Another Former GWB Official Tells All

Remove all ads!

I remember how during the Bush years some of us were ridiculed for claiming that GWB used exactly these tactics:

I can hear the chorus refrains already: "But they all do it!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32501273/ns/us_news-security/

 

But they all do it!

 

Ohhhhhh, yeah.

 

Oh, I remember vividly how, back then when that was suggested, that was vehemently denied. Obviously, only bitter and vile partisan hackery could suggest motives as low to an administration so righteous and solely concerned with the safety of American citizens.

 

Quick, someone, blackwash Tom Ridge!

 

Yes, they all make sensastional claims to sell books. Anybody remember "Primary Colors"?

 

I'm not sure, since I'm not familiar with it, but ain't that about Bill Clinton? If it is about Bill Clinton, and Bill getting into this thread (almost immediately), thanks for not letting me down.

TGS didn't waste any time taking care of that task either, and bringing BC into the conversation at the same time. A "2-for-1."

 

2004
The Left: "Some of these Bush Administration terror alerts appear to be politically timed."
The Right: "TRAITORS!! MOONBATS!!"

2009
The Left: "A Bush Administration official confirms that some terror alerts were, in fact, politically timed."
The Right: "SO?! Sensationalism sells books!"

It really is a wonder there aren't more alcoholics in this country.

 

There are. They're called "Republicans".

 

Hrm... you somehow got that reference completely backwards.

 

Here's your answer: They have found stronger stuff

 

I resemble that remark.


Jack Daniels for President

 

Now THAT, I second. But only if he picks John Dewar as his running mate and represents the Livertearian Party.

Ah, Friday.

 

I actually knew what you meant, but I decided to twist around, in that the only possible explanation for Republican behavior is...

 

To be quite honest, people have the tendency of embellishing facts a bit to make them more exciting in the book. While I don't think such tricks were beyond Bush I find it likely that he's exaggerating the strongness of his opposition and perhaps misinteprenting the motives (it might be that the Bush adminstration simply felt that the elections offered a target for terrorist strikes and decided to raise the alert level).

When notable people write their memoirs they usually have two motives. First to exhonorate themselves from anything wrong and justify their past actions and secondly to sell books and earn money. Both of these requires the person to be a bit creative with the truth.

 

It doesn't really matter what his motives are, to be honest. This revelation is coming about 5 years too late. Ridge deserves neither praise nor forgiveness for making this announcement now and in this manner. You're right - he's likely trying to protect/cleanse his own legacy and make some money in the meantime. Nothing wrong with that. But if he were really so noble he would have resigned in protest. He didn't.

Regardless of his motives, he's only confirming now what was obvious at the time: the Bush Administration politicized national security for cynical and temporary political gain. He'll likely substantiate his claims in the book, and since this isn't exactly earth-shattering, little embellishment will be necessary, anyway. All this does is make official something long past its expiration date to be meaningful.

 

This is where assembling the facts really makes a difference:

1. Most of us found it odd that right after the Democratic convention that the threat level was raised almost instantly. Kerry had indeed received the typical bounce from the convention that all candidates get, regardless of party. And it was overshadowed by the sudden threat to our national securtiy.

2. Again right before the election, the level was raised again. And again many of us found the timing a bit odd.

3. Exit polling from the election day revealed that Bush won the election as a result of national security concerns.

The problem, of course, with your notion that he is "misinterprenting the motives," stems from the facts:

Again, Tom Ridge was in charge of Homeland Securtiy. Thusly, it was his job to "interpret" and assess those threats.

And second, he did resign that post under very odd circumstances. While you can assaile his motives and intentions all you wish, the facts of what occurred are plain and a matter of public record.


Lastly, and of course it goes without saying, it is common practice here to assail the source as soon as someone makes an attempt to uncover or to come forward with government corruption. While you may see fit to assail the man's character and comment that he wasn't savvy enough, or didn't really understand the motives of those who pressured him to raise the threat level, Tom Ridge is a widely respected and well-thought of indivdual on both sides, just as Colin Powell, and a host of others were, before they came forward with information about government wrong-doing.

People in this country sometimes ask why things never change regarding the honesty and competence of government. And your comments speak volumes of why many are afraid, or worse, don't want to put up with the attacks from those who are always willing to believe the worst of anyone who wants to provide a first hand account of what they have witnessed.

Really? Cause I think that's just plain

 

This is exactly why I did not believe at the time the threat levels were politically motivated. I thought Ridge had a high enough level of integrity (and big enough balls) to not fall prey to such manipulations. Evidently I was wrong about the man.

 

You are of course free to disagree but since publishers are usually doing it for profit they want their books to sell and therefore they usually want nice controversies for books they agree to publish and promote, they aren't necessary untrue but often blown out of proportion and their importance exaggerated. Also they are hardly a neutral source of information since the writer usually wants to protect his own legacy at all costs. That's not to say that they are not an interesting read or that they are a bunch of lies just that they often provide quite unreliable information and should hardly be considered a recount of facts.

 

Still, T2, your point is well taken. Nevetheless, it will indeed be interesting to see how Ridge responds to such criticism as this unfolds. Ridge has obviously put himself on the line with these accusations, which, as the article states, has been flatly denied by other Bush officials. BTW, whatever did happen to all those "terror alerts" after the election of 2004?

Really? Because "first hand" accounts are considered primary sources by historians. Although they CAN be unreliable, they are often scrutinized carefully, along with other evidence (which so far you have conveniently ignored), to draw real conclusions regarding an historical event.

I will say that you are trying your best to switch the debate from the facts of the issue at hand, to the publishing business and why books are written -- and of course, on to Ridge himself, (which makes more sense in the scheme of things, as T2 points out), rather than scrutinizing the facts surrounding the events.