Damn liberal press is making GWB look like an opportunist ... Ridge reveals clashes on alerts By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY WASHINGTON � The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says. Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled. His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus. Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002. "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?' " Revising or scrapping the color-coded alert system is under review by new Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff. Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said "improvements and adjustments" may be announced within the next few months. The threat level was last raised on a nationwide scale in December 2003, to orange from yellow � or "elevated" risk � where the alert level is now. In most cases, Ridge said Homeland Security officials didn't want to raise the level because they knew local governments and businesses would have to spend money putting temporary security upgrades in place. "You have to use that tool of communication very sparingly," Ridge said at the forum, which was attended by seven other former department leaders. The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Ridge and Ashcroft publicly clashed over how to communicate threat information to the public. But Ridge has never before discussed internal dissention over the threat level. The color-coded system was controversial from the start. Polls showed the public found it confusing.
Another example of how the administration manipulated public opinion with scare tactics to garner support. W seems so likable on TV...but don't cross him.
But that is to be expected of 99% of the politicans. I am sure Democrats would do the same thing given a chance. Bush have many more serious faults but this is really no big deal in my opion.
Its not about this one thing. As you mention, its the bigger picture...and this is but one brush stroke of that picture. Power corrupts. It is almost a universal truth. History has gazillions of examples. That is why our constitution implements checks and balances to help protect us. Not surprisingly, the Repubs take every chance they get to challence anything that "stinks" of checks and balances for the sole purpose of gaining yet more power. They attacked Dems for blocking Texas redistricting. They attacked activist (Republican) judges. They attacked Dems for blocking judicial nominees. They attacked Dems for breach of duty on the ethics committee after changing the rules. etc etc etc Do they understand the purpose of check and balances? It is to protect against exactly this kind of activity!!!!!!!!! It is clear they have lost respect for minority opinions (who, by the way, was 49% of the population in 2004) by attempting to change the rules and that is VERY dangerous. This behavior fundamentally undermines the constitution. If Repubs account for 51% of Americans, then it is easy to assert that Repubs have a disproprtionate control of government. That would be fine if they acknowledged the minority party but they do just the opposite. They want to change the rules to offer them even greater power. So if you are a repub right now, that is fine. But allowing politicians even greater power inevitabely will result in greater corruption down the line. That is my growing fear.
I don't see this as a black and white issue. The GWB WH is more politically motivated than any other WH in recent memory. The question begs whether GWB ever asks himself if his actions are good for the country as a whole versus good for Republican politics.
Ironic how two of the most universally respected Republicans (Christine Todd Whitman & Tom Ridge) are openly at odds with the Bush Administration. Just goes to show how polar the GOP is becoming. When Bush said that you are either with us or against us, he sure meant it.
Oh, I think Bush believes his actions are good for the country. He also believes those who are close to him... and has kept getting rid of those who are bold enough to sometimes disagree, or offer advice that doesn't follow Bush World View 101. Thus, he listens to an ever decreasing number of advisors, who tell him what he wants to hear. Frankly, that frightens me more than the idea that his actions are entirely polically motivated. The advice of his advisors is politically motivated, more often or not, but Bush doesn't see it that way. In my opinion, of course. Keep D&D Civil!!
Napolean also beleived his actions were good for the country...as he layed waste to surrounding countries.
GWB "I am not really a clueless fool; I just play one on TV" I believe that GWB only cares about his financial backers. The rest is window dressing.
