The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Elevated Terrorist Threats???

  1. #31
    Senior Member tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ogden Utah
    Posts
    848

    Default

    So when Bush did it, he was deliberately trying to sway the election.

    But when Obama does it, it is simply a coincidence that needs to be done.

    I see!!
    Weren't you doing the opposite???
    "there is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
    Herbert Spencer

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    So when Bush did it, he was deliberately trying to sway the election.

    But when Obama does it, it is simply a coincidence that needs to be done.

    I see!!



    RK
    Again RK, the United Kingdom, France and Germany increased their security levels because of terrorism threats. The United States did not increase their security level. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame the European Countries. All Obama did was alert Americans traveling to those Countries to be careful. If you were traveling to Europe on business or vacation would you not like to be informed of any potential terrorist attacks in the Countrie(s) you were going to visit? Why do you think they have incresed security at the Eiffel Tower in France and around the Royal Palace in England?

    In fact, the Eiffel tower has been shut down to tourism a few times in the last month.
    Last edited by Roger Perry; 10-08-2010 at 03:13 PM.

  3. #33
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Gov. Tom Ridge, who served as first Homeland Security Director, in his memoirs spoke of efforts by Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft to force him to raise to the threat level prior to the 2004 election in what Ridge interpreted as a political effort to manipulate public opinion. That was followed by having the White House add language praising the President to an announcement concerning a terror threat that had been thwarted. Ridge "inadvertently" dropped the language when he made the actual announcement, but this type of political manipulation was a major reason behind Ridge's resignation.
    Noting that Bush's approval ratings typically went up when the threat level was raised, Ridge writes that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld pushed to elevate it during a "vigorous" discussion.

    "Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld," he writes. "There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' " (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...om-ridge_N.htm)
    (See also, for example, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...efore-04-vote/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ridge. Also note that Ridge was widely attacked following publication of his book and backtracked some from his assertions, saying he wasn't accusing anyone of just playing politics.)

  4. #34
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Perry View Post
    Again RK, the United Kingdom, France and Germany increased their security levels because of terrorism threats. The United States did not increase their security level. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame the European Countries. All Obama did was alert Americans traveling to those Countries to be careful. If you were traveling to Europe on business or vacation would you not like to be informed of any potential terrorist attacks in the Countrie(s) you were going to visit? Why do you think they have incresed security at the Eiffel Tower in France and around the Royal Palace in England?

    In fact, the Eiffel tower has been shut down to tourism a few times in the last month.

    "A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.

    The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain."

    This is where I read it,it is from the article I posted.

    Yardley, now that I think of it, I guess Bush would have the most response to terrorist chatter since as far as we knew we didn't monitor it like we do now.
    I don't think we had alert level status before Bush, did we??

    RK
    Last edited by road kill; 10-08-2010 at 04:55 PM.
    Stan b & Elvis

  5. #35
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Gov. Tom Ridge, who served as first Homeland Security Director, in his memoirs spoke of efforts by Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft to force him to raise to the threat level prior to the 2004 election in what Ridge interpreted as a political effort to manipulate public opinion. That was followed by having the White House add language praising the President to an announcement concerning a terror threat that had been thwarted. Ridge "inadvertently" dropped the language when he made the actual announcement, but this type of political manipulation was a major reason behind Ridge's resignation.
    Noting that Bush's approval ratings typically went up when the threat level was raised, Ridge writes that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld pushed to elevate it during a "vigorous" discussion.

    "Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld," he writes. "There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' " (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...om-ridge_N.htm)
    (See also, for example, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...efore-04-vote/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ridge. Also note that Ridge was widely attacked following publication of his book and backtracked some from his assertions, saying he wasn't accusing anyone of just playing politics.)
    Doesn't seem to be doing the same for Obama.....

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nt-than-obama/


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #36
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    If there is to be political gain in such an action, and if it reinforces the idea that we have to be very afraid of the big bad terrorists, and that more legislation can be introduced that slowly erode the freedoms that the Founders thought so important, than no President seems to be immune.
    Simply if Obama has done what is being alleged and you were critical of Bush for doing the same thing, then you have to be critical of Obama

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The story actually contains no "news" at all, simply speculation. That said, it may be true. There is certainly a well worn tradition of exaggerating threats whenever there are political pressures. Bush did it like clockwork, and Republicans basically claimed threat the entire war in Kosovo was a political diversion. However, it is equally true that there are threats every day and many are real. The specific threat mentioned in this case is bolstered by the arrest of 12 suspects in France a few days ago who are allegedly part of a Europe-wide plot to engage in attacks similar to those carried out in Mumbai, with automatic weapon shootings in hotels and other tourist areas. The US advisory mirrored advisories issued by the UK, France and Germany to their populations. Of course, the fact that your newspaper source is simply another extension of the Murdoch/Fox empire is just a coincidence.
    Murdoch owns The Gaurdian? When did that happen?

  8. #38
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by depittydawg View Post
    Murdoch owns The Gaurdian? When did that happen?
    You are absolutely right. My mistake. I was thinking of The Times and The Sun.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Tom,
    Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

    Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

    If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


    RK
    Diplomacy? What diplomacy? Since when has the US engaged in diplomacy with "terrorists"? Personally I think it might make some sense to open a dialog with your enemy. But the US government approach has been, and continues to be, a complete denial of any rights of negotiation to groups it labels as "terrorists". I'd like to see ANY official document or quotation from the current or any administration since Reagan that the US is agreeable to negotiating with Terrorists.
    The Reason I exclude Reagan is because he did in fact negotiate with both Saddam Hussein (who was not a terrorist) and also, not only did the Reagan administration negotiate with, but also armed the then Terrorist Osama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How did that negotiation work out for us?

  10. #40
    Senior Member tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Ogden Utah
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by depittydawg View Post
    Diplomacy? What diplomacy? Since when has the US engaged in diplomacy with "terrorists"? Personally I think it might make some sense to open a dialog with your enemy. But the US government approach has been, and continues to be, a complete denial of any rights of negotiation to groups it labels as "terrorists". I'd like to see ANY official document or quotation from the current or any administration since Reagan that the US is agreeable to negotiating with Terrorists.
    The Reason I exclude Reagan is because he did in fact negotiate with both Saddam Hussein (who was not a terrorist) and also, not only did the Reagan administration negotiate with, but also armed the then Terrorist Osama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How did that negotiation work out for us?
    Might want to listen to this
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6791406n
    "there is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance --- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
    Herbert Spencer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •