Ridge pressured to raise terror alert

[30ashopper]

I did read the article and it intimated that political influences were at play. But you are correct. The threat level was raised on August 1st and had nothing to do with the October discussions. My apologies.

"Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claims in a new book that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet to raise the nation's terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election."

"Ridge says he objected to raising the security level despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a publicity release from Ridge's publisher. He said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the administration; he resigned on Nov. 30, 2004."

"Ridge writes in the book that the bin Laden tape alone did not justify a change in the nation’s security threat level but describes “a vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion” on Oct. 30 to do so."

Just the fact that political manipulation was an attempted factor is unsettling to me though.

There's no proof of that, you're making assumptions. CNN had someone on the other night who was at the meeting, a number of people were arguing for raising the level, not just those that msnbc mentions, and a number were arguing against. Keep in mind the sources of this information. (Ridge is selling a book, the article is from msnbc.)

Personally I'd welcome an official inquiry on this, just to clear the names of those who were there.

 

[mikecat adjuster]

I find it interesting to see who jumps at things like this. Statements like this are done to sell books. And look who throws the thread up without really looking into the validity of the statement the 'publisher' put out. Devisiveness is an ugly thing. If in fact something like Ridge describes would have been done, and done so for political purposes, then shame on them and actually, punishments should be dolled out. But from what I gather, Ridge just says he 'wondered' if the suggested change was for 'political purposes'. Wow!

But yes, as noticed, it wasn't actually changed and had nothing to do with the election results. Remeber all the people saying Bush was holding Bin Laden and Hussein until right before the election for a boost. Damn, get over it. Bush isn't our President anymore.

If you want to bash or celebrate anything that might make a particular party of politician look bad, remember, there is an equal and opposite reaction and bashing goes both ways, so you can hardly judge others for doing it to your guy. And if you want to be a cause for good, get rid of the Repubicans and Democrates and keep politics local where we can get to and reach our officials at arms length distance.

 

[Kayak Fish]

Great point, and so very true. It is very similar to lumping 15MM illegals into the 45MM uninsured Americans column. Obama has stated several times recently that a public option would not cover the illegals, yet he continues to repeat the number $45MM in his rhetoric.

Really? You're actually equating playing around with the numbers about how many people we need to provide health insurance to, to our government creating an artificial state of fear whenever it is politically convenient, with 9-11 as its backdrop? Interesting.

 

[Kayak Fish]

Wait, let me get this straight... All the people who are complaining about the oppressive and inept government are actually convinced that the color coded threat level was legit?

A couple of questions to any of you complaining about how awful government is at everything: Do you believe that every single terror plot against the U.S. in the last 8 years has been thwarted by our government? If so, does that mean our government is perfect since 9-11 at stopping terrorist attacks?

If not, does it mean that in fact, there were no terrorist plots to stop in the first place? I'm just trying to understand how the government- who we've determined is terrible at delivering mail and health care to people- is somehow able to pull off a perfect score in stopping terrorist attacks since 9-11 in a country of 300 million?

So which is it guys? Is the government perfect at stopping terrorist attacks in a country of 300 million for 8 years, or were there never any terror threats to begin with?

 

[scooterbug44]

I do think that fear is used as a political tool, and the threats have been exaggerated, but I don't think that there have been no thwarted attacks or dangers.

There is a lot of stuff we do NOT know about that goes on.

 

[rheffron]

Quick! What color is it right now? No looking.

 

[scooterbug44]

I'll go with orange - since the recording at VPS has been saying for years "the threat level has been raised to orange."

I'm not saying the color level isn't dumb, just that a lack of another major terrorist incident doesn't mean there was never one thwarted or in the works.

 

[rheffron]

I'll go with orange - since the recording at VPS has been saying for years "the threat level has been raised to orange."

I'm not saying the color level isn't dumb, just that a lack of another major terrorist incident doesn't mean there was never one thwarted or in the works.

I am sure you are right, but who knows what orange is compared to any other color? I would need to google it.

 

[scooterbug44]

The government threat level is yellow, or elevated. The domestic/international flight threat level is orange, or high.

So as we sit here, we are at a significant risk for a terrorist attack, but if we fly somewhere, we are at high risk for a terrorist attack.

Bit excessive IMO.

 

[rheffron]

The government threat level is yellow, or elevated. The domestic/international flight threat level is orange, or high.

So as we sit here, we are at a significant risk for a terrorist attack, but if we fly somewhere, we are at high risk for a terrorist attack.

Bit excessive IMO.

I'm staying home!