Politicizing the terror alerts

 

Tom Ridge confirms a long-held suspicion among Bush critics, writing in his new autobiography that he "was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over."

 

Yeah I just posted this in the Dem thread but it might be worth a separate thread.

sorry.. my bad.

I could write a long post about Bush fatigue and how confirming the long held suspicions doesn't even matter anymore, the important thing is just that the press sucked for 8 years. ANd continues to suck. And sucked before that.

I could write a long post about Bush fatigue and how confirming the long held suspicions doesn't even matter anymore, the important thing is just that the press sucked for 8 years. ANd continues to suck. And sucked before that.

and will continue to suck indefinitely.

According to Wikipedia, it was only raised to severe once, in August of 2006, and which applied only to flights coming from the United Kingdom. August 10–14, 2006, in response to British law enforcement announcing it had disrupted a major terror plot to blow up aircraft, DHS raised the threat level for commercial flights from the United Kingdom to the United States to Severe. Was raised to 'orange' around the time that Ridge refers to due to "August 1 – November 10, 2004, for specific financial institutions in northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C., citing intelligence pointing to the possibility of a car or truck bomb attack, naming specific buildings as possible targets." It is clear that at that time many people thought the color code system was useless, including Ridge, and that 'changing' it was useless. Clearly others did think it was still usefull, such as Bush. You have a he said/she said thnig here. Bush had intel that reported something and wanted it raised, Ridge didn't think so.

 

Best case for Bush and Cheney: There was an elevated risk and Ridge was wrong; Ridge was too worried about the appearances of raising the level, whereas Bush and Cheney didn't care about appearances.

 

Wosrt case for Bush and Chaney: Just check any lefty blog, you will get a huge list of those.

 

Most likely case: As people tend to do, they viewed the data with their own best interests in mind, and thus arguable, on-the-line data was seen by them --- honestly, due to the powerful agent of subconscious self-interest -- as warranting a heightened threat level.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Secu...Advisory_System

hahaha, k.

hahaha, k.

So you are that willing to take as gospel the ad copy thrown out by a publisher in order to promote interest in a book? Man, I have a bridge to sell you? What if the book comes out and by 'pressured' he means they asked and he said no and that was it? Ooohhh, that's alot of pressure there. I don't doubt that they could have done it, but I don't assume that they did either.

Edited August 21, 200916 yr by Alpha Dog

So you are that willing to take as gospel the ad copy thrown out by a publisher in order to promote interest in a book? Man, I have a bridge to sell you? What if the book comes out and by 'pressured' he means they asked and he said no and that was it? Ooohhh, that's alot of pressure there. I don't doubt that they could have done it, but I don't assume that they did either.

Of course it's in there to try to sell books.

 

My problem with all these folks and the horrible things they want to say to clear their conscience continues to be...if this was going on, and you saw it was a problem at the time, why didn't you either come forward with it at the time, when something could have been done (i.e. pre-2004-election) or just outright resign in protest?

even if he was merely asked and said no, the fact that the audacity was there to try and manipulate my emotions after an event like 9/11 to further a handful of persons career, is enough for me to laugh at your justifications.

even if he was merely asked and said no, the fact that the audacity was there to try and manipulate my emotions after an event like 9/11 to further a handful of persons career, is enough for me to laugh at your justifications.

And if they wanted the alert level raised because they truely believe it to be needed, that doesnt change things to you? With Dems, it s always about the intentions, they meant well, they meant to do the right thing. If they looked at the info and thought they saw a valid threat, they would be remiss in their duties to not try and raise the level. ONly they know what was going on in their heads, yet you proscribe to have inside knowledge of their intentions and have damned them so. Bravo for you.

Of course it's in there to try to sell books.

 

My problem with all these folks and the horrible things they want to say to clear their conscience continues to be...if this was going on, and you saw it was a problem at the time, why didn't you either come forward with it at the time, when something could have been done (i.e. pre-2004-election) or just outright resign in protest?

I will agree with you on this point. For anyone who does a tell all book afterwards, and tries to justify it as cleaning their conscience. Bulls*** to you, you are doing it for money.

And if they wanted the alert level raised because they truely believe it to be needed, that doesnt change things to you? With Dems, it s always about the intentions, they meant well, they meant to do the right thing. If they looked at the info and thought they saw a valid threat, they would be remiss in their duties to not try and raise the level. ONly they know what was going on in their heads, yet you proscribe to have inside knowledge of their intentions and have damned them so. Bravo for you.

It's also worth noting that you're assuming you know Ridge's intentions; money. You're not necessarily wrong, but you're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing.

sounds american to me, what's the problem?

