CaneBrain 95 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090820/pl_af..._20090820171704cliff notes:Aides to President Bush pressured then Homeland Security head Tom Ridge to raise the terror level on the eve of the 2004 election.I should be less surprised. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 As if anybody could remember wtf terror level orange means anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Plus one 0 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090820/pl_af..._20090820171704cliff notes:Aides to President Bush pressured then Homeland Security head Tom Ridge to raise the terror level on the eve of the 2004 election.I should be less surprised. Why are 5 year old threads being bumped? Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 as if the bush haters could possibly need any more vindication Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 That would be like planning an Operation to save your presidency rescue 52 American Hostages in Iran which failed so miserably that it resulted in the deaths of eight American Servicemen and one Iranian Civilian. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yup, pretty bad if true op. I truly mean that.Especially since he'd be the only politician to ever stoop to some low brow tactic to gain an advantage. Nope....no one else would or has ever done this before. Uh uh...no way. New chapter here and new low folks. Truly a Wow, Just Wow moment in history.And nothing like waking up the dead with a tired playbook move of dragging out some random previous president story to divert attention from the current presidential popularity meltdown. yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzWe now return you back to the current horror show that is the Obama circus! Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yup, pretty bad if true op. I truly mean that.Especially since he'd be the only politician to ever stoop to some low brow tactic to gain an advantage.I'd say the particular tactic of scaring the populace into believing a terrorist attack is imminent in order to gain an advantage in an election is pretty novel. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'd say the particular tactic of scaring the populace into believing a terrorist attack is imminent in order to gain an advantage in an election is pretty novel.There's that.And there is the fact this "liberal media distraction" was actually announced because a Republican (Tom Ridge) wrote about it in his new book. I am sure Obama made him print the book now to help distract from health care. He's everywhere. BOO!I also definitely like the attitude that once Bush left office nothing he did matters anymore and any mention of his prior behavior (even something like rigging terror levels for political gain---a bit more than yawn-worthy imo) is nothing more than an attempt to distract people. Lame potatoes. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Really..someone in the Bush administration wrote a book, and had something provacative in it?Provacative because it makes the claim that people were swayed to vote for Bush because of the orange signs around airports?I am willing now to bet that there will soon be another book written, by someone else who served under Bush, who will have something provacative that can be spun in a manner that makes Bush look bad. Then another one will come out after that. and probably another one. And none of them will be free.The real question is will Obama write another memoir for the life he's lived since his last one he wrote before he had done much of anything... Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'd say the particular tactic of scaring the populace into believing a terrorist attack is imminent in order to gain an advantage in an election is pretty novel.I dare surmise that by that time few people were even paying attention to all those alerts anymore and any my guess is the effect was minimal. On thing is for sure...the panic that night was political and had nothing to do with color threat code warnings. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Cain you are an Ivy league guy...this post was more along the lines i would have expected from a Temple guy. You have to do better then that. Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 yes lets go ahead and excuse the president from abusing his powers to falsely frighten his constituents into thinking their lives are in danger so he can more easily manipulate them and get their votes. how can anybody say this was ok? really? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 yes lets go ahead and excuse the president from abusing his powers to falsely frighten his constituents into thinking their lives are in danger so he can more easily manipulate them and get their votes. how can anybody say this was ok? really?I know I don't get the reaction from some of the conservatives on here. Just posting it downgraded me to a Temple guy apparently. This is kind of a big deal. Just part of the ongoing GOP initiative to pretend that 2001-2008 never happened I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Someone needs to post a picture of the Wizard of Oz with Dick Cheney's head shopped onto it. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 yes lets go ahead and excuse the president from abusing his powers to falsely frighten his constituents into thinking their lives are in danger so he can more easily manipulate them and get their votes. how can anybody say this was ok? really?The issue is that the 'administration' is huge. Who knows if Bush knew anything about it? In fact, by the way that the libs talk around here, Bush isn't even capable of using the bathroom on his own... so how would he possibly be involved? Link to post Share on other sites
Zealous Donkey 0 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090820/pl_af..._20090820171704cliff notes:Aides to President Bush pressured then Homeland Security head Tom Ridge to raise the terror level on the eve of the 2004 election.I should be less surprised.It is ridiculous, of course, to think that terrorists may actually plan attacks during our national elections. I would think the terror alert status would automatically be bumped up during national elections. Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Does anyone else think Tom Ridge should be criticized for bringing this up five years later instead of right when it happened? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 yes lets go ahead and excuse the president from abusing his powers to falsely frighten his constituents into thinking their lives are in danger so he can more easily manipulate them and get their votes. how can anybody say this was ok? really?Does it matter that the story in the OP says that the action was never done? So even though Bush had masterminded evil plans for the take over of 1/7th of the nation's economy...print and spend a Trillion dollars on political friends programs...raise the color level of an alert no one takes very serious, nothing was ever done and the whistle blower himself says it wasn't Bush, but two guys who were heads of departments that get immediate boost in their spending when the threat level increases, allowing them to put more people into action and other behind the scenes things that the public has little care about let alone information on?I dare you to answer that question with a simple yes or no! Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Does anyone else think Tom Ridge should be criticized for bringing this up five years later instead of right when it happened?Yes, though I understand why he would not have.I also think it is fair to wonder if he has any political motivation behind this new book (trying to separate himself from GWB for instance).What I don't think is fair is to pretend this is not a big deal. There has been nothing proven yet (and there probably never will be) but it is not some trivial issue and it seems to fit a larger pattern of the GOP being perfectly willing to try and win by scaring people during that period of time.Zealous, if a terror level is to have any meaning it should never be bumped automatically but only bumped when justified. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Does anyone else think Tom Ridge should be criticized for bringing this up five years later instead of right when it happened?Takes a long time to write a book no one wants to read Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Does it matter that the story in the OP says that the action was never done? So even though Bush had masterminded evil plans for the take over of 1/7th of the nation's economy...print and spend a Trillion dollars on political friends programs...raise the color level of an alert no one takes very serious, nothing was ever done and the whistle blower himself says it wasn't Bush, but two guys who were heads of departments that get immediate boost in their spending when the threat level increases, allowing them to put more people into action and other behind the scenes things that the public has little care about let alone information on?I see, they did for money, that is much better. They called an emergency so they could use more government stuff for their re-election campaign, what a relief! Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 They called an emergency so they could use more government stuff for their re-election campaign, what a relief!I don't think that's what he was saying. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I see, they did for money, that is much better. They called an emergency so they could use more government stuff for their re-election campaign, what a relief!"Never let a serious crisis go to waste" Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't think that's what he was saying.Sometimes I ignore rose since he is just trying to find ways to make me mad Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Sometimes I ignore rose since he is just trying to find ways to make me madIt sucks when someone co-opts your playbook, eh? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now