Another Former GWB Official Tells All

Remove all ads!

Because after 9/11 the country was very grim and serious after the loss of over 2000 people and the World Trade Center. The idea of a Homeland Security and an alert system was something that everyone welcomed, because of how serious the situation was. But, as the alerts were suddenly timed suspiciously, some of us questioned what was happening in the Homeland Security system.

Typically, those of us who questioned this were branded as "Bush bashers," "Bush haters," "terrorist sympathizers" and "unpatriotic." So, now we have a supposed revelation from a widely respected Republican, someone with good creditials, who feels he had resign a strategic post because of politics. What does that say about the overall securtiy of the program? What about the future of "Homeland Security," or the larger "War on Terror?" People will become more cynical, and when the average American views his government, he will believe that even programs that really are put in place to serve the public good, will be suspected as - "Just politics." That is a somewhat dangerous situation. Already there is dwindling support for the war effort in Afghanistan. People are terror fatigued and are now believing that it's "just a bunch of politics." That is a dangerous situation for our security. Some of us said at the time that GWB was only making us less safe in the long run...well?

 

Blades, I clearly stated in my previous post that I am specifically talking about playing with the national security threat level to create paranoia, not about any kind of misinformation that they could have come up with. Also the electronic era has nothing to do with this. All it took to realise Bush was toying with the national security thing was watch the news and eventually notice a repeating pattern. I wasn't looking for one, I didn't go on the net to compile documentation, or anything like this.

I don't think you can compare Bush with Clinton or Johnson. Al-Qaeda was not this mysterious and nonexistent threat that Clinton made up just to diffuse domestic issues - they were (and still are) a very real threat. As for Johnson, if he truly believed they were behind the Kennedy assassination, or that they represented a threat to the US he then has a good excuse to go after them (regardless of whether I agree with his reasoning or not). In 2004 Bush wasn't using a real threat to divert from other issues (like Clinton did) or even rallying the country against a potential ideological opponent: he (or more accurately Cheney) was wiping people into a security frenzy using a threat that did not exist. Notice all the incredibly vague buzzwords: "they want to destroy our way of life" (who are "they" exactly?), "if we do this the terrorists will win" (which terrorists?), and so on. Past the invasion of Iraq Bush/Cheney didn't have a specific enemy to point at (not for very long at least), hence the vague reference to this terrible threat that WILL DESTROY US ALL. The vagueness probably made it even more threatening and scary. Clinton may have abused the Al-Qaeda issue when it suited him, but at least he had the decency to pick an real terrorist organisation to use as a way out of his "domestic issues" (take that how you will )

I hadn't thought of it in this way, and I certainly agree that people losing faith in their government's ability to provide security is not a good thing. However I frankly don't think it'll ever get to this point. Americans have a very strong feeling of patriotism, one that I don't think any kind of political scandal like this can shake entirely. People might lose faith for a while, but the country's not going to collapse just because of that.

Oh and you don't need to flaunt your "I told you so" at me, you're preaching to the choir here

 

There weren't "many" who claimed that; there were partisan Republicans and talking heads in the media who said that. And a few of them, like Trent Lott, admitted later, after the horror of 9/11, and some Republicans discovered who Bin Laden was, that it was a mistake to have claimed that.

I'm not flaunting it at you. Sorry you took it that way.

 

Don't worry, I didn't I was only joking.

 

It's only sad that the people who were right all along were branded as cooks and fringe elements. I wonder if many people still don't take Howard Dean seriously because of his image as a conspiracy theorist that he acquired exactly because of his claim the Bush administration manipulated the terror alerts - even though he was right. Will anyone from that bunch pay for what s/he did?

 

Surprise, surprise. Ridge coming out and saying now that he was NOT pressured to raise the threat levels. Maybe, just maybe, he was trying to sell a few books.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-30-tom-ridge_N.htm

 

Nah, I'm sure the Sith Lords Cheney and Rove threatened to eat his soul

 

Ridge is going to be on Chris Matthew's Hardball tonight to explain. Chris says he "can't wait" to ask him about all this.

Yeah, you guys keep saying that about everyone who writes something you don't like about Bush. That's NOT a surprise.

 

OK, now wait a minute. Ridge writes a book, takes plenty of time to do so, and it never occurred to him or any of his advisors (editors, proofreaders or whatever) that maybe, just maybe, his comments might be interpreted to suggest that he was pressured? Yeah, right.

Chris Matthews' interview might be interesting, but more likely it will be just a bunch of ass-covering backpedaling from Ridge.