ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
You are full of shit dude. Especially the bolded part.
Ridge did NOT admit to raising it for no reason. He said that he often disagreed with the decision to raise the level and that it was some times done based on flimsy evidence, but there is NO indication in either link that it was raised for no reason.
This whole thread is based on personal opinions. Some people wanted to raise the level, others did not. OMG! Conspiracy!!!!
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Again you are full of shit.
There is NO evidence at all that this was done for political reasons. Nothing linked to in this thread so far offers one bit of evidence that it was done for political reasons.
And think about it. Ridge is writing a book and wants to sell copies of the book. If he really felt that it was done for political reasons then why not come out and say so in the book?
It could be, but not nearly enough time has passed to make this judgement. It took years to break things. It can't be fixed in a few months. Only the gullible would believe someone trying to convince them otherwise.
I don't recall fud being spread by obama. I do recall some being spread by the pit bull with lipstick though.
Now, now, now. That's not nice. Somebody is going to make you the subject of a pfi thread.
:laugh: Apologies in advance.
The head of homeland security didn't agree with raising the threat level, but that's still not any sort of evidence to you PJ? Really?
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
Can you read and comprehend at the same time?
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
Can you read and comprehend at the same time?
Sorry, but you're wrong unless you are addressing the mirror.
The man who had the responsibility for the color now admitting it, is evidence. And it's the best possible evidence, when the facts are the unrecorded verbal discussions.
And, there's even more evidence linked in the article I posted.
Not that you can be bothered to read it, it disagrees with your false position.
Everyone with both sides with common sense and integrity agrees this is very strong evidence.
For one thing, I've explained before the concept of 'statement against interest'. When OJ sayd he DID kill Nicole and Ron, that has more credibility than when he says he didn't. When Bill CLinton says he DID have sexual relations with that woman, it has more credibility that when he says he didn't. It's not that they're necessarily lying when they deny it, but they're much less likely lying when they admit it.
Ridge here makes himself look bad and pays a big price in making enemies with his own former adminstration colleagues with this admission. It's very credible for various reasons.
Of course, you try yet another cheap debate trick by equating his confessional statement with any other right-wing statement, to say you have to acccept them all equally.
As if the particular situation and the 'statement against interest' don't get weighed.
It's dishonest propaganda, which is why your name is the only exception I've made that I recall to my normally not modifying people's names, SpinJohn.
The other cheap argument you could make is that old garbage that everyone who admits things they did wrong is lying 'to sell books'. That's really pathetic if you do that.
I remember Scott McClellan using that argument while in office to attack a former Cabinet member - and then saying the opposite when he was out of office and freer to speak truth.
You stooped to that - but in a confused way. What's the difference when he finally decided to tell the truth more than he already had, on the record? None.
But he'd already gone on the record indicating this had happened when he resigned, see the article I linked by Glenn Greenwald.
That was a pretty disgusting bit of misleading, PJ. Er, SJ.
The very Secretary who had the responsibility explaining what he did called 'no evidence whatsoever'.
It's legitimate to ask the question whether the confession is true, to look for alternative motives, to compare the statement to the known facts looking for contradictions.
In this case, there is nothing to suggest he's saying anything but the truth,and you are not doing anything but trying to mislead to suggest he's not.
Next, ridge is going to blame his bosses/cohorts for forcing him to give his famous "stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to keep safe from a chemical or biological attack" advice.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
1. If Ridge "had the responsibility for the color" then why was it raised when he disagreed with it being raised? Perhaps that implies that the responsibility for the color was not placed just in Ridge, but within the group of people on the homeland security council, as suggested in the AP article here.
2. You did not post any articles, you posted personal opinion pieces be Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann.
Find me proof that this was done for political reasons from a non-biased source and get back to me.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 16,138
- 8,731
- 136
My apologies seemingly random, I didn't make it clear enough that I was aiming my comment at a few posters in this thread that are still defending Bush and Cheney.
Besides that, I fully agree with your line of thinking.
As one of those who are square in the middle of the gorup of 'betrayed liberal Obama voters', he IS a big change. Just not as big as if he did what he said he'd do.
It's extremely important that he was elected and not McCain. There's a long list why - and another list of 'screwups Republicans would have done that Obama won't'.
When Bush ran on 'compassionate conservatism', he didn't mention he'd so badly screw up the economy among other things. When Reagan ran on his 'upbeat' platform, he didn't mention he'd make the US the sponsor of terrorism in Central American and commit Iran-Contra, along with things like the hugely inflated debt to make the nation *look* like it was doing ok, and the social security trust fund allowing the government to have off-book debt.
Who knows what McCain's 'unexpected screwup' he didn't campaign on would be - much less his appointing another Federalist to the Supreme Court to further destroy the constitution, instead of at least a 'moderate' like Obama did. We woudln't be have any real healthcare debate IMO - McCain would likely have let the insurance companies write up the plan, and then he'd push it, as Bush did with legislation generally (and apponnting an unprecedented number of industry lobbyists to the regulatory oversight positions).
