QuoteFormer Bush aide says politics colored US 'terror alert'
by Olivier Knox Olivier Knox 2 hrs 21 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) – 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.
Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania, was the first secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security that the US Congress created in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes.
He also says that Bush's homeland security adviser at the White House, Fran Townsend, called his department ahead of an August 1, 2004 speech to ask Ridge to include a reference to "defensive measures ... away from home" -- language that he read as being a reference to the Iraq war.
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.
"The reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan," said Ridge.
"Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home," he said at the time.
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 details his frustration after the White House rejected his suggestion to establish department of homeland security offices in major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, and -- long before Hurricane Katrina -- New Orleans, according to the summary.
He also says he urged his successor, Michael Chertoff, to reconsider the appointment of Michael Brown as the head of the Federal Emergency Response Agency (FEMA), whose response to the killer storm drew widespread criticism.
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.
Wow, color me surprised.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 03:42:30 PM
Wow, color me surprised.
What color level would your surprise be?
I am so disillusioned now I'm going to cut myself. :mellow:
This is major.
W. should be brought up on charges. :angry:
Where did you get that? It isn't on cnn.com, and it sounds like a big deal.
Sorry, I have a bad habit of not posting links: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090820/pl_afp/usattackspoliticsridge
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 03:53:49 PM
W. should be brought up on charges. :angry:
We all know that it's not feasible. We'll just have to satisfy ourselves with knowing that George W. will most likely live to see the days when his presidency is nearly unanimously regarded as one of the very worst in the history of our country. Ridge would be far from the last people in the know to write a damning book.
Obama should pardon Bush immediately. We can't let the terrorists win.
in before the Hansie RINO accusations
Unfortunately I'm not surprised. :(
What I noticed about his statements was that he only mentions a time where he resisted demands that he raise the terror alert. Were there other times he didn't resist and neglected to mention them in his autobiography? Oddly both Rummy and Ashcroft left the administration shortly there after.
Rumsfeld didn't leave for another two years.
It should be a major story, as such actions are despicable. However, I suspect that at this point, most people assume the worst about Bush anyway, and are apathetic towards all these revelations that merely confirm what they already thought or at least strongly suspected.
Didn't CdM call this back then?
Not everybody in the Bush administration always agreed about everything. Wow, this is a major story. :P
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 04:25:51 PM
Rumsfeld didn't leave for another two years.
You are right.
Do they really even use those color coded alert levels anymore? It seems like it's been a long time since I've heard anything about "Threat Level Orange" or whatever. They were always kind of a joke anyway. Or at least they were with my little circle of humanity.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 20, 2009, 05:36:57 PM
Do they really even use those color coded alert levels anymore? It seems like it's been a long time since I've heard anything about "Threat Level Orange" or whatever. They were always kind of a joke anyway. Or at least they were with my little circle of humanity.
Chertoff ditched them because nobody was paying attention to them anyway, they were just the butt of late night jokes.
I also love the way the fake news reporter interposed relatively innocuous comment of Tom Ridge with anonymous "Bush critics" (i.e. the reporters thinly disguised personal opinion) as if Ridge's comments actually reinforced his fantasies.
Ridge probably won't mind, since it will help sell books.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 20, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
Chertoff ditched them because nobody was paying attention to them anyway, they were just the butt of late night jokes.
Ah okay...that explains it.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 20, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 20, 2009, 05:36:57 PM
Do they really even use those color coded alert levels anymore? It seems like it's been a long time since I've heard anything about "Threat Level Orange" or whatever. They were always kind of a joke anyway. Or at least they were with my little circle of humanity.
Chertoff ditched them because nobody was paying attention to them anyway, they were just the butt of late night jokes.
With good reason. THey really were a joke. THREAT LEVEL ORANGE MEANS THERE IS A POSSIBLE CHANCE THAT TERRORISTS MAY RIGHT NOW BE PLOTTING SOMETHING SOMEWHERE.
Issue those a couple times a month and they rapidly became meaningless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
This is major.
At the first read, I thought so too, but read it again in light of Hans' last post. Take into account that he was possibly writing about fustration with the intergovernmental department battles and it may not be what you think.
