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

But don't let that fact derail your baseless assertions.
Click to expand...

dictionary: musing - Ask.com Search
Definitions of 'muse'
(myōōz)
Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary

[Middle English musen, from Old French muser (possibly from mus, snout) (from Medieval Latin mūsum), or of Germanic origin.]
(verb: mused, mus·ing, mus·es.)

(intransitive verb)

To be absorbed in one's thoughts; engage in meditation.

(transitive verb)

To consider or say thoughtfully: mused that it might take longer to drive than walk.

(noun)

A state of meditation.




So you admit that Ridge was thinking political considerations was a possibility?
 
Grim17 said:
As Tom Ridge said, he was "musing", not accusing.

But don't let that fact derail your baseless assertions.
Click to expand...

He has said that he "mused" about it, and then he later said he had never had those kinds of thoughts! credibility: gone.
 
niftydrifty said:
He has said that he "mused" about it, and then he later said he had never had those kinds of thoughts! credibility: gone.
Click to expand...

His failure to answer my above question is all we need to know. He has conceded.:surrender
 
Devil505 said:
His failure to answer my above question is all we need to know. He has conceded.:surrender
Click to expand...

"lololololololololol" ... translation = "la la la la, I'm not listening"
 
I guess being forced to watch Tom Ridge send up a barrage of BS to try to say ...."Don't listen to my truthful words in the book.....Listen to my lies NOW"...was too much for you apologists to bare anymore.
No more defending the undefendeable anymore?:lol:
 
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...

Seems perfectly apparent that Ridge wondered at the time if other people's reasons for raising the threat level were politically motivated.

Accepting that as fact, that Ridge wondered this, now what?
 
Devil505 said:
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)

YouTube - Escena - Testigo de cargo (1958)
Click to expand...
You've repeatedly made claims about what the book says. If it turns out that the book doesn't say what you claim it says, will you admit that YOU were lying?
 
mpg said:
You've repeatedly made claims about what the book says. If it turns out that the book doesn't say what you claim it says, will you admit that YOU were lying?
Click to expand...

Watch the interviews available on this thread. Ridge was quoted exactly & speaks live to Matthews & Maddow.
How about YOU admitting you were wrong?
 
Harshaw said:
Seems perfectly apparent that Ridge wondered at the time if other people's reasons for raising the threat level were politically motivated.

Accepting that as fact, that Ridge wondered this, now what?
Click to expand...

What it points out is just how corrupt the Bush administration was & how even their loyal insiders wondered if things weren't being done for political purposes, rather than national security reasons, which happens to be a criminal act. You cannot use your official (exec. Branch) position to effect elections in this country. (even recommending the national threat level be raised....for political reasons would be a felony) Many people in Nixon's WH went to federal prison for doing just that.......& hopefully...so will some Bushies.

In other words, Ridge was wondering if he was witnessing a criminal act at some of those meetings. Hardly a trivial matter!
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
What it points out is just how corrupt the Bush administration was & how even their loyal insiders wondered if things weren't being done for political purposes, rather than national security reasons, which happens to be a criminal act. You cannot use your official (exec. Branch) position to effect elections in this country. That's a felony & many people in Nixon's WH went to federal prison for doing just that.......& hopefully...so will some Bushies.

In other words, Ridge was wondering if he was witnessing a criminal act at some of those meetings. Hardly a trivial matter!
Click to expand...

All it says was that at the time, Ridge wondered about their motivations.

Now, I know that for YOU, all Republicans are automatically guilty of every possible crime until they prove they're not.

But in the real world where there needs to be actual evidence of things, one guy wondering about the motivations of others amounts to . . . why, nothing. Nothing in the slightest. Not even an iota of a smidgen. Especially when . . . nothing happened.

Ridge says it crossed his mind. He now says everyone is making way, way, way too much of it. I don't see the inconsistency.
 
Now you're asking a different question than b4. Before you wanted to know what would be so bad if Ridge's initial concerns were true about political motivations for raising the threat level.

