Bush administration tried to use terror alert to sway voters

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090820/pl_afp/usattackspoliticsridge

Tom Ridge is not a conspiracy theorist, a liberal, or a democrat.

I see no reason for him to lie about this.

I honestly think this should be investigated by the Justice Department, and if turns out that ANYONE pressured Ridge or anyone else at Homeland Security to raise the terror alert for ANY reason other then a credible terrorist threat, they should be tried for Treason.

And I do mean....treason.

These alerts, put fear into the minds of millions of Americans. They force cities and towns to ramp up their vigilence and security spending.

If anyone...dared..to try to use the terror alerts as a way to scare the people into voting one way or another...this MUST be seen as a crime against the American people..and dealt with as such.

:mad:

[T.A.M.]

Big surprise. I think we all knew it. Just like they used 9/11 and the fear it provoked, to make the push for Iraq (along with the mythical WMD's).

TAM:)

[Thunder]

Big surprise. I think we all knew it. Just like they used 9/11 and the fear it provoked, to make the push for Iraq (along with the mythical WMD's).

TAM:)

well...now we have a very very credible whistle blower.

folks in the Bush administration wanted to falsely raise the terror alert..due to politics and not terror.

i pray for a Justice Dept. investigation.

it is a much stronger case against Bush then the WMDs in Iraq story. many nations did indeed believe Iraq had WMDs. even i thought we would find something...anything.

[Policenaut]

I see no reason for him to lie about this.

No reason...except to sell his book.

[WildCat]

I honestly think this should be investigated by the Justice Department, and if turns out that ANYONE pressured Ridge or anyone else at Homeland Security to raise the terror alert for ANY reason other then a credible terrorist threat, they should be tried for Treason.

And I do mean....treason.
How does that constitute levying war against the United States, or adhering to our enemies, or giving them aid and comfort?

[daredelvis]

No reason...except to sell his book.

Jeeez, you beat me to my "Countdown to, 'A pack of lies from someone holding a grudge/book to sell in 5. 4. 3. 2...'"

Daredelvis

[WildCat]

Big surprise. I think we all knew it. Just like they used 9/11 and the fear it provoked, to make the push for Iraq (along with the mythical WMD's).

TAM:)
Ridge says he refused, and the record shows (http://www.terror-alert.com/) he didn't. In fact, the National security threat level has remained unchanged at "Elevated" (Yellow) since May 30, 2003.

And there have been no changes (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm) since Obama took office, so I guess he must be using it to drum up support for the Iraq war also.

[gnome]

I think he was saying they pressured him to increase it to Orange.

[Brainster]

I'm having a little trouble reconciling this:

Then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and attorney general John Ashcroft pushed him to elevate the color-coded threat level, but Ridge refused, according to a summary from his publisher, Thomas Dunne Books.

With this:

In those remarks, Ridge said he was raising the threat alert level for the financial services sector in New York City, northern New Jersey, and Washington DC, and went on to praise Bush's leadership against extremism.

So did he refuse or not?

[ksbluesfan]

No reason...except to sell his book.

Doesn't he also plan to run for President?

[WildCat]

I'm having a little trouble reconciling this:



With this:



So did he refuse or not?
The National threat level was Yellow. The one for fianncial sectors (as well as for mass transit following the London bombings) was a targeted threat level.

[Policenaut]

Doesn't he also plan to run for President?

No he simply plans to make a bunch of money.

[boloboffin]

Ooooh, keep your eye on the queen (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/08/20/ambinder-sorry-i-was-so-stupid-but-i-was-right-to-be-stupid/):

Mark Ambinder takes the opportunity (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/dont_cry_for_tom_ridge.php) of Ridge's confirmation that the terror alerts were one big political game to claim he was justified in believing that we DFHers were wrong about the alerts--and in doing so, demonstrates what is so wrong with so much of Village journalism.Journalists, including myself, were very skeptical when anti-Bush liberals insisted that what Ridge now says is true, was true. We were wrong. Our skepticism about the activists' conclusions was warranted because these folks based their assumption on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence. But journalists should have been even more skeptical about the administration's pronouncements. And yet -- we, too, weren't privy to the intelligence. Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a Democratic system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt. We can see, now, how pre-war intelligence was manipulated, how the entire Washington establishment (including Congressional Democrats(, including the media, was manipulated by a valid fear of the unknown -- but a fear we now know was consciously, deliberately, inculcated....God forbid a journalist use simple empiricism--retrospectively matching terror alerts (http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_archive.html#109156476570482138) with reports on which they were based--to assess the terror alerts. God forbid a journalist learn that we went to Code Orange because someone claimed terrorists were going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch, and from that learn to be skeptical of terror alerts going forwards. It's not as if, after all, the election eve alert was a one-off, the only alert in which the hype was later shown to be over-hype. There was a pattern. And normal human beings equipped with the gift of empiricism that apparently gets weeded out at journalism school tend to look at patterns and conclude that if a relationship consistently has happened in the past, then it probably will exist in the future.

