Another Former GWB Official Tells All

Remove all ads!

Jeez, relax will you. I wasn't attacking Bill or Ridge (or defending Bush for that matter). I'm not saying it is false, as it is probably true.

In case you don't remember Clinton was the President before Bush, so I only went back to show that this is the type of thing that always happens. My point was exactly the same as Morgoroth's. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there will be some "embellishments" involved when someone is hyping a "political tell all".

I'm sure the exact same thing will happen when Obama leaves office as some sort of "insider" will spill the dirt on everything they "staged" for his benefit. Heck, I'm sure that book will be in a multiple volumes (I admit that was a cheap shot).

Posting in the Alley's is starting to be like arguing with the wife.

 

Indeed, because during most times official archives were not available. Eventually all these become more or less public and better sources become available, atleast in most cases. Many roman emperors have earned the reputation of being completely bonkers because of the accounts of single historians of whom many had a reason to hate them or smear them.

Also in those cases the information available is hardly disputed. If Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld were asked if they did this for political answers I think we know what their answer would be. I think you'll also agree that Ridge's statements are a leap away from having been "scrutinized" deeply and carefully.

 

It's not THAT bad. Why do you think I'm arguing here?

Which sources are those? Like the ones that are in the hearings, and court cases for:

1. How intelligence was "rigged" to get us into a War in Iraq?
2. How US prosecuters were fired for political reasons?
3. How members of Congress were lied to by the CIA, or kept out of the loop?
4. How there may have been illegal torture programs?
5. How Valarie Blame, a CIA agent, was outed by Rove and Cheney and the adminstration?

Am I forgetting anything that these guys may not have done?

And now we have phony terror alerts. Gee, what a surprise that is.

The fact is, Morogorth, you have no idea if Ridge is telling the truth or not. You don't know why he wrote his book, nor do you know anything about his publisher. You may be the expert on the publishing business that you claim you are for all I know. I'm just waiting for you to presesnt some facts and for you to stop ignoring all the other evidence that has been presented. If you can, take my points one by one if you wish. I've got time.

 

Usually the archives contain documentations that reveal quite a lot how an adminstration has worked and once they become public (which might take up to 100 years atleast in Finland) we'll know for sure, if we're alive anymore that is.

Nor do I claim to know, I however remain sceptical to all kinds of book revelations. If he was truly upset he could have resigned at the spot, and brought it public immidietly. Instead he chose to spare it to get good material for his book. So that sort of cowardly behavior in itself makes me question the honesty of this man. Not that I know much about the man anyway, this is the first time I've read more about him other than the casual mention in the news.

 

I cant back this up at all, but if memory serves he's not the first involved politician to claim this?

 

He resigned on November 30, and the election is the first Tuesday in November. And as he states, "it was a deciding factor." Typically, they will give notice in private in advance of the public announcement. So it was pretty much on the spot in the realm of politics.

I don't feel your comments, at least in my opinion, contribute anything meaningful, or does anything to advance the debate. And you are still ignoring the evidence that it is a matter of public record that right after the Democratic Convention and right before the general election the alert was raised, And as Ridge comments, "nothing happened." Nevertheless, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it, so don't take that the wrong way. But it's like Ragusa is fond of saying (as sarcasm): "The guy is just lying: case closed." Not this time.

...And maybe not this time either:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/04/13/090413ta_talk_mayer

 

Chandos ...
the full quote was iirc: "The guy is just lying: case closed. LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I DON'T HEAR YOU!" Now, I can't really blame you for leaving out the latter part due to it lacking style. It, however, certainly removes any room for misinterpretation.

By the way, Sand's book 'Torture Team' is excellent.
on Amazon.co.uk through SP
on Amazon.com through SP

 

You are taking my words a bit more strongly that they were meant to be. As I said, as far as I know he is telling the truth, however I'll take anything people write in books that usually serve the purpose of making money with a pinch of salt.

Also I find it somewhat disappointing that he's coming out with it now, when the Bush regime is gone and his comments will not likely be met with much resistance, meaning that the Bush adminstration won't feel the need to tell their side, which sort of leaves the accusation hanging in the air. If he had talked about this earlier then perhaps someone would have taken notice and actually done something about it. Now, it's just another stain on the Bush legacy without any real political consequences.

