Ridge revealed that so-called Breaking News!back in 2005.
WASHINGTON (2005)— The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.
Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.
"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?'"
CNN - "The most trusted name in news"
Pffft.
The CNN/MSM/Tom Ridge needs to sell books Bullshit Alert level currently sits at Elmo:
Update:
Amnesia-plagued boneheads and lying liars in action.
RON REAGAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it's fine to get involved, and -- and it is good to show up at a town hall meeting and -- and have a conversation. But you have to have the conversation and you have to have the discussion.
And many of these people -- not all, I'm sure, but many of these people are clearly showing up to shut the conversation down. And they are being inspired by -- by some members of Congress who are floating this rumor, as -- as certain talk show hosts do, that, you know, Obama is all -- is all about killing the elderly, and, you know, there are these death panels, as Sarah Palin put it on her Facebook page.
(LAUGHTER)
REAGAN: And I -- I don't know that it's going to get dangerous out there. I tend to think that a lot of these might calm down a little because they realize this is not good press for them.
LOESCH: Well, yes.
REAGAN: But let me just add that, in Arizona today, a gun dropped out of one of these people's pockets while they were hooting and hollering at one of these town hall meetings.
LOESCH: Maybe they had a concealed-carry license.
[CNN host John ROBERTS]: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: Well, maybe they did, but, you know, you have got to wonder whether you really need to be packing heat to go to a town hall meeting.
LOESCH: Well, you know what? I tell you here, at Russ Carnahan's town hall meeting, as a -- as a young woman looking back at a bunch of really big guys in SEIU shirts who were glaring at me, I was a little bit afraid, I have to tell you. And that's stuff that we're facing.
REAGAN: Really -- really thinking you were going to be coming to harm, Dana?
LOESCH: Well, I...
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: I don't think so.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: ... was beaten down in the parking lot afterwards, so, you know?
REAGAN: Well, you know, it is only a matter of time before somebody pulls out a gun and does something with it.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: Well, I don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: Yes, but the...
ROBERTS: Yes, it could be that this person did have a concealed- carry license.
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: I'm not arguing with you that they didn't have the concealed-carry license.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: You can't immediately assign a negative -- you can't immediately assign...
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: But that's not the point.
(CROSSTALK)
LOESCH: ... negative simply because they -- they may have had a concealed-carry license.
But you know what? It is interesting that the guy didn't pick up his gun and start shooting everybody with it.
REAGAN: Well, let's hope not.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
REAGAN: When that becomes the good news story of the day, I think we're in trouble, Dana.
LOESCH: He was demonstrating responsible firearm ownership.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: I'm sure the gentleman just picked up the gun and put it right back in his pocket, where it was duly licensed to be.
Bonus humiliating moment: Poor Markos. Here he was, all excited that Obama was going to get those new-fangled text messages about his VP pick out to the masses before the MSM, so he decided to mock the "old media". (I guess that's like "old Europe".)
And is there a better example than this that old media is getting left out in the cold?
Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room begging viewers to stay tuned so CNN can bring them coverage of a text message.
Brilliant! We've got a lot of campaign a head [sic] of us, but this has been the Obama campaign's finest operation thus far.
But...ooops! As it turns out, that "old media" channel CNN got the breaking news about Biden Friday nite while Obamakins will just have to wait til the morning for those text messages. Yes kos, "Brilliant". You showed 'em!
(Maybe one of these days he'll figure out that, since Obama didn't make one appearance on his site throughout this entire campaign, all of this "netroots" hoopla the Obama campaign was pushing was just an effort to max out campaign contributions from so-called progressives who gathered round the Daily Obamawatercooler ATM.)
Here we go again. On Saturday nite, CNN will once again be holding a "faith forum" so all of America can decide if the presidential candidates pass the religious test. Don't expect an actual debate though. Instead, Pastor Rick Warren will be interviewing Obama and McCain separately for one hour in front of a crowd of evangelical Christians - one of the most over-pandered to lobby groups of this century.
According to the so-called "best political team on television", and as the name of their daily news show and all of the polls this year declare, "Issue #1" is actually the economy. So where's the CNN economic forum with Obama and McCain being grilled by economic experts? Or how about one led by foreign policy experts considering the global mess the US government has created? Energy policy, anyone?