But no!! Journalists can't do what normal human beings do all the time, and make certain conclusions by watching patterns develop.

Amazing. Ambinder can always do three-card monte scams if this journalism thing doesn't work out.

*DFHers = Dirty :rule10 Hippies

[leftysergeant]

How does that constitute levying war against the United States, or adhering to our enemies, or giving them aid and comfort?

Attempting to install, by deception, the sort of one-party rule envisioned by that evil toad Rove constitutes a coup d'etat. That makes them, themselves, domestic enemies of the Constitution.

[The Painter]

I think he was saying they pressured him to increase it to Orange.

New York City has always been at Orange. Still is, as far as I know.

[shawmutt]

well DUH

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The only way any of this sticks to Bush and the republicans is if we all live in a parallel universe where Al-Queada and it's sister groups do not have a history of attacks on or around national elections.

The Madrid bombings three days before the Spanish national elections, 26 dead in this weeks Afghan elections, just to name two examples.

And have you all forgotten Bin Laden himself releasing another threatening video 5 days before the 2004 US election?

Elevating the terror alert level on or just prior to an election is a no brainer. Just like elevating the forest fire threat level in June.

If Secretary Ridge has forgotten all of these things, then it reflects poorly on him. He either is playing some kind of game, or he wasn't competent at his job.

[corplinx]

Isn't this the 10th drummed up supposedly shocking revelation from a former Bushie that coincidently was released in conjunction with their tell-all book? The sort of thing where if you read the text, it doesn't match the hype being floated by the PR people to the news people?

Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. But this is like the 10th one of these things.

[Praktik]

Isn't this the 10th drummed up supposedly shocking revelation from a former Bushie that coincidently was released in conjunction with their tell-all book? The sort of thing where if you read the text, it doesn't match the hype being floated by the PR people to the news people?

Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. But this is like the 10th one of these things.

So what does that tell you then? I see your point, and my takeaway is that the Bush admin was pretty ******, calculating and devious - to have this many disgruntled ex-employees, many of whom I see as eminently credible.

What's your takeaway?

And I agree its only "supposedly" shocking - given that the signs (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA) were (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html) there (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2005/10/13/transcript-olbermann-offers-proof-fake-bush-terror-alerts) all along.

[Praktik]

When are we going to see those responsible for raising the spectre of terrorism to achieve political ends charged with conspiracy to committ terrorism?

After all, the basic definition of terrorism is to use the threat of terror to achieve political ends.

[Monketey Ghost]

When are we going to see those responsible for raising the spectre of terrorism to achieve political ends charged with conspiracy to committ terrorism?

After all, the basic definition of terrorism is to use the threat of terror to achieve political ends.

This.

Praktik, I agree; my takeaway is that the Bush administration practiced a cruel sort of cynicism and control over scared people in the name of securing our rights (somehow). They took a ****-ton of worldwide support and junked it by acting in a devious, "Trust us, we're not using our power against anyone we damned well please" manner.

At the end, who trusted W's administration, but hard-core right wingers?

[daredelvis]

Isn't this the 10th drummed up supposedly shocking revelation from a former Bushie that coincidently was released in conjunction with their tell-all book? The sort of thing where if you read the text, it doesn't match the hype being floated by the PR people to the news people?

Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. But this is like the 10th one of these things.

Jeeez, you beat me to my "Countdown to, 'A pack of lies from someone holding a grudge/book to sell in 5. 4. 3. 2...'"

Daredelvis

Daredelvis

[linusrichard]

if turns out that ANYONE pressured Ridge or anyone else at Homeland Security to raise the terror alert for ANY reason other then a credible terrorist threat, they should be tried for Treason.

And I do mean....treason.

How does that constitute levying war against the United States, or adhering to our enemies, or giving them aid and comfort?

This. Seriously, parky, I have said it before, and I'll say it again: The U.S. Constitution is really short, it really deserves a half hour to an hour of your time. Maybe today is the day!

