Ridge says Bush Administration pushed to raise terror alert for re-election

reply to post by jd140




Well, Simple observation could provide the same conclusion easy enough. I watched the strings be pulled everytime the man and his ilk opened his mouth
TERROR, PATRIOTIC, FREEDOM, FREEDOMS, TERRORIST, EVIL- DOER = We are attacking IRAQ because we want to.

As consolation, swallow these literary pills on the way back to you pens...

It doesn't matter anyways, the MASTERS do not adhere to law here.

reply to post by Wimbly


Quit with the defelection, this isn't about Obama, it's about Bush/Cheney, No matter how much you want to change it to an Obama thread. Better watch out your true colors are showing.

To the OP:

Good on Ridge, I mean this certainly isn't unbelievable, how can anyone be shocked by this.

Originally posted by Wimbly
Its no coincidence that Obama poll numbers are slipping folks. The media is doing its best to run cover for Obama.....Thats the dead give away that this is an attempt to stop Obama's falling numbers.

First, off topic hyperbole.

Second, do you realize the months and months required to get a book written, edited, published, printed and distributed?

This book has, no doubt, been in the works for several months. Long before any approval rating decline which is all together besides the point.

Like so many other myopic imbeciles, when all you have is a hammer, all your problems appear to be nails.

This book / thread has zero to do with the current administration.

I suggest you go find one of the many other Anti-Obama threads to spew you vitriol.

[edit on 22-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


This is a non story. Its about what some guy thought about something that never happened. You guys are taking some hypothetical and treating it as if it were reality. There was an attack and there was a reason to have a higher threat level given it was the first election since 9/11. Even given these facts. Bush DID NOT raise the threat level.

Iraq also has nothing to do with this. The rhetoric and push to "finish" Iraq started long before Bush 43 got in to office. So many of you that call Bush a liar, will turn around and defend Al Gore, The Clinton or any of the other democrats that helped in the run up to war.

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Iraq also has nothing to do with this. The rhetoric and push to "finish" Iraq started long before Bush 43 got in to office. So many of you that call Bush a liar, will turn around and defend Al Gore, The Clinton or any of the other democrats that helped in the run up to war.

GOING to IRAQ was based upon the POPULAR support and fanned patriotism resulting from 9/11.

So are you SAYING 9/11 was an inside job?

Because 9/11 was the catalyst, follow your logic and respond.

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

This is a non story. Its about what some guy thought about something that never happened.

Says who?

This isn't just 'some guy' he's actually very credible, but of course you would throw that out the window because you don't want anyone to burst your happy right wing world view. (And I only say this because it is SO obvious)

I wander if you would have the same opinion if Obama was in this posistion, I seriously doubt it.




[edit on 8/22/2009 by Uniceft17]

reply to post by Uniceft17


Says Ridge


This new contention directly refutes what Ridge told KDKA-TV's Ken Rice in an interview in June of 2008.

Rice: "Was there ever pressure to raise the alert level for some reason that had nothing to do with the actual threats out there?"

Ridge: "Never."

Rice: "Never even a hint of that?"

Ridge: "Never. It's a great question though."

Ridge went on to point out that he didn't have authority to raise the alert level alone and that decision had to be a consensus of the president's Homeland Security Council, including the heads of the departments of State, Defense and Justice and the FBI and CIA.

reply to post by mabus325


Source?

If he was still in office while this interview took place I could see why he lied. But, it does raise some questions.

Edit to add:

Nevermind I just found it.

Source

I guess i'll wait and see what the book says, i'm not spending my money on it though.

[edit on 8/22/2009 by Uniceft17]

Originally posted by Wimbly
Iraq also has nothing to do with this. The rhetoric and push to "finish" Iraq started long before Bush 43 got in to office. So many of you that call Bush a liar, will turn around and defend Al Gore, The Clinton or any of the other democrats that helped in the run up to war.

Your ignorance is utterly astounding. Following are the FACTS as they exist as to why the US entered an unnecessary war:

We all know the vote was a "formality." Bush was going to war regardless. The Republicans controlled the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own

The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Source

Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force.

