• 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 accuses Bush White House of political use of terror alert system

Devil505 said:
He certainly did. It's a felony for federal employees (like the AG) to use their official powers for political purposes. It's a Hatch Act violation, for starters. (trying to get Ridge to use the Alert status of the U.S. to help Bush get reelected is a crime, whether the actual act was done or not)
Click to expand...
Show me where Ridge said that.
 
mpg said:
Show me where Ridge said that.
Click to expand...
Read his book (synopsis below but read the book itself)



Ridge accuses Bush White House of political use of terror alert system - National Politics Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
< Back to Front Page Text size – +
Ridge accuses Bush White House of political use of terror alert system
Email|Link|Comments (83) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor August 20, 2009 07:21 PM

In his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.

Ridge, a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, says that he refused the entreaty just before the election from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a summary of the book from publisher Thomas Dunne Books.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Read his book
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that other people say he didn't.

From the article (which I wonder if you bothered to read?):
"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..."He was certainly not pressured. And, by the way, he didn't object when it was raised and he certainly didn't object when it wasn't raised.""
 
RightOfCenter said:
Except for the fact that other people say he didn't.
Click to expand...

Well then....I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the jury at Rumsfield's & Ashcroft's criminal trial. (& possibly Bush & Cheney themselves if conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act can be proved....which I think it probably could)

Federal employees should also be aware that certain political activities may also be criminal offenses under title 18 of the U.S. Code. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 210, 211, 594, 595, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 610.



An eyewitness allegation from a credible source like Tom Ridge is certainly enough for any grand jury to return an indictment.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Well then....I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the jury at Rumsfield's & Ashcroft's criminal trial. (& possibly Bush & Cheney themselves if conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act can be proved....which I think it probably could)

An eyewitness allegation from a credible source like Tom Ridge is certainly enough for any grand jury to return an indictment.
Click to expand...


Video tapes were released by Al Quaeda indicating an attack. The Bush administration believed this was cause to maybe, you know, warn the public with their fancy new terror alert system. Again, Frances Townsend the President's Homeland Security Advisor:

"Townsend told CNN Friday that "the discussion revolved around what the intelligence was. There was no discussion of politics whatsoever."

In fact, "the only discussions I (recall) was on the margins of that, there was concern if the Republicans supported raising the threat level it might be ... to the detriment of President Bush because people might see it as being political."

They thought it would hurt them in the elections and yet they pushed for it anyway! The only reason Ridge put this out is because he and his publishing company know that books bashing the former president and accusing him of wrongdoing would sell. The guy simply wants to make money. And no, one witness saying that someone thought about doing something bad is not enough for an indictment. There won't be a criminal trial for any of those that actually pushed for this, mainly because they had a credible threat giving them reason to push for it.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Video tapes were released by Al Quaeda indicating an attack. The Bush administration believed this was cause to maybe, you know, warn the public with their fancy new terror alert system. Again, Frances Townsend the President's Homeland Security Advisor:

"Townsend told CNN Friday that "the discussion revolved around what the intelligence was. There was no discussion of politics whatsoever."

In fact, "the only discussions I (recall) was on the margins of that, there was concern if the Republicans supported raising the threat level it might be ... to the detriment of President Bush because people might see it as being political."

They thought it would hurt them in the elections and yet they pushed for it anyway! The only reason Ridge put this out is because he and his publishing company know that books bashing the former president and accusing him of wrongdoing would sell. The guy simply wants to make money. And no, one witness saying that someone thought about doing something bad is not enough for an indictment. There won't be a criminal trial for any of those that actually pushed for this, mainly because they had a credible threat giving them reason to push for it.
Click to expand...

Information the defense can release at the criminal trial. (I don't think a jury will buy it but hey........give it a shot!)
 
Devil505 said:
Information the defense can release at the criminal trial. (I don't think a jury will buy it but hey........give it a shot!)
Click to expand...

Really? You don't think that the jury would buy the fact that there was a credible terrorist threat? Because one guy who had "suspicions" that it may have been political. And you actually think a jury would convict on that? Much less that it will actually go to trial? Are you serious or are you trolling?
 
Devil505 said:
Well then....I guess we'll just have to leave it up to the jury at Rumsfield's & Ashcroft's criminal trial. (& possibly Bush & Cheney themselves if conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act can be proved....which I think it probably could)

Federal employees should also be aware that certain political activities may also be criminal offenses under title 18 of the U.S. Code. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 210, 211, 594, 595, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 610.