 

Well, then I was taking your comments somewhat differently than you meant them. And in that case, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I will add that sometimes people don't do things for just one reason. There is often not a singular motive for an action, but a series of steps that leads to something of this magnitude.

 

Actually... it kind of is...

Well you've both been registered here since 2003. I'd like to present to the jury the following evidence, which I think is similar to a lot of married couples six years later:

1. You argue all the time.
2. Each one thinks the other is an idiot.
3. You don't have sex with each other.

The prosecution rests.


[The judge declares a mistrial until the prosecution shows that they had sex like bunnies six years ago - /dmc]

 

Well, we have 3 kids in 7 years, (actually 3 in 6, since Nathan just turned 1), so that says something.

 

I meant you don't have sex with each other. I'll edit my previous post.

 

Please the court, your honor: I move that the jury be dismissed so that we can move to an immediate Article 39-A session, charging Aldeth with Reckless Smartassery, for committing the crime of giving us all the mental picture of Snook and Chandos pokin' and chokin'.

The witness has rights.

 

[The judge declares a mistrial until the prosecution shows that they had sex like bunnies six years ago - /dmc]

In the spirit of the political arguments often used in the press (and occasionally on SP) I think they have to prove they didn't. This is a political thread, not a legal thread. The rules of 'trial by press' apply.

 

Hey, now! Don't go makin' assumptions just cuz Snook's a Republican and all....

 

You guys crack me up!

Back to the topic though, it is odd that Ridge waited this long. Maybe there were some legal ramifications if he didn't? But I would think every president has had to make moves like this when getting close to re-election. Does anyone here really believe otherwise? It looks like politics 101 to me. By the way, I am NOT approving us those types of methods to get re-elected. I'm just saying I don't find them to be unusual.

 

... except that no other president had ever used such moves. Make overblow promises that they then couldn't keep? Of course they will, happens in every single country with anything close to democratic elections. Play up what they can do and downplay what their opponent can do? Sure, it's Politics 101 as you said. Play with the National Security level and take it up and down so as to create paranoia on a national level to get re-elected? Might have already been done in other countries, but no president had ever done this in the USA until George W. Bush came along. That's why he was criticised for it back in 2004. And on this particular point I disagree with Chandos. Five years later the "revelation" has no importance whatsoever: it was already incredibly obvious back then (and personally I don't feel I need "inside information" to confirm to me something that was as subtle as being hit with a sledgehammer) and it comes after Bush has come (back) and gone. Now I don't claim to know what Ridge's motives were, but I find it incredibly telling that he resigned after the elections, after going along with the whole charade, and again that the book is being released months after the end of Bush's legacy, when the information has no use to anyone anymore aside from a historical footnote. Too lite, too late.

 

Not sure how you can say it was never down before. Only in the last 10-15 years has the public been this informed on the moves by our President, due to the electronic era we now live in. Back in the day, say right after WWII or Vietnam, or even prior, who can say what a President did, or what word they put forth that wasn't true to help advance their agenda/causes? I would bet the house that if we could somehow conjure up all the details of all the unknown/behind the scenes politicking by past Presidents, there would be some real eye-openers and W's move wouldn't come close to topping the list. Again, not that I support it, it's just IMO, not surprising at all... the motives of his critics weren't solely about him advancing his agenda, as by criticizing him, they were advancing their own as well. More politics 101. Funny how comparable that is to say a couple of figure pointing children, tattling on each other....

 

Ziad, these types of things are done all the time. There were many who believe Clinton attacked al Qaeda to diffuse some domestic issues he had. Johnson escalated the Viet Nam war to show he was active in stopping communism (which he believed was behind the Kennedy assassination) and equally strong in defense as his opponent. Nixon and Reagan were both masterful at crafting the cold war threat to their advantage.

I think you could go back and see this kind of thing happening throughout our history. Sure, no one else used the "Terrorist Threat Level" -- but that's only because it didn't exist.

 

What has former Bush official Fran Townsend said about Ridge's statement? That they only deliberated how terror alerts would hurt Bush, not benefit Bush, and that no political decisions had been made at those meetings Ridge attended. Well, that says next to nothing.

Whatever the official premise of those meetings, that doesn't prevent people going out of these meetings with an impression that terror alerts will benefit him, eventually resulting in the decision for such alerts in the Whitehouse.