[corplinx]

Nobody said it was a pack of lies. I just stated the PR around the book releases tend to be more inflammatory than the text of the books. Usually these things are released on a Tuesday and featured on the 60 Minutes the Sunday before.

Each time the book supposedly is startling and such but turn out not to be the big betrayals they are made out to be.

[T.A.M.]

Ridge says he refused, and the record shows (http://www.terror-alert.com/) he didn't. In fact, the National security threat level has remained unchanged at "Elevated" (Yellow) since May 30, 2003.

And there have been no changes (http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm) since Obama took office, so I guess he must be using it to drum up support for the Iraq war also.

1. That record stops in 2007.
2. Which level are we referring to. It seems some levels changed, others didn't, according to your link.

Then there is this,


August 10, 2006 -- Statement by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff Announcing a Change to the Nation’s Threat Level for the Aviation Sector - The Department of Homeland Security is taking immediate steps to increase security measures in the aviation sector in coordination with heightened security precautions in the United Kingdom. For that reason, the United States Government has raised the nation’s threat level to Severe, or Red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States. This adjustment reflects the Critical, or highest, alert level that has been implemented in the United Kingdom. To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, we will also raise the threat level to High, or Orange, for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States.

and these,


July 7, 2005 (11:45 a.m. EDT) -- Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a targeted raise in the threat level. In light of today’s attacks in London, the United States Government is raising the threat level from Code Yellow – or Elevated – to Code Orange – or High – targeted only to the mass transit portion of the transportation sector. This only includes regional and inter-city passenger rail, subways and metropolitan bus systems. We are also asking for increased vigilance in other transportation systems.

August 1, 2004 - Advisory - Homeland Security Advisory System Increase to Level ORANGE for Financial Sector in New York City, Washington DC and Northern New Jersey.

So your point is that the threat level for THE ENTIRE COUNTRY never changed?

TAM:)

[Darth Rotor]

Rich left the team about the same time Colin Powell left the team.

Coincidence? Did they both see nothing but more of the same on the horizon? Were both disappointed in the people they had to work with?

The whole color code thing had me pissed of a few months after it was put into effect. It was meaningless public posturing, and nnoyed me to no end. (It's parallel to the Defcon levels within DoD wasn't accidental, but it made it doubly annoying to me. )

Or, maybe it was fear mongering of the most basic sort. "Hey, chicken little, the sky is a little lower today!"

If Rich had a sack, he'd have not played that game at all. But, he's a politician, so he played along. Looks as eventually he didn't want to play anymore. But he does want to make a buck.

You go, Tom.

Funny, he was at one point the guy expected to get McCain's nom for VP. I wonder what happened there.

DR

[Policenaut]

He didn't want to play anymore but never said a peep about it until his wondrous book is about to come out. I thought most people here were skeptics. The formula is quite simple: Former Bush official+trash administration in book=$. Or they could go the other way: Former Bush official+supportive of administration on tv=$. In the end these people are all about $$$ and their own image. The truth is not their paramount concern.

[Brainster]

Response from Andy Card (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26313.html):

“We went over backwards repeatedly and with great discipline to make sure politics did not influence any national security and homeland security decisions,” former White House chief of staff Andy Card told POLITICO. “The clear instructions were to make sure politics never influenced anything.”

Homeland security advisor Fran Townsend:

Townsend said Thursday that the accusations do not match her recollection of events and that any suggestion that the White House’s political team tried to alter the threat level is untrue.

“Under no circumstance was Tom Ridge or anyone else directed to change the threat level,” Townsend said. “It didn’t work that way, and it certainly didn’t work that way in 2004. It was always an apolitical process.”

[Monketey Ghost]

"If anyone in my administration broke the law, they will no longer work for this administration."

[theprestige]

I notice that it isn't Ridge making the claim, it's his publisher alleging that he makes the claim... in his book... which they're publishing... and which they hope will sell a lot of copies.

If you want to find out the truth, you'll have to either ask Tom Ridge... who doesn't seem to be interested in speaking about it... or buy a copy of his book.

So there you go. You're welcome to believe a publisher with a book to sell if you like. Me, I'll wait until the public record is released (should one exist), or until Ridge's book arrives at my local library (on account of I stopped trusting publisher hype after reading Brian Herbert's first contribution to the Dune saga).

[ponderingturtle]

The only way any of this sticks to Bush and the republicans is if we all live in a parallel universe where Al-Queada and it's sister groups do not have a history of attacks on or around national elections.

The Madrid bombings three days before the Spanish national elections, 26 dead in this weeks Afghan elections, just to name two examples.

And have you all forgotten Bin Laden himself releasing another threatening video 5 days before the 2004 US election?

Elevating the terror alert level on or just prior to an election is a no brainer. Just like elevating the forest fire threat level in June.

If Secretary Ridge has forgotten all of these things, then it reflects poorly on him. He either is playing some kind of game, or he wasn't competent at his job.

And of course 9/11 was specificaly picked to screw up the NYC mayoral ellection.

[Praktik]

Homeland security advisor Fran Townsend:

C'mon, would you have expected her to say anything ELSE?

http://images.nextnewnetworks.com/5451_blog.jpg

[Brainster]

I assume the retraction (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-30-tom-ridge_N.htm) will not excite as much comment:

Now, Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said.

[T.A.M.]

So Brainster, what do you think of his revelation, then sudden retraction? All par for the course?

Was he lying the first time, or now?

TAM:)

[Ziggurat]

So Brainster, what do you think of his revelation, then sudden retraction? All par for the course?

Was he lying the first time, or now?

TAM:)

I refer you to an earlier post in this thread:

I notice that it isn't Ridge making the claim, it's his publisher alleging that he makes the claim... in his book... which they're publishing... and which they hope will sell a lot of copies.

[T.A.M.]

I refer you to an earlier post in this thread:

So Ridge is claiming he NEVER made the allegation that he was approached by anyone to change the terror level around the time of the 2004 election?

TAM:)

[Ziggurat]

So Ridge is claiming he NEVER made the allegation that he was approached by anyone to change the terror level around the time of the 2004 election?

Oh, but that's a different claim. We should expect there to be occasional disagreements within government about the appropriate terror alert level, and we should demand that the relevant officials put forward their best opinions about what those levels are. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any of it was motivated by political, rather than security, concerns.

[theprestige]

It's threads like this that make me think that--with rare exceptions--the only real difference between "debunkers" and "truthers" is the set of conspiracy theories they indulge in.

[T.A.M.]

Oh, but that's a different claim. We should expect there to be occasional disagreements within government about the appropriate terror alert level, and we should demand that the relevant officials put forward their best opinions about what those levels are. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any of it was motivated by political, rather than security, concerns.

Ok, then.

Did Ridge every state, in his book or elsewhere, that he was PRESSURED BY or ASKED BY members of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to alter the terror threat level around the time of the 2004 election without proper intelligence to back up such a request? If the answer is yes, then what other reason (outside of intelligence suggesting such a change should be made) would they have for approaching him with such a request?

TAM:)

[Ziggurat]

Did Ridge every state, in his book or elsewhere, that he was PRESSURED BY or ASKED BY members of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to alter the terror threat level around the time of the 2004 election without proper intelligence to back up such a request?

He was asked to raise the threat level, but apparently not pressured to do so. Ridge did not think the intelligence was sufficient, but that doesn't mean those asking him didn't think it was.

[theprestige]

Ok, then.

Did Ridge every state, in his book or elsewhere, that he was PRESSURED BY or ASKED BY members of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION to alter the terror threat level around the time of the 2004 election without proper intelligence to back up such a request? If the answer is yes, then what other reason (outside of intelligence suggesting such a change should be made) would they have for approaching him with such a request?

TAM:)
Aren't you kind of getting ahead of yourself here? Ridge's book isn't even out yet. We have no idea what's actually in it. And yet you're encouraging uninformed speculation about motives for acts that may not have taken place, and arbitrarily ruling out possible motives with no justification.

This is exactly what I mean about the only real difference between debunkers and truthers. If you were trying to promote a 9/11 CT this way, this thread would already have another three pages consisting of laughing dogs and beachnut callling you an ignorant liar.

[T.A.M.]

Aren't you kind of getting ahead of yourself here? Ridge's book isn't even out yet. We have no idea what's actually in it. And yet you're encouraging uninformed speculation about motives for acts that may not have taken place, and arbitrarily ruling out possible motives with no justification.

This is exactly what I mean about the only real difference between debunkers and truthers. If you were trying to promote a 9/11 CT this way, this thread would already have another three pages consisting of laughing dogs and beachnut callling you an ignorant liar.

Well actually I am asking questions. My questions are based on a number of things, but just so we are clear, advanced copies have been, from what I have heard on MSNBC, passed on to the media.