In any event, if Ridge is accusing Bush of putting pressure on homeland security to hype up terrorism fears for political gains, he will continue to make that case until it is unambiguous.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 20, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
I also love the way the fake news reporter interposed relatively innocuous comment of Tom Ridge with anonymous "Bush critics" (i.e. the reporters thinly disguised personal opinion) as if Ridge's comments actually reinforced his fantasies.
Ridge probably won't mind, since it will help sell books.
What this about Fox News?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2009, 06:25:09 PM
At the first read, I thought so too, but read it again in light of Hans' last post. Take into account that he was possibly writing about fustration with the intergovernmental department battles and it may not be what you think.
In any event, if Ridge is accusing Bush of putting pressure on homeland security to hype up terrorism fears for political gains, he will continue to make that case until it is unambiguous.
If the first sentence of the article is correct, it's major.
Yawn.
Even at the time nobody took that crap seriously. Does it matter if it was bogus due to basic incompetence or due to politics?
It's not like these accusations were not leveled at the time, and this is some kind of breaking news story.
Bush allowed politics to influence his decisions??? Oh noes! Why, he must be the firstest President ever to do such a thing!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 10:41:57 PM
If the first sentence of the article is correct, it's major.
If top administration officials mean Karl Rove or a similar political official, then I agree.
If top administration officials mean the Secretary of Defense and Attorney General and they explicitly mentioned the reason they wanted the threat level raised was political, I still agree, but to a lesser extent.
If top administration officials mean the Secretary of Defense and Attorney General, and they said they wanted the threat level raised after the Obama tape and Ridge thought that their motivation was in part political, I no longer agree.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Yawn.
Even at the time nobody took that crap seriously. Does it matter if it was bogus due to basic incompetence or due to politics?
It's not like these accusations were not leveled at the time, and this is some kind of breaking news story.
Bush allowed politics to influence his decisions??? Oh noes! Why, he must be the firstest President ever to do such a thing!
Raising the threat level meant deploying significant resources to increase national security. It isn't just a color coded bar that people laughed at.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2009, 10:57:14 PM
Raising the threat level meant deploying significant resources to increase national security. It isn't just a color coded bar that people laughed at.
You know, there's a town about an hour northeast of Little Rock called Bald Knob. About 2,000 people, mostly notable for growing a shitload of strawberries. It's such a shitty, obscure little town, that there's even people in Arkansas who haven't heard of it. In 2003 or 2004, I happened to be in Bald Knob, and wanted to go fishing in Bald Knob Lake.
Guess what I found out when I got there?
A big ass sign posted up saying that the lake is closed due to the threat level being at orange (or whatever), and a cop car blocking the road.
That was the day I became a Democrat.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2009, 10:57:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Yawn.
Even at the time nobody took that crap seriously. Does it matter if it was bogus due to basic incompetence or due to politics?
It's not like these accusations were not leveled at the time, and this is some kind of breaking news story.
Bush allowed politics to influence his decisions??? Oh noes! Why, he must be the firstest President ever to do such a thing!
Raising the threat level meant deploying significant resources to increase national security. It isn't just a color coded bar that people laughed at.
So?
Again, how is this news?
And how is it different from any number of examples of Presidents taking action because it was politically expedient to do so?
I agree that it is worthy of derision, but I don't understand why *this* particular example is so much more worthy than other examples.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 12:16:55 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2009, 10:57:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2009, 10:51:16 PM
Yawn.
Even at the time nobody took that crap seriously. Does it matter if it was bogus due to basic incompetence or due to politics?
It's not like these accusations were not leveled at the time, and this is some kind of breaking news story.
Bush allowed politics to influence his decisions??? Oh noes! Why, he must be the firstest President ever to do such a thing!
Raising the threat level meant deploying significant resources to increase national security. It isn't just a color coded bar that people laughed at.
So?
Again, how is this news?
And how is it different from any number of examples of Presidents taking action because it was politically expedient to do so?
I agree that it is worthy of derision, but I don't understand why *this* particular example is so much more worthy than other examples.
Mobilizing the security apparatus of the country and warning of increased risk of attack at election time in order to get an electoral edge? I can't think of a number of examples of presidents using similar tactics, but regardless, I'd categorize that as worse than what got Nixon run out of office.
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
I find that a bit odd.