No. It's more important for Obama to defend himself against the secret Muslim charges and for McCain to prove that he won't wobble on abortion or let teh gays take over the country. And, of course, everybody knows that you can't actually have values or morals unless you're religious.
I'll tell you what: name one Christian president who's faithfully followed the commandment 'thou shalt not kill' and then we'll talk about why it's so bloody important that whoever is in the White House believe in Jesus.
Just in time for the media mass, an ad touting Obama's religiosity is also being released:
(CNN) — A political action committee organized by Christian voters who support Barack Obama will run an ad this weekend suggesting “the character and faith of each candidate” should be a major factor for religious voters making their presidential pick – and that the presumptive Democratic nominee may hold an edge on that front.
Really? And just how do you measure somebody's faith and the impact that will have on a future president?
Excuse me if I really don't care who or what these politicians claim to pray to - or if they pray at all. I'm just amazed that Onward, Christian Soldiers hasn't yet replaced the US national anthem.
Earlier this week, video of SPP protesters clashing with alleged "infiltrators" at the so-called Security & Prosperity Partnership summit in Montebello, Quebec was made publicly available on YouTube™. Immediate denials of police infiltration were issued by the Surete du Quebec and the RCMP.
The Mounties and the SQ, the two police forces involved in summit security, continued to refuse specific comment on three alleged undercover officers caught on camera in an apparent bid to incite a confrontation.
But they denied using agents to provoke violence.
"I confirm (to) you that there are no agents provocateurs in the Surete du Quebec. . . It doesn't exist in the Surete du Quebec," said Const. Melanie Larouche.
On Thursday, the Surete reversed course and admitted it had infiltrators at the protest:
QUEBEC - Quebec's provincial police acknowledged in a statement Thursday that their agents had infiltrated protesters demonstrating during the recent North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que., but denied that they acted as "agent provocateurs".
"They had the mandate to spot and identify violent demonstrators to avoid the situation from getting out of hand," the Surete du Quebec said in a statement. "The police officers were identified by demonstrators when they refused to throw projectiles."
That last statement is patently false.
Watch the video:
"At no time did the Surete du Quebec police officers act as agents provocateurs or commit criminal acts," the statement adds.
Wrong again.
As the article continues:
The video shows the three black-clad bandana-wearing men being singled out by union organizers and the crowd. Other protesters started pointing at them and crying "police."
One of the three men is seen shoving and swearing at Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union of Canada, who is angrily confronting the trio, demanding they put down the rocks, remove their bandanas, and identify themselves.
After being backed into a corner against a line of provincial police officers in riot gear, they try to force themselves through the police line and are arrested while the crowd cheers.
I'm sure that once the Surete realized there had been calls for a public inquiry along with escalating requests to have the arrest records of those provocateurs released, it knew the game was over.
The fact that it wasn't enough for summit security to insultingly create "free speech zones" out of the site of Bush, Calderon, and Harper and that a court decided to issue a "compromise" aka "Protest TV" which was supposed to comfort protesters by mandating that TV sets in the Chateau would broadcast video of the protests for the leaders to watch if they chose to shows just how much our speech is being stifled in this country. Our arrogant leaders even refused to allow the delivery of opposition petitions at the summit, treating citizens as mere hysterical peasants.
During the final SPP press conference, Bush joked about so-called "conspiracy theories" about the summit (and CNN's Suzanne Malveaux echoed that slur). What, exactly, is the public supposed to think when North American leaders meet behind closed doors with 30 corporate CEOs and refuse to openly inform the public about the content of those meetings? That's the issue - the secrecy - along with the fact that business and political leaders are setting policy about the future of North America without any input from the citizens.
That's not democracy.
You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to demand transparency and to know something is wrong when it isn't provided.
Related: For more information about the history of the SPP concerns, visit the site of the Council of Canadians.
Watch the CBC news story about the Surete's admission of police infiltration:
Public Security Minister Stockwell Day continued to brush of questions about a call for a public inquiry, saying in Vancouver that those with complaints can make a formal complaint.
"The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because [sic] were not engaging in violence," Mr. Day said.
"They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That's the irony of this," Mr. Day said.
Mr. Day added the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.
"Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that's a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters," Mr. Day said.
Before Moore appeared, CNN ran a video segment by Dr Sanjay Gupta disputing some of the facts in Moore's film "Sicko":
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "Sicko" throws hard punches at the United States healthcare system, and it seems just about everyone has something to say.
