You cite West Wing. Well how can I respond to that ignorance. I thought it was a TV show. Forgive me for not understanding it was a documentary.
You are one thick human being.
Note; If Rummy told Ridge do the level raising, how does that mean Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with it or sent Rummy to do it. It would be a big deal not something a lackey would do on his own. Or did West Wing cover that too?
Am I saying that Bush or Cheney gave him a direct order? I am not. I’m saying that someone with a political agenda on Bush or Cheney’s behalf told Ridge to up the alert level for Bush/Cheney’s political well-being, and was not fired for t when Bush/Cheney found out.
They didn’t find out? Okay, then let’s talk about being clueless to the point of impeachable incompetence. They did find out and weren’t outraged? Then we’re talking plausible deniability here, and to me that’s evidence of passive collusion.
There’s a huge gulf between “the buck stops here”-type responsibility, and their direct, active involvement. “Tom Ridge Rats Out Bush/Cheney” seemed to suggest the men, not the whole administration. But I wasn’t sure.
So I asked:
It doesn’t. But neither does it prove it. And, like any other proposition, it’s for the person offering the proposition to meet the burden of persuasion. Your question raises what’s termed argumentum ad ignoratium: “We don’t know they didn’t, so they did!”
It defies credulity that Ashcroft and Rummy could’ve made a move like this and not have Bush or at least Cheney know about it.
And even under the far-fetched possibility that they did, the Bush and Cheney administration created a political culture within the White House that made Ashcroft and Rumsfeld believe they could do so with impunity.
Sure. It’s evidence of a “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest” type atmosphere.
But I’d like to know when they found out, and how soon after that Ashfeld and Rumsfeld were gone… because, you know, they DID leave the administration.
For eight years, I heard how stupid, clueless, and incompetent Bush was. An idiot, a smirking monkey with no real talent and certainly no real intelligence.
Now he’s so plugged into things, and so aware of every move that it defies credulity he wouldn’t have been on top of every such move?
I’d like an answer to this question, please.
It still could be. You know that.
No, it was Cheney. We’re pretty much finding out that Cheney ran everything important. I’ve come around to the conclusion in recent months that W was mostly just a well-intentioned simpleton (if a bit grandiose and moralistic) whose strings were being pulled by Cheney and others.
True.
I should have said, “Well, then from this evidence, we can’t conclude it was Bush or Cheney.”
Why didn’t you quote the entirety of that post you responded to? Here it is, for reference:
Could it be because it makes a good argument that it is NOT plausible that the order didn’t come from above? Which would make your accusation of argumentum ad ignoratium pretty silly, now wouldn’t it?
No, that can’t possibly be why you clipped the quote. Must have been some other reason. Surely.
I think you might have a problem with your line of argument. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Presidential Directive 3:
The higher the Threat Condition, the greater the risk of a terrorist attack. Risk includes both the probability of an attack occurring and its potential gravity. Threat Conditions shall be assigned by the Attorney General in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. Except in exigent circumstances, the Attorney General shall seek the views of the appropriate Homeland Security Principals or their subordinates, and other parties as appropriate, on the Threat Condition to be assigned. Threat Conditions may be assigned for the entire Nation, or they may be set for a particular geographic area or industrial sector. Assigned Threat Conditions shall be reviewed at regular intervals to determine whether adjustments are warranted.
For facilities, personnel, and operations inside the territorial United States, all Federal departments, agencies, and offices other than military facilities shall conform their existing threat advisory systems to this system and henceforth administer their systems consistent with the determination of the Attorney General with regard to the Threat Condition in effect.
So it looks like it takes more than a phone call from Judy the Speech Writer, or a “mistake” from some low-level hack to raise the Security Level.
Right logic: We have no proof and we should not infer that Bush/Cheney had anything to do with Ashcroft/Rumsfeldt’s orders to Tom Ridge to play fast and loose on behalf of the Bush/Cheney ticket. But we do know without a doubt that Obama wants to kill my grandmother.
News Flash: the two aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be stupidly shortsighted, incompetent in planning and staffing, and clueless about the repercussions of your actions, and still manage to order people to carry out your ill-conceived and ignorant instructions.
Nobody ever denied that Bush wasn’t politically savvy, and given his reputation for holding a grudge and being completely unreceptive to alternative viewpoints, it seems even more unlikely that someone high up in his administration would do something (a) without his approval, or (b) counter to his wishes.
So he may not have known (I did say “at least Cheney”), but it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that even if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have minded.
How fair is that? I am not saying anything about Obama killing grandmothers. I have repudiated that kind of garbage.
In my example, Judy the Speech Writer calls the Secretary to ask him to raise the level for political reasons, and he refuses.
Of course she can’t do it. No one said she could.
Everyone is studiously ignoring post 67.
You haven’t – the Right has.
A more impartial approach would be to assess all available data and draw a conclusion based on everything we know so far, including the provlivities of the president, the structure of command, and the tendency for secretaries to spontaneously ‘push’ head of the “Dept. of Homeland Security” to raise the terror level. Then, after that consideration, we make our assessment.
Of course, virtually all of the facts involved are years old, and have already been considered quite a bit. This new fact is not inconsistent with prior facts, and at best confirms prior assumptions to some degree. Given that, it doesn’t take a lot of time to consider the data and draw a (slightly) revised conclusion.
Okay, I’ll take it.
It’s a piece of irrelevant shit. We do not need proof that Bush and Cheney were directly involved to know that they approved it, or did nothing to prevent it, since they were the political beneficiaries of a political (and illegal) act.
Now that we’re done with your accusation of being ignored (WAAAAAHHH!!!), let’s move on, shall we?