 

Before who knows what restrictions he was under, also would've lost his job and had a Rovian scheme sent against him, perhaps getting Siegleman'd, not those forces have been marginalized and there's a push to know what happened. What's the incentive for those who could be blackballed from every profession they know unless it can provide some security.

 

I've never really bought into getting paid for releasing info=false info. Many-a important stories have been broken by paying someone for the info (My-lai). Hell, we just celebrated when journalism was great! in Frost-Nixon, where Nixon was paid handsomely.

It's also worth noting that you're assuming you know Ridge's intentions; money. You're not necessarily wrong, but you're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing.

Ridge's intentions may or may not be about money, but they are absolutely at a minimum about trying to save Beltway face. Just like Colin Powell. And they both can take a leap off the political bridge and die. They are two-faced idiots, both of them.

sounds american to me, what's the problem?

 

Before who knows what restrictions he was under, also would've lost his job and had a Rovian scheme sent against him, perhaps getting Siegleman'd, not those forces have been marginalized and there's a push to know what happened. What's the incentive for those who could be blackballed from every profession they know unless it can provide some security.

 

I've never really bought into getting paid for releasing info=false info. Many-a important stories have been broken by paying someone for the info (My-lai). Hell, we just celebrated when journalism was great! in Frost-Nixon, where Nixon was paid handsomely.

He didn't raise the levels at the time he was asked, and he didn't lose his job because of it.

It's also worth noting that you're assuming you know Ridge's intentions; money. You're not necessarily wrong, but you're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing.

Look at my first post. I am doing nothing of the sort. I pointed out both extremes and suggested that the reality probbaly lies in the middle. Let me refresh your memory.

 

Best case for Bush and Cheney: There was an elevated risk and Ridge was wrong; Ridge was too worried about the appearances of raising the level, whereas Bush and Cheney didn't care about appearances.

 

Wosrt case for Bush and Chaney: Just check any lefty blog, you will get a huge list of those.

 

Most likely case: As people tend to do, they viewed the data with their own best interests in mind, and thus arguable, on-the-line data was seen by them --- honestly, due to the powerful agent of subconscious self-interest -- as warranting a heightened threat level.

 

 

Look at my first post. I am doing nothing of the sort. I pointed out both extremes and suggested that the reality probbaly lies in the middle. Let me refresh your memory.

No, in this quote you ascribe motivations to ridge pretty clearly.

So you are that willing to take as gospel the ad copy thrown out by a publisher in order to promote interest in a book? Man, I have a bridge to sell you? What if the book comes out and by 'pressured' he means they asked and he said no and that was it? Ooohhh, that's alot of pressure there. I don't doubt that they could have done it, but I don't assume that they did either.

 

No, in this quote you ascribe motivations to ridge pretty clearly.

Are you having a hard time reading today? I said 'what if', not 'they did'. Also, "I don't doubt that they could have done it, but I don't assume that they did either." Hardly seems like a declaritive either way on my part.

 

Edited August 21, 200916 yr by Alpha Dog

sure.

Ridge should have made this allegation public when it was happening so Americans could have voted their outrage.

Ridge should have made this allegation public when it was happening so Americans could have voted their outrage.

But he didn't. Imagine that. You can say anything, later.

I believe that most of the time, "national interest" and any "White House" pressure to follow policy, toe the line, etc, is a good thing. I believe if he was having differences, keeping them internal is the right thing to do, in most cases. (I know we can come up with a hypothetical to the contrary). Later, as kind of a post game analysis, these types of stories come out, I think that is good for going forward.

Tom Ridge stopped them from raising the level right didn't he?

 

Then he did his job properly. Why would he resign when he got the outcome he wanted? He can't speak out and keep his job as Cabinet Secretary. So some pushover could replace him?

 

Sometimes it's your duty to resign, but I'm not sure it was in this case.

 

But the details are really foggy.

Ridge's intentions may or may not be about money, but they are absolutely at a minimum about trying to save Beltway face. Just like Colin Powell. And they both can take a leap off the political bridge and die. They are two-faced idiots, both of them.

I don't know Ridge's full story, but I know a bit about Powell, and I don't think he's trying to save face. He pushed against what he saw as a mistake of a war, repeatedy, in the way that he saw as a best possibility - from within the administration that hired him. His speech at the UN, he pounded on CIA and others, to ask repeatedly, is this stuff solid? That resulted in the famous "slam dunk" line. So he did his job, and presented that evidence (but he made frat boy from CIA stand right there next to him, making sure he knew that he was putting his reputation at stake as well).

 

Powell has, in my view, been more honest than most high level guys I've seen work in these administrations in recent years (of the ones I know anything about).