• 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

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ridge accuses Bush White House of political use of terror alert system


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........

"After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector," Ridge, who resigned soon after the election where Bush defeated Democrat John F. Kerry, writes in "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... And How We Can Be Safe Again."

Well...
 
Poll numbers go down....terror levels go up. It was all correlated and unfortunately there was a large segment of the American population that actually bought into it.
 
Poll numbers go down....terror levels go up. It was all correlated and unfortunately there was a large segment of the American population that actually bought into it.

And they still seem to be into stupid.
 
This is good to remind us of the past, and take steps to correct it. However, Bush is no longer president. We have a new executive ass to ride now. Why? Because he damn well needs to be smacked too. So lets not worry about the past too much. The present is pretty damn important.
 
This is good to remind us of the past, and take steps to correct it. However, Bush is no longer president. We have a new executive ass to ride now. Why? Because he damn well needs to be smacked too.

He's new, and a Democrat. Just those facts in and of itself is going to get him smacked around by the GOP.
 
He's new, and a Democrat. Just those facts in and of itself is going to get him smacked around by the GOP.

I'm not GOP, and I am smacking his ass. He lied during his campaign. Said he was going to bring decency back to the White House. He didn't.
 
You can't expect any politician to be held accountable for everything he has said.

But we should expect such.

The current political framework does not support such, but I consider that a problem.
 
But we should expect such.

The current political framework does not support such, but I consider that a problem.

Not antagonizing you, but have you ever lied? The answer is "yes." If you answered no, well there's your lie.

No human can live without telling a lie. Whether it is a small white lie, or a big lie...but the point is not to eliminate lying. It's like corruption, it will always be present, but you can do what you can to reduce it. Obama is lying a hell of a lot less then Bush did, if thats some comfort for you.
 
The American voter shouldn't have to wonder what their President is lying about.

There was once a time where that Office was a symbol of honor, courage, and leadership by example, NOT power...
 
Not antagonizing you, but have you ever lied? The answer is "yes." If you answered no, well there's your lie.

No human can live without telling a lie. Whether it is a small white lie, or a big lie...but the point is not to eliminate lying. It's like corruption, it will always be present, but you can do what you can to reduce it. Obama is lying a hell of a lot less then Bush did, if thats some comfort for you.

Well, true, I most likely have lied at some point in my life. I try to avoid it, however. Putting a spin on the truth, however, I do often, usually for humor purposes, or to make a point.

I would prefer that we strive for no lies whatsoever in politics, but I know that such will never occur. Doesn't mean we shouldn't go for it.

As to your opinion that Pres. Obama has lied a lot less than Pres. Bush did...well, he has had less time in office...and it is and will likely continue to be a matter of opinion. Even if Pres. Obama is proven to have never said anything true at any time while being recorded, some people will still have a supporting opinion.

Same goes for any politician out there.
 
This is very serious.
 
This is very serious.

I agree, and this type of dictatorial behaviour does seem to be a common theme under the Bush administration. I think it's important for the American people to ensure that this type of governance does not happen again, and this is why is important that the truth come out.

As far as whether this won them the election, I don't know. I doubt it, but it still might have played a role with some folk. Historically, instilling fear in a population has proven to work.
 
The American voter shouldn't have to wonder what their President is lying about.

There was once a time where that Office was a symbol of honor, courage, and leadership by example, NOT power...

When was this? 300 years ago? You do know that Washington and Jefferson were still politicians regardless of all the beautiful things they were right? Their anatomy, brain waves and general humanity were not that much different then yours or mine. They still lied, played tricks and brought as much drama to the executive office as other President. The only difference is that back then C-SPAN wasn't around and their every word, thought or belief could not be scrutinized.
 
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........

Well, since it doesn't read "Bush rose the terror alert to influence the election" I'm guessing that Bush refused to give in to his aides' pressure. Good for him
 
Well, since it doesn't read "Bush rose the terror alert to influence the election" I'm guessing that Bush refused to give in to his aides' pressure. Good for him

I think it's becoming more and more clear that even though Bush was President, he clearly was not part of all of the bad decisions. From what is coming to light now, Bush and Cheney had a riff in the last part of Bush's Presidency, when it seems that Dubya took a more sterner approach with his administration and staff.

Having said that, as President, does he not have the final say? If he was aware of this (maybe he wasn't?), and thought it morally wrong, there was noting stopping him from allowing it to happen.
 
Having said that, as President, does he not have the final say? If he was aware of this (maybe he wasn't?), and thought it morally wrong, there was noting stopping him from allowing it to happen.

I don't think it did happen. I don't think the terror alert level was raised to influence the election. I think that some aides proposed that the terror alert be raised, and Bush refused, leaving the alert where it was
 
I don't think it did happen. I don't think the terror alert level was raised to influence the election. I think that some aides proposed that the terror alert be raised, and Bush refused, leaving the alert where it was

Thats good if he didn't. But, we don't know. Not to mention, plenty of things happened without Bush's knowledge.
 
When was this? 300 years ago? You do know that Washington and Jefferson were still politicians regardless of all the beautiful things they were right? Their anatomy, brain waves and general humanity were not that much different then yours or mine. They still lied, played tricks and brought as much drama to the executive office as other President. The only difference is that back then C-SPAN wasn't around and their every word, thought or belief could not be scrutinized.

Does it matter how when it was? My point is is that once the Office took a stand FOR the people, as opposed to telling the people that they were too ignorant to run their own lives.

You realize that Washington didn't even want the Presidency...not like today, when slick individuals will whisper sweet nothings in your ear just to get your vote.

When people realize that actions do speak louder than words, than maybe the government will have its eyes opened.
 
From the NYT story on this:

Mr. Ridge provides no evidence that politics motivated the discussion. Until now, he has denied politics played a role in threat levels. Asked by Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times if politics ever influenced decisions on threat warnings, he volunteered to take a lie-detector test. “Wire me up,” Mr. Ridge said, according to Mr. Lichtblau’s book, “Bush’s Law.” “Not a chance. Politics played no part.”

Seems a bit interesting that this is coming out now via his book publisher.
 

More speculative hyperbole from the Left. I guess you missed this part of the story so I used a much bigger crayon:

UPDATE: 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.

Asked if there was any reason for Ridge to have felt pressured, Townsend told the AP: "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."
 
Poll numbers go down....terror levels go up. It was all correlated and unfortunately there was a large segment of the American population that actually bought into it.

You constantly make farcical claims with nothing in the REAL world to substantiate them or support them. Facts are still not your forte' are they?
 
Back
Top Bottom