Tom Ridge Admits Terror Alerts Were Bogus

[Hardrock69]

As most intelligent Americans have already suspected, the so-called "terror alerts" announced by the Department of Homeland Security during the past several years were completely bogus and were used by the Bush-Cheney Regime as a propaganda ploy to promote the equally bogus "War on Terrorism."

Former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said that Bush Regime officials forced him to elevate the "threat level" on what he calls "flimsy evidence," reports USA Today.

Ridge, who introduced the goofy color-coded "terror alert" system in 2002, attempted to rationalize his behavior during a Washington press conference.

Current US Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff (whose last name means "of the devil" in Russian) is allegedly deciding how quickly to scrap the color code alert system.

The color alert system has not been changed since December 2003 when it was moved from yellow to orange.

[Guitar Shark]

No offense dude, but this article seems a bit one-sided... is there a link?

I happen to believe the terror alerts were often bogus, btw.

[Hardrock69]

Here is some more to the story....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8814.htm


US Terror Alerts Were
Used As Electoral Weapons
By Chris Bowers
5-12-5

Via Parker's diary on the subject. Remember the chart that showed the relationship between Bush's approval rating and terror alters? The chart clearly suggested that terror alerts were used more frequently during times of unpopularity for Bush. Now, new evidence, from Tom Ridge himself, suggests that there was indeed massive outside pressure on the department on homeland to security to often raise the terror alert despite flimsy evidence:

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?' "

Combined with what Ridge has said, and the chart linked above, can there be any doubt that the Bush administration was frequently raising the terror alerts to help his election chances and increase his political capital rather than to signal actual threats? As Parker says, Howard Dean was right. Terror alerts have undoubtedly been used as a electoral weapon rather than as a safety measure. For more on this subject, JuliusBlog.

[Hardrock69]

Here is a more specific article from USA Today:

Ridge Reveals Clashes on Alerts
By Mimi Hall
USA Today

Tuesday 10 May 2005

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.

[Hardrock69]

They mention that the threat level was last raised in December 2003.

It was raised based on fabricated evidence:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO401A.html

[cjsand76]

Tell me Hardrock 69, what is going on here? Can you see it or are you so deluded in your ideology that you cannot see what this is designed to do? Tell me. I'll bet you ain't close.

[FORD]

Originally posted by cjsand76
Tell me Hardrock 69, what is going on here? Can you see it or are you so deluded in your ideology that you cannot see what this is designed to do? Tell me. I'll bet you ain't close.

Deluded in ideology? Considering where you're posting from, that's a hilarious statement buddy.

Tell Uncle Dick I said Hi. That's assuming he's talking this morning, which may or may not be the case, from what I've heard.

Now that said, I'll answer your question.

The terralert system was designed to do one thing and one thing only.

Keep the American people in a perpetual state of fear and gradually introduce a fascist police state.

http://www.southvalleypeacecenter.org/images/halliburton.jpg

[American Gypsy]

Where are all these terrorists? Where is all the danger? The only
people who are in danger are our guys half way around the world.
But it sure is convenient that we have a small amount of citizens that
are willing, not only to believe, but also to nurture this paranoia.
Can anyone blieve that after 9/11 in the forseeable future any group
would believe that they had a functional chance of a successful terrorist attack?

[Hardrock69]

cjsand76

[Hardrock69]

Another pic of cjsand76:

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Deluded in ideology? Considering where you're posting from, that's a hilarious statement buddy.

Tell Uncle Dick I said Hi. That's assuming he's talking this morning, which may or may not be the case, from what I've heard.

Now that said, I'll answer your question.

The terralert system was designed to do one thing and one thing only.

Keep the American people in a perpetual state of fear and gradually introduce a fascist police state.

http://www.southvalleypeacecenter.org/images/halliburton.jpg

I don't live in a perpetual state of fear, and nobody I know does as well, Democrats and Republicans. I've never talked to ONE person who told me, 'Oh no! They raised the alert this morning! I better not drive down the highway, because some suicide bomber might take me out!'

Keep dreamin'.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't live in a perpetual state of fear, and nobody I know does as well, Democrats and Republicans. I've never talked to ONE person who told me, 'Oh no! They raised the alert this morning! I better not drive down the highway, because some suicide bomber might take me out!'

Keep dreamin'.

Do you believe something called "Al Qaeda" can attack this country at any moment?

If so, what do you base that on, since no evidence of their existence, nor involvement in the events of 9-11-01 have actually been produced.

If you base that belief simply on the word of the proven liars in the Bush Fraudministration, then how can you deny that you have been conditioned to accept their state of fear?

[Warham]

Yep, I do believe in terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, but I'm still not going to live in fear if an airplane takes out my condo.

Terrorists want people to live in fear, being paranoid, etc. They want people all lathered up.

Come on FORD, there's evidence of their existance. I can't believe that's even debatable. Even your left-wing media says they are real. Only those moveon.org wackos might not believe it.

People like that are the same ones who believe that Roosevelt and the feds knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked ahead of time and did nothing to stop it, so we could get involved in WWII. Alien bodies in Area 51 come to mind as well.

Crazy-ass conspiracies.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Terrorists want people to live in fear, being paranoid, etc. They want people all lathered up.

So then, according to what Tom Ridge is now admitting, the BCE are terrorists?

Come on FORD, there's evidence of their existance. I can't believe that's even debatable. Even your left-wing media says they are real.

The media isn't left wing. And most media outlets "revised versions" of the "official story" contradict with what they broadcasted on 9-11-01 themselves. The documentary "9-11 in plane site" proves this, using their own footage.

Only those moveon.org wackos might not believe it.

There are a lot of websites, blogs, etc. out there with 9-11 info, and they aren't all "left wing" by any means.

People like that are the same ones who believe that Roosevelt and the feds knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked ahead of time and did nothing to stop it, so we could get involved in WWII.

I've read those theories, and they are very troubling. But not impossible, unfortunately :(

Alien bodies in Area 51 come to mind as well.

Crazy-ass conspiracies.

They are obviously hiding something at AREA 51, or they wouldn't go to the lengths which they do to conceal the base itself. Whether that something has anything to do with extraterrestrials or not is indeterminable.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, I do believe in terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, but I'm still not going to live in fear if an airplane takes out my condo.

Terrorists want people to live in fear, being paranoid, etc. They want people all lathered up.

Come on FORD, there's evidence of their existance. I can't believe that's even debatable. Even your left-wing media says they are real. Only those moveon.org wackos might not believe it.

People like that are the same ones who believe that Roosevelt and the feds knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked ahead of time and did nothing to stop it, so we could get involved in WWII. Alien bodies in Area 51 come to mind as well.

Crazy-ass conspiracies.

It's not about whether terrorists are real or not, it's about scaring soccer moms into voting for you!

Why haven't we had a terra' alert since shortly after the election? Did all of those real terra'ists suddenly disappear?

[DLR'sCock]

I posted this story here yesterday...


http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=21128

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's not about whether terrorists are real or not, it's about scaring soccer moms into voting for you!

Why haven't we had a terra' alert since shortly after the election? Did all of those real terra'ists suddenly disappear?

The reason Democrats voted for Bush was because you guys had a sorry candidate up there in John Kerry.

And guess what, it's not any better in '08 for you guys when that 'I didn't know anything about those campaign fund irregularities' Hillary Clinton gets up there to accept her nomination.

Why don't liberals admit the reason they've lost the last two elections is because their candidate wasn't up to snuff instead of rolling out every excuse like FORD does (diebold machines, scaring off blacks in South Florida).

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's not about whether terrorists are real or not, it's about scaring soccer moms into voting for you!

Why haven't we had a terra' alert since shortly after the election? Did all of those real terra'ists suddenly disappear?


Ironically enough the last big big, *cough* "scare" was conveniently enough the friday at 5pm announcement from ol' BINNY, as I call him, right before Election Tuesday.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The reason Democrats voted for Bush was because you guys had a sorry candidate up there in John Kerry.

And guess what, it's not any better in '08 for you guys when that 'I didn't know anything about those campaign fund irregularities' Hillary Clinton gets up there to accept her nomination.

Why don't liberals admit the reason they've lost the last two elections is because their candidate wasn't up to snuff instead of rolling out every excuse like FORD does (diebold machines, scaring off blacks in South Florida).

That's not the issue. The issue is that the guy you voted for is a corrupt liar that uses fear and manipulation!

[Warham]

Yeah, it is the issue. You liberals are blaming terror alerts for losing the election. Put the blame in the right place. The DNC is a good place to start. Howard Dean is ready to take your call.

[Warham]

Yeah, and your party use fear all the time, specifically the last two elections. In 2000, it was 'if Bush is elected, he'll take away your social security', and in 2004 it was 'if Bush is re-elected, there'll be a draft'.

Neither one has taken place.

Your party is the master manipulator of people's emotions to try to get a favorable outcome.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, and your party use fear all the time, specifically the last two elections. In 2000, it was 'if Bush is elected, he'll take away your social security', and in 2004 it was 'if Bush is re-elected, there'll be a draft'.

Neither one has taken place.



Should have put a "yet" at the end of that sentence.

Bush is definitely trying to take away Social Security. Fortunately, not even most Senate Republicans are that suicidal, and his plan is failing.

As for the draft, that will come when the BCE invades Iran in June.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, and your party use fear all the time, specifically the last two elections. In 2000, it was 'if Bush is elected, he'll take away your social security', and in 2004 it was 'if Bush is re-elected, there'll be a draft'.

Neither one has taken place.

Your party is the master manipulator of people's emotions to try to get a favorable outcome.

Again. If this were Clinton that did this, your panties would be full of shit right now and you know it!

Spin it how you want, but your boys are cowardly fear-mongers that manipulate the masses. If there had been no Sept. 11, Bush would have been laughed out of office in all likelihood. He was (and is) a joke.

Bush can do a thing on Social Security because he has lost a credibility on the issue, not due to lack of effort. And the military is still being ground down in Iraq.

Anyone that knows anything about this stuff will tell you that the All-Volunteer Force is in severe jeopardy to say the least. After all, we're going to be in Iraq for at least ten years, and the violence is in fact getting worse there...

[Warham]

He's not trying to take away social security.

In fact, he's asked Democrats to put their ideas on the table, but all he gets is this.... ::crickets chirping::

I remember in '98, Bill Clinton said that something needed to be done about Social Security, and quickly. Seven years later and the liberals are going 'hold on there, bucko! What's the hurry!'. Why is that? My hunch, and probably the only reason, is that it's because a Republican is in office right now. As soon as Hillary wins in '08, it'll be a crisis to the liberals again.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
He's not trying to take away social security.

In fact, he's asked Democrats to put their ideas on the table, but all he gets is this.... ::crickets chirping::

I remember in '98, Bill Clinton said that something needed to be done about Social Security, and quickly. Seven years later and the liberals are going 'hold on there, bucko! What's the hurry!'. Why is that? My hunch, and probably the only reason, is that it's because a Republican is in office right now. As soon as Hillary wins in '08, it'll be a crisis to the liberals again.

Bill Clinton wanted to improve Social Security. Junior wants to put it in the hands of the next Enron. Big difference.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Again. If this were Clinton that did this, your panties would be full of shit right now and you know it!

Spin it how you want, but your boys are cowardly fear-mongers that manipulate the masses. If there had been no Sept. 11, Bush would have been laughed out of office in all likelihood. He was (and is) a joke.

Bush can do a thing on Social Security because he has lost a credibility on the issue, not due to lack of effort. And the military is still being ground down in Iraq.

Anyone that knows anything about this stuff will tell you that the All-Volunteer Force is in severe jeopardy to say the least. After all, we're going to be in Iraq for at least ten years, and the violence is in fact getting worse there...

The number of casualties we are sustaining is lower than it was last year, Nick.

US Casualites by month:

Sept 2004: 83
Oct 2004: 63
Nov 2004: 137
Dec 2004: 72
Jan 2005: 107
Feb 2005: 58
Mar 2005: 36
April 2005: 52

That doesn't look like it's increasing very much, does it?

In Vietnam we were losing 50 a DAY, not a month.

The reason all these bombers are coming out of the woodwork right now is because they fear that the government is going to become stable, and it will. They are not going to stop it from happening.

Liberals are going to spread the bad news over good news in Iraq because they want Bush to fail over there, and they want America to fail over there.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The number of casualties we are sustaining is lower than it was last year, Nick.

US Casualites by month:

Sept 2004: 83
Oct 2004: 63
Nov 2004: 137
Dec 2004: 72
Jan 2005: 107
Feb 2005: 58
Mar 2005: 36
April 2005: 52

That doesn't look like it's increasing very much, does it?

In Vietnam we were losing 50 a DAY, not a month.

The reason all these bombers are coming out of the woodwork right now is because they fear that the government is going to become stable, and it will. They are not going to stop it from happening.

Liberals are going to spread the bad news over good news in Iraq because they want Bush to fail over there, and they want America to fail over there.


The Government? Oh man, their already starting to show their true (Shiite) colors! We're not really supporting a government, we're supporting a faction and ethinc group.

And has it really come to, "well, Vietnam was worse..."

Wait 'til May's numbers are in.

I guess the fact that the security situation is markedly decreased by everyone's estimation, and the 400 Iraqis that died this week alone doesn't count, huh?

Bush already HAS failed because he's incompetent. And so is the crew of bastards he brought in! The ones you voted for.

You guys just want to keep sending troops over to die for your bullshit failed PNAC agenda. It's not working. And in the end, I fear there is little to stop a massive sectarian civil war in Iraq (which is what the insurgents really want).

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, North Korea really does have nuclear weapons.

[Warham]

Actually May is on course to be similar to April's numbers.

The fact is, the more terrorists that come over to there to bomb everybody proves it's starting to work.

Bush hasn't failed at anything. You guys can't seem to see very far ahead. Sometimes it takes years and years for something to turn the corner. It ain't happening overnight. It never does.

Yeah, North Korea does, and the Soviet Union does too. I'm sure China has few locked and loaded. What's your point?

[Nickdfresh]

Isn't that the excuse we used as to why we invaded?

[Warham]

No, there were several reasons why we invaded.

I would think you would know them by now, but I can give you two.

1. They broke UN resolutions umpteen number of times.

2. 99% chance they had WMD's, which even Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy agreed to before they changed their story like every other Democrat.

3. Saddam was funding terrorist activities in other parts of the world.

There are a few others we could go into, but that's good enough for now.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, there were several reasons why we invaded.

I would think you would know them by now, but I can give you two.

1. They broke UN resolutions umpteen number of times.


So has Israel. Since when do we care about UN resolutions?


2. 99% chance they had WMD's, which even Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy agreed to before they changed their story like every other Democrat.


Bill Clinton said that after the fact, so he did indeed change his story, and possibly to undermine Kerry. Clinton needed to justify the continued bombing campaign. But no evidence supporting this conjecture ever was given. And the "slam dunk" should have been the UN inspectors not finding anything.


3. Saddam was funding terrorist activities in other parts of the world.



Not here he wasn't.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Hardrock69

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.

Well what do ya know? Gw never has a problem spending other people's money!

This is pretty bad. I always knew Tom Ridge wasn't that fucking paranoid! Fuck it though, right? :o

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't liberals admit the reason they've lost the last two elections is because their candidate wasn't up to snuff instead of rolling out every excuse like FORD does

whether your liberal or just enlightened, what's the fucking point? John Kerry wasn't that bad, but there sure could have been better!

But Jesus man! george w bush is horrible!

[Warham]

Yeah, but George won!

:D

[Hardrock69]

Warham can believe as he wishes.

Our Gubmint likes peepul lahk he-yim.

He's gawt a purty mowth, aint he?

[Warham]

Yep, and when you are right, it feels soooo much better. :D

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, but George won!

:D

and you're proud of that :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Instead of John Kerry? Damn straight.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham

Bush hasn't failed at anything.

I gotta hand it to you Hambone....


You didnt just DRINK the kool-ade

You fucking MARINATED in it.



I'm not going to bother to argue with you, because we BOTH know you will never budge, nor will I.

Suffice it to say you and I could NOT POSSIBLY be further apart with regards to our "pResident"
:cool:

[Warham]

That's fine. I'm sure you regard Bill Clinton right up there with Abraham Lincoln and George Washington in your top three presidents of all time.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
That's fine. I'm sure you regard Bill Clinton right up there with Abraham Lincoln and George Washington in your top three presidents of all time.

No.

Jefferson and FDR above him.


GWB is without a doubt in the BOTTOM 3 though.:rolleyes:

[Warham]

No, Jimmy Carter is in the bottom three.

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No.

Jefferson and FDR above him.


GWB is without a doubt in the BOTTOM 3 though.:rolleyes:

GWB and his dad ARE the bottom three (considering Reagan was merely Poppy's puppet)