http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/21/ridge.terror.level/index.html
In his new book he claims that in 2004 near election time the administration pushed for a raising of threat level despite credible evidence of anything truly threatening.
Fran Townsend says that’s just crazy talk.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/21/frances-townsend-tom-ridge-has-it-wrong/
So he’s a Republican.
He was there, it was his job, he’s a Republican appointed by Bush… and she tells him he was wrong? wtf.
She was there too. It was her job too. She was chairing it. Why does Ridge’s view matter more than Townsend’s?
There’s a lot of pressure to conform. He has a lot to lose by doing this. She has a lot to lose if she were to not deny it.
Because Frannie Townsend isn’t really disagreeing with Ridge. It’s a beautiful non-denial by Frannie.
" there no discussion in those meetings,"
Of course it wasn’t. It was discussed at a higher level than Townsend’s pay grade by Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. She even says that “his boss John Ashcroft was advocating to raise it”. So you have to ask why Ashcroft was pushing for it over the objections of his own staff, the head of Homeland security and even the Secretary of State? It’s simple - either he thought the threat level should be increased legitimately or he saw the potential for political gain owed to a President facing a tough re-election campaign.
Besides, that’s not the kind of discussion you have in an open forum that could easily be leaked or subjected to Congressional subpoena. I have little doubt that Ridge is right here and that some opportunists wanted to use scare techniques to keep Bush in office. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see it led by two guys - Ashcroft and Rumsfeld - who owed their political lives to the Bush Administration.
So what happened when Ridge actually did raise the alert level in the summer of 2004? Was that politically motivated as well?
I can’t believe you actually posted that…