Obama has disappointed liberals in important issues but is far better than McCain. The gullible are those who thought McCain/Palin would have been good for the country, continuing the same party in power that had run the country into the ground so badly, selling out the public to the corporatocracy.
This whole thing only verifies previous estimations of the bushies. It's similar to the outing done by Scott McClellan. It rang true but went nowhere.Originally posted by: tweaker2
My apologies seemingly random, I didn't make it clear enough that I was aiming my comment at a few posters in this thread that are still defending Bush and Cheney.
Besides that, I fully agree with your line of thinking.
You need to be told how the federal government works? Only when you are caught in dishonest spinning, perhaps, trying to distort how it works out of desparation.
Tom Ridge being the head of the agency who set the color still includes his getting opinions from others, still can include his getting political pressure from the White House. He is still under and serving the President. It doesn't mean he has total autonomy in his actins, it does mean he was in the middle of the process to know what pressures the person who set the color was receiving from others in the government.
He was the person responsible for raising it, as the head of the agency who set it, regardless of who made the decision to - but from your own article, it disproves your claim that the larger group of officials was responsible for it. Your own article says that Townsend would talk to Ridge, and IF NECESSARY - i.e., not always, sometimes - the larger group would make a RECOMMENDATION to the President.
I posted two commentary articles filled with facts you can't argue against.
Your own articles say that "...he publicly attributes some of the pressure to politics", yet you say there's 'no evidence', and you imply Ridge is lying to 'sell books'.
You said there's no evidence. The articles I linked have plenty.
George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents are the worst criminals ever to hold public office in the history of the United States of America. They shamed us ethically, they betrayed us spiritually, and they mercilessly broke us financially.
The one thing about my song that makes me sad is that I was so right so long ago. You can to click the link to hear it if you wish, but all you have to do is read the lyrics.
Any right wingnuts who want to attack me, personally, about my playing, my singing or my writing, go ahead -- reply and bump the thread some more. TIA for continuing to draw attention to the Bushwhackos' heinous crimes. :thumbsup:
Just remember, I didn't commit the crimes. Your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did. :|
The words I wrote and sang, then, are the historical facts you're reading, now.
The one thing about my song that makes me sad is that I was so right so long ago. You can to click the link to hear it if you wish, but all you have to do is read the lyrics.
Any right wingnuts who want to attack me, personally, about my playing, my singing or my writing, go ahead -- reply and bump the thread some more. TIA for continuing to draw attention to the Bushwhackos' heinous crimes. :thumbsup:
Just remember, I didn't commit the crimes. Your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did. :|
The words I wrote and sang, then, are the historical facts you're reading, now.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Ridge worked for Bush. If Bush felt like overruling Ridge's decision on raising the threat level that was his right as POTUS.
Then you go on to distort Ridge's claims and what various articles have said about this issue.
The simple fact is that there is no evidence that any terror alerts were raised purely for political reasons. NONE.
btw, pointing out the basic facts of this issue doesn't make me a 20%-er. But certain people in here just love slapping labels on others as a form of ad hom argument. Ridiculous.
:laugh: You must love abuse.Originally posted by: Harvey
...
Any right wingnuts who want to attack me, personally, about my playing, my singing or my writing, go ahead -- reply and bump the thread some more. TIA for continuing to draw attention to the Bushwhackos' heinous crimes. :thumbsup:
Just remember, I didn't commit the crimes. Your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang did. :|
The words I wrote and sang, then, are the historical facts you're reading, now.
"bring it on..."
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
A few of you need to read up on the Homeland Security Advisory System and get a clue.
The level has been raised only five times (on a nation wide basis) and the last of those was December 21,2003 to Jan 9, 2004.
And has been raised on partial basis 3 times.
It was only raised ONCE during 2004 and that was alert for specific financial institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...curity_Advisory_System
The level has been raised only five times (on a nation wide basis) and the last of those was December 21,2003 to Jan 9, 2004.
And has been raised on partial basis 3 times.
It was only raised ONCE during 2004 and that was alert for specific financial institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...curity_Advisory_System
If true, Bush should be <insert harsh treatment here>. Hard to prove, of course.
Crying wolf leads to desensitization. Desensitization to an issue as important as domestic terrorism should be avoided.
Maybe make the head of DH an independent post? Of course, there would have to be extreme safeguards against abuse of power.
Now why is the Threat level still Yellow?
Crying wolf leads to desensitization. Desensitization to an issue as important as domestic terrorism should be avoided.
Maybe make the head of DH an independent post? Of course, there would have to be extreme safeguards against abuse of power.
Now why is the Threat level still Yellow?
http://www.dhs.gov/files/progr...ress_release_0046.shtm
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter