You don't have proof of that, come on.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Partisan bigotry at its finest.
Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help Bush Win
-snip-
pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.
Well... if the Huffy Post says it then it must be true. After all, they don't hold any grudges against conservatives and Republicans. :roll:
The quote is from Tom Ridge's book. He was appointed by Bush as head of HS. He is a Republican.
Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, speaking for the first time about accusations made in his new book, says he did not mean to suggest that other top Bush administration officials were playing politics with the nation's security before the 2004 presidential election.
"I'm not second-guessing my colleagues," Ridge said in an interview about The Test of Our Times, which comes out Tuesday and recounts his experiences as head of the nation's homeland security efforts in the first several years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
I'm very aware who Tom Ridge is.
The quote was taken out of context, unsurprisingly based on the source.
Tom Ridge clarified the comments in the book:
He either said it or he didn't.
Which is it?
Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help Bush Win
-snip-
pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush's re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.
UPDATE: Former Bush administration officials are vehemently denying Ridge's statements.
"We went over backwards repeatedly and with great discipline to make sure politics did not influence any national security and homeland security decisions," former White House chief of staff Andy Card told Politico. "The clear instructions were to make sure politics never influenced anything."
"Under no circumstance was Tom Ridge or anyone else directed to change the threat level," former homeland security adviser Frances Townsend said. "It didn't work that way, and it certainly didn't work that way in 2004. It was always an apolitical process."
Interesting link, as it says:
Not sure how this makes whatever point you were trying to make...
I'm very aware who Tom Ridge is.
The quote was taken out of context, unsurprisingly based on the source.
Tom Ridge clarified the comments in the book:
New Coward Confirms it: Republicans Politicized Terrorism! - Hit & Run : Reason MagazineIn his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.
Ridge, a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania, says that he refused the entreaty just before the election from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a summary of the book from publisher Thomas Dunne Books.
"After that episode, I knew I had to follow through with my plans to leave the federal government for the private sector," Ridge, who resigned soon after the election where Bush defeated Democrat John F. Kerry, writes in "The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... And How We Can Be Safe Again."
FOXNews.com - Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015
So while Russia is signing non-proliferation and disarmament agreements with the U.S., are they also working closely with Iran to make them a capable threat to the U.S. at the same time?
If we don't do something soon, this won't end well.
FOXNews.com - Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015
So while Russia is signing non-proliferation and disarmament agreements with the U.S., are they also working closely with Iran to make them a capable threat to the U.S. at the same time?
If we don't do something soon, this won't end well.
notice how the effort to curb north korea's nuclear capability has ended now that it has become a member of the nuclear 'family'
that can't be lost on iran. expect them to accelerate the deveopment of their own nukes before the US can fabricate a pre-emptive ruse to justify doing israel's bidding and bombing iran's facilities
seems America has become the world's bully
pity
I think you are putting two separate issues together. Limiting strategic nuclear warheads will not effect anything if Iran has a missile capable of reaching the United States.
If you believe that MAD works, then an Iranian weapon does not matter. (You also have to add in time to allow for Iran to be able to put a warhead on that potential missile)
Additionally, if you do not believe in MAD, the current missile defense structure in place (GMD sites in CA and AK) will offer at least a limited protection of the US mainland.
The problem will be if they would use such a missile against Europe or other sites, but the time it would take them to build multiple missiles, and multiple warheads, plus develop the ability to place a nuclear warhead on a missile, will most likely take a few years, and by 2018, (at least in theory) the next stage of missile defense deployment will have occurred, and will offer a much better shield of Europe.
Certainly an Iran with long range missiles and nuclear weapons is not a positive scenario, but I think this story by itself does not add anything to the actual threat we might face from them.
The thread of MAD only works on SANE people. Iran's governing terrorists are NOT sane; therefore, that theory does not apply.
Well, I find MAD to be a mostly worthless theory... even when applying it to rational actors.
Putting that aside however, the current missile defense structure would offer a defense against a limited Iranian ICBM threat towards the US, and once the SM-3 Block IIA can be deployed in Europe, and backed with Aegis ships (armed with the same), it will offer a better protection of Europe (outside of MEADS and general Theatre defenses).
Unless we balk at missile defense deployment, this should be deployed before Iran can develop a large enough arsenal of ICBM's and possess the capability of putting a warhead (possibly nuclear) on such a weapon, and actually threaten the US.
so, did he lie in the book or after the book was published:
New Coward Confirms it: Republicans Politicized Terrorism! - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Not sure how this makes whatever point you were trying to make...
The -obvious- point here:You would expect an admission?
The -obvious- point here:
Given the statements that contradict him, how do you know tha Ridge isn't lying?
You didnt answer the question. How do you know tha Ridge isn't lying?what would be ridge's motivations to lie about it?
You didnt answer the question. How do you know tha Ridge isn't lying?
No, it is completely possible for you to answer independent of that knowledge.i would have to know what motivations he would have to lie
what would they be?
The -obvious- point here:
Given the statements that contradict him, how do you know tha Ridge isn't lying?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?