I'm with Yi I think if this is true it should be big and it's problematic.
What's Ridge's reputation? I remember reading that he was still pretty well regarded when people were mentioning him as a VP pick.
QuoteI also love the way the fake news reporter interposed relatively innocuous comment of Tom Ridge with anonymous "Bush critics" (i.e. the reporters thinly disguised personal opinion) as if Ridge's comments actually reinforced his fantasies.
I could link you about a dozen articles suggesting just that, or 50 posts from CdM if we had old Languish. It's not 'some Bush critics told me' but 'some Bush critics have said'. The former's anonymous quoting, the latter is so you don't have to quote and date opinion columns.
Ridge is not well regarded within his own party. I'm not sure what angle he's shooting for here. Bush kept us safe. Ridge should shut up. He had his chance to resign if he really felt that the administration was behaving in an unacceptable manner.
Story is on CNN this morning. ^_^
You know why you guys are having trouble coming up with analogies? Because for what Nixon got run out of office for, Bush had a slap on the wrist before the end of his first term. Unjustified domestic surveillance, as well as fibbing to the American people about it. Using paranoia and threat awareness as a direct electoral tool? The closest example is NOT in US politics, but I'll be damned if I'm the one to name it out loud. :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
The mind's capacity to ratioanlize uncomfortable thoughts away is nearly limitless.
I approve of it. Bush should have went full on evil and rounded certain people and groups up.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 07:13:25 AM
I approve of it. Bush should have went full on evil and rounded certain people and groups up.
I doubt Bush even knew.
Quote from: Fate on August 21, 2009, 03:07:04 AM
Ridge is not well regarded within his own party.
I thought that was because he was pro-choice?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 07:13:25 AM
I approve of it. Bush should have went full on evil and rounded certain people and groups up.
That would have made him as bad as Franklin Roosevelt. :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Savonarola on August 21, 2009, 07:29:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 21, 2009, 07:13:25 AM
I approve of it. Bush should have went full on evil and rounded certain people and groups up.
That would have made him as bad as Franklin Roosevelt. :mad: :mad: :mad:
I've got lists ready.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 07:28:59 AM
Quote from: Fate on August 21, 2009, 03:07:04 AM
Ridge is not well regarded within his own party.
I thought that was because he was pro-choice?
Also he was competent.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
CNN just read some excerpts from the book. Looks like Square Head was right. Ashcroft and Rumsfeld argued vigorously in favor of raising the level. There was no support in Homeland Sec. for raising it. Ridge "wondered if it was political."
Fucking AFP.
Quote from: Fireblade on August 20, 2009, 11:20:42 PMYou know, there's a town about an hour northeast of Little Rock called Bald Knob. About 2,000 people, mostly notable for growing a shitload of strawberries. It's such a shitty, obscure little town, that there's even people in Arkansas who haven't heard of it. In 2003 or 2004, I happened to be in Bald Knob, and wanted to go fishing in Bald Knob Lake.
Guess what I found out when I got there?
A big ass sign posted up saying that the lake is closed due to the threat level being at orange (or whatever), and a cop car blocking the road.
That was the day I became a Democrat.
You're sure that wasn't the risk of wild fires that was indicated?
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush.
Really?
Every single time, by everyone?
What world do you live in again?
Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2009, 12:24:46 PM
You're sure that wasn't the risk of wild fires that was indicated?
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush.
Really?
Every single time, by everyone?
What world do you live in again?
Did you ever say it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 12:14:27 PM
Fucking AFP.
you'll learn your lesson, eventually, as I did ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush.
Really?
Every single time, by everyone?
What world do you live in again?
Did you ever say it?
This isn't about whether I *ever* said it - your claim is that it was claimed "every time something came up critical of president Bush".
Quote from: viper37 on August 21, 2009, 02:57:49 PM
you'll learn your lesson, eventually, as I did ;)
I knew they were bad. I didn't think they would just make stuff up. :weep:
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 03:01:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush.
Really?
Every single time, by everyone?
What world do you live in again?
Did you ever say it?
This isn't about whether I *ever* said it - your claim is that it was claimed "every time something came up critical of president Bush".