(SOUNDS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moore was spot on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The facts, I think, support what I believe.
GUPTA: And Moore presents a lot of facts throughout the movie. But do they all check out? Keeping them honest, we did some digging and we started with the biggie. The United States slipped to number 37 in the world's healthcare systems.
It's true, 37 is the ranking, according to the World Health Organization's latest data on 191 countries. It's based on general health level, patient satisfaction, access and how it's paid for. France tops the list. Italy and Spain make it into the top 10. The United Kingdom is 18.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello!
GUPTA: Moore brings a group of patients, including 9/11 workers to Cuba, and marvels at their free treatment and quality of care. But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba's healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39. Moore asserts that the American healthcare system spends $7,000 per person on health, whereas Cuba spends $25 per person.
Not true, but not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 a year per person versus $229 a year in Cuba. And astronomically more money doesn't mean far better outcomes. In fact, Americans live just a little bit longer than Cubans on average. So Americans do pay more, but the United States also ranks highest in patient satisfaction.
And Americans have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when seeking non-emergency elective procedures like hip replacement, cataract surgery or knee repair. That's not something you'll see in "Sicko" as Americans tell their tales of lack of coverage and suffocating red tape.
It's true that the United States is the only country in the Western world without free universal access to health care. But you won't find medical utopia elsewhere. The film is filled with content Canadians and Brits sitting in waiting rooms, confident care will come.
In Canada, you can be waiting for a long time. A survey of six industrialized nations found that only Canada was worse than the United States when it came to waiting for a doctor's appointment for a medical problem.
PAUL KECKLEY, DELOITTE HEALTH CARE ANALYST: That's the reality of those systems. There are quotas. There are planned wait times. The concept that care is free in France and Canada and Cuba, and it's not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. And as a proportion of their household income, it's a significant number.
GUPTA: It's true that the French pay higher taxes and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list. But even higher taxes don't give all the coverage everyone wants.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fifteen-to-20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government.
GUPTA: So, there's no perfect system anywhere. But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts -- and he did fudge some facts -- there's one everyone agrees on. The system here should be far better. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
And here's part of Moore's response:
BLITZER: Michael Moore is joining us now live from Detroit. Michael, thanks very much for coming in. You want to respond to anything ...
MOORE: First of all, Wolf, yeah, well -- yeah, I'd like about 10 minutes to respond to what was said.
BLITZER: Give us a couple of headlines, what you'd like to say.
MOORE: I don't talk in sound bites. So -- that report was so biased. I can't imagine what pharmaceutical company ad's coming up right after our break here.
But why don't you tell the truth to the American people? I mean, I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth about what's going on in this country, whether it's with healthcare -- I don't care what it is. I mean, you guys have such a poor track record.
And for me to come on here and have to listen to that kind of crap. I mean, seriously, I haven't been on your show now for three years. The last time I was on, you ran a similar piece about "Fahrenheit 9/11" saying this can't be true what he's saying about the war, how it's going to be a quagmire, the weapons of mass destruction.
You know, and -- why don't you start off actually with my first appearance back here on your show in three years and maybe apologize to me for saying that three years ago, because it turned out everything I said in "Fahrenheit" was true. Everything has come to happen.
Everything I said. I mean, I was -- I took you in that film to Walter Reed Hospital and it took three years before you or any of the rest of the mainstream media would go to Walter Reed Hospital and see what was happening to our troops. So for me to have to sit here and listen again to more crap about socialized medicine or how the Canadians have it worse than us and all this, all the statistics show that we have far worse healthcare than these other industrialized countries.
We're the only ones that don't have it free and universal. And, you know, there's a -- there's a -- you said that Germany was the only one that was better than us in terms of wait times. The Commonwealth Fund last year showed of the top six countries, we were second to last, next to Canada. It showed that Britain, for instance, 71 percent of the British public, when they call to see a doctor, get to see the doctor that day or the next day. It's 69 percent in Germany. It's 66% in Australia. And you're the ones who are fudging the facts. You fudged the facts to the American people now for I don't know how long about this issue, about the war.
And I'm just curious when are you going to just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn't sponsored by some major corporation? I mean, I'll sit here for as long as it takes, if you can do that for me.
And that was just the beginning. Make sure you read and/or view the rest. Moore was on fire and Blitzer didn't know what hit him.