Also, I am not the initiator of such speculation. As a matter of fact, I am not even the initiator of this thread, which begs the same questions.

I am not promoting anything. Perhaps you should back off a little. One can have a pov, or a political slant, without being accused of being as bad as a CTer. You think any of us here are not guilty of speculation, not only in life, but on this forum. This is the POLITICS forum, not the scientific analysis forum.

Through my observations of American News, I have seen much speculation that Ridge was asked and/or pressured about changing the terror threat prior to the 2004. I am merely asking others their pov (in particular Brainster) about it.

Of course I am speculating. Is that what you feel is the difference between a true skeptic and everyone else is, is that true skeptics DON'T SPECULATE or have preconceived notions.

TAM

[willhaven]

Oh, but that's a different claim. We should expect there to be occasional disagreements within government about the appropriate terror alert level, and we should demand that the relevant officials put forward their best opinions about what those levels are. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any of it was motivated by political, rather than security, concerns.

Titled, “The Test of our Times: America under Siege” will be available September 1, 2009. In the book he states that both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to persuade Tom Ridge to elevate the nation’s threat level; he refused. Instead, he submitted his resignation.

A quote from the book reads, “An election-eve drama was being played out at the highest levels of our government,” in reference to a videotape by Osama Bin Laden referencing the nation’s security. The videotape aired repeatedly on Al-Jazeera networks and translation reveals the message as saying, “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands.”

Ridge didn’t believe that the message from Bin Laden equated elevating the nation’s threat level. Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft disagreed. The debate as to whether or not the security level should have been elevated, however, rests in whether elevating the security level would have frightened voters and affected the result at the polls.

"There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, is this about security or politics? Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president's approval ratings in the days after the raising of the threat level." -Tom Ridge in Test of our Times: America under Siege

"I knew I had to follow through on my plans to leave the federal government. I consider that episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington's recent history but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security." Tom Ridge in Test of our Times: America under Siege

I guess we'll see more tomorrow when the book is released, right?

[Brainster]

So Brainster, what do you think of his revelation, then sudden retraction? All par for the course?

Was he lying the first time, or now?

TAM:)

I think the publisher was stretching the claim (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/31/tom-ridge-did-not-backpedal-a-journey-inside-the-media-simulacrum/) from the book:

Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president's approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.

Except, of course, that Ridge didn't raise the threat level, so I don't know what he's talking about there.

[theprestige]

Well actually I am asking questions. My questions are based on a number of things, but just so we are clear, advanced copies have been, from what I have heard on MSNBC, passed on to the media.

Also, I am not the initiator of such speculation. As a matter of fact, I am not even the initiator of this thread, which begs the same questions.

I am not promoting anything. Perhaps you should back off a little. One can have a pov, or a political slant, without being accused of being as bad as a CTer. You think any of us here are not guilty of speculation, not only in life, but on this forum. This is the POLITICS forum, not the scientific analysis forum.

Through my observations of American News, I have seen much speculation that Ridge was asked and/or pressured about changing the terror threat prior to the 2004. I am merely asking others their pov (in particular Brainster) about it.

Of course I am speculating. Is that what you feel is the difference between a true skeptic and everyone else is, is that true skeptics DON'T SPECULATE or have preconceived notions.

TAM
Let me see if I understand:

Tom Ridge says explicitly that he was never pressured to change the alert level for political reasons.
Legitimate differences of opinion regarding the best interpretation of intelligence did arise from time to time.
You suspect that this isn't entirely true.
There isn't really a lot of evidence to support this suspicion[1]
But it's okay to cling to your preconceived notion anyway, because you're "just asking questions"[2].

Is that about right?

I don't think there's such a thing as a "true skeptic", any more than I think there's such a thing as a "true Scotsman".

But I do think you're doing a poor job of substantiating your suspicions and justifying your preconeived notions. And I do think this kind of poor job seems familiar...

----------

[1] As I see it, there are three pieces of evidence in support of your suspicion: First, the administration had perpetrated other shenanigans. Arguing from this is a classic CT trick: "the government has conspired in the past, therefore my pet conspiracy theory is also likely to be true". Second, the publisher made claims about the book to increase sales. The author has since publically repudiated those claims. Third, the timing of at least one such difference of opinion may have been politically advantageous to the administration. This is purely circumstantial.

[2] Or "JAQing off" as it's known in the CT subforum.

[T.A.M.]

