MSNBC discusses Bush administration's misuse of terrorism threat levels for political gain!

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Hey ATS, apologies if this video has been posted before, a search couldn't find it.

Now I know the world has moved on from the Bush era and this is probably not something we didn't all guess was happening, but to hear it from the MSM is cool!

Just ignore the title ATS, it's a bit misleading!



Tom Ridge


Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush created the Office of Homeland Security within the White House, and named Ridge to head it. The charge to the nation's new director of homeland security was to develop and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to strengthen the United States against terrorist threats or attacks. In the words of President George W. Bush, he had the strength, experience, personal commitment and authority to accomplish this critical mission. Ridge formally resigned as Pennsylvania's governor on October 5, 2001.
Go to Wiki for more info.



From his book:


"the infighting he saw that frustrated his attempts to build a smooth-running department. 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."


From what I understand, Bush's people elevated the threat level to Orange on the eave of the election, with Bush losing in the polls.

We all know what happened from there!

I wonder, could there ever be charges levelled for that? It has to be illegal!?

Anyway this may not fire up you guys after so long, but I find it cool that it's on the MSM, I assume from August this year.

I searched again and found a thread by ModernAcademia on the book, but the video is new, so i thought I'd post it anyway! But you can find his thread here.

The fact the MSM aired this, but hardly anyone cares, is a sad indictment of our times!

Peace, kiwifoot






posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Well if Racheal Maddow says it then it must be true.

Wonder how long she is going to keep talking about Bush?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I saw tom ridge on msnbc a couple weeks back, and on the maddow show he backtracked or "clarified" his comments in the book.

Maddow pushed it about three to four times, but ridge just kept peddling back.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Wow, they found one comment in his book that they were able to obfuscate the intention of it.

FromAmerican Spectator site


The buzz is building over a new supposed tell-all by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, "The Test of Our Times". The book, however, directly contradicts the fast moving media message that the Bush White House tried to manipulate Homeland Security threat levels for partisan gain.


Tom Ridge "Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so."

Here is the actual passage from the book-oh wait I cannot find it, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but "SHOW ME THE EXCERPT"!

Let us see if anyone can find the passage. And boy is this old, I am sure there is thread on this already.

Divide and Conquer, Blame Bush, Obfuscate, Deny, Lie etc etc etc.

EDIT TO ADD-HOAX Quote in OP is not an excerpt from the book also all attempts by EVERYONE TO POINT IT AS SUCH IS LYING INCLUDING OP
Also alerted mods to HOAX
[edit on 11/6/2009 by endisnighe]

[edit on 11/6/2009 by endisnighe]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Here just watch what ridge himself had to say.

ridge on maddow



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Yes it is old, this should have given you a clue;


Hey ATS, apologies if this video has been posted before, a search couldn't find it.


And:


I searched again and found a thread by ModernAcademia on the book, but the video is new, so i thought I'd post it anyway! But you can find his thread here.


And if you tried a little harder with your reading, you'd find a reason too:


but I find it cool that it's on the MSM


Oh and look, another hint that it's old:


I assume from August this year.
...........






posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
From his book




"There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I and wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president's approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level."


and continuing




"As the minutes passed at our video conference, we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information that we had at DHS, and they didn't know any more than we did. And we concluded that the idea was still a bad one. It also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety."


He does not say he was forced to, or anyone said to do it for political gain. He simply wondered if that as the case.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


Thanks Seiko, am just watching the video, it seems that the book does imply that the threat level was manipulated for political gain.

Good video, good quotes, even if he back pedals like a muther!

All the best, Kiwifoot.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by kiwifoot]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


It's not a problem really. Part of the confusion here as stated in the maddow interview is that people were quoting from the book jacket, which are not his words. It was just a paraphrase for shock value to sell more copies.

Now the fact that he wrote in the book that he and others in the dhs were concerned that the threat levels were being used for political gain should not be thrown away with the misquotes.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join