That plane that got too close to the White House- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:06pm

Plum, is Tom Ridge part of the PalJoey Conspiracy?

Answer me this: If Tom Ridge admits that terror alerts were called when there was no real reason, why were the terror alerts raised at all?

If it wasn't based on real evidence, was it politics?

And which "administration officials" made the call, against the recommendations of Homeland Security? John Ashcroft? Karl Rove?

Or was it PalJoey?

Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:06 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:10pm

You're making no sense. If you gather the data yourself and say how you're doing it, it shouldn't be flawed. You count the number of instances of majorly anti-Bush news stories. You count the number of security threats. You see how often each happen, and how often they coincide. You conduct statistical tests to see if the coincidences can be ascribed to chance or not. Viola, your theorizing has actually been put to the test.

Basically, as long as you're just relying on anecdotal evidence and nothing else, you're no more believable than UFO junkies or JFK assassination theorists. They're also the types who use the circular logic of "you can't prove the conspiracy because of the conspiracy." Seriously, Bug should have been required viewing for some people.


ETA- PalJoey, Ridge said that Administration officials were more aggressive than he wanted to be about raising alert levels. Okay, great- maybe it's true, maybe he's bitter or trying to retroactively cover his own ass. No matter what the case, that's not the same as saying alerts were raised "for no reason" or "to disrupt the news cycle." Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:10 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:12pm

You're dodging the question: If the head of Homeland Security says the terror alerts were not based on threats, what were they based on?

Were they based on politics? Yes or no.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:15pm

Edited the above to answer your question, PJ. Which I never dodged in the first place. It takes me a few minutes to write out posts, and you posted in that space of time.

Here's what he said:
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

Where does it say they timed it for certain news stories? Where does it say it wasn't based on threats? Oh, wait, that's right. What's actually said doesn't matter for ****- you'll just bend it to say what you want it to say.

Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:15 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:17pm

I have seen BUG,
what I am saying is if you actually belive the evidence has been tampered with there is no real evidence which is totally not the point I am trying to argue anyway.
I am saying the important aspect is not what happened but how it was reported. Ridge himself admits to withholding evidence until the opportune time to release it. If the story that Saddam Hussein's sons are killed comes out on the same day as the worst possible job forecast and gets more evidence, there is not a conspiracy, but there has been a political spin job of epic proportions.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:20pm

First of all, we're mixing accusations here. Penguin, you appear to be accusing the Bushies of timing good news stories to coincide with the bad in that last post. Are you also accusing them of somehow timing the Cessna incident?

PalJoey does appear to be accusing them of somehow engineering the Cessna incident, and of raising terror alerts for political rather than threat-related reasons.

Am I getting this right, or putting words in your mouths? Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:20 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:27pm

Plum, what happened to the bottom part of your post I was about to respond to it?
No I do not think the Cessna incident was orchestrated, and my response was trying to illustrate that a true conspiracy would indeed involve such things as actually changing newspaper records etc.
My position is that the news cycle is orchestrated to make the positive news or at least not directly anti-administration news have a longer life cycle than bad news for the administration, which does not involve a conspiracy but can not actually be proven because it depends upon tone and presentation.
Does that make sense? I am really neither a crazy conspiracy theorist, or one who particularly likes this high emotion type of arguement. I love to civily talk politics.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:28pm

What you doing, Plum, is dodging my question, which I'll repeat for the 3rd time:


If the head of Homeland Security says the terror alerts were not based on threats, what were they based on? Were they based on politics? YES or NO.


Here's a deal: If you admit that the Bush administration has been trumping up terror alerts (which Ridge admitted today), I'll admit to believing all sorts of conspiracy theories, including some about Elvis and Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:29pm

Then you're not accusing this administration of doing anything different than any administration in a while. And I got rid of the bottom part of my post because I felt it was a straw man- I was putting an argument in your mouth that wasn't there so I could knock it down.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:31pm

Okay, for the last time, PJ, I did not judge your question. BECAUSE YOUR QUESTION IS INVALID.

Got it?

I used your link, took Ridge's quote, and posted it for the world to see. NOTHING THERE SAYS THAT TERROR ALERTS WERE NOT BASED ON THREATS. NOTHING THERE SAYS THEY WERE TRUMPED UP.

Read it again, and try to take off your OMGBUSHIZSOEVIL!!1!! goggles.
Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:31 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:36pm

I'm sorry but how do YOU read Ridge's saying to the unnamed members of the Administration who were insisting on raising the alert against his wishes--and I quote: "For that?"

I guess "trumping up" is in the goggles of the beholder. But I think it's clear that Tom Ridge resigned because he and I wear the same prescription goggles.

You can go on wearing your rose-colored ones.

