Tom Ridge admits terror alerts were used for political reasons.

[Disclaimer]

It's Friday, and I wanted to make sure everyone was still aware of the obvious. Fear is a good political motivator. The Osama video right before the election is thrown into the same article for good measure. You can ignore the commentary, it's the news that's important.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/tom-ridge-admits-terror-alerts-were-use

This is a big deal because it's coming from the horse's mouth. Tom Ridge admits in his new book what we've known for a long time and what has been reported years ago.

Former US homeland security chief Tom Ridge charges in a new book that top aides to then-president George W. Bush pressured him to raise the "terror alert" level to sway the November 2004 US election.

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.

"After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector," Ridge is quoting as writing in "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... And How We Can Be Safe Again."

Some of Bush's critics had repeatedly questioned whether the administration was using warnings of a possible attack to blunt the political damage from the unpopular Iraq war by shifting the debate to the broader "war on terrorism," which had wide popular appeal.

-

He later publicly acknowledged that much of the information underpinning the new alert was three years old, stoking Bush critics' charges of political manipulation.

Ridge also charges that he was often "blindsided" during daily morning briefings with Bush because the FBI withheld information from him, and says he was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings.

Here's what Ridge's book says:

Former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is releasing a book on September 1 titled, “

The Test of Our Times

: America Under Siege…and How We Can Be Safe Again.” U.S. News’ Paul Bedard reports that, in the book, Ridge reveals that

he considered resigning

because he was urged to issue a politically-motivated security alert on the eve of Bush’s re-election:

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and

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.

This was first reported way back when by the Washington Post in 2004:

The mixing of anti-terrorism policy with the 2004 presidential campaign is becoming destructive. It is creating a vicious cycle of hype, skepticism and mistrust that puts the country's security at risk.

The dangers of politicizing terrorism were clear in this month's announcement about potential attacks on financial centers in the New York area and in Washington. When Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge disclosed the threats on Aug. 1, he faced immediate skepticism about whether the intelligence was valid. Sadly, the Bush administration had helped create this climate of public suspicion by overusing its elaborate, color-coded system of terrorism warnings. After a terrorism advisory by Attorney General John Ashcroft last spring was pooh-poohed the same day by Ridge, some people wondered whether these warnings were being used for political effect.

Bush used the terror alerts to win the election against John Kerry and it's a breach of his oath of office as far as I'm concerned.

And don't forget about the release of the Osama Bin Laden tape right before the election. As we were getting closer to Nov. 4th, Kerry was picking up momentum before this happened.

On

October 29

,

2004

, at 21:00

UTC

, the Arab television network,

Al Jazeera

, broadcast excerpts from a videotape of

Osama bin Laden

addressing the people of the

United States

, in which he accepted responsibility for the

September 11, 2001 attacks

, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the

Lebanese Civil War

in 1982.

John Kerry admitted as much on MTP:

Senator John Kerry said on Sunday that the attacks of Sept. 11 were the "central deciding thing" in his contest with President Bush and that the release of an Osama bin Laden videotape the weekend before Election Day had effectively erased any hope he had of victory.

And we have USA TODAY reporting on this story as well.

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. Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002

Edited August 21, 2009 by JRMMiii

[Likwid]

In another news story... duh

[dustinsn3485]

Bush isn't President anymore...IMAO this is useless information.

We have a new asshole in office that we have to worry about now.

[Disclaimer]

Bush isn't President anymore...IMAO this is useless information.

We have a new asshole in office that we have to worry about now.

Methinks thou dost worry too much.

That's the problem here, people doing stuff because they're scared and uninformed.

Useless information: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. " ~George Santayana

[dustinsn3485]

Methinks thou dost worry too much.

That's the problem here, people doing stuff because they're scared and uninformed.

Useless information: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. " ~George Santayana

Nah, I'm not worried. I'm informed enough to make an educated opinion about what I think of our current leadership.

I also see your point and it's been noted. I will store this away with the rest of my useless knowledge to be sure it is not repeated.

[Disclaimer]

I also see your point and it's been noted. I will store this away with the rest of my useless knowledge to be sure it is not repeated.

That's all I'd ask of people.

[John]

i saw that on the news today... my question is who actually gives a fuck about some stupid color coded "threat" level. when we hear the level has been changed to burgandy or whatever the fuck, no one reacts in the slightest.

[Cheech]

i saw that on the news today... my question is who actually gives a fuck about some stupid color coded "threat" level. when we hear the level has been changed to burgandy or whatever the fuck, no one reacts in the slightest.

You should give a fuck because it's giving the government carte blanche to infringe on your right to free movement. Instead of there being a certifiable threat, the government decides it wants to turn on the fear machine and scare the people into compliance with a bullshit raised threat level. Now I as a law-abiding citizen have to deal with increased security and the police on heightened alert for a "imminent" threat that DOES NOT EXIST.

The fact that they have been using this for political gain doesn't surprise me in the least, and it really pisses me off.

[Cheech]

So what? Bush ran his campaign focusing on the fears of Americans and Obama focused on their stupidity. I see no difference. If people were intelligent they'd be able to discern between the truth and the bullshit. Bush was re-elected in 2004 because the best the Democrats could come up with was John Kerry.

People are fearful and stupid. The larger the group, the more this is true.

[John]

You should give a fuck because it's giving the government carte blanche to infringe on your right to free movement. Instead of there being a certifiable threat, the government decides it wants to turn on the fear machine and scare the people into compliance with a bullshit raised threat level. Now I as a law-abiding citizen have to deal with increased security and the police on heightened alert for a "imminent" threat that DOES NOT EXIST.

The fact that they have been using this for political gain doesn't surprise me in the least, and it really pisses me off.

i do care about the gov infringing on free movement, papers please etc.

you say they want to "scare the people into compliance". what i was saying is that IMO no one gets scared. when it goes up to orange or whatever people just go on living their life. they dont do anything differently than they would have 15 minutes before.

im sure there are a a handful out there wholock themselves in the the basement and get their mags stacked and pins straightened, but overall its meaningless to people.

[Dweezel]

A person is smart, People are stupid.

[Cheech]

i do care about the gov infringing on free movement, papers please etc.

you say they want to "scare the people into compliance". what i was saying is that IMO no one gets scared. when it goes up to orange or whatever people just go on living their life. they dont do anything differently than they would have 15 minutes before.

im sure there are a a handful out there wholock themselves in the the basement and get their mags stacked and pins straightened, but overall its meaningless to people.

It's true that it's meaningless to people in their day to day lives, but it starts to have meaning when the government uses that newfound fear, manufactured, real, or otherwise, to infringe upon the day to day lives of people. NOW it starts to have meaning.

[dmagicglock]

yeah I'm not sure that the threat level was good for anything other than when the news stations would have it at the bottom of the t.v. which was kind of funny to watch. But props to W. for borrowing from the liberals playbook, I think it was the Obama admin that said "you never want to waste a good crisis" so he saw opportunity in a crisis...

[Disclaimer]

Liberal playbook?

I thought W. was president before Obama?

[The King]

That's the problem here, people doing stuff because they're scared and uninformed.

Please don't wave the "everyone who doesn't agree with me is scared and uninformed" flag around....

Townsend: You know, in fact, not only was there no discussion in those meetings, the discussions on the margins – you know one of the people who was in that meeting was John McLaughlin, the acting director of CIA, and John Brennan, the current homeland security adviser was then the head of the National Counterterrorism Center. The only discussions I recall were, on the margins of that, there was concern if the intelligence supported raising the threat level it might actually be to the detriment of President Bush because people might perceive it being political. In the end John, people have to remember, you want the Cabinet members who disagree to have a healthy debate. And this in the end came out in the right place. The threat level was not raised and there’s no reason to suspect this discussion would have had any impact on the election whatsoever.

Townsend: Well John, I’ll tell you, last night I got my hands on one of the books and I looked at it. And, in fact, in other parts of the book, Tom acknowledges that politics never played a role in any of his decisions about the threat alert system. So you have to wonder if this is not just publicity meant to sell more books.

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/21/frances-townsend-tom-ridge-has-it-wrong/

[Disclaimer]

Please don't wave the "everyone who doesn't agree with me is scared and uninformed" flag around...

Not what I'm doing at all. Just quite the coincidence, now we have a "he said, she said" case. Who's got the most to lose by lying? Let's find out...

[dmagicglock]

i dont know about all of you but i feel overwhelmingly safe with janet napolitano as homeland security advisor now...

[Cheech]

i dont know about all of you but i feel overwhelmingly safe with janet napolitano as homeland security advisor now...

Yeah, because some connected blowhard from PA and Chertoff did a HELL of a job on DHS.

[Cheech]

yeah I'm not sure that the threat level was good for anything other than when the news stations would have it at the bottom of the t.v. which was kind of funny to watch. But props to W. for borrowing from the liberals playbook, I think it was the Obama admin that said "you never want to waste a good crisis" so he saw opportunity in a crisis...

Ah yes, the "but,but,but OBAMA!" gambit. I seriously think you're bashing him just to bash someone now.

I find it finger-lickingly ironic that I am trying to defend individual rights and liberties while it seems you are completely OK with the fact that the gov't can flick a switch at will and suddenly the entire country's police and security forces go into panic mode, infringing on the populace's civil liberties at will.

[Disclaimer]

The only security I need is the feeling I have when your face is pressed against my schweaty ballsack.

At that moment, all is right in the world.

[mattm]

i saw that on the news today... my question is who actually gives a fuck about some stupid color coded "threat" level. when we hear the level has been changed to burgandy or whatever the fuck, no one reacts in the slightest.

I lived in New York City during the time of this alert. Since you were in Columbus I understand your lack of interest. However, the rest of us who lived in a REAL city were worried by this. Trust me, we REACTED and we were worried. I do understand that you and your friends were not worried as you live in the flyover county...

[dmagicglock]

Ah yes, the "but,but,but OBAMA!" gambit. I seriously think you're bashing him just to bash someone now.

I find it finger-lickingly ironic that I am trying to defend individual rights and liberties while it seems you are completely OK with the fact that the gov't can flick a switch at will and suddenly the entire country's police and security forces go into panic mode, infringing on the populace's civil liberties at will.

I think Chertoff was limited in the end of his term by a partisan congress, so a lot of the funding that was provided for their projects never went to fruition. As far as defending individual liberties, I wasn't standing up for the patriot act or big government, merely making satire at the hypocrisy of the liberal media when it came to their standards of judging vested interests. If I bash obama, its not to bash someone, its because he genuinely deserves it. He just as much as his predecessor has disregarded the constitution. One was "for our safety" and the later is for "redistribution of wealth" but I think Ben Franklin put it best when he said "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

[mrbret]

New Yorkers = retards.

+1

Dont like them at all

[mattm]

New Yorkers = retards.

/thread

Maybe my post was somewhat overboard. I will concede that it was so i am going to try to ignore your post as I would hope that you ignore mine.

[Cheech]

I think Chertoff was limited in the end of his term by a partisan congress, so a lot of the funding that was provided for their projects never went to fruition.

Yes, because most of his projects were probably bullshit designed to continue these types of failed policies.

As far as defending individual liberties, I wasn't standing up for the patriot act or big government,

OK. In order to prevent guilt by association, I'll ask you this: Do you believe that the increased governmental reach on the citizenry's day-to-day lives authorized by the changing of the threat level for "secret" reasons is a violation of their civil liberties? Yes or no answer please.

merely making satire at the hypocrisy of the liberal media when it came to their standards of judging vested interests.

Come on, really? Who's vested interest? The only way to counter an argument as ridiculous as this is to offer something in return. To use a phrase from the conservative media, where in the Constitution does is say freedom of assembly or movement can be diminished or outright waived due to the government's changing of a color? Since I know you have a copy handy, I shouldn't have to wait very long.

If I bash obama, its not to bash someone, its because he genuinely deserves it. He just as much as his predecessor has disregarded the constitution.

Obama didn't create the threat level, Bush did. Name how many times Obama has changed the threat level.

One was "for our safety" and the later is for "redistribution of wealth" but I think Ben Franklin put it best when he said "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

And the real argument emerges. I'll take Non Sequitur for 500, Trebek. Thanks for the Franklin quote as well, but do you seriously believe it?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Casper
fixed quote