ridge doesn’t say so in so many words, but it seems that the implication is there…say it ain’t so!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
This is from americablog.org: BTW: it is sort of odd that we haven’t had one terror alert since Bush was “re-elected.”
Ridge Comes Clean: Terror Alerts based on “flimsy” evidence
by Joe in DC - 5/11/2005 08:44:00 AM
Okay, this is rich. If we had a real Congress, there would be investigations. There would be outrage. USA Today reports on what most of us suspected, that the terror alert was often raised based on “flimsy” evidence:
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.
Yep, Tom Ridge admits it. So, the obvious question is why were the terror alerts raised if it wasn’t based on real evidence. Was it politics? And which “administration officials” made the call? John Ashcroft? Karl Rove?
So all the red state voters who thought Bush would keep them safe…the GOP played them perfectly. The propoganda of fear…Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
There have been no new terror alerts because the rulers are doing such a great job of fighting terrorism.
ridge doesn’t say so in so many words, but it seems that the implication is there…say it ain’t so!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Ignore Ridge. He’s just another disgruntled ex-Administration official. Probably has a book deal going.
yeah, i was thinking about how this will play out. how many times can the admin go the “he’s got ulterior motives” route? or will rove sit him down and tell ridge to make a statement that he was taken out of context or that he misspoke? so many spin options, so little time…
yeah, i was thinking about how this will play out. how many times can the admin go the “he’s got ulterior motives” route? or will rove sit him down and tell ridge to make a statement that he was taken out of context or that he misspoke? so many spin options, so little time…
Judging by the attention span of the red-staters, they can do it ad infinitum. Or ad nauseum to those of us paying attention.
Give it a rest. The press is playing the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” game. IF something were to happen, and IF the press could find that someone, somewhere in some dusty, fleabitten little FBI office had some “flimsy” evidence that wasn’t acted on, they would try to crucify the president.
That’s the truth and you know it as well as I do.
it also just came out that the department of agriculture was paying a writer to talk up some conservation policies in some hunting/outdoor enthusiast mags without full disclosure. people, does ANYONE see a PATTERN here? how many others are getting paid that we don’t know about? more liberal media i guess…
how is the press responsible for ridge’s statement? that’s such a ridiculous comment to make. ridge isn’t some backwater analyst. he’s the head guy making these statements. jeebus christmas, do these guys get a free pass no matter what they do?
I don’t post here as much as I used to - because, yes, the administration does get a free pass, no matter what it does, from the astoundingly large number of ignorant morons that support it, like the many who post here. I used to bend over backwards in my thinking to try and understand how people could support the Bush administration - and give them the benefit of the doubt that there are solid, logical reasons behind their viewpoints, and a real moral underpinning for their views. The former simply does not exist, and I have strong doubts about the latter. Bush’s Presidency truly is the “faith-based” Presidency - because there are no logical reasons for most people to support him.
So what criteria is the administration supposed to use to make the judgement about when or when not to issue a terror alert? Is there a formula somewhere in some textbook that tells how to make this decision? There isn’t. This is new ground and we are making it up as we go along. But let someone die in a bomb attacke and ther will be hell to pay. All Ridge is saying is that there was a political decision (Surprise! Politicians make political decisions!) to be safe rather than sorry and issue alerts if there was evidence (even minimal) of a planned attack.
Compare this to other issues–Cancer scares, Amber Alerts, Sexual Predator Lists, drugs pulled off the market, warnings on cigarette packages, etc., etc., etc. Our “society” is demanding that government protect them from any known or unknown evil, no matter how likely it is or is not to occur. And then, is it any wonder that politicians react with the better safe than sorry warnings?
they formed the dhs specifically for situations like this. they are the domestic terrorism experts. so basically, the criteria is the recommendation of the dhs. ridge is strongly hinting that raising terror alerts was done without the strong enough evidence to warrant it. that is not sound policy and i’m sorry but i don’t believe it was done because someone decided that terror alerts would be issued on the basis of any info in order to cover all bases…in other words, i don’t believe it was a “better safe than sorry” attitude at work.