Have a good night, Plum.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:36pm

I would agree I saw the Clinton administration do very similar things. My main problem with it is the coverall excuse that it is done in the name of National Security, so like past administrations (but unlike the spirit they claim to inhabit)they can create the distractions. But now we are even less safe as a result, to use the rhetoric of the administration "everything changed on 9/11" if everything changed there should be a higher standard. I know many would accuse me of not taking that stand if a different administration were around, but I vehemently disagreed with many Clinton policies and would like to believe I would be very critical of anyone in power.
I think that Straw Man I saw, because I was about to start really screaming that that was not what I said. No problems there though.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:42pm

You're the kind of person who would put about 52 ellipses in a quote to get it to say what he wanted, aren't you, PJ?

Once again, full quote:
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

Isn't it so convenient to ignore the sentence that says "Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert)"? Now, to me, reading the entire quote and the entire article, it seems that the words "For that?" are meant to indicate that he sometimes thought terror alerts were raised for small threats, when he felt it wasn't worth the expense. How you extrapolate that to mean that terror alerts were completey detached from any kind of intelligence and raised for solely political purposes is beyond me.

Oh, wait. No it isn't. Because the whole "logic" thing is a bit beyond you, PJ, as far as I can see.
Updated On: 5/11/05 at 11:42 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:47pm

Plum, my heart is still beating way too fast for this. I always enjoy your posts, can we agree to disagree like Pal Joey and I over Gavin Creel? I swear I am neither stupid nor illogical, and I do not believe you are either. We just don't quite see eye to eye on this issue. (Or made our arguements in a rushed and haphazard fashion, at least I did. Some places I can see my emotional response.)

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:50pm

Penguin, I'm not yelling at you. I don't even think we disagree that much. That's why I tried to separate the accusations before, and why I keep naming PalJoey in my posts. Peace.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:51pm

SmartPenguin, I totally support your right to dislike Gavin Creel.

Peace to you too, Plum.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:53pm

...

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/11/05 at 11:55pm

Peace to all of you.
And Pal Joey I totally support your right to like Gavin Creel.
To each his or her own!
Plum, I saw that it was more you vs. PJ but a couple times I kept getting pulled back in there, but mainly I am dissatisfied with my own explainations in my posts.

[Plum]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 12:01am

I'm not exactly in my right mind myself, but finals week will do that to you. It's been...interesting, at least. :)

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 12:02am

Ah finals week for you, it is mine as well. Well reading days the papers are now, the tests are next week. no problems

[etoile]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 1:36am

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why think if it's not a threat then it MUST be politics? I can think of at least a dozen reasons why a "threat" level would be raised that has NOTHING to do with politics.

Does it make sense to raise a threat level after an armory is broken into and massive amounts of ordnance is stolen? Does it make sense to raise a threat level when a semi fuel truck filled with volatile explosive is stolen in a sensitive area? Does it make sense to raise the level when a substantial increase in "chatter" is detected? Does it make sense to raise the level when large financial transactions are detected from suspect accounts? Does it make sense to raise the level when there's a belief that "operatives" have entered our borders and their whereabouts are unknown? Does it make sense to raise the level when several private aircrafts are stolen close to nuclear facilities? Does it make sense to raise the level when a pattern of seemingly innocent but possible "test" have been conducted in sensitive facilities? Does it make sense to raise the level when high amounts of commercial fertilizer are stolen? Does it make sense when bogus law enforcement IDs are found? Does it make sense when confiscated materials from Iraq show "intelligence" that gives a prudent person reason to pause and be concerned? Does it make sense when seemingly unrelated incidents are looked at in a big picture?

Don't people wish and ask why that didn't happened prior to 9/11?

What does it take for people to get their heads out of the sand and realize 9/11 was not an anomaly, but instead was a sign of the future. We can never go back.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 7:18am

heh heh heh. i love it when an admitted critic of the administration (that's plum, folks, go back and read her posts, she's no bushie) points out the inherent flaws in the arguments of the chicken littles (a term used ironically by one of them). i bet those pilots were on the bush/rove payroll, too.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 8:13am

From the AP article:

"Washington's Reagan National Airport has been closed to general aviation, the non-airline planes, since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In the 3 1/2 years since then, hundreds of small planes have flown within the restricted airspace around the capital - a 15 3/4-mile radius around the Washington Monument.
However, it's rare for fighter jets to be scrambled in response."
Errant Flight Prompts Capitol Evacuations

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 8:16am

And get this: they didn't even TELL Bush until his "bike ride" was over.

===

Bush not told about plane scare until after biking

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was not told for nearly an hour while he finished a bike ride about a breach in White House airspace on Wednesday that prompted the highest alert since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the White House said....
Bush not told about plane scare until after biking

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/12/05 at 8:16am

and exactly how many of those failed to respond to radio calls and got within 3 miles of the capital?