I answered your legitimate ....So What?...question...That would make their recommendations felonies.



NOW......you are asking me to PROVE Ridge's concerns were accurate, which is a whole different question & demands an extensive investigation.
I would favor such an investigation.

Come on...You admitted that Ridge's concerns were reasonable:
Harshaw said:
Seems perfectly apparent that Ridge wondered at the time if other people's reasons for raising the threat level were politically motivated.

Accepting that as fact, that Ridge wondered this, now what?
Click to expand...


Now that you know they may have been crimes, does that change nothing in your mind?
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Watch the interviews available on this thread. Ridge was quoted exactly & speaks live to Matthews & Maddow.
How about YOU admitting you were wrong?
Click to expand...
Reread my post. The issue is about what the book does or doesn't say. Telling me to watch videos that you claim contradict the book will not settle the debate about what the book says.
 
Devil505 said:
Now you're asking a different question than b4. Before you wanted to know what would be so bad if Ridge's initial concerns were true about political motivations for raising the threat level.

I answered your legitimate ....So What?...question...That would make their recommendations felonies.



NOW......you are asking me to PROVE Ridge's concerns were accurate, which is a whole different question & demands an extensive investigation.
I would favor such an investigation.

Come on...You admitted that Ridge's concerns were reasonable:



Now that you know they may have been crimes, does that change nothing in your mind?
Click to expand...
First you put words in Ridge's mouth and now you're doing it to Harshaw. You need to let people speak for themselves.
 
mpg said:
The issue is about what the book does or doesn't say.
Click to expand...

The interviews contain extensive quotes directly from the book & have Ridge himself trying to explain them.
 
Devil505 said:
Now you're asking a different question than b4. Before you wanted to know what would be so bad if Ridge's initial concerns were true about political motivations for raising the threat level.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't.

I accepted that it crossed his mind. I didn't say anything about it being true.


Harshaw said:
Seems perfectly apparent that Ridge wondered at the time if other people's reasons for raising the threat level were politically motivated.

Accepting that as fact, that Ridge wondered this, now what?
Click to expand...

You have well-documented problems with reading comprehension. It involves your seeing exactly what you want to see, not what's there.



NOW......you are asking me to PROVE Ridge's concerns were accurate, which is a whole different question & demands an extensive investigation.
I would favor such an investigation.
Click to expand...

I'm asking no such thing. I said that it crossed Ridge's mind, OK, now what?


Come on...You admitted that Ridge's concerns were reasonable:
Click to expand...

No. I accepted that it crossed his mind. As I said above, you read into it what you wanted to see.


Now that you know they may have been crimes, does that change nothing in your mind?
Click to expand...

See above about what was in my mind re: this.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I didn't.

I accepted that it crossed his mind. I didn't say anything about it being true.




You have well-documented problems with reading comprehension. It involves your seeing exactly what you want to see, not what's there.





I'm asking no such thing. I said that it crossed Ridge's mind, OK, now what?




No. I accepted that it crossed his mind. As I said above, you read into it what you wanted to see.




See above about what was in my mind re: this.
Click to expand...

Obviously we were discussing the significance of Ridge's concerns that politics, not nat'l security ,was the real cause of some wanting to raise the threat level.
I explained what Ridge's concerns (not proof) would mean when I told you that if true, Ridge's guesses would have meant he was witnessing felonies.
That's the whole point...whether these felonies can be proved is beside the point.

If you don't have the integrity to admit that:

1. Ridge's concern were reasonable

2. That, if true, Bush's Sec of Defense & AG had committed felonies in that room

Then I will simply no longer assume you have any integrity in debate, & would never admit that you may be wrong....which kinda makes the whole concept of engaging you in debate..pointless..
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Obviously we were discussing the significance of Ridge's concerns that politics, not nat'l security ,was the real cause of some wanting to raise the threat level.
I explained what Ridge's concerns (not proof) would mean when I told you that if true, Ridge's guesses would have meant he was witnessing felonies.
That's the whole point...whether these felonies can be proved is beside the point.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I told you in plain language exactly what I was discussing. Whatever you chose to read into it, for whatever reason, is not my problem. I will not say simply what you want me to say. Which leads me to . . .


