Former Sec. of DHS Tom Ridge admits Bush admin raised terror alerts for political reasons

[spooked911]

Ridge admits Bush administration pushed to raise security alert for political reasons on eve of re-election.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/20/ridge-politics-terror/

Yeah, see the terror alerts were bogus-- but the terror threat was like TOTALLY REAL!!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

1. Brilliant Logic, Spooked....

since the Bush administration issued bogus terror alerts for political purposes, terrorism doesn't exist.

Again, brilliant!

[spooked911]

2. Logic would say if the outside terror threat was real, even the Bush administration

wouldn't play games with it.

But I never said terrorism doesn't exist. Terrorism exists of course. The question is who is doing the terrorism.

I love the way you twist the logic though. You're good at word games. You were trained well.

[SDuderstadt]

3. "The question is who is doing the terrorism"

So, in your view, who is it, Spooked?


Did you ever stop to think that you sound like a refugee from a failed anti-WTO/NWO demonstration?

[undeterred]

10. Don't you have anything else going on in your life?

Don't you get bored hanging out in a forum you hate all day long, never contributing anything positive?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Why do you care? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

13. You all about the WTO?

Yeah, you belong here :sarcasm:

[SDuderstadt]

16. No, I'm "all about" RIF ...

"Reading is Fundamental"... you could benefit from that.

[spooked911]

18. if you read my blog, it is all laid out

at one level it is the US govt
but at a deeper level it is the ultimate PTB

[SDuderstadt]

24. Dude, your "blog" is just more of the same...

nonsense you post here.

[BuddyBoy]

30. You insult even moderate-to-liberal Democrats. That's pathetic.

What one finds in his blog is reasonable, intelligent, thought-provoking, SINCERE, current, high-minded, and NEVER mean-spirited.

It's extremely disappointing that some people are allowed to poison the well of DEMOCRATIC viewpoints by spreading venom, insults
against other liberals, assaults against the truth, and even have the bad manners to brag about it all. THAT, I guess, is the price
that DUers pay for supporting 1st Amendment rights.

I support free speech rights, but not your abusive treatment of other DUers. I don't understand it, though I'm in general agreement
with explanations I've read about it on other sites. Some of it written by recent and ancient victims of the poison you traffic in.

[SDuderstadt]

Dude...

The problem is you think stupid "no-planes" theories, claims that families of children killed on 9/11 have acquiesced to "cover-ups" for money and that "mini-nukes" taking down the towers allegations deserve some measure of respect.

I believe they deserve nothing more than scorn and derision. It's absolutely a hoot to listen to you prattle on and on about "poison", dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Another BuddyBoy post where he only questions the motives of other posters. n/t

[BuddyBoy]

42. Another Bolo Boffin post where he misstates what another DUer said.

Old (eight years?) habits are hard to break I guess.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Nope. n/t

[BuddyBoy]

47. Yep.

n/t

[spooked911]

35. you asked and I answered

oh, but thank god you didn't question my motivations!

whew, what a relief.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Point to a single time where...

I have ever questioned your motivation. Also, unlike you, I have never ever called you a name, dude.

[spooked911]

58. as I *said*---

I could care less if you question my motivations.

Because I know my motivations are pure.

I also wouldn't care if you called me a doofus. Other names, it depends.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Could you point to a specific example of where I "twisted the Logic", Spooked?

It would also be nice if you could call it by name (you know, reductio ad absurdum, modus tollens, etc.). Of course, that should be easy for you, given your razor-sharp grasp of Logic...oh, wait, you can't even grasp why your "no-planes" nonsense is totally illogical, can you?

While you're at it, could you point specifically to any "word games" I am playing? And, isn't your "you were trained well" a word game in and of itself, Spooked? Aren't you implying that I am some sort of professional agent or something? Why are you always reduced to casting aspersions on your opponent's motivations? Is it because you can't advance compelling arguments or provide evidence of your goofy claims? That would be my guess, dude.

Notice how I never question your motivation. That, of course, would be easy to do if I was interested in fighting unfairly (like, um, YOU!). Instead I focus on the glaring gaps of reason and Logic in your goofy claims, Spooked. And, if you think it's unfair of me to label your claims "goofy", I just don't know what else to call "no-planes" and "mini-nukes" bullshit.

[BuddyBoy]

5. Red Bull on Ice?

Do you really need both?

[SDuderstadt]

6. If you're going to try to debate in this forum....

could you at least try to be coherent occasionally?

[PufPuf23]

7. SDude; as far as I know Minnie Mouse was the only Democrat

that was fucking Goofy.

Many of us are suffering from lack of information or representation for whatever reason.

So Tom Ridge admits the terror alerts were a political tool.

At the time of the build-up to the assault on Iraq, I found the pre-marketing of "Shock and Awe" in the media --word play Shekinah-- of poor taste regardless of the necessity of war at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Frankly, radical interpretations of the religions of Abraham seem to be associated with much violence, harm to the environment, and wastage of resources than anything divine.

So isn't the deliberate use of terror alerts for a political goal -- a major election -- a crime?

The crimes, mostly GOP but alas also Democratic and one wonders how deep into the military and intelligence communities, are not prosecuted.

We are on the same side regarding the GWB admninistration. Why don't you use your time to work on prosecution of the corrupt individuals that have drove our wonderful Nation into a ditch rather that sit here day after day calling the more paranoid among us goofy?

Give it a try SDude. There will be more meaning and goodwill in your life. Promise.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

14. Hey now....

If Spooked says "You were trained well", then don't steal my compliment like that.

Back at the Academy, you were my best student.

[lovepg]

15. self delete

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuddyBoy]

20. Average right-wing Democrat?

"I questions your motivations because what you do here doesn't make sense with you being an average Democrat interested in justice."

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude, I'll match my liberal credentials against yours anyday.

your silly tactic of trying to paint everyone who disagrees with you as RW is really silly. Knock it off.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Dude, what you really meant to say is...

"You don't buy my goofy theories, so you can't be a Democrat!". Barack 0bama and Bill Clinton agree with my position, dude. Are you saying they are not "Democrats interested in justice"?

[spooked911]

37. that's not at all what I meant to say

fact is, Clinton and Obama are sell-outs.

That should be obvious.

Though I am curious whether if I could debate them on specific points of 9/11, they would cling so stubbornly and yet so vaguely to the official story as you.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Dude, both of those guys are so much smarter them you...

you'd be reduced to yammering in your first paragraph.

[BuddyBoy]

43. "them" smarter than DUDE, just not as goofy and silly.

"both of those guys are so much smarter them you"

[SDuderstadt]

50. Please note the relative positions of the "m" and "n" keys on the keyboard....

dude. Duh.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

60. interesting you don't deny they are sell-outs

but I'm sure they are clever debaters, and could evade any solid admission about the truth of 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

61. Okay, Spooked...

I also deny they are sell-outs. Please don't try to construct a fax debate by latching onto imaginary positions you think I'm taking bynot saying anything.

[spooked911]

62. Okay--

so you have no problems with Clinton or Obama, at all?

If you do, curious what your issues are.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Dude...

with all due respect, I am not going to waste time with you on this.

[spooked911]

64. why???

can't I at least get a straight answer from you on something?

[spooked911]

65. is there some reason you are unable to express differences you've had with

Clinton and Obama?

[SDuderstadt]

66. Yeah, dude...

you're a "no -planer" who thinks any public official who doesn't buy your bullshit is a "sell-out". Clear enough?

[spooked911]

67. No. I consider Clinton and Obama sell-outs on strictly liberal Democratic grounds,

but their lack of forthrightness about 9/11 certainly accentuates that.

I would never expect any major politician to talk about no planes.

I think you are just avoiding the question I asked. Which is typical for when I ask you something serious.

[SDuderstadt]

68. You should expect that no major politician to talk about "no-planes"..

because it's fucking goofy, dude, They also saw what everyone else saw and all your attempts to convince people that they didn't see the planes because it "couldn't have happened" fall on deaf ears.

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with this bullshit.

[spooked911]

69. Everyone-- including the pols-- saw the planes on TV

anyway, here's a good lefty for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6387892&mesg_id=6387892

how much of that do you agree with?
note, he calls for abolishing the CIA.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Spooked...

It is just plan silly and, in fact, delusional to claim no one saw any of the planes live.

I can see you don't care about embarrassing yourself but I implore you to quit embarrassing DU with your nonsense.

[Why Syzygy]

27. What do you do?

Drink vinegar for breakfast? Get a coffee pot. Find a little joy.

[BuddyBoy]

29. Insult DU members while claiming to be a liberal - - or ...

do you mean OTHER than that?

"What do you do?"

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude, I'll put my liberal credentials up against yours any day.

I'm not the one heinously claiming that parents of children hilled on 9/11 were "bought off".

[BuddyBoy]

54. Stick 'em up, dude.

"Dude, I'll put my liberal credentials up against yours any day."

Just put up the ones that can be independently verified.

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

55. After you, dude...n/t

[BuddyBoy]

56. You aren't going to chicken out AGAIN, are you?

dude, YOU'RE the one who crowed about matching your "liberal credentials". That's a wussy way to weasel out of an uncomfortable
situation. Or, are you concerned about potential issues of a perjurious nature?

[SDuderstadt]

57. What the fuck are you babbling about now, BB?

"perjurious nature"? I don't recall taking an oath, so I'm willing to bet you don't understand the definition of the word "perjurious".

As to your rather goofy claim that I'm "chickening out", let me remind you of my precise words, dude.

73. By all means, "educate" us, dude. Then when you're done, give me any date and I'll construct a similar narrative. Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain randomness to the guy who won the lottery by playing a combo of his sacred mother's birthday and the date he first got laid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=259246&mesg_id=262745

I'm sure the phrase "then when you're done" confused you, but I set out a condition. You have to go first, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Another BuddyBoy post where he only questions the motives of other posters. n/t

[BuddyBoy]

44. Another Bolo Boffin post where he misstates what another DUer said.

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Nope. n/t

[BuddyBoy]

48. Yep.

n/t

[Realityhack]

59. Care to back that up.

Why don't you show us a specific quote from your post and show how Bolo is wrong.

Of course I doubt you can as I think he correctly summarized your post.

[Why Syzygy]

49. If being a Liberal

doesn't make one feel a little gracious, I would advise them to find a different affiliation. Closer to the dark side. Follow the scowl ...

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Say what?

You're capable of thinking the Bush Administration cynical enough to use nuclear weapons to fake a terrorist attack on the United States, but not to use an actual terrorism danger to their own advantage, even to the point of exaggerating the level of information they have?

[spooked911]

21. obviously I was being sarcastic in my OP,

so it is silly to read too much into my thinking from that.

Now, could they have exaggerated an actual terror threat? Yes.

Do I think that is what they did?

It could be that they were in control of the terrorists, so in a way, the threat was real.

Or they knew the terror threat was bogus, but they played it up for political reasons.

[BuddyBoy]

17. I beg to disagree your conclusion.

"You were trained well." Someone well trained would not use such amateurish tactics. He may be a Democrat, but in this case,
he's using the same kind of tactic that right-wingers commonly use.

[inthebrain]

22. Nope, both could exist at the same time

just as one could exist with out the other.

So no, logic wouldn't agree with your conclusion.

[vincent_vega_lives]

12. If I read the source you linked to right

Your headline if false.

[spooked911]

23. really?

I just rephrased the headline at the link.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. Then you have comprehension issues

It says Ridge was pressured to raise the security alert levels by the bush admin.

You say the Bush administration raised the security alert levels.

[spooked911]

33. errmmm

Ridge was a *member* of the Bush administration. There is no conflict.

[SDuderstadt]

34. So, are you saying Ridge...

pressured himself?

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Show me where it says he raised them

as a result of the pressure and you will be correct. I didn;t read the whole book, but in the blerb you posted it simply says he was pressured to raise them, not that the level was raised.

[Subdivisions]

52. It was raised:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=terror+alert+raised&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2004/08&as_hdate=2004/08&lnav=hist7

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. That does not provide the answer

I know it was raised. Where does Ridge say it was raised due to political pressure? That is spooked's headline.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!