Source


FACT CHECK: (Apologies,I have already posted elsewhere).

For starters, as an acknowlegement of the Brave few who saw through this ruse and voted AGAINST the rush to war:

UNITED STATES SENATE
In the Senate, 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Representatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq.

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

Source

Here are the actual tallies by party on the US resolution to go to war.
.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/355328bbd546.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

I vehemently oppose any history rewriters who attempt to mischaracterize the now proven false basis for an unnecessary and tragic war which continues to cost American lives.





[edit on 22-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Uniceft17


Here is the source. He said it in June 2008. He was gone by then

kdka.com...

reply to post by kinda kurious


FTR he is a sampling about the dems said about Iraq. Including the current SecofState

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

reply to post by mental modulator


As I said before.

No matter how many smiley faces you throw at it. Proof not needed when its something bad about Bush and his administration.

I once saw him eat a bald eagle, medium rare, at his Crawford Ranch. He chased it with a bud light.

I don't have any proof you just have to take my word for it.

What doesn't make sense to me is if Tom Ridge claims that Bush raised the terror alert before the election, but then says politics played no part of it, why even bring it up?

What is the point?

I will just add this, i don't think it would of mattered if Bush used it to up his ante of election or not. A wartime president is always re-elected. It has never gone the other way. So I don't think he would of had to resort to this. But he was re-elected by a slim margin. So I dunno.

I heard a counterpoint on NPR by someone else who was part of an organization in the discussion that it was also discussed by the Bush admin that it was a possibility that raising it would of had the opposite effect. That people would of smelled it.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Your ignorance is utterly astounding. Following are the FACTS as they exist as to why the US entered an unnecessary war:

We all know the vote was a "formality." Bush was going to war regardless. The Republicans controlled the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate.

Actually, I'm quite educated about how and why we went to Iraq. I'm actually informed, unlike the generation that learned about Iraq after 2002 and from the Daily Kos. What do you know about UNSCOM? What do you know about te 90's and the democrats push to invade Iraq? John Kerry and a bunch of other Democrats/Republicans sent Clinton a letter, begging him to do something about Saddam. This is what lead to Clinton making regime change US policy.

The facts are that UNSCOM's failed inspections, lead most everyone to beleive Saddam had WMD. It had almost nothing to do with Bush's rhetoric. Which by the way mirrored Clinton's, Gore's and many other prominent Democrats. I'll bet that polls in 1998 show strong support for regime change in Iraq.

What you guys do is spin uninformed nonsense in order to suit your agenda. Bush messed up by going in to Iraq. No, The US government messed up going in to Iraq. However, that isn't the same as the partisan bile you spew about lies and using 9/11 to invade Iraq. The American public was ready to invade Iraq BEFORE Bush even got in office. We'll never know, but the chances are Al Gore would have done the exact same thing, given his stance and rhetoric at the time.

reply to post by nixie_nox

What doesn't make sense to me is if Tom Ridge claims that Bush raised the terror alert before the election, but then says politics played no part of it, why even bring it up?

He doesn't make that claim. He claims that that he thought Bush wanted to before the elections. The fact is, he didn't. Thats why I say this is a non-story. Its nothing but a distraction for Obama as his poll numbers drop.




[edit on 22-8-2009 by Wimbly]

Originally posted by Wimbly
However, that isn't the same as the partisan bile you spew about lies and using 9/11 to invade Iraq.

I have NEVER linked 9/11 as the basis to invade Iraq. You have apparently confused me with someone else.

While your knowledge of the specifics of the events leading up to the Iraq war is impressive, I suspect all the rhetoric was nothing more than Saber-Rattling.

The decision to invade Iraq falls squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush. You remember him right? That guy who maintains he "kept us safe" despite the Twin Towers attack ON HIS WATCH.

Much to your chagrins, I will not stand idly by while some try to rewrite history.

Or as HAL 9000 would say...."I'm afraid that is something I cannot allow to happen."

[edit on 22-8-2009 by kinda kurious]