An eyewitness allegation from a credible source like Tom Ridge is certainly enough for any grand jury to return an indictment.
Click to expand...
You don't put people on trial merely to find out whether or not they've been accused of a crime. The accusation has to come first.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Really? You don't think that the jury would buy the fact that there was a credible terrorist threat? Because one guy who had "suspicions" that it may have been political. And you actually think a jury would convict on that? Much less that it will actually go to trial? Are you serious or are you trolling?
Click to expand...
I don't even think Ridge said he had suspicions that the pressure was politically motivated. The politics was on his part for worrying how the raise in the threat level might've been perceived by the electorate and the media. If anyone should be put on trial it's Ridge.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Really? You don't think that the jury would buy the fact that there was a credible terrorist threat? Because one guy who had "suspicions" that it may have been political. And you actually think a jury would convict on that? Much less that it will actually go to trial? Are you serious or are you trolling?
Click to expand...

Yes really. (When the well respected head of Homeland Security charges criminal wrongdoing in direct testimony...it will be compelling & decisive in sending some criminals to the federal pen)
 
mpg said:
You don't put people on trial merely to find out whether or not they've been accused of a crime. The accusation has to come first.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about??

Ridge's allegation will be the basis of a criminal indictment returned by a grand jury. That's how our system works.
 
Devil505 said:
Yes really. (When the well respected head of Homeland Security charges criminal wrongdoing in direct testimony...it will be compelling & decisive in sending some criminals to the federal pen)
Click to expand...

He has not and he will not, since there was no wrongdoing. The administration asked him to raise the threat level in response to videotapes released by Al Quaeda. Ridge, as director of the DHS disagreed. Even he knows there's no wrongdoing. And there is no other evidence other than Ridge thought that the administration might have an ulterior motive and even he's not sure of that. All he'll be able to say is that they asked him to raise it.
 
Devil505 said:
What the hell are you talking about??

Ridge's allegation will be the basis of a criminal indictment returned by a grand jury. That's how our system works.
Click to expand...
Ridge hasn't made any allegations, except for maybe against himself.
 
Devil505 said:
What the hell are you talking about??

Ridge's allegation will be the basis of a criminal indictment returned by a grand jury. That's how our system works.
Click to expand...

One cannot simply accuse someone of a crime without other evidence and hope for an indictment. It's pathetic at best.
 
mpg said:
I don't even think Ridge said he had suspicions that the pressure was politically motivated. The politics was on his part for worrying how the raise in the threat level might've been perceived by the electorate and the media. If anyone should be put on trial it's Ridge.
Click to expand...

He certainly did allege just that ....& said he almost quit his job over it.
Get your head out of the sand.....or wherever else it may happen to be at the moment.
 
Devil505 said:
He certainly did allege just that ....& said he almost quit his job over it.
Get your head out of the sand.....or wherever else it may happen to be at the moment.
Click to expand...
I already asked you to show me where Ridge said that and you declined.
 
RightOfCenter said:
One cannot simply accuse someone of a crime without other evidence and hope for an indictment. It's pathetic at best.
Click to expand...

You are quite wrong. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it wants........on ANY evidence they find credible. (a defendant doesn't even have a right to counsel in a grand jury........Those protections come at trial)
 
mpg said:
I already asked you to show me where Ridge said that and you declined.
Click to expand...


Scroll back to post #152 (you pay no attention to anything you don't want to see/hear ......even if you ask for it)
 
Devil505 said:
Scroll back to post #152 (you pay no attention to anything you don't want to see/hear ......even if you ask for it)
Click to expand...
That isn't a quote from Ridge. This is the second time you declined. This whole thread is based on a false premise.
 
Devil505 said:
You are quite wrong. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it wants........on ANY evidence they find credible. (a defendant doesn't even have a right to counsel in a grand jury........Those protections come at trial)
Click to expand...

I've always hated that statement. It's completely ridiculous. The problem with this case is they don't have any credible evidence.
 
mpg said:
That isn't a quote from Ridge. This is the second time you declined. This whole thread is based on a false premise.
Click to expand...

The book isn't out yet but, unless the book publisher is lying, Ridge said it alright.

"Ridge, a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, says that he refused the entreaty just before the election from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a summary of the book from publisher Thomas Dunne Books."
 
Devil505 said:
The book isn't out yet but, unless the book publisher is lying, Ridge said it alright.

"Ridge, a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, says that he refused the entreaty just before the election from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a summary of the book from publisher Thomas Dunne Books."
Click to expand...

According to people who want to sell more books.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I've always hated that statement. It's completely ridiculous. The problem with this case is they don't have any credible evidence.
Click to expand...

If you aren't a member of the grand jury, your opinions are totally meaningless...so why even tell us??
 
Devil505 said:
So you are claiming the book publisher is lying? (what do YOU think the book is really about?.........How to knit sweaters?)
Click to expand...

Well, judging by the title The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... And How We Can Be Safe Again I'd say it's about protecting America from terrorist attacks. I don't know, what do you think it's about chief? How to be a dick?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom