[deadwolfbones]

Think Progress Ridge admits Bush administration pushed to raise security alert for political reasons on eve of re-election.

[Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge] was 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.

...of course he didn't resign, and went through with it anyway.

[little laker]

As much as I hated the Bush administration I believe that's normal tactics for Political Parties.
I know that it shouldn't be, but how are you going to stop it, when they all do the same things

Elect me..

[deadwolfbones]

Gotta love the guy who will take the courageous step to reveal these secrets when there's no possible consequences to revealing them.

[Russell-Evans]

I don't understand why it isn't SOP to raise the level whether there is or isn't credible evidence for the need. If you look at the tactics being used by terrorists, election day disruption seems to be pretty normal.

Thank you
Russell

I don't understand why it isn't SOP to raise the level whether there is or isn't credible evidence for the need. If you look at the tactics being used by terrorists, election day disruption seems to be pretty normal.

Thank you
Russell

Wouldn't matter why it was raised. It was George Bush. That's all anyone would have thought no matter what the real reason.

Oh. Russell you better look out. You can't call them terrorist anymore. And it's not terrorism either. It's a manmade distaster.

[Jasvox]

Department of Homeland Security = Man-made disaster.

Jason

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't understand why it isn't SOP to raise the level whether there is or isn't credible evidence for the need. If you look at the tactics being used by terrorists, election day disruption seems to be pretty normal.

Thank you
Russell

Well, theoretically, the idea of having different alert levels is to increase the level of security when there *is* a need. If you're going to raise it whether there is or isn't a credible threat, there's no point to having the system in the first place. Unless of course you *are* politicizing it, which proved, in fact, to be almost the only thing the alert system did.

People can say, "Oh, all politicians do it," (When a Republican is caught or implicated: it's a different story on an occasion when it's something about a Democrat, that is if Fox News didn't have a habit of 'mistakenly' identifying such Republicans *as* Democrats when news of an indictment or some such breaks ) But especially with regards to the terror alert system, no, the Democrats haven't resorted to the surreal and Orwellian Roveian tactics that seem to have become pretty standard procedure with Republicans.

It was pretty obvious that there weren't any Red alerts *after the 2004 election, actually, and how the others were timed. The system was a pretty handy 'talk about something else, press,' button, though.

All very sketchy, really. Fact is it didn't really do a whole heck of a lot but make people nervous (which is what the Republicans were running on: stoking fears from 9/11) and maybe make a few nice drills for the new DHS.

Well, theoretically, the idea of having different alert levels is to increase the level of security when there *is* a need. If you're going to raise it whether there is or isn't a credible threat, there's no point to having the system in the first place. Unless of course you *are* politicizing it, which proved, in fact, to be almost the only thing the alert system did.

People can say, "Oh, all politicians do it," (When a Republican is caught or implicated: it's a different story on an occasion when it's something about a Democrat, that is if Fox News didn't have a habit of 'mistakenly' identifying such Republicans *as* Democrats when news of an indictment or some such breaks ) But especially with regards to the terror alert system, no, the Democrats haven't resorted to the surreal and Orwellian Roveian tactics that seem to have become pretty standard procedure with Republicans.

It was pretty obvious that there weren't any Red alerts *after the 2004 election, actually, and how the others were timed. The system was a pretty handy 'talk about something else, press,' button, though.

All very sketchy, really. Fact is it didn't really do a whole heck of a lot but make people nervous (which is what the Republicans were running on: stoking fears from 9/11) and maybe make a few nice drills for the new DHS.

Man you have some kool-aid chip on that shoulder. It would have been prudent no matter what during the election of the most powerful man in the world whether republican or democrat.

[Ratmagiclady]

Man you have some kool-aid chip on that shoulder. It would have been prudent no matter what during the election of the most powerful man in the world whether republican or democrat.

Apparently the Director of Homeland Security didn't think there was a practical security reason to do that. Different alert levels do specific things. Of course, part of the reason the color system kind of doesn't work is that eventually a permanent state of Orange looks like doing nothing at all.

Red alerts are *not* just for 'I want to tell everyone this is a day they should be afraid of terrorists. Cause I think so.' There are guidelines.

[shooz]

Whatever else you think, doing that is FRAUD. (used to be against the law)
Plain and simple.

Whatever else you think, doing that is FRAUD. (used to be against the law)
Plain and simple.

And this administration has perfected the technique.

[Russell-Evans]

Well, theoretically, the idea of having different alert levels is to increase the level of security when there *is* a need.

The assumption is that you can always know of the need isn't it?

I would think there are different procedures based on the levels and it isn't just a public awareness thing. I would hope that this would a least mean that the people that need to be where they need to be, are in fact close and reachable. Doesn't that seem reasonable during something like an election?

Thank you
Russell

The assumption is that you can always know of the need isn't it?

I would think there are different procedures based on the levels and it isn't just a public awareness thing. I would hope that this would a least mean that the people that need to be where they need to be, are in fact close and reachable. Doesn't that seem reasonable during something like an election?

Thank you
Russell

I sure think it is. But then again I am not a liberal.

[Ratmagiclady]

The assumption is that you can always know of the need isn't it?

I would think there are different procedures based on the levels and it isn't just a public awareness thing. I would hope that this would a least mean that the people that need to be where they need to be, are in fact close and reachable. Doesn't that seem reasonable during something like an election?

Thank you
Russell

The 'orange' level of alert is basically as 'alert' as you can have the whole country be for very long. 'Red' *means* there is extremely specific indication of a major threat in a specific timeframe.

It's not based on hunches or desires or 'Don't you think there should be more today than yesterday?'

Why? To what end?

Fact is, if you have credible intel, you probably don't need to put the whole country on alert to begin with: the only purpose of bumping the alert status up is either you know something's very likely to happen but don't know where (unlikely) .....or just want people to be scared when they go to the polls.

(And an added edit: the nature of election day is not such that there's any one target someone could really attack without causing as much disruption, even to an election, as any other day. Unless, I suppose, 'the terrorists' just *want* someone who makes people scared of terrorists to get elected. But if things are to go like that, who needs actual terrorists to bother to show up, anyway?)

The latter of which seems to be the nature of the request even Tom Ridge refused.

Fact is, all terrorists can do is hurt people. Only we can really *terrorize* ourselves about it.

Personally, growing up as someone like me in the 80's when the whole darn mess could have gotten nuked over a bit of Reagan dementia any given minute, not to mention with a lot of less-than-rational people hailing some Apocalypse and figuring it must have something to do with my personal life in the process.... Well, it gives me a certain perspective. Sure, I can be hurt, this I know. But what are these 'terrorists' gonna do, scare me? I see no reason to do the job for these mythical 'terrorists.' 'They' probably have no idea what they're really doing or why, anyway.

What really scares me is not any doubts about how bravely we face actual danger, or even disaster.

What even we become... and don't become, when we scare ourselves.

That scares me.

I have reason for this.