I think the morons are the ones that don’t recognize that both sides of the aisle have political motives and hide under their beds conjuring up conspiratorial motives for everything the Bush administration puts out. Maybe it was simple differences of opinon between Ridge, Ashrcoft and the FBI over what constitutes a threat (wasn’t Ridge the guy that suggested getting out the duct tape? Oh, but now his credibility is beyond reproach). It has to be blatant manipulation to scare and divert attention according to the lilly-white Dems.
Read: * “The White House and the Capitol building were evacuated Wednesday as police told people to leave quickly.”*
They sure go to great lengths to play the US public.
Quit looking for the black helicopters and try to be less of a partisan dip!
I think the morons are the ones that don’t recognize that both sides of the aisle have political motives and hide under their beds conjuring up conspiratorial motives for everything the Bush administration puts out. Maybe it was simple differences of opinon between Ridge, Ashrcoft and the FBI over what constitutes a threat (wasn’t Ridge the guy that suggested getting out the duct tape? Oh, but now his credibility is beyond reproach). It has to be blatant manipulation to scare and divert attention according to the lilly-white Dems.
Read: “The White House and the Capitol building were evacuated Wednesday as police told people to leave quickly.”
They sure go to great lengths to play the US public.
Quit looking for the black helicopters and try to be less of a partisan dip!
Your insightful comments prove my point. Ignorant people like you are quick to rah-rah for the President and give him the benefit of the doubt - but anyone who pays attention to the acts, omissions, and statements of this administration, lilly-white Dems and independents like me included, would conclude otherwise. Do Democrats also act on political motives? Sure, but they’re not in power now, and their acts are nothing compared to those of the Republicans. Did you not notice the flurry of terror alerts in the six months prior to our election? Are you really foolish enough to think that was just coincidence? I guess there is a sucker born every minute.
No rah rah here. Just a balanced viewpoint. I guess Osama releasing a tape a month before the election is something Bush orchestrated too. Let the conspiracies abound. What color is the sky where you live?
By the way, you blew your indepedent cover and you are clearly out of the closet. The first step is to admit it.
I think you mean “fair and balanced” viewpoint.
Again, you attribute things to me that are not so. I never raised the issue of Osama’s tape. Honestly, I lack the patience to deal with trolls like yourself. Bye!
“y the way, you blew your indepedent cover and you are clearly out of the closet. The first step is to admit it”
Yes, because apparently it is a bad thing to be an independant.
Tom Ridge was hand-picked for the Homeland Security job by the administration. He was staunchly defended by conservatives while he was in office. Now that he’s out and he’s saying something possibly disparaging about the administration, those same conservatives are very quick to abandon him. God forbid anyone say anything negative about the administration. They must all be closet independants.
While I’m inclined to think that the alerts have been used as a political tool, Ridge made no such implication. It seems to me that he only indicated that there was disagreement over the threshold for raising alert levels publicly.
Hey genius, I guess you missed the nuance when you quoted me. His indepedent status wasn’t what was kept in the closet, it was his predeliction to hate anything Bush (or commonly refered to as drinking from left-wing beer bong). I love Independents!
If you read my previous quote carefully without tiring your lips, I just suggested that maybe there were disagreements amongst the players and not necessarily a vast conspiracy to rush out alerts for political purposes.
Get out the duct tape!
Hey jackass, there was no nuance in your last quote. you told him his indepenent cover was blown and the first step was to admit it.
There’s no need to start calling me stupid, expecially since you can’t seem to remember what you actually wrote previously. What you actually said was that the Dems are all looking for some sort of conspiracy and that anyone who thinks it might be politically motivated apparently sees black helicopters and is a “partisan dip.” Next time you start trotting out the insults, maybe you should be more clear about what you mean, less insulting to other posters, and more careful to remember what you already typed.