posted on July 7, 2002 01:16:12 AM new
Even though billions of dollars have been spent by the bush administration on making this country more secure from terrorist attack we are little more safe now than before 9/11, if we are at all. Now there are proposals in congress to address the problem, but bush has said that he'll veto any bill requiring funding because the money isn't there. So it seems that he spends lip service to security pretty freely but wants to retain any money left for his world war dominance and his business cronies.
A Scottish journalist working in washington puts it like this:
AMERICA is as wide open to terrorist attack today as it was on
September 11 despite billions of dollars spent on heightened security and
the establishment of an entirely new government department tasked with
defending the American homeland.
The attack by a lone gunman at Los Angeles airport on the July 4 holiday
shocked the nation, but after copious warnings that much worse might have
happened Americans heaved a collective sigh of relief.
Such relief is misplaced, according to one investigation of civil defence in
the city thought most likely to be al-Qaeda’s prime target, Washington DC.
Short-term efforts at defending the country have been disturbingly
ineffective. A recent study showed that in surprise visits to 32 major
airports, federal inspectors were able to sneak fake guns, bombs and other
weapons past security screeners on average 24% of the time. A professor
of Middle Eastern studies who volunteered in the week after September 11
to assist the FBI’s understaffed Arabic language section has yet to be
processed by the agency’s bureaucracy.
Democratic Congressman David Obey says the government should stop
giving money to big business in the form of tax breaks and should funnel the
money to where it is needed. He has proposed a $9bn defence fund to be
used to maximise effectiveness. Bush has threatened to veto the bill
containing Obey’s proposal because the money is not there to fund it, even
as billions are being poured into the Pentagon.
"We should not even be having this fight," Obey said. "I think it’s ridiculous
to be having a book-keeping argument when the security of the American
people is at stake."
posted on July 7, 2002 02:29:42 AM new
He won't win democratic approval, no matter what he does.
Can we lock this nation up so that we are truly safe? Never. Just look at Isreal..they still can't keep the terrorists from entering their country and using themselves as bombs. And they've been living with this situation a lot longer than we have.
But, IMO, one of the reasons he has a large amount of public support is because those same people see that he's at least trying to close up some areas where we're most vulnerable. I read somewhere today...well yesterday that those in charge have been looking into/working on the threats to our power and communication systems.
Could we be doing more? Probably. Like on the food and water issue. We could be informing people to prepare for what might be coming, like we did in CA for earthquake preparedness. People should have extra everything on hand...not rely on a grocery store to meet their needs. But then some democrats here shared they believe all these threats are only to scare us, they're not coming from the terrorists...but rather from our own government? If that's true (not) then why worry at all?
I've wondered why suggestions haven't been made to our nation as to what we could do to protect ourselves...like some of what I mentioned above...but then maybe it's because they're trying not to start a panic and hurt the economy even more.
Another opinion of mine that will go over like a lead balloon here....if we're running short of funds...why don't we just stop giving the billions away to all the countries that we do. If we're that tight...then maybe we'll have to hold back on our generosity and take care of our own first.
"The departure of the former Gulf war chief and
America's first black secretary of state would also be a
blow to the White House - no least because his ratings
are better than those of the president himself.
A Gallup poll in early May found that 85 per cent of
voters regarded him favourably, while in a Harris poll
last month 79 per cent said his job performance was
either "excellent" or "pretty good". Mr Bush's own
rating has fallen below 70 per cent."
posted on July 7, 2002 09:07:04 AM new
Bush wanted a broad overhaul of Homeland Security...
June 7, 2002
"The White House estimated the new agency's budget at $37 billion, which the administration says would be paid for through savings achieved by eliminating redundancies among current agencies.
"By ending duplication and overlap, we will spend less on overhead, and more on protecting America," Bush said. "This reorganization will give the good people of our government their best opportunity to succeed, by organizing our resources in a way that is thorough and unified."
And Today, July, 7, 2002
"Since early 2000 the US Customs service has warned of the need to beef up security at ports and land borders but even the terror attacks have not spurred the government into providing the extra resources. Last week the President announced he was spending $92m on port security but the figure actually needed, according to the Customs service, is close to $700m."
posted on July 7, 2002 09:15:20 AM new
What exactly is Homeland Security doing while threats to communication networks and water are being ignored?
"Professor Stephen Gale of the University of Pennsylvania says that as a result al-Qaeda has a 50-50 chance of toppling America. He cites vulnerabilities in the power and communications networks and the water supplies through which terrorists could paralyse the country."
"It’s the end game," he said. "We’re done. There ain’t no nation no more. We’ll splinter into a whole bunch of regional segments that are just going to figure out how to survive. That’s it."
posted on July 7, 2002 10:02:14 AM new
Prof. Gale comes up with a pretty drastic outcome without showing a mechanism by which it will happen. If centralized utilities are too vulnerable they will be decentralized. With alternative energy you can have practical power for individual homes or small units like a subdivision.
To extrapolate the division of the political unit which resists that firmly is a reach. I suspect the prof. knows little outside his area of expertice and has little imaigination.
[ edited by gravid on Jul 7, 2002 10:25 AM ]
posted on July 7, 2002 10:39:35 AM new
janejw- your concern regarding Homeland Security is at best not thought out and at worst hypocritical. Since you feel that homicide bombers/terrorists, Afghanis and Palestinians etc. are victims and should not be punished, how do you reconcile your concern with the possibility that such a department would employ anti-terrorist actions including the use of violence against such foes? Or are you saying that you are against the creation of such a department? You are one of the best at posting texts of articles and previous posts but one of the worst at stating your position. Much like krs who posts internet personality/political test links but rarely reveals his results.
posted on July 7, 2002 01:07:59 PM new
seems to me more is being done to fleece the taxpayer and remove rights than to deal with terror. Maybe this is the new religion the bible talks about in the end time. the sacred banner of the fight against terror.
posted on July 7, 2002 02:02:30 PM new
I always love your posts Linda. I sure understand where you're at. In a way, Bush has been left with a totally useless security system...the FBI, the CIA, etc. Obviously, people, including terrorists, have been coming into the U.S. with free access for decades (hence the alleged reports of al qaeda being thoughout the U.S.).
Since 9/11, we are seeing just how inept these institutions are and how secretive they've been at sharing info. They've admitted to knowing about Osama's plans for years but did nothing (what's that all about?).
Is this Bush's fault? No, but it's what he's done since. I've rambled on about it before, so I won't bore you, but even his latest thing about offing Saddam....he hasn't even caught Osama yet. For all we know, he could be laying on a beach in Florida. If Bush wants to make any kind of impact he should be trying to clean up the U.S. before he starts elsewhere. I could go on, as you know, but I won't.
P.S. One question I'd like to find the answer to, is why do you think the U.S. was hit the first year into Bush's presidency and not during Clinton's 8 year term?
I sure understand where you're at. In a way, Bush has been left with a totally useless security system...the FBI, the CIA, etc. Obviously, people, including terrorists, have been coming into the U.S. with free access for decades (hence the alleged reports of al qaeda being thoughout the U.S.).