In other words: A discussion of The Bush Administration
America the Wide Open to Attack at Any Time
Here's what Bush isn't telling you: That he hasn't done dick to protect us. Bloggery, you say? I know some people are really convinced by the tough talk and "shock and awe" -- but how many know the details, and the true devil in them? Paul Krugman has this to say:
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.
Just a Commie columnist spewing out a wretched opinion based on sheer anti-Bush sentiment? That Bush has, in fact, made our country stronger and safer with the war on terrorism, and in the words of one reader of this page, "has sure done a hell of a lot more to protect your sorry ass then you have done for anyone else!"? Let's see what Senate Appropriations Committee senator Robert Byrd has to say on the subject of homeland security and Bush's contribution to protecting American citizens from terrorist attacks, written only a few months ago:
While we now have the new department [of Homeland Security], we still do not have adequately funded efforts to protect our homeland. In fact, most of my efforts over the past three years to make our homeland safer have been blocked by the White House or by Republicans in the Congress acting at the direction of the White House. The creation of a Homeland Security Department is no substitute for adequate funding. The track record of blocked funding by this White House is clear:
1. On November 14, 2001, the White House opposed the inclusion of $15 billion for homeland security in an economic security package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety, $4.6 billion for emergency first responders and computer improvements at the federal level, $3.3 billion for transportation security for airports and ports, $1.1 billion for border security, $2 billion for security at nuclear power, water, and other facilities and mail screening, warning that such spending "will only expand the size of government." All Senate Republicans voted to block the funding;
2. On December 4, 2001, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously sent the fiscal year 2002 defense appropriations bill to the Senate floor for action. The bill included $13.1 billion for homeland security. Responding to a Bush threat to veto the defense bill if it contained this additional homeland security money, Republicans raised a parliamentary point of order which reduced the funding to $8.5 billion. House-Senate conferees on that bill were further pressured by the White House to reduce the money to $8.3 billion;
3. On June 6, 2002, the Senate passed by a vote of 71 to 22 a supplemental money bill that contained $8.3 billion for homeland security. The funding was allocated based on a series of five hearings held by the Senate Appropriations Committee after testimony from governors, mayors, police, medical, and other emergency first responders. On June 17, the president's senior advisor recommended a veto of that bill because it contained "excessive" homeland security spending. The money was for food safety, cybersecurity, radio interoperability problems among first responders, nuclear security, increased capacity for labs to deal with biological and chemical weapons, airport security, and port security;
4. In August 2002, the president failed to make an emergency designation for $2.5 billion for homeland security to specifically address shortcomings identified by the Rudman/Hart Report on terrorism vulnerabilities, meaning that the money could not be spent. Bush said at the time, "I made my opposition clear. We were pretty plain-spoken. ... I understand Congress's position, and today, they're going to learn mine. We'll spend none of it";
5. In October 2002, the White House, the Senate, and the House could not come to an agreement on arbitrary spending limits demanded by the president, and Congress adjourned for the November elections without providing additional homeland security funding. Seaports, airports, border security, nuclear facilities--all had to put plans on hold. The White House celebrated this irresponsible governmental dysfunction. Ari Fleischer said, "There's a new sheriff in town, and he's dedicated to fiscal discipline";
6. On December 2, 2002, the Justice Department announced it was not going to release money to state and local law enforcement agencies for first responders;
7. On January 16, 2003, Senate Republicans, "whipped into line by Bush," voted to defeat an amendment I offered to add $5 billion for security activities at ports, airports, borders, and nuclear plants, and for implementing a smallpox vaccine plan. When I reduced the amount of the amendment by $2 billion, hoping to at least get some help for homeland security, the amendment was again defeated;
8. On April 2 and 3, 2003, I asked my staff to prepare five amendments for boosting homeland security programs for the emergency Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental bill. In total, the amendments provided $9 billion, $4.8 billion more than Bush requested. All of the amendments were defeated;
9. On July 22, 2003, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations bill to add $1.75 billion to security programs. The amendment was defeated;
10. On July 24, 2003, I offered an amendement to the homeland security bill that would have provided $292 million for activities such as port security grants, grants to train firefighters to respond to a terrorist attack, funds to help the Coast Guard provide security at our ports, funds for locating terrorism vulnerabilities at chemical plants. My amendment was defeated;
11. On September 17, 2003, in the House-Senate conference on the same homeland security appropriations bill, I again tried to add homeland security money, $1.25 billion for port, aviation, Coast Guard, customs, first responders, and chemical facility programs, and my amendment failed on a party-line vote.
Nobody can convince me that this White House is serious about homeland security. I have broken my pick, threatened, cajoled, pleaded, and lost sleep countless nights because I know how underfunded these security programs are. I believe that we can do much, much more to address at least the obvious easy targets for terrorists, and I am at a total loss to explain why this pigheaded White House steadfastly opposes amendments to add funds to protect our own citizens. -- from Losing America, pp. 111-15
So don't give me this crap that Bush is protecting my ass. I live less than an hour's drive from Indian Point, and nothing at all has been done to make it less vulnerable to attack by air or sea. My two senators, Schumer and Clinton, have been shouted down and refused funds time after time by their Republican colleagues. Compare that with the hundreds of billions spent so far in the war in Iraq. Today we're closing in on a holy shrine in Najaf, where a Shi'ite cleric and his followers are holed up. Do you actually believe these pathetic bastards represent a domestic threat? How do you like your money being wasted, Mr. "protect my ass"? I'm sleeping a lot more soundly at night knowing that a follower of Moktada al-Sadr doesn't stand a chance of hijacking one of our jumbo jets and crashing it into Indian Point. That's not to say that virtually anybody else can't do it though, thanks to this president.
- Michael 10:59 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
TCS Now offers a News Reader Feed
Subscribe to the TCS Feed
Having trouble with some of the poor English
on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.
We have a little Store
you can visit.
Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come
see what we have.
We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.
Static Sky
Tin Foil Caps
The Free Speech Zone
The office of the independent blogger
Buzzflash
Tom The Dancing Bug
VerifiedVoting.org
Get Your War
On
This Modern World
Eschaton / Atrios
Daily Kos
meowpurrmeow
Contribute to America's Future
It is now more important then ever.
Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee
Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Some More Site Mottos
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
more coming...