Let me see if I understand:

Tom Ridge says explicitly that he was never pressured to change the alert level for political reasons.
Legitimate differences of opinion regarding the best interpretation of intelligence did arise from time to time.
You suspect that this isn't entirely true.
There isn't really a lot of evidence to support this suspicion[1]
But it's okay to cling to your preconceived notion anyway, because you're "just asking questions"[2].

Is that about right?

I don't think there's such a thing as a "true skeptic", any more than I think there's such a thing as a "true Scotsman".

But I do think you're doing a poor job of substantiating your suspicions and justifying your preconeived notions. And I do think this kind of poor job seems familiar...

----------

[1] As I see it, there are three pieces of evidence in support of your suspicion: First, the administration had perpetrated other shenanigans. Arguing from this is a classic CT trick: "the government has conspired in the past, therefore my pet conspiracy theory is also likely to be true". Second, the publisher made claims about the book to increase sales. The author has since publically repudiated those claims. Third, the timing of at least one such difference of opinion may have been politically advantageous to the administration. This is purely circumstantial.

[2] Or "JAQing off" as it's known in the CT subforum.

lol...

If I am poor at behaving like a truther, then I confess, it is not something I am use to.

He will be on MSNBC tonight (Hardball maybe) I think. It will be interesting to see.

Am I a Bush fan? hell no. Do I purposely ignore evidence to maintain that his administration was corrupt...no.

Look at the summation of my posts on the matter in this thread, and then look at what you are ACCUSING me of.

TAM:)

edit: sorry for the brief reply. I am off to clinic. I will try to respond in more detail to your accusations later.

[T.A.M.]

Let me see if I understand:

Tom Ridge says explicitly that he was never pressured to change the alert level for political reasons.
Legitimate differences of opinion regarding the best interpretation of intelligence did arise from time to time.
You suspect that this isn't entirely true.
There isn't really a lot of evidence to support this suspicion[1]
But it's okay to cling to your preconceived notion anyway, because you're "just asking questions"[2].

Is that about right?



No, not exactly. I have seen/heard through MSM news sources such as MSNBC, that Ridge was claiming in his new book that he was (or felt) pressured to change the terror alert level around the time of the 2004 election. Given Carl Rove's "win at all costs" attitude, I thought it was reasonable to inquire further. Do I have my "speculations"? sure. Would I spout them as true, or try to promote them in any significant way...no.


I don't think there's such a thing as a "true skeptic", any more than I think there's such a thing as a "true Scotsman".

I don't think there is any such thing as a pure skeptic, but I think one can still be skeptical, and maintain a political pov, as well as have "suspicions".


But I do think you're doing a poor job of substantiating your suspicions and justifying your preconeived notions. And I do think this kind of poor job seems familiar...

I think you mistakenly think I am actively TRYING to substantiate my suspicions or convince anyone of anything...I was not, and am not.



----------

[1] As I see it, there are three pieces of evidence in support of your suspicion: First, the administration had perpetrated other shenanigans. Arguing from this is a classic CT trick: "the government has conspired in the past, therefore my pet conspiracy theory is also likely to be true". Second, the publisher made claims about the book to increase sales. The author has since publically repudiated those claims. Third, the timing of at least one such difference of opinion may have been politically advantageous to the administration. This is purely circumstantial.

[2] Or "JAQing off" as it's known in the CT subforum.

I have explained what my "suspicions" were based on above. Since I was not trying to convince anyone of anything, I think your assessment is based on false assumptions of my intent, and effort (or lack there of).

TAM:)

[Beerina]

Big surprise. I think we all knew it. Just like they used 9/11 and the fear it provoked, to make the push for Iraq (along with the mythical WMD's).

TAM:)



Well, "with the Democrats in charge, you'll get mushroom clouds over cities" is one thing, faking an alert is actually criminal.

[T.A.M.]

Big surprise. I think we all knew it. Just like they used 9/11 and the fear it provoked, to make the push for Iraq (along with the mythical WMD's).

TAM:)

Yah...ok...guilty as charged. Zig and thePrestige can now feel free to berate me for at least 3 posts each. Clearly I was over zealous there, and made myself look like a dumbass CTist.

TAM:o

[theprestige]

Yah...ok...guilty as charged. Zig and thePrestige can now feel free to berate me for at least 3 posts each. Clearly I was over zealous there, and made myself look like a dumbass CTist.

TAM:o
I cheefully and unreservedly renounce any right I might have to berate TAM. :)