And then you threw in "By everyone" (something I had not said). Since you felt it nessacery to embellish what I said I suppose it's fair to ask you if you ever used the phrase Bush-Hitler.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 03:01:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Meh when when people suggested this before it was just wild-eyed Bush hate. When it's confirmed it's something we already knew. :lol:
Who claimed it was wild eyed Bush hate?
It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush.
Really?
Every single time, by everyone?
What world do you live in again?
Did you ever say it?
This isn't about whether I *ever* said it - your claim is that it was claimed "every time something came up critical of president Bush".
And then you threw in "By everyone" (something I had not said). Since you felt it nessacery to embellish what I said I suppose it's fair to ask you if you ever used the phrase Bush-Hitler.
"By everyone" simply follows from your
"It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush."
in response to my question of who claimed it was "wild eyed Bush hate". You certainly did not state that it was just SOME people, rather you said it is was "every time" which certainly implies "everyone", since if it was not eveyone, it could not be everytime.
Thanks for exemplifying my point though.
Nice try, Berkut. But no reasonable person would make that jump. If I said that everytime I played Counterstrike I get TKed it does not follow that everyone is TKing me.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 21, 2009, 03:45:11 PM
Nice try, Berkut. But no reasonable person would make that jump. If I said that everytime I played Counterstrike I get TKed it does not follow that everyone is TKing me.
No, but if you claim that everytime someone is critical of Bush it is dismissed as "wild eyed Bush hate", and then when asked who did this you respond that "It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush." the in fact you are claiming that it is done by everyone - but the point is that you are doing exactly what I am talking about - dismissing everything by pretending like the entirety is defined by the few.
Which is why these kinds of discussions are so pointless to have with you.
Quote from: Berkut on August 21, 2009, 03:49:33 PM
No, but if you claim that everytime someone is critical of Bush it is dismissed as "wild eyed Bush hate", and then when asked who did this you respond that "It was claimed every time something came up critical of president Bush." the in fact you are claiming that it is done by everyone - but the point is that you are doing exactly what I am talking about - dismissing everything by pretending like the entirety is defined by the few.
Which is why these kinds of discussions are so pointless to have with you.
Sorry Berkut, gotta side with Razzberry on this one. "It was claimed every time" is not synonymous with "everyone claimed it."
This is what Ridge's book actually said about that issue:
Quote"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."
Looks like the publisher just wanted to gin up sales by inventing a controversy where there was none.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 21, 2009, 03:52:41 PM
This is what Ridge's book actually said about that issue:
Quote"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."
Looks like the publisher just wanted to gin up sales by inventing a controversy where there was none.
Not a killer quote. My quote was much more killer.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 21, 2009, 03:52:41 PM
This is what Ridge's book actually said about that issue:
Quote"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."
Looks like the publisher just wanted to gin up sales by inventing a controversy where there was none.
Well that settles it. Someone (presumably Tom Ridge) was never directed by someone else to do something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 03:55:30 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 21, 2009, 03:52:41 PM
This is what Ridge's book actually said about that issue:
Quote"Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."
Looks like the publisher just wanted to gin up sales by inventing a controversy where there was none.
Not a killer quote. My quote was much more killer.
Sorry, I missed your post in the middle of the Berkut-Raz piss-fest.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 03:53:49 PM
W. should be brought up on charges. :angry:
We all know that it's not feasible. We'll just have to satisfy ourselves with knowing that George W. will most likely live to see the days when his presidency is nearly unanimously regarded as one of the very worst in the history of our country. Ridge would be far from the last people in the know to write a damning book.
You can't have a two-termer being Worst President Ever. It would indicate that Americans are morans.
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2009, 10:43:03 PM
You can't have a two-termer being Worst President Ever. It would indicate that Americans are morans.
That's a lot of Virginians in the House of Representatives. ;)
Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2009, 10:43:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jaron on August 20, 2009, 03:53:49 PM
W. should be brought up on charges. :angry:
We all know that it's not feasible. We'll just have to satisfy ourselves with knowing that George W. will most likely live to see the days when his presidency is nearly unanimously regarded as one of the very worst in the history of our country. Ridge would be far from the last people in the know to write a damning book.
You can't have a two-termer being Worst President Ever. It would indicate that Americans are morans.
James Buchanon and Andrew Johnson are the worst and second worst presidents respectively.