If you don't have the integrity to admit that:

1. Ridge's concern were reasonable
Click to expand...

"Integrity" leads me to conclude that 1) there was no evidence to back up his concern, and 2) he himself says too much is being made out of it, and that nothing inappropriate took place, so it must not have been a very powerful concern.

I get that for you, for whom all Republicans are guilty of every possible crime until proven innocent, that's not only a "reasonable" concern, but an absolutely damning one. But as I said above . . . that's only in your mind.



Then I will simply no longer assume you have any integrity in debate, & would never admit that you may be wrong....which kinda makes the whole concept of engaging you in debate..pointless..
Click to expand...

YOU have NO standing to impugn ANYONE'S integrity and/or honesty when it comes to debate. I can't help it that you can't win, but it's absolutely not because I'm dishonest. It's because I don't say outrageous, stupid, indefensible things.
 
Harshaw said:
but it's absolutely not because I'm dishonest. It's because I don't say outrageous, stupid, indefensible things.
Click to expand...


Can you post links to any debate here where you admit you are wrong?
(I have admitted many mistakes...Do you?)
 
Grim17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is what I find difficult to believe. All authors sign off on the covers for their books before they are printed. This "pressure" was a key part of the book's cover. Ridge signed off on it. So what happened?

1) Ridge cannot read, which means that he is considering running for President, using that lovable ol' George Bush homespun charm.

2) Ridge backpedaled because he changed his mind, which means he cannot be trusted.

3) Ridge backpedaled because of renewed pressure, which means that he was a poor choice for Homeland Security Secretary to begin with.

4) Ridge was pressured by his publisher, who wanted to make the book juicy, but then changed his mind, which means that he waffles worse than John Kerry.

5) Ridge is one hell of a practical jokester, and the joke is on all of us.

Pick one. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
Here is what I find difficult to believe. All authors sign off on the covers for their books before they are printed. This "pressure" was a key part of the book's cover. Ridge signed off on it. So what happened?

1) Ridge cannot read, which means that he is considering running for President, using that lovable ol' George Bush homespun charm.

2) Ridge backpedaled because he changed his mind, which means he cannot be trusted.

3) Ridge backpedaled because of renewed pressure, which means that he was a poor choice for Homeland Security Secretary to begin with.

4) Ridge was pressured by his publisher, who wanted to make the book juicy, but then changed his mind, which means that he waffles worse than John Kerry.

5) Ridge is one hell of a practical jokester, and the joke is on all of us.

Pick one. LOL.
Click to expand...

Again, you are forgetting one critical thing... Ridge never accused the Administration in the first place. There was no backpeddling, because he never accused them in the first place.

Facts can really be a bitch.

.
 
Devil505 said:
Can you post links to any debate here where you admit you are wrong?
(I have admitted many mistakes...Do you?)
Click to expand...

Out of fairness I'll give you some time to find any such admissions but............if none are forthcoming, we can only assume one of two possibilities

1. You never are in error & are 100% infallible.


OR


2. You have no integrity.
 
Devil505 said:
Can you post links to any debate here where you admit you are wrong?
(I have admitted many mistakes...Do you?)
Click to expand...

Right here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...free-captured-americans-3.html#post1058183129

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...wed-hinder-free-speech-42.html#post1058195319

But, this is all a distraction, as usual; the debate isn't going your way, so you're trying to make it about me, personally. Been down this road with you many, many times.
 
Harshaw said:
Right here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...free-captured-americans-3.html#post1058183129

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...wed-hinder-free-speech-42.html#post1058195319

But, this is all a distraction, as usual; the debate isn't going your way, so you're trying to make it about me, personally. Been down this road with you many, many times.
Click to expand...

OK...Pretty weak admissions .....but I'll concede you did give me what I asked for.
So...since you are evidently capable of admitting error, I'm at a loss to understand your refusal to do so here??

But........I'll get over it!:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom