[Winstonm]

Quotes borrowed from Salon.com

Then:

Quote

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree" -- James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787.

Quote

"All governments lie" -- journalist I.F. Stone, addressing journalism students on the one truth they'd be well-advised always to recall.

Now:

Quote

"Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a Democratic [sic] system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt, even having learned lessons about giving the government that benefit" -- The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, today,

[Winstonm]

Quote

In his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.

Using threats of terror to influence political outcomes - isn't that what terrorists do?

I guess we should give them the benefit of the doubt, though....

[Al_U_Card]

Pots, kettles and degrees of blackness....what pol doesn't try to take advantage of circumstance?

Especially those they engineered themselves...

[kenberg]

Taking the quotes in order:

Madison: Recognition of this fundamental truth played an essential role in the successful outcome of the Constitutional Convention. Designing a government based on the assumption that men who seek power need to have that power reviewed and restrained by the governed. A pretty good idea, I would say.


I. F. Stone: Absolutely good advice. I could suggest the following improvement: "All governments lie, and of you really want to do your job you should not take what I say as Gospel either."

Marc Ambinder: "Information asymmetry is always going to exist". Ah, the dreaded information asymmetry. Let us give thanks that he was not in Philadelphia in 1787. John Adams would still be trying to figure wtf Ambinder was talking about. "Mr. Franklin, could you give us your views on information asymmetry?"

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Aug 22 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Taking the quotes in order:

Madison: Recognition of this fundamental truth played an essential role in the successful outcome of the Constitutional Convention. Designing a government based on the assumption that men who seek power need to have that power reviewed and restrained by the governed. A pretty good idea, I would say.


I. F. Stone: Absolutely good advice. I could suggest the following improvement: "All governments lie, and of you really want to do your job you should not take what I say as Gospel either."

Marc Ambinder: "Information asymmetry is always going to exist". Ah, the dreaded information asymmetry. Let us give thanks that he was not in Philadelphia in 1787. John Adams would still be trying to figure wtf Ambinder was talking about. "Mr. Franklin, could you give us your views on information asymmetry?"

Quote

most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt

I suppose we really SHOULD have given King George the benefit of the doubt. Tea, anyone?

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Aug 21 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

Quote

In his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.

Using threats of terror to influence political outcomes - isn't that what terrorists do?

I guess we should give them the benefit of the doubt, though....

Let's see...Frances Townsend says that while there was a debate following the release of Al Qaeda tapes in 2004, it wasn't political in nature (maybe Cheney leaned on Al Qaeda to release them before the election). Some, including Ridge, didn't feel the terror alert level. He wasn't fired, he didn't resign until much later, and the threat level, consistent with Ridge's beliefs, wasn't raised.

I know you're distrustful of government people, but I think it's ok to give Ridge the benefit of the doubt here.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 21 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

Quote

In his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.

Using threats of terror to influence political outcomes - isn't that what terrorists do?

I guess we should give them the benefit of the doubt, though....

Let's see...Frances Townsend says that while there was a debate following the release of Al Qaeda tapes in 2004, it wasn't political in nature (maybe Cheney leaned on Al Qaeda to release them before the election). Some, including Ridge, didn't feel the terror alert level. He wasn't fired, he didn't resign until much later, and the threat level, consistent with Ridge's beliefs, wasn't raised.

I know you're distrustful of government people, but I think it's ok to give Ridge the benefit of the doubt here.

Amazing....just amazing.....truly......wow.....

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 21 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

Quote

In his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.

Using threats of terror to influence political outcomes - isn't that what terrorists do?

I guess we should give them the benefit of the doubt, though....

Let's see...Frances Townsend says that while there was a debate following the release of Al Qaeda tapes in 2004, it wasn't political in nature (maybe Cheney leaned on Al Qaeda to release them before the election). Some, including Ridge, didn't feel the terror alert level. He wasn't fired, he didn't resign until much later, and the threat level, consistent with Ridge's beliefs, wasn't raised.

I know you're distrustful of government people, but I think it's ok to give Ridge the benefit of the doubt here.

Amazing....just amazing.....truly......wow.....

Don't worry...I'm just being funny.

It does seem that your notoriously healthy sense of skepticism takes a lunch break when the claim in question suits your ideology, though.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 22 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 21 2009, 10:04 AM, said:

Quote

In his new book, the first Homeland Security chief, Tom Ridge, accuses top aides to President George W. Bush of pressing him to raise the terror alert level to influence the 2004 presidential election.

Using threats of terror to influence political outcomes - isn't that what terrorists do?

I guess we should give them the benefit of the doubt, though....

Let's see...Frances Townsend says that while there was a debate following the release of Al Qaeda tapes in 2004, it wasn't political in nature (maybe Cheney leaned on Al Qaeda to release them before the election). Some, including Ridge, didn't feel the terror alert level. He wasn't fired, he didn't resign until much later, and the threat level, consistent with Ridge's beliefs, wasn't raised.

I know you're distrustful of government people, but I think it's ok to give Ridge the benefit of the doubt here.

Amazing....just amazing.....truly......wow.....

Don't worry...I'm just being funny.

It does seem that your notoriously healthy sense of skepticism takes a lunch break when the claim in question suits your ideology, though.

I was pretty sure you were just being a lawyerly. Btw, the way it works is that the investigation of the claims helps frame my beliefs - not the other way round.

[kenberg]

Sample allegations follow. Do we know which of these Mr. Ridge says happened?

1. Joe Blow told me 'Tom, we gotta reelect the boss, get the ***** terror alerts elevated."

2. Some of the people on the Homeland Security council were advocating raisiing the level and it was clear to me that this was based on politics even though they didn't say so.

3. Some of the people on the Homeland Security council were advocating raisiing the level and although I think they believed what they were saying, I think thier judgment was clouded by their politics.

I am asking a more primitive question than whther his allegations are correct. I am asking what his allegations are. I tried the internet but everyone appears to be parphrasing him, not quoting him. His book is yet to appear, right?

[Winstonm]

This is supposedly the quote from the book.

Quote

Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

[kenberg]

Unless he writes of himself in the third person (some do) this does not look like a quote from the book. It looks like someone's interpretation of his interpretation of events. At any rate, "something he saw as politically motivated" is hardly damning. If I say to someone "I don't believe you" I can be certain that I have stated the truth. I know whether or not I believe them. It's a different matter to determine whether in fact the other person is lying. I may be mistaken. Same with "he saw as politically motivated". I imagine that at times it may have been. But that view is due to my general cynicism, applying equally to all flavors of politicians.

My view of the whole color-coding of threat assessment is pretty skeptical. I suppose there are some uses for it with people who have a security job to do but certainly I don't change any plans based on which color is flashing. I sure as hell would not be changing my vote.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Aug 23 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Unless he writes of himself in the third person (some do) this does not look like a quote from the book. It looks like someone's interpretation of his interpretation of events. At any rate, "something he saw as politically motivated" is hardly damning. If I say to someone "I don't believe you" I can be certain that I have stated the truth. I know whether or not I believe them. It's a different matter to determine whether in fact the other person is lying. I may be mistaken. Same with "he saw as politically motivated". I imagine that at times it may have been. But that view is due to my general cynicism, applying equally to all flavors of politicians.

My view of the whole color-coding of threat assessment is pretty skeptical. I suppose there are some uses for it with people who have a security job to do but certainly I don't change any plans based on which color is flashing. I sure as hell would not be changing my vote.

I agree with every word of this comment.

Perhaps the government wants people to draw parallels between the threat-level color codes and more meaningful color codes. I live in a heavily-forested area (Upper Michigan) where the DNR does color code the danger of forest fires, and we do pay attention to them. Folks here do not take kindly to people who build large campfires when the fire danger code is red, for example. But these codes relate to objective criteria like dry and windy conditions, and we know how to modify our behavior when those conditions occur.

Not so with the threat-level color codes, and I don't know anyone who considers them to be other than typical government foolishness (okay, maybe Joe Lieberman).