Is there anyone else out there who is not at all shocked by former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge's "revelation" that he was pressured by the White House to raise the color coded threat level before the 2004 election?
What is interesting, though, is the reminder of how bin Laden released a tape right before that election. I have to say that I think Al Qaeda is befuddled about what to do now that they don't have poster boy Bush to hold up as a recruiting tool anymore. A country that elected a man whose middle name is Hussein? Well, that's not any fun.
Back in 2004, I imagine a very assertive group of hirabis shitting themselves at the thought of a President Kerry. Sure, he could probably bore everyone to death with his fine impression of a human toothache but rile up the natives? No one could get multiple psychotics to strap explosives to their chests like W.
Hence the video...
6 comments:
I, for one, am not surprised at all, considering the Orwellian nature of the last administration. Love is hate, peace is war. Any outrageous Republican action is easily rationalized, and any Democratic initiative is villified.
Nope, no surprise here at all.
No one could get multiple psychotics to strap explosives to their chests like W.
I certainly had no love for the man or his policies (especially the ones enlarging the power of the govt), but you aren't suggesting are you that the Bush Admin created the conditions for 9/11?
Because that would be psychotic right up there with the Republican boner for Clinton.
Well now I'll confess that I found Clinton's casual disregard of law to be pretty disturbing. But at the same time I gotta admit that as an administrator I consider him the best the Dems have fielded since JFK, and *one of* the best since JFK *period*.
In fairness, the only really good one the Republicans fielded in the same time frame was Reagan. It seems like the Republicans that are actual keepers tend not to win elections. Go figure.
"An interesting game, Dr. Falken. The only way to win is not to play."
Juris, no. I am speaking of Bush's policies in Iraq as being an excellent recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. This has been confirmed by defense department and intelligence reports.
GOF, agreed. Both Clinton and JFK had issues with philandering but back in Jack's time, it was considered cool and the press left it alone. I agree with you about Reagan. As time has gone on, I have found him to be a more successful and competent president than I thought during the 80s.
What about Ike, though? He was a damn fine president.
OK M, but realize, the neo-cons may... MAY... have had a point since all the shit-hitting-the-fan is over there and not here.
Now, I know some kumbaya-singing peacetard will no doubt condemn me for suggesting such, but if some asshole in the world has an itch to kill, I'd just as soon see him scratch it elsewhere. We have enough of our own assholes to deal with.
What about Ike, though? He was a damn fine president.
That's ironic that you should admire the President best known for doing so little, given your Obama worship and all.
Interesting..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-30-tom-ridge_N.htm
"Now, Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said."
Post a Comment