Wolf's underlings are slacking on getting the show's transcripts up, but I wanted to highlight Brian Todd's meaningless reassurance that "today there is far more oversight in congress". Yet, as he points out, the wiretappings, kidnappings and other criminal activities are still going on anyway. So what's the use having more oversight? If congress doesn't just rubber stamp whatever the CIA is doing - Republicans and Democrats, by the way - Bush creates his own ways to get around congress and the laws.
Whatever these "family jewels" reveal, they will be received by an American public that knows it has absolutely no control over what the CIA does because what it chooses to do is all in furtherance of Amercian global supremacy and exceptionalism - and those are doctrines that I think I can safely say most Americans support anyway. Oh there's outrage every now and then - about so-called "extraordinary renditions", about torture, about CIA-fueled coups oversees or one or the other CIA operation. Nobody really blinked an eye much when the news broke that Italy charged several CIA agents for allegedly kidnapping an Egyptian cleric. Why should they? Bush is protecting the agents and won't extradite them to stand trial.
So, whatever else these "family jewels" expose, it seems the American publics' senses have already been dulled for decades to the point that nothing the CIA does can actually be seen as surprising anymore. The "jewels" will make interesting reading for political junkies, historians, journalists and bloggers but their revelations will, no doubt, be eclipsed by the next scandalous starlet or blonde woman in peril news story. Remember, Paris Hilton gets out of jail next week and she's making the interview rounds. What do you think Larry King will be talking about? Those boring old CIA stories or Paris' time in the school of hard knocks (where the guards' jingling keys so disturbed her equilibrium)?
And besides, there's that trusty "congressional oversight" to rely on to make sure everything's on the up and up. (Just ignore the fact that congress' approval ratings are in the toilet at a laughable 14% and that Bush sits at 26%. Trustworthy government indeed.)
Because, obviously, that is the issue everyone should be concerned about. I mean, really, look at what happened to the real estate market in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after all...people lost money (well, those who were left anyway). The horror.
CHARLES FERGUSON, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: That`s right, Glenn. I mean, the consequences in terms of the economic damage could soar upwards of $1 trillion. Some experts believe it could spark a global economic depression. And I`m concerned that it could spark, actually, a global thermonuclear war.
We could be back in a nightmare scenario that we were in during the Cold War. Imagine if nuclear material leaked out of Russia, and we traced the bomb back to that Russian material. What do we do? Do we nuke Moscow? I mean, it`s sort of a scenario from the movie "Fail-Safe," when we kind of trade New York for Moscow.
BECK: But let`s -- you know what? Before we go to global nuclear war, because that`s what would happen -- I mean, if we would bomb -- let`s say we found out that it was from Iran, we bombed them, somebody else is going to bomb. I mean, it`s going to get ugly.
I want to go back to the point, if they destroyed just a large section -- let`s just say they destroyed all of Wall Street. The economy here in New York, the real estate prices alone, between New York and Connecticut and New Jersey would just collapse, because no one would -- nobody would want to live here. What does that mean to the economy? That would collapse at least the American economy, most likely, and thus collapse the entire world, wouldn`t it?
FERGUSON: It could, but in terms of attack on Wall Street, it`s my understanding that the financial network is backed up. Every day...
BECK: I`m not saying...
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: Yes, I`m not saying that. I`m saying just from the real estate market. You have a 1,000-square-foot home here in New York City. It`s over $1 million.
FERGUSON: Right.
BECK: Who wants to live or work on this island if you`re thinking there are only six exits, if you`re thinking somebody could drop a nuke here? And somebody does, what happens to the real estate market and, how does that ripple across the economy?
FERGUSON: Oh, exactly, and a similar event could play out in Washington, D.C. I live on Capitol Hill right within a mile of the Capitol, and, you know, the way the wind patterns blow, my house would be covered in radioactive contamination. So, you know, whoops, there goes the housing market.
Political bias in news reports can often go by quite unnoticed, yet the subtle (and at times, not so subtle) messages contribute to how the audience forms opinions about the subject material.
Take this CNN report by Aneesh Raman on Thursday about the use of political cartoons during Iranian news broadcasts:
CNN's Aneesh Raman is in Tehran -- Aneesh.
ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, for the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is a new campaign against an old enemy.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
RAMAN (voice-over): It's often with anger that Iran's leaders speak about the U.S. But on state-run TV, the state has been trying a different tactic. Mixed into the main news channel are political cartoons, often starting with a slate like this one, which reads: "no explanation needed."
