This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Normally it would be a no-brainer to understand why a GOP member from Pennsylvania would be sticking up for former Governor Tom Ridge. Honestly, it would take pages to explain why this is bizarre in my case, but suffice to say that anyone who has known me since the late-nineties through 2001 would definitely catch the irony on this one.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

In spite of any differences I had with the man when he was our governor, I've recently learned a new respect for him. Ridge is one of the "outside-insiders" of the Bush administration. Public (and apparently press) perceptions of his being in the know about the inner-workings of the national security and war plans in the White House immediately following 9/11 are just downright wrong.

True, he was given the job of securing our country, and theoretically it would make sense that he would have known everything about the plans to invade Iraq (as Rachel Maddow and Paul Rosenberg undoubtedly assumed.) However, I'm not buying that, if for no other reason, he honestly didn't have the time.

I've been reading Ridge's book The Test of Our Times, and intend to post more on it later. On this specific issue, at the time when the conversations were happening about starting a war Iraq, Ridge was busy working with his staff to protect us from potential retaliation. Before that, he wasn't privy to meetings with Rumsfeld, no matter how much people may think otherwise. What little face time Ridge got with him was literally in the hallways.

As for his continual backing of the party line on the issues surrounding the war, it really isn't about what he's saying. No one is asking the right question. I would be curious to know what his reply would be if he was really cornered - which he hasn't been. The right question isn't whether or not he agrees with or believes in the canned stories from the Bush administration. He didn't witness these discussions, so in his mind, he has no choice but to tow the party line. However, I wonder what his response would be if someone bothered to point out that he wasn't privy to those discussions, and then asked, based on his experience in Homeland Security, whether or not the canned story is honestly plausible to the point that he would have suggested increasing our alert level to Red. It is a hypothetical question, and I believe the gentleman would answer truthfully.

And that is the real sticky point in this. Ridge is in the end one of a dying breed - a gentleman politician. He is by no means stupid, and the fact that he has avoided answering the tough questions is a testament to that. He has managed to tell the truth as he witnessed it (bearing in mind that he really didn't witness as much as most people would think.) Ridge knows more than he's said, but to date, his lies are solely those of omission - primarily omitting that he was not present when certain situations occurred, so he's sticking with the official story.

X-posted from Everything in Its Own Time

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to ElizabethRoss on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 10:49 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.