Thursday, August 20, 2009

Threat level orange

By Capt. Fogg

Well it certainly won't be a surprise to anyone who thought the Bush administration was using Tom Ridge's color coded threat levels to keep his poll ratings up every time they needed a boost - like right before an election. even though he was quoted in 2004 as saying

"We don’t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

Ridge's new book contains at least one bombshell of a revelation according to MSNBC's Chris Matthews - yes indeed Ridge was pressured to raise the level days before the 2004 election even though there was no threat. He refused.

In rather dry and understated language he explains that he now had proof that the main concern of the administration was politics and not national security and this was the moment he decided he had to get out.

The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again is due to be released September first. That should give the Republicans enough time to launch a smear campaign.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • Fogg - here's a little context for you. You're lying by omission. Oh, and this is CNN, not FOX -- sorry, didn't bother looking at PMSNBC for you.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge says he successfully countered an effort by senior Bush administration officials to raise the nation's terror alert level in the days before the 2004 presidential vote.

    "An election-eve drama was being played out at the highest levels of our government" after Osama bin Laden released a pre-election message critical of President Bush, writes Ridge in his new book, The Test of Our Times.

    Attorney General John Ashcroft and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld strongly advocated raising the security threat level to "orange" – even though Ridge believed a threatening message "should not be the sole reason to elevate the threat level."

    Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to President Bush and now a CNN contributor, denied politics played any role in the request to raise the threat level.

    "There was a debate," Townsend said on CNN's The Situation Room Thursday. "Tom Ridge wasn't the only person in that meeting who suggested that the terror alert shouldn't be raised. At no time was there any discussion of politics at that meeting. And the president was made a recommendation, a consensus recommendation from the council that he accepted, not to raise the terror alert."

    The former Pennsylvania governor also writes that he saw no reason for the move – which he now calls a bad idea — because additional security precautions had already been taken in the run-up to the election. "We certainly didn't believe the tape alone warranted action, and we weren't seeing any additional intelligence that justified it. In fact, we were incredulous," he said of the push. "…I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:34 PM  

  • "I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'"

    Frankly I don't think your "context" is more than a diversion meant to blur my point so that you can feed your little hyperbole habit and call me a liar. You certainly don't make much of a case for that - or anything else actually.

    Whether Ridge alone or Ridge, Townsend and the seven dwarves were against it is irrelevant to my point and I believe to Ridge's statement as well.

    Whether Bush was using the warning system for political purposes is Tom Ridge's question and indeed the question and nothing you've introduced here has any bearing on that.

    Indeed it would be an odd duck that didn't have a suspicion that Bush politicized absolutely everything, but one does run into birds of an interesting feather trying to mop up after that disastrous administration. Good luck with that.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 10:35 PM  

  • Sure, they exploited America's utter post 9/11 paranoia for the most base political reasons. Ridge's book is not news. The only thing newsworthy is the fact that someone who was in the know is finally admitting it. He should have written his book five years ago.

    I knew what was going on in the hours leading up to the election of 2004. It was so freaking obvious, you had to be an idiot to miss it.

    On the first posting on my blog on June 2, 2006, I wrote the following:

    "PREDICTION: George W. Bush will be remembered in history, primarily, as the first (pray last) former chief executive to go to federal prison. Sound crazy? Stay tuned."

    I stand by those words.

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

    By Blogger Tom Degan, at 5:34 AM  

  • "Sound crazy?" Uh . . . . . . yes. Because the lunatics on the right will concoct a reason for Obama to go to prison, if Bush goes. And the insanity will never end. Please -- no lectures about the crimes Bush committed -- it's REALLY getting old now. Why don't you focus on the wonderful new man in the White House with the 45% approval rating, according to the Democrat-leaning Zogby, as opposed to the Republican-leaning Rasmussen. Oh, and Rasmussen is SO biased, that he predicted the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections better than any other pollster. WOW WOW WOW! Is he biased, or what?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:12 AM  

  • "The only thing newsworthy is the fact that someone who was in the know is finally admitting it. He should have written his book five years ago."

    I agree Tom, but it's nice to rub Republican noses in their shit now and then. It's a tiny bit harder for them to keep up the lies and accusations every time they lose one of these little battles. You can see it right here as this guy raves his way through one attempt at diversion after another. He hasn't a lie to stand on.

    Nice try Anonymous, but I would laugh at you less if you weren't trying so hard to make Bush's crimes against America irrelevant. It's not about Obama -- it's not about Zogby, it's not about your straw liberals, it's about the worst administration in at least a century.

    Listen to you raving about the 2004 election while telling us to forget it and move on. Yes, I know -- you'll get me and my little dog too. . .

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 10:00 AM  

  • I do not think I did any "raving" about the '04 election. My only mention of the '04 election (and '08 as well) is that Scott Rasmussen's polls on election eve came closest to the actual outcomes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:19 AM  

  • Well then, we're even.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 12:16 PM  

  • No real argument here. It's a bit late to be blowing whistles.

    I've already been called a liar at The Reaction for posting this "out of context" and I'm still quite sure that it's going to be slime time at the RNC once again.

    By Anonymous Internet Protection, at 5:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home