This one pokes fun at U.S. policy in Iraq -- Uncle Sam running between bombs, looking for an exit. And when he finds three doors, no such luck.
President Bush also often gets a grilling. Here, he's talking to the world about Iran's nuclear program, alleging Iran wants nuclear weapons, all while his nose grows longer like Pinocchio in front of a laughing globe.
The cartoons -- and there are many -- have even made their way onto YouTube, varying from anti-American riffs to others about Israel that outside of Iran would be defined as anti-Semitic.
As for those on the U.S. the intent is clear, at least to moderates like this professor at the University of Tehran.
With those three words, "outside of Iran", Raman implied that no one in Iran would see such cartoons as being anti-semitic.
That's a powerful media message against an entire country's citizenship that the US is now fiercely embroiled in a conflict with over its aspirations to develop, depending on who you choose to believe, either a nuclear energy program or nuclear weapons. It also obviously serves to elevate western concern for the fate of Israel if all Iranians are characterized as being "anti-semitic".
I suspect it might come as a surprise to Jews living in Iran that they are seen by Mr Raman as being "anti-semitic" under this blanket condemnation. "Iran's Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel." There is no doubt that Jews face continual persecution in Iran. Hoewever, one can't then conclude that all Muslims are anti-semitic. They're not.
The media's tendency to apply monolothic characteristics to, in this case, the citizens of Iran whose speech is oppressed by its radical leaders to the point where all we in the west are allowed to see on our television screens if what we're being fed by big news organizations which may or may not have a political agenda of their own, is an unfair portrait of a country of over 68 million people who, despite their repression, have many varied opinions about the world and its people.
Furthermore, such generalizations diminish the very serious human rights abuses that many Iranians currently face at the hands of a crushingly oppressive regime. They certainly do not deserve to be made out as some sort of cohesive, groupthinking, hateful bloc so they can be promoted as being the enemy by the American media.
Demonizing an entire country's citizen population is what xenophobes and terrorists do. You'd think a major US cable news network would do everything possible to avoid that trap.
So, I'm up at the ungodly hour of 4:45 am this morning because I can barely breath due to this sinus/chest/head cold I have and I flip on CNN - just to make sure the apocalypse didn't happen when I was sleeping. It's the regular early morning drivel - no rapture yet - until the familiar "JUST IN" pops up on the screen.
The anchor woman (I don't know which one - they all seem to look the same these days) announces that 6 people have been killed in yet another chlorine truck suicide bombing in Iraq and hundreds are being treated for inhaling noxious fumes. "We'll have more for you when we get more details", she goes on.
And then...and then...wait for it..."In other news, Anna Nicole Smith blah blah blah..."
It would have done my aching head good had it really been able to explode at that moment. Who the fuck cares about Anna Nicole Smith?? And how can you so cavalierly segue from a story about hundreds of people now suffering from chlorine poisoning in Iraq to that old, stale, tired, totally uninteresting story about a woman who died weeks ago? Who cares? She's dead. Move on already.
This weekend marks a grim anniversay. It's been 4 years since the horror of "shock & awe" set off what looks like an endless war in a country that has now been ripped to shreds; hundreds of thousands dead; so many wounded; so many displaced; so many children scarred for life; so many still living in absolute fear and chaos; news today that almost one third of the Iraqi children are suffering from malnutrition.
Vatican City – Caritas Internationalis and Caritas Iraq say that malnutrition rates have risen in Iraq from 19 percent before the US-led invasion to a national average of 28 percent four years later.
Caritas says that rising hunger has been caused by high levels of insecurity, collapsed healthcare and other infrastructure, increased polarisation between different sects and tribes, and rising poverty.
Over 11 percent of newborn babies are born underweight in Iraq today, compared with a figure of 4 percent in 2003. Before March 2003, Iraq already had significant infant mortality due to malnutrition because of the international sanctions regime.
Why isn't that on CNN?
There will be several antiwar protests around the world this weekend. On Friday nite, thousands of Christians protested in DC and many were arrested. Where's your coverage of that, CNN? Or is all of this just too embarassing for the colonial empire culture to face? It's so much easier to drone on about some dead, blonde woman, isn't it? Someone should really do a count of the hundreds of hours you've dedicated to dead and missing white, blonde women on your network compared to the coverage you've given to starving Iraq kids.
