I just watched Tom Ridge on Chris Matthew's show "Hardball" & here is my honest opinion his performance:

1. Ridge says in his book that he was concerned that politics was motivating some high ranking members of the Bush admin (Rumsfeld & Ashcroft) to recommend increasing the national threat warning levels just b4 the 2004 election.
2. That threat level was not raised as there was no security threat reason to do so.


Opinion:
Ridge is now trying to have it both ways in that:
.... 1. He wants his book to sell well
.... 2. He doesn't want to anger his GOP friends

PROBLEM:

He can't have it both ways.

The fact that the threat warning level was not raised does not negate the fact that he felt that politics...Not national security...was the real motivation some to try to get the threat level raised. (he felt strong enough about this to leave government service)



Ridge felt that our security situation was being used by some high ranking Bush officials to help get him (Bush) re-elected in 2004. Therefore, I think the Hatch Act was being violated at that meeting & that Ridge is now SPINNING to take back his words.

My opinion of Tom Ridge as an honest man has ended. He is just another partisan liar.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Fair enough, but why was there only three or four after the election until Bush left office? There were something like 6 or 7 leading up the election and only a handful after. That would imply there were not threats after the election despite the US being no more safer than it was before the election. That terrorists were no longer coming after us after the election or that we stopped looking. I find that INCREDIBLY difficult to believe.

Furthermore, I stopped trusting anything that came out of the Bush administration a long time ago. Just because they say they never did it doesn't mean squat to me, especially after Rummy stated on record his job was to manipulate and lie to the press.
Click to expand...

The question appears to have been answered already. With the primary intention to disrupt the election it would be logical that after the election was over the attacks would lessen. At least until another objective would be put in place if the operation was organized.

For example:

NATO deaths in Afghanistan hit new high

"Four U.S. servicemen were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on Tuesday, making 2009 the deadliest year for the growing contingent of foreign troops since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

The deaths highlighted the steadily worsening violence in the country, which has been in political limbo since a disputed presidential election last week.

The election has also been a test of President Barack Obama's strategy of rushing thousands of extra U.S. troops to the country this year in a bid to reverse Taliban gains."
 
Here's the Chris Matthews interview with Tom Ridge:
(Matthews takes direct quotes from Ridge's book & asks Ridge about them)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH5LSG8OMbY"]YouTube - Chris Matthews Interviews Tom Ridge on Terror Alerts, New Book[/ame]
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oykPN0bzu30"]YouTube - Rachel Maddow Interviews Tom Ridge On Politicizing Terror Level[/ame]
 
obvious Child said:
Fair enough, but why was there only three or four after the election until Bush left office? There were something like 6 or 7 leading up the election and only a handful after. That would imply there were not threats after the election despite the US being no more safer than it was before the election. That terrorists were no longer coming after us after the election or that we stopped looking. I find that INCREDIBLY difficult to believe.
Click to expand...

You've mentioned this a couple of times, but I don't know where you're getting it. Neither of those links you provided talked about (or even gave us links to) the list of terror alerts past 2004.

Here's what I found:

Homeland Security Advisory System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the actual changes in the threat level, there doesn't appear to be much of, if any, difference in terms of frequency between the two terms.

I very much doubt you can draw any conclusions based on that alone.
 
Grim17 said:
It's not nonsense, it's the truth. The media, as well as every liberal on the internet ran with this BS story, waving around as the proof against Bush they had been waiting for. All they had to do, was take 2 seconds to actually read what the man said like I did, and they would have seen that he wasn't accusing anyone.
Click to expand...
Point the fingers at the publishers who apparently fabricated things to make a profit.

So why do you suppose all the libs completely misinterpreted what he wrote? It's easy... Because they were blinded by hate, and they didn't want to know the truth.
Click to expand...
Yes, because this is a phenomenon exclusive to Liberals. :roll:

I'm sorry if the facts about your people upset you... I suggest you hang with a more honest bunch that doesn't use hatred as their guiding force.
Click to expand...
You do know that "Liberal" and "Libertarian" are not the same thing, right? :doh
 
EgoffTib said:
Point the fingers at the publishers who apparently fabricated things to make a profit.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense that they (publishers) would risk a law suit & anger their author by misrepresenting his book & where is Mr. Ridge's anger & law suit at them for putting words into his mouth?

No...the simple truth is that he says one thing in his book & now says another. He was either lying then or he is now. (I think the obvious answer is NOW)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op3zA9XaUKQ"]YouTube - Escena - Testigo de cargo (1958)[/ame]
 
Last edited:
After watching both the Mathews & Maddow interviews with Mr. Ridge, I can't imagine how anyone could seriously argue against the following:

1. That Mr. Ridge, by his own admission in his book (& corroborated as his words), was wondering if politics.....not concern over national security was the real motivation for some members of those meetings to recommend raising the threat level.
2. That Mr. Ridge has no way of knowing, either then or now, what was going through the minds of some (Rumsfeld & Ashcroft) as to why they recommended raising the threat level. Politics may well have been their motivation. Only they know for sure, not Mr. Ridge.
3. The fact that the threat levels were not raised, in no way negates the (possibly politically motivated) attempts to raise them. (it would be like a bank robber, thwarted by his gun jamming, using as a defense that he didn't actually succeed in getting any money from the bank & therefore no crime was committed)
4. Therefore, Mr. Ridge was in fact concerned that Bush administration personnel may have been trying to use their Executive Branch positions to effect an election, which is a criminal violation of U.S.law.

IMO, this matter warrants further investigation to determine if any laws were broken.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
After watching both the Mathews & Maddow interviews with Mr. Ridge, I can't imagine how anyone could seriously argue against the following:

1. That Mr. Ridge, by his own admission in his book (& corroborated as his words), was wondering if politics.....not concern over national security was the real motivation for some members of those meetings to recommend raising the threat level.
2. That Mr. Ridge has no way of knowing, either then or now, what was going through the minds of some (Rumsfeld & Ashcroft) as to why they recommended raising the threat level. Politics may well have been their motivation. Only they know for sure, not Mr. Ridge.
3. The fact that the threat levels were not raised, in no way negates the (possibly politically motivated) attempts to raise them. (it would be like a bank robber, thwarted by his gun jamming, using as a defense that he didn't actually succeed in getting any money from the bank & therefore no crime was committed)
4. Therefore, Mr. Ridge was in fact concerned that Bush administration personnel may have been trying to use their Executive Branch positions to effect an election, which is a criminal violation of U.S.law.

IMO, this matter warrants further investigation to determine if any laws were broken.
Click to expand...

You just keep pushing your hate fantasy. Now that Ridge has shot down your assertions, you still think it's real.

lololololololololol

.
 
Grim17 said:
You just keep pushing your hate fantasy. Now that Ridge has shot down your assertions, you still think it's real.

lololololololololol

.
Click to expand...

Simply pretending that Ridge wasn't concerned about his perceived politicization of our national security doesn't make it so.;)
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Simply pretending that Ridge wasn't concerned about his perceived politicization of our national security doesn't make it so.;)
Click to expand...

As Tom Ridge said, he was "musing", not accusing.

But don't let that fact derail your baseless assertions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom