 |
 |
 December 22, 2005
TAKING TERRORISM SERIOUSLY....Part 1 of a multi-zillion word story about the trials and tribulations of the Department of Homeland Security is running in the Washington Post today, and a lot of it is pretty much what you'd expect: a huge new agency trying desperately to deal with turf wars, lack of leadership, and budget issues. But they also had to deal with political cronyism, as Tom Ridge and Christine Todd Whitman discovered:
This is the most infuriating aspect of George Bush's approach to terrorism: that he treats it as a partisan weapon instead of a genuinely serious business. Chemical plants really are a prime target for terrorists, but Dick Cheney doesn't want to annoy his corporate pals, so EPA's plans to address it get shelved. WMD counterproliferation really is important, but it's not very sexy and doesn't serve any partisan ends since Democrats support it too. So it's ignored and underfunded. Detention of enemy combatants when the enemy is an amorphous group like al-Qaeda is a genuinely vexing issue that deserves a serious bipartisan airing, but the Justice Department treats it like a child's game, inviting barely concealed rage from a conservative judge who thought this was supposed to be life-and-death stuff. One of the worst results of all this is that because George Bush treats terrorism mostly as a handy partisan club to make Democrats look weak and cement his own support with his corporate base, he's managed to convince a lot of liberals that the whole thing is just a game. Unfortunately, this is pretty understandable. At this point, I don't really blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman that's pulled out whenever the president's poll numbers are down. After all, that's pretty much how Republicans treat it. But it's not. Osama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us, and we really should all be working to keep that from happening. Maybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that's more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign. UPDATE: Matt Yglesias responds with some good points here. —Kevin Drum 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (113)Comments
I know it's hard, but say it Kevin. Impeach! Posted by: lib on December 22, 2005 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINKThere's republicans, and then there's people who care. Posted by: cdj on December 22, 2005 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKand don't forget the number one diversion and distraction from the war on terror --- IRAQ. Posted by: lou on December 22, 2005 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINKUnless we beat the GOP, it won't matter. We won't be able to do anything to actually stop terrorism because we won't have any power. Posted by: MNPundit on December 22, 2005 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINKLook the terrorists want to put fear in you and have done a very good job of putting the fear in the righties which just emboldens the terrorists,So the righties with all there be scared,fear the dark crap is just saying the terrorists have won. Posted by: scott on December 22, 2005 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of cronyism and corruption at DHS, see Sarah Posner's new report in the latest Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10750 (Apologies for plugging the mag.) Posted by: Sam Rosenfeld on December 22, 2005 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKI don't really have a whole lot of sympathy for Ridge and Whitman. If THEY took the war on terror seriously, they would have spoken out when they were still part of the administration. But no. They were good GOP soldiers in George Bush's war on those who oppose him. You're right that the administration needs to take the war on terror seriously. Since they clearly aren't going to do that, it's up to those Republicans who still have a shred of integrity left to publicize just how corrupt the administration is. But almost none of them have the courage to do that. Posted by: David Bailey on December 22, 2005 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKThis is the most infuriating aspect of George Bush's approach to terrorism: that he treats it as a partisan weapon instead of a genuinely serious business. Chemical plants really are a prime target for terrorists, but Dick Cheney doesn't want to annoy his corporate pals, so plans to address it get shelved. Sorry, Kevin, but your example DOES NOT show Bush is trying to not annoy his corporate pals. Why are you constantly trying to impugn the patriotism of owners of corporations? Certainly the corporations are willing to do their best in fighting the terrorists by increasing the security of plants. The problem is however the high tax rates which make it difficult for them to increase security while still making enough money to stay afloat. That's why the Bush tax cut helped national security because it gave corporations and their owners enough money so that they would be willing to do their patriotic duty and increase security of plants on their own without the need for big government liberal regulations. So contrary to what you say, the example actually shows Bush is not treating terrorism as a partisan weapon but is willing to do whatever it takes to protect America from the terrorists. It is liberals by being against the Bush tax cut who show they are being partisan. Posted by: Al on December 22, 2005 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKThe DHS also contains ICE and the Border Patrol. Both the Dems and the GOP treat border security and controlling massive illegal immigration - far more serious issues than even chemical plants - as "partisan weapons" instead of treating them as "genuinely serious business." The GOP doesn't want to cut into the profits of their corporatist pals, and the Dems are similarly corrupt out of pandering or power-grabbing grounds. If the Dems want to reduce Bush's popularity, look into understanding and dealing with massive illegal immigration in a way designed to stop it instead of make it worse (i.e., Kennedy-McCain). That's the "comprehensive" approach to making Bush look bad, making the Dems look better, and doing what's in America's best interest. Posted by: TLB on December 22, 2005 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKTaxes are a much much bigger threat to Muhrcans than Rag-heads, eh Al? I don't see why blowing up chemical plants are a bigger threat than Quaker vegan lesbians. Those bitches are scary! Posted by: tbug on December 22, 2005 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKAt this point, with all the evidence we've seen about how this group of partisans uses every real threat to advance private interests, isn't pretty obvious that they just don't give a damn about whether or not we are attacked again? If we are attacked they'll use it against "liberals" and if we aren't it's because they've made us safe. These are not serious people, and we need to shout it out every day. Posted by: Jim 7 on December 22, 2005 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKI think you're missing an important variable here--fatalism. There's varying degrees of fatalism on both sides--a belief that no matter what we do, we can't protect ourselves. And the fatalism comes out differently on each side. I think the liberal flavor of fatalism (change up nothing because we can't prevent attacks anyway) is fundamentally far LESS harmful to the US than the conservative fatalism (rollback all rights and scapegoat people who can't protect themselves--look really busy, but don't worry about being effective because we can't prevent attacks anyway.) I think fatalism is bad, but I think the Bush Administration is the worst possible combination of conservative-style fatalism AND destructive political opportunism. Posted by: theorajones on December 22, 2005 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKWhy should Bush work to protect us? 9/11 was the best thing ever to happen to his presidency. He probably misses the smell of burning blue state. Face it: Nobody takes terrorism very seriously. If Ridge or Whitman took it seriously, they would have been resigning in protest back then and screaming from the rooftops now. If Bush or anyone in his administration took it seriously, we would not have had all those terror alerts last year every time the Kerry campaign held an event--only to have all terror alerts stop completely after election day. If Congressional Democrats took terrorism seriously, they'd be raising a huge stink about the incompetence, mendacity, and outright bogusness of Bush's abject failure to take terrorism seriously. But they don't. If the media took terrorism seriously, they would be doing lengthy investigative pieces on the roots, causes, and possible ways to combat it--while also examining why Bush's policies are so completely disconnected from reality. But the media simply spews whatever talking point they're told ("They hate us for our freedoms!") and works very, very hard to ignore any inconvenient facts that happen to surface. If the American people took terrorism seriously, they'd storm Washington with pitchforks and torches to demand change. But they don't. So who, exactly, takes terrorism seriously? (I mean, besides the terrorists.) Posted by: Derelict on December 22, 2005 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINKLook the terrorists want to put fear in you and have done a very good job of putting the fear in the righties which just emboldens the terrorists,So the righties with all there be scared,fear the dark crap is just saying the terrorists have won. Posted by: scott I assume you mean right wing supports of Shrub and Co., because they don't take the "war on terrorism" seriously. How could they when they divert massive amounts of resources to invade Iraq? How could they take it seriously when they carve up what meager Homeland Security funding they approve strictly on partisan lines (examples - Alaska and Wyoming getting more per capita funding than NY or Washington or California or NJ). How could they take it seriously when they waste time harassing people who request inter-library loans for Mao's "Litte Red Book" rather than standardizing computer systems for the CIA, FBI, NSA, and INS? Either they don't really take the "war on terror" seriously or they are really fucking dumb people. I'm not sure which is worse. Posted by: Jeff II on December 22, 2005 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINKThis is the most infuriating aspect of George Bush's approach to terrorism: that he treats it as a partisan weapon instead of a genuinely serious business. I disagree on your first point, I believe that administration treats this situation more like an opportunity for a power grab. This has less to do with bullying Democrats than it does with the executive branch's inability to handle its self-acclaimed "Executive war-making authority". GWB is anathema to anything that checks his power, because he feels entitled to it; this even includes our long democratic tradition of checks and balences. The executive branch will not stop abusing its authority until congress steps in and takes him back to the woodshed to teach him how to act right. Posted by: Jon Karak on December 22, 2005 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINKOsama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us New word to describe hysterical centrists: bushspecious. Posted by: Hostile on December 22, 2005 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINKAt least DHS stopped the unions in their tracks or rather the Repugs stopped them. Whenever Twigless falls over on his tricycle, he yells "9-11" - His aides have learned that he is not calling for help, but rather casting blame. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 22, 2005 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone of you bothered to find out why the budget official Perry nixed the program proposed by Ridge and Whitman? Perhaps there were issues of cost involved, as is most likely. But if you wear your Bush hatred hat while you think about such things, as you are so prone to do, it all boils down to some sort of conspiracy for you guys. Posted by: tbrosz on December 22, 2005 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKChemical plants really are a prime target for terrorists, but Dick Cheney doesn't want to annoy his corporate pals, so EPA's plans to address it get shelved. Just so. The EPA would most likely do what you accuse Bush of doing: extraconstitutional mandates totally unrelated to domestic security. Is there something in particular that you object to in the 30 year Republican "reign"? The administrations of T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson, perhaps? The Panama Canal, Treaty of Portsmouth, Creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and WWI? The breakup of Standard Oil? Perhaps you didn't like the automation of automobile manufacture and concomitant reduction in wages of automobile makers? (most of whom were mom and pop [or brother and brother] stores and were driven out of business by H. Ford -- shades of Walmart!). Then there was that whole rise of consumer appliances like washing machines and refrigerators -- maybe that's what you didn't like? Perhaps you believe that McKinley started the Great Depression? Posted by: papageno on December 22, 2005 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKI think Al's putting us on. These requests for refusing to issue stricter regulations on chemical plants happened after Bush's tax cuts. After reading his nonsensical posts, I'm certain Al doesn't actually mean anything he posts. I'm certain he doesn't care about politics at all, except as a way to goad liberals into flaming him. He's like the fat, fifty-year-old bald man pretending to be a hot young girl on the internet so people will pay attention to him. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we do care about these issues and he wastes a considerable amount of our discussion time with his childish games. Get a life, you fucking loser. Or better yet, put yourself out of your miserable existence and quit wasting our time. Posted by: brewmn on December 22, 2005 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINKBottomline: We are not safer with Bush and the Repugs in charge. Besides the cutting of taxes, the tax dollars that are collected are so badly misspent--fraud, waste, and abuse. Posted by: Mazurka on December 22, 2005 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINKThe problem is however the high tax rates which make it difficult for them to increase security while still making enough money to stay afloat. Posted by: Al Al, you pervericating sack of excrement, it is a matter of fact that American corporations pay effectively zero income tax, and this has been the case now for at least twenty-five years. The tax cuts enacted by Congress during Shrub's presidency have overwhelmingly been directed towards households at the top 10% of the income spectrum as there were virtually no tax cuts left to give to corporations. Posted by: Jeff II on December 22, 2005 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKKevin, why the obligatory swipe at "a lot of liberals?" for thinking that "the whole thing is just a game." Please name me one? Two? ..."a lot?" Liberals--because of our serious interest in human rights, women's rights, secularism and etc... have always taken a very, very, dim view of Osama and the rest of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. We have *never* thought of this as "just a game" but, mysteriously, under Bushco rules *only republicans with money* get to play. So it hasn't mattered at all what we think. Sure "we really should all be working to keep Osama bin laden from killing a whole bunch of us" but as the Poor man said in a stinging column the other day Bush was elected to do all that "commanderin' chiefin" and he has done so in a way that left literally nothing to the rest of us to do. TErrorism, as the republicans deal with it, is little more than a republican bogeyman but there is not much that liberals can do about it. Terrorism is, by definition, something that has to be tackled at the state level. What are those excluded from the power of the state supposed to do about it? aimai Posted by: aimai on December 22, 2005 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKKevin, can you actually name any liberals who don't take terorism seriously? Kevin Drum said, I don't really blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman. . . Posted by: yesh on December 22, 2005 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKWhat is frustrating is how poor this Administration is at assessing risk. They clearly don't get it and have misallocated resources at every turn. For example: > al-Qaeda is a very big risk and we have spent little money on truly defeating them. It goes on and on. If the management of a large Fortune 500 company did such a poor job of assessing risk and allocating capital based on these misassessments, they would have been fired before they had been six months on the job! Posted by: Eugene McCarthy on December 22, 2005 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKInteresting that this thread has gone on for 25 posts with no "but but but" from the usual Bush apologists (the Al-bot and the new Tbrosz-bot don't count). If terrorism really is an existential crisis, then maybe they too are beginning to see that there's competent, non-partisan ways of dealing with it, and then there's the Bush approach. Seems to me they were pretty wary of overextending federal power when it affected their special interest friends. Meanwhile, anything that did not was ripe for federal expansion. Posted by: Jimm on December 22, 2005 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKIf the Dems want to reduce Bush's popularity, look into understanding and dealing with massive illegal immigration in a way designed to stop it instead of make it worse. The quickest way to reduce illegal immigration in the country is to repeal the rule restricting any one country to 5% of the overall immigration quota, and instead align the distribution of the limited quota with the distribution of qualified applicants (or simply have a global, equal-chance, lottery, for qualified applicants in each category.) This also has the add advantage of being more fair, in the sense of treating each qualified applicant equally rather than trying to treat countries equally. I read an interesting article yesterday by a woman who lived in S. Africa under Botha. She said the similarities between Botha's claim to defend the state against all enemies, externally, and internally, are quite similar to Bush's stated purpose. Kevin, why the obligatory swipe at "a lot of liberals?" Because if Kevin doesn't make baseless swipes at liberals, they'll take away his membership club in the Sensible Liberal™ club. Posted by: cmdicely on December 22, 2005 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKThe whole "war on terrorism" gambit is just infuriating on so many levels. First, the general media assumption that the GOP are adults who are serious about the matter. Despite the fact that the Democrats clearly handled the whole issue more professionally. Under what administration did we cut and run the fastest? Reagan in Lebanon. Under what administration has the US been hit the hardest?: Bush II. Under what administration did we build international cooperation on terrorism?: Clinton. Who ripped the international cooperation apart?: Bush II. And it goes all the way back to the Cold War: Under whose administration did we set up containment that ended up holding the Russians?: Truman. What's sad is that despite the record, Democrats just don't seem to have the guts to say: We're better at this than the GOP. We don't give simple answers, because they're aren't any. But look at the record. And please spare me the 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Bush had been in office for 8 months. And Cheney the ostensible head of terrorism hadn't found the time to convene one meeting. Posted by: Samuel Knight on December 22, 2005 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKTo take terrorism seriously, you actually have to take terrorism seriously, not impotent chumps like Saddam Hussein. This has been a public service announcement, courtesy freelixir news service. Posted by: Jimm on December 22, 2005 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone of you bothered to find out why the budget official Perry nixed the program proposed by Ridge and Whitman? Perhaps there were issues of cost involved, as is most likely.Posted by: tbrosz Just as there were "issues of cost involved" providing body armour and so-called up-armoured Humvees? Asshole. Every single American intelligence agency is on record stating that the Iraq sideshow has cost us the resources to fight the "war on terror." We could have bought a whole lot of Homeland Security for the, to date, $400 billion wasted on Iraq. Posted by: Jeff II on December 22, 2005 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKWhen faced with problems, all liberals can think about is how to make government bigger. Fortunately, there is always a Republican way to solve them. 1st) Some tax cuts for chemical companies and insurance resellers. 2nd) Some sort of tort reform legislation to keep survivors from filing lawsuits about the lax security. 3rd) A free enterprise zone to encourage chemical companies to build below sea level and in the path of hurricanes. QED. No new legions of liberal union government scientists needed. Posted by: tbrosz on December 22, 2005 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKIt would do liberals a lot of good to revisit former Sen. Bob Graham's approach to the War on Terror. He was right on the policy and if our Democratic leaders could have implemented the bulk of his plan instead of cherry-picking it for soundbites, we would own the issue and would have the political weight to actually get something done. There is still time to learn (read Intelligence Matters). Nothing has been done on homeland defense and the offense (Iraq) is taking up all the payroll - It's the freaking MN Vikings. Bush has never for a second taken the original 'war on terror' with a seriousness that is the logical extension of 9/11. I wonder if there's a poll from the weeks after 9/11 with the question - how long do you expect it will be until the US captures or kills OBL and destroys Al Queda? I bet the numbers for 'four to five years' would have been less than 3%. And the internals would show 0% among registered Republicans. Posted by: JES on December 22, 2005 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKMaybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that's more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley Not a bloody chance. The time to make that choice was, say, August of 2001. And we all know what they decided. What most of us saw as another Pearl Harbor, the Bushies saw as another Maine. Bin Laden saved them the trouble of starting their own Reichstag fire, and they've shown their gratitude. And that's enough mixing of historical references, thank you. These people do not take the threat of terrorism seriously. They do not take the security of this nation seriously. They do not take the safety and well-being of American citiens seriously. But scoring points on Democrats -- THAT they take seriously. And they will move heaven and earth -- and Iraq -- for that purpose, and no other. Posted by: Roddy McCorley on December 22, 2005 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINKI'm not a strong student of history, but I think the Republican party and America as a whole might be well-served if Republican leadership returned to some of the glorious policies of Republicans of a century ago. Religous fundamentalist and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat, not a Republican. If Republicans today would cede their monopoly on religous fundamentalism, that would have at least two salutary benefits. First, it would make their policies more apropos to the world as it really is. Placing science and diplomacy above fundamentalism allows us to respond to actual environmental and international crises in ways that can actually work. Second, this would make the secular, reality-based majority more welcome in the Republican party. Unlike most of today's Republican leaders, President McKinley's vice president Theodore Roosevelt was a leader in conservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment. The first Republican president was a major factor in the ending of slavery; it wasn't until FDR that the Democrats became identified as the party of civil rights -- and even into the 1960s, the Democrats had not fully purged their segregationists. So, Kevin, I believe that Karl Rove should return the Republican Party to the best aspects of the McKinley era, and doing so would be the best thing both for the party and for America. Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on December 22, 2005 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKkevin: Osama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us, and we really should all be working to keep that from happening. Maybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that's more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign.
so why would they stop? because some americans might die?... . Posted by: thisspaceavailable on December 22, 2005 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKAnd if Rove could have his way, the bridges across the Potomac would be turned into Bridges of Toome for the Democratic Party. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 22, 2005 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKIran - small risk. But Bush-Cheney and their Israeli proxies look to be teeing that one up for another massive military engagement. By Eugene McCarthy Ya but, Eugene…… in invading Iraq we were Israel’s proxy. It was the other way round. Look at the names and groups who and which proudly claim planning it. They have names like PNAC (not unadjacent to the same guys who are in AIPAC), Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, et al…… is it not strange how many of them belong with Lon’s WHIG? Posted by: maunga on December 22, 2005 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKSo the righties with all there be scared,fear the dark crap is just saying the terrorists have won. no, abandoning checks and balances, habeas corpus, rule of law, geneva convention is saying that we've won, american fear is just gravy. Posted by: osama on December 22, 2005 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKMaybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that [saving American lives] is more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign. But (to him) it isn't more important. Posted by: Robert the Red on December 22, 2005 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINKI think I will assume that you have been careless in your writing. I will assume that when you wrote "I don't blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a game" what you really meant to say is "I don't blame liberals for viewing the Bush approach to terrorism as little more than a game". I do not attribute to malice or stupidity what is better attributed to carelessness, again based on your entire body of work, and the fact that you write a lot of things, and sometimes they are not going to come out quite the way you want them to. But if this is what you really meant to write, then, on behalf of lots of liberals, fuck you; you have no idea at all what we think, and if you think that is how we approach this, then fuck you again, we are aware that Bush has made us more likely to be attacked, not less. Posted by: Ba'al on December 22, 2005 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINKNews flash: OReilly and Gibson fox News apologize to the nation after figuring out that real spirit of Christmas requires them to be generous and kind to the fellow human beings rather than rant against Soros and Jews and other purported enemies in their phony war on Christmas. Posted by: lib on December 22, 2005 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINKJust this week on a CNN crawl I saw that we are at Terra Alert Yellow. That is the first time since the election that I have seen reference to the color scheme (and I do mean scheme!). Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on December 22, 2005 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK"Has anyone of you bothered to find out why the budget official Perry nixed the program proposed by Ridge and Whitman? Perhaps there were issues of cost involved, as is most likely. But if you wear your Bush hatred hat while you think about such things, as you are so prone to do, it all boils down to some sort of conspiracy for you guys. Posted by: tbrosz"
Perhaps there were issues of cost involved, as is most likely. OK, now that's funny! anyone remember those terror alerts? funny how there haven't been any since the election but just a coincidence i'm sure.. http://voicesofreason.info Posted by: j.s. on December 22, 2005 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKBush is a corrupt politician who is not up to the task. Bush is only serious about consolidating his political power and using the government and the US treasury as a slush fund to deliver favors, corporate welfare and tax cuts to campaign contributors. The career professionals bent on surviving Bush keep things from totally falling apart. Liberals are non-players in this tragedy except for trying to keep Bush from screwing up the good work of the profesionals. It only seems like a game to the pundits and journalists because they report politics like it is the Cowboys V Redskins. Posted by: bakho on December 22, 2005 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps there were issues of cost involved, as is most likely. Of course, there were issues of cost involved, you dolt. Such is the trade-off for greater security. Distilled tbrozs: Warrantless snooping by the state on US citizens with inalienable rights, a-okay! Cost-increasing regulations on legal entities unrecognized in the Constitution to increase security, no way! Posted by: SavageView on December 22, 2005 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINKBa'al - Drum meant what he said - the jackass. He's always been see-no-evil wrt the bush administration, and now he's Kristoff-ed a step further, lying-ly charging liberals with a lack of seriousness. Posted by: cdj on December 22, 2005 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINKDiscussion on Diane Rehm today between David Cole and Ron Kessler (who has rhetorical koodies) The Diane Rehm Show : Thursday December 22, 2005 Posted by: clyde tolson on December 22, 2005 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINKJust goes to prove once again that profits, tax cuts for the wealthy, and partisan advantage for the GOP takes priority over national security and the welfare of ordinary, hard-working, tax-paying Americans. Posted by: Advocate for God on December 22, 2005 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINKThis reminds me of a conversation I had with someone that I went to school with who now is a risk management consultant for various industries including the chemical industry. He told me this story last summer---His company delivered a long and very expensive report to a chemical maker with plants all over the Midwest. One big problem that the report highlighted was security and the liability risk to the chemical maker if an accident or sabotage caused injuries or fatalities. At the meeting to discuss the report the senior VP said that management was counting on ‘our friends in the Administration’ to push through a law giving the company retroactive immunity from liability if there was ‘collateral damage’ from the chemical maker’s policies. My friend said he and the people from his firm were shocked and totally befuddled by this attitude because then why were they asked to do a risk assessment of the chemical maker’s facilities. Turns out the insurance company wanted the risk assessment and after the insurance company heard the whole story they dropped the chemical maker as a client. The hubris and arrogance of people like this chemical company just astounds me. Didn’t anyone ever teach them to take responsibility for anything?? Long term it is just good business sense to be a good corporate citizen, but I guess they just want as much money as possible as quickly as possible and fuck everyone else. And the Bush fascists assist these people in putting people at greater risk? Posted by: CJ in Wisconsin on December 22, 2005 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK"Has anyone of you bothered to find out why the budget official Perry nixed the program proposed by Ridge and Whitman? Perhaps there were issues of cost involved, as is most likely. But if you wear your Bush hatred hat while you think about such things, as you are so prone to do, it all boils down to some sort of conspiracy for you guys. Posted by: tbrosz" I've read more intelligent thoughts in restrooms on I-95. You don't know what to say so you try and throw the discussion for a loop. If we're not talking about the hapless crew that you incessantly shill for, then you don't have to feel the pain. Do you know just how transparent you are? Why don't you look for a new slogan. "Bush Hatred" is wearing thin. And since you seem to excel at creating only labels (that is when you're not seeking to create a sense of fear), try for something that actually fits. Or is it far too much to expect you to engage is honest dialogue? Maybe it is. Honesty would have to include the truth. You're as tired as your war-mongering, self-serving and otherwise incompetent president. *This posting is being monitored at the request of the president. Thanks and have a nice day. Love, the NSA! So let me get this straight. The average American citizen has to accept compromises on his protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the name of protecting ourselves against the terrorists, but the chemical industry stays vulnerable because they won't accept any additional regulation from the big bad EPA? Are you kidding me??? Posted by: Jim Sinclair on December 22, 2005 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINKAt this point, I don't really blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman that's pulled out whenever the president's poll numbers are down. "At this point"? I don't think so. More like "almost always". Posted by: papageno on December 22, 2005 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINKWell, if Osama wants to kill many of us, and we are aware and capable of taking steps to prevent it, and our politicians aren't doing just that, and we elected those politicians twice, maybe all those eventual deaths are understandable and to be expected and we bear personal responsibility for them once they occur. Posted by: steve duncan on December 22, 2005 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINKshorter Tbrosz: yeah this whole thing kinda bothers me too (not that I will admit it publically) but there has to be a reasonable explanation for not implementing the program. Posted by: whosays on December 22, 2005 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKThe problem is however the high tax rates which make it difficult for them to increase security while still making enough money to stay afloat. That's why the Bush tax cut helped national security because it gave corporations and their owners enough money so that they would be willing to do their patriotic duty and increase security of plants on their own without the need for big government liberal regulations. Posted by: Al on December 22, 2005 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK Typical conservative innocence about how the world works and how men really are. You stupid utopian ass. And we have to die so you can fulfill your demented utopian fantasy. They say the Confederacy died of an idea, the idea of states rights above all. If we maintian this course America too will die of an idea, the idea of no government above all. I don't have Bush hatred, I have conservative hatred. Wanker. Posted by: Nemesis on December 22, 2005 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINKNot that I agree, but I think that the case can be made that the risk (in terms of probability) of being a victim of terrorism for an American is not considerably more than many other risks that we face everyday. I am sure that if you do an objective analysis, you will find that the number of Americans who died as a result of terrorism during the last fifty years is not significantly more than the number of deaths caused by, say, indiscriminate intake of Big Macs. Posted by: lib on December 22, 2005 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKBush Hatered Hat I think that is a streched out Clinton Hatred Hat,And as we all know Clinton was the only one taking UBL seriously If you GOPers would have let Clinton do his job 9/11 never would have been concocked by Cheney. Posted by: scott on December 22, 2005 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKtbrosz: How's that reading comprehension thing working out for you? ...industry groups warned Bush political adviser Karl Rove that giving new regulatory power to the Environmental Protection Agency would be a disaster. "We have a similar set of concerns," Rove wrote to the president of BP Amoco Chemical Co. Now, if that had read "Actually, we're more concerned about the cost," Rove wrote to the president of BP, and if the present administration weren't your typical borrow-and-spend Republicans, then you might have a point. As it is, you might as well be saying "have you bothered to sample the surface of the moon? Perhaps it's green cheese, that's more likely." What about the airline IND. could they afford all the security they had to implment? No only the big oil can't afford it. What a bunch of bushit. Posted by: scott on December 22, 2005 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKOne day you will learn 9/11 was put into play by Bush/Cheney. Posted by: scott on December 22, 2005 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINKDid anyone else catch the news buried in the inner section of the A section of most major papers today that the so-called sattelite-phone/bin Laden leak was a myth. It was common knowledge in 1996 that he was using a sat. phone and Bush spun a fable the other day when he chastized the leakers. Care to retract your statem,ents of the other night tbrosz? (If it wasn't a parody tbrosz making those allegations.) Posted by: Global Citizen on December 22, 2005 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINKKevin, this also speaks to your statement that ideology in your post above about KOS. You think ideology may be at an all time low, while partisanship is high. But I think that ideology has merged with partisanship. I well remember the 1970s when the EPA was formed. A large segment of the business community was dead set against it. The problems were so obvious, and he problems so obviously crossed municipal and state lines (polluted rivers, oceans, and air don’t care about such boundaries) that even Richard Nixon could see that there was a strong role for the federal government to play. However, a large segment of the business world resisted ANY kind of regulation, anytime, anywhere. This became an ideological position, a belief, if you will. That belief is so entrenched into the conservative wing of the Republican Party that it is not even questioned. EPA = BAD. Government regulation = BAD. They are so ideological about it that it interferes with rational thought, even when terrorism is involved. If for some reason the military could do the monitoring, then it would be more acceptable to them. The military is about the only part of government the right-wing ideologues accept. I,m glad Ann Coulter is on your side.Drop daisy cutters on Arab nations. That is your Rightwing party at it's finest. Posted by: scott on December 22, 2005 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINKSo let me get this straight. The average American citizen has to accept compromises on his protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the name of protecting ourselves against the terrorists, but the chemical industry stays vulnerable because they won't accept any additional regulation from the big bad EPA? You have distilled a significant portion of the philosophy of the modern Republican party. US citizens have no inalienable rights despite the Constitution. But US firms, mere legal entities (and not specifically recognized in the Constitution), do. Posted by: SavageView on December 22, 2005 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum writes: Osama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us, and we really should all be working to keep that from happening. Yeah, well— the Dread Pirate Osama is never going to be able to kill or injure us faster than we can make healthy replacements. So, maybe he's not as big a deal as nuclear counter-proliferation and environmental catastrophe. Posted by: s9 on December 22, 2005 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINKThere's nothing inherently wrong with the Republican party or its ideals. The current problem is that GWB is not a Republican. He's a crony-centric scion of wealth who confuses frat-boy friendship with the real thing and treats the federal government as a reward for those cronies to enrich themselves. There's nothing inherently wrong with the Republican party or its ideals. Posted by: TJM Not at all as long as you're relatively wealthy and white. That would be your traditional, pre-Reagan Republican. Today, you have to include being xenophobic, Christian (or, oddly enough, an Israel-first, Jewish neo-con), messianic, liking big government, and close-mindedness. HERE IS THE LEFTS TAKE ON THE WAR ON TERRORISM, FROM THE MOUTH OF THE NEW YORK TIMES: """In a democracy ruled by laws, investigators identify suspects and prosecutors obtain warrants for searches by showing reasonable cause to a judge, who decides if legal tests were met."""" The New York Times and the left are confusing a war (See Saving Private Ryan), with a crime (See Law and Order on NBC). Imagine if we fought WWII with the above leftwing standards. Posted by: Patton on December 22, 2005 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINKJeffII,thanks for proving my point, those members of the party are the ones who think only in black and white terms. If not Democrat (soft on terror) then Republican (strong on terror). Terrorism is the perfect political plank,never goes away, might be just around the corner, must take away pursuit of happiness, we're working on liberty and if you stay clean,you might keep your life. Posted by: TJM on December 22, 2005 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINKDare I repeat myself for the thousandth time since 9-11? Oh what the hell. The reason everyone plays football with terrorism is the whole block of blarney IS only a game. I wonder if even the people who claim to be scared are really scared? Protect every chemical plant. Inspect every container. Monitor every arabish looking person. For what? Now that we're wise to them, utility knives won't get a dozen Muslim fanatics very far anymore. Any evidence that they have graduated to cutting edge tech like the much feared remotely detonated suitcase nuclear bombs is as lacking as Saddam's WMDs. I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant, folks, we should. But no more than for any other danger, which, by the way, we are neglecting for this terrorism baloney . I mean the real danger is falling down stairs, which has killed far more Americans in the last half decade than terrorist attacks. We need is a cabinet level Dept. of Stairway Safety. Crash programs to develop softer stair materials. 24-7 monitoring of every stairwell. My uncle needs a job, he'd make a great Czar in the War Against Fractious Falls. Posted by: James of DC on December 22, 2005 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINKTJM, just be glad you weren't a religious sect Clinton didn't like, you'd find all you rights taken away and be charred into a crispy critter. But first you'd be tortured for several weeks with blinding lights, loud music, denied sleep, etc. you know all thoses things you'd never due to a foriegn terrorist. Posted by: Patton on December 22, 2005 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINKI guess Clinton also shouldn't have used our spy capabilities to spy on people in OKlahoma after the OK City bombing: Dec 15 12:23 PM US/Eastern OKLAHOMA CITY - In the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the Clinton adminstration used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma, according to a published report. The McCurtain Daily Gazette reported Wednesday that it had obtained a Secret Service log indicating that on May 2, 1995 _ two weeks after the April 19 bombing _ the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning. They were thought to be in Elohim City, a compound near the town of Muldrow. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document says. Hmmm, LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN!! I guess Clinton also shouldn't have used our spy capabilities to spy on people in OKlahoma after the OK City bombing Spy satellites (at least, the kind that use cameras) are not "electronic surveillance" as defined in FISA. Hmmm, LET THE IMPEACHMENT BEGIN!! Um, I know this is news to you guys and all what with the "blame Clinton for everything bad that happens, even now" ideas you seem to have, but Clinton is not the President, Vice President, or any other civil officers of the United States, and hasn't been for several years. Posted by: cmdicely on December 22, 2005 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINKCMDICELY...and FISA is not EVERY law. Last time I checked, our law enforcement doesn't have any surveillance or imagery satellites. Clinton isn't President, but he still holds and office and we still pay him alot of money, for staff, security, etc. I think if you are really serious about warrantless searches, torture of suspects, illegal wars, stripping him of all the perks of office would send a message. Posted by: Patton on December 22, 2005 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINKOhh, I forgot, Clinto never shirked from using our military..but only on our own citizens. Posted by: Patton on December 22, 2005 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINKCMDICELY...and FISA is not EVERY law. Last time I checked, our law enforcement doesn't have any surveillance or imagery satellites. What law, exactly, do you think was broken? I think if you are really serious about warrantless searches, torture of suspects, illegal wars, stripping him of all the perks of office would send a message. "We only hold accountable the lesser offenders, and then only when they are not in a position to continue abuse of office." That message? Ohh, I forgot, Clinto never shirked from using our military..but only on our own citizens. I think you've confused Yugoslavia with some part of the United States. Posted by: cmdicely on December 22, 2005 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINKI,m glad Ann Coulter is on your side.Drop daisy cutters on Arab nations. That is your Rightwing party at it's finest. Yeah, and the jokes on THEM, apparrently, because Bush would NEVER do that - because that would end this war, and they'd have to stop robbing the taxpayers blind with their war profiteering. Instead, they send in just enough troops to keep the insurgents fired up, to guarantee that this war lasts forever. I know where I'd like to drop a few daisy cutters (or MOABs). Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 22, 2005 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINKClinton isn't President, but he still holds and office and we still pay him alot of money, for staff, security, etc. I think if you are really serious about warrantless searches, torture of suspects, illegal wars, stripping him of all the perks of office would send a message. What kind of message would that send? Impeach Bush, and turn him over to the International War Crimes Tribunal. THAT would send a message. Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 22, 2005 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINKTJM, just be glad you weren't a religious sect Clinton didn't like, you'd find all you rights taken away and be charred into a crispy critter. hm. I don't recall Bill Clinton being down there at Waco stashing fuel-oil drums into the living areas of the compound. And if we're against the religious sect of Salafists that are currently waging a war against the US, then I don't see any problem with being against the religious sect of dangerous extremists in Waco, whose leader raped underage girls, and stockpiled machineguns and grenades in preparation for a holy armageddon. There's no difference between the two. And if you can't see that, then you're not with us. You're with the terrorists. And against civilization. Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 22, 2005 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINKThe New York Times and the left are confusing a war (See Saving Private Ryan), with a crime (See Law and Order on NBC). Sounds like you're confusing television and movies, with real life. . . Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 22, 2005 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINKspeaking of Osama bin Laden, read this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007711 This won't be "decisive" in the war on terror, but it will help. There are also credible (though far from decisive) reports that ObL was killed in the earthquake. Posted by: papageno on December 22, 2005 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK There are also credible (though far from decisive) reports that ObL was killed in the earthquake. Show Me The Body. (and still doesn't excuse Bush's incompetence at failing to do what it takes to capture bin Laden, and diverting attention from the War on Terror to the War On AntiProfiteering). Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 22, 2005 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINKwww.opinionjournal.com/editorial…This won't be "decisive" in the war on terror, but it will help. ... Posted by: papagenoTo think the Struldbrugs who write the insane editorials at the Wall Street Journal would tell the truth if they knew it would have a positive effect in the phony "war on terror" is laughable. Bush cares so little about his "war" that he didn't bother to go after bin Laden or to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. Can you imagine if President Gore didn't catch bin Laden after 4 years? The Republican media machine would be bouncing off the walls and the talking heads would be foaming at the mouth. But, hey, if your one of Bush's lickspittles, it doesn't matter. The same for all the failing D and F grades the Commission gave Bush for not preparing for another attack. It doesn't matter to these people. They will just play the blame game as usual: Blame everyone but Bush. Posted by: Mike on December 22, 2005 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK Patton/Alice Last time I checked, our law enforcement doesn't have any surveillance or imagery satellites. Incorrect. surveillance assets vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there are departments that use security cameras mounted on helicopters and planes, red light and speed cameras, aircraft used exclusively to catch speeders, cell phone towers with special night vision cameras that look into areas where vandalism and other crimes are prevalent, and there are electronic eavesdropping methods many people would be surprised to know about--high traffic areas are 'bugged' to catch people conducting narcotics purchases. As for satellites, you are obviously ignorant of stolen vehicle tracking technology, global positioning system, and the imagery photographs used in some rural areas to catch people cultivating wacky weed. So what was your insane point again, dear? Ah, Alice, you sweet, sweet little bag lady. Christmas is coming and that last tooth of yours is hanging by a thread because of all the cookies you have been eating out of the dumpster. You've swollen to 300 pounds, your ankles are like coffee cans from pushing that Safeway cart up and down the freeway and your hands are tired from giving the hobos handjobs under the bridge. Drink a little wine and relax, dear Alice. The night is young and you are balls to the wall insane. Post some more brilliant observations. Remember to snort after every post--it's really attractive. What's also attractive is how you drag your cervix everywhere. Men love a woman who wears burlap and flannel... Rowr...here kitty, kitty. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 22, 2005 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINKAlthough I suspect this thread is long dead I am forced to accuse papageno of idiocy. Nice link. Was this the MASH our beloved, if admittedly sadistic Vice-President visited before flying home to break the tie on the medicaid/student loan/food stamps slasher bill? God my Christian liberal heart soars. What wonderful humanitarian aid our altrusitic government offers. Toy Chinooks, made in China no less. That's a tremendous propoganda victory!!! Joe Goebbels has nothing on us. Wow. Military ingenuity has managed that "MASH doctors and nurses have treated some 7,000 patients" since the tragedy. How much did it cost? Meanwhile transforming Iraq from a stable secular hellhole to a hardline Islamic theocracy is what...1.3 billiopn a month? Really good policy. Great breakthrough...Osama may have been killed in the earthquake...Pakastani kids (at least three of them our intrepid reporter saw) are playing with Chinese manufactured toy Chinooks...Freedom is on the March...them damn Muslims can't add anyway...so what if they are freezing to death in the Himalayan foothills...Purple Fingers!!! Posted by: LW Phil on December 22, 2005 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINKHey Pale - have you noticed an increase in Alice's hysteria lately? I think s/he has quit taking her/his meds. Posted by: LW Phil on December 22, 2005 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINKLW Phil, You're right about how bloodthirsty these trolls are. So long as the combat is far, far away from them, and so long as it involves brown people and not their pure white children, they love to read about it on 'milblogs' and the like. Patton isn't a man. Patton is the notorious bag lady troll 'Alice.' Alice is a kind, misunderstood soul and all she wants for Christmas is her two front teeth...and a few molars, since Oreo cookies and Mad Dog 50/50 have left her with sockets and gingivitus. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 22, 2005 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINKDid anyone else catch the news buried in the inner section of the A section of most major papers today that the so-called sattelite-phone/bin Laden leak was a myth. It was common knowledge in 1996 that he was using a sat. phone and Bush spun a fable the other day when he chastized the leakers. Care to retract your statements of the other night tbrosz? (If it wasn't a parody tbrosz making those allegations.) Kevin covered this pretty well in an earlier thread. Not surprised the Washington Times takes a dim view of this, and Daniel Benjamin is standing by his assessment. The story is here, and given the examples shown in it, it doesn't seem to me to debunk the idea that media statements revealed a lot of our methods to the enemy. Also, considering the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, I doubt that this was "common knowledge" before the Washington Post decided to dig into it. I hear a lot of things along the lines of "well, Osama would assume he was being listened to, wouldn't he?" Yeah, sure. But there's a big difference in assuming you are being watched, and having someone point out where the cameras are. BTW, the parodies are getting a bit old. The parodies themselves are okay, even pretty clever sometimes, but I have to deal with the countless people here who fall for them over and over again, despite the clear labeling of the email address, and assume it was me. Do you have to be chronically gullible to be a leftist? Posted by: tbrosz on December 22, 2005 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINKMad Dog 50/50 God, what a sodden thought. Takes me back to my hippie days. Always hated the stuff. Posted by: LW Phil on December 22, 2005 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINKAnd a short note to Kevin: A whole article--not to mention series--on the inherent difficulty of getting entrenched bureaucracies to cooperate--something that's a hell of a lot older than the current administration, and almost as old as government itself, and the only thing you can take away from it is another "Bush sucks." Do you honestly think that attempting the creation of an overall national security system from merging many other organizations would have gone any more smoothly under any other president? That Wermuth's warning would not have been valid had a Democrat been president? "Drop all the turf wars and bureaucratic entrenchment that we've engaged in for decades? For good old President Gore, sure, why not?" It's getting a bit irritating to be told here constantly that somehow self-interested politics was invented in January of 2001. Posted by: tbrosz on December 22, 2005 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINKThe use of a satellite phone was in open source back in 1996. Bin Laden didn't stop using his phone because of the Washington Times. He quit using it because they started throwing cruise missiles at the places where the satellite phone was being used. Funny thing about those old phones, they had a very, very identifiable feature on them that lit up like a Christmas tree, sort of like GPS before people were hip to it. Posted by: Pale Rider on December 22, 2005 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKDo you have to be chronically gullible to be a leftist? Come on Tom. At least your doppelgangers are polite enough to use a fake e-mail address. You should be flattered. Neither Al, nor Norman get that much respect. Although, I too have often been temted to scream, CHECK THE E-MAIL!!! But I am much too well-mannered to scream. Posted by: LW Phil on December 22, 2005 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINKLW Phil: Well, I don't pay much attention to Al or Norman, so if there are fake ones, it probably wouldn't make much difference. For the record, my own e-mail address is fake, mostly to ward off spambots (something I learned the hard way.) The real one is no big secret. Kevin has it. Posted by: tbrosz on December 22, 2005 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINKIsn't that how KAOS was finally able to nail 86 - zeroed in on his shoe phone? The first rocket "Missed him by that much" - If he only had not hit redial. Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 23, 2005 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINKIf he only had not hit redial Did they have redial back then? By the bye I have a hunch that GWB conducts all his policy briefings under the "Cone of Silence"... Posted by: LW Phil on December 23, 2005 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK...on the inherent difficulty of getting entrenched bureaucracies to cooperate--something that's a hell of a lot older than the current administration... But Kevin wasn't really talking about that, was he? He was reporting more specifically about industry leaders warning the administration off a plan to beef up security at chemical plants. Anything to say about that, tbrosz? Misdirection. Again. Posted by: caribou on December 23, 2005 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK"Maybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that's more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign." Hell, Ted fucking Olsen hasn't exactly spoken up, and OBL killed his wife. Posted by: Jon H on December 23, 2005 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK"White House budget official Philip J. Perry, who also happens to be Cheney's son-in-law..." relatives and cronies. Doesn't it ever stop? Posted by: Jay in Oregon on December 23, 2005 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINKcaribou: Sorry, four paragraphs with no other information isn't enough to hang this entire premise on. Corzine's chemical plant legislation had its own issues, and an honest discussion in the article would have gone into details. Posted by: tbrosz on December 23, 2005 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINKCorzine's chemical plant legislation had its own issues, and an honest discussion in the article would have gone into details. Irony alert: tbrosz, of all people, lecturing about "honest discussion." Hilarious! Posted by: Gregory on December 23, 2005 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK
George Bush KNOWS that the war on terrorism is about partisan control. He KNOWS that he set it up to rip off the middle class and pass control of everything in the country to the wealthy. He KNOWS what this is about the destruction of civil liberties and the right to oppose him. Kevin, why do you insist on not seeing reality. That is the most infuriating thing..that you are serving George Bush...he KNOWS what this is about, and you are helping him by pretending that this is about terrorism, not about partisan politics.Look at what they do, not what they say. Posted by: christine on December 23, 2005 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINKMost middle-class people (like myself) are also comfortably middle-brow and we really don't feel all that threatened by economic policy that did put a tax refund check in our mailboxes, that sustained the economy and the value of the dollar despite all kinds of fear in that regard in 2005, or by the possibility that the NSA will listen in on our phone calls or read our e-mails should we suddenly get an urge to contact someone overseas with terrorist connections in the middle of the night. We just don't feel that Dubya is out to "get" us, fool us, or rob us. Truth to tell, he seems a lot like one of us, even in his values and his maturation from early life to his present moral system. So, if Dubya is the poster child for all things evil and sinister, I must be too, and my son, and the guys I work with (90% of whom voted for him) and the distinctly more couth people I fellowship with at church. I wish this being evil and sinister were as much fun as rumored. About the only time I even feel exploitive is when I fill my big pick-up truck up with regular for $2.05. Adjusted for inflation, that's less than half of what I was paying thirty years ago to fill my even more brutish big truck I drove then. State gas taxes have risen faster than inflation since that time as well. In our modest little neighborhood everyone is living outrageously well, actually. Sure hope it keeps up. Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 24, 2005 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINKOne of the few things that might scare the pants off the plutocrats is the specter of a crazed terrorist loaded with dynamite walking onto the floor of the NYSE and in one great flash/bang, killing a large number of the individuals who keep capitalism going on our side of the world. The murdered humans on 9/11/01 included financial analysts, IT professionals, and law enforcement and intelligence agents. They were joined by the humble and lowly, as well, and by those in between, such as police and especially firemen. LBJ used to say that men worried about prostate cancer, while women worried about breast cancer (he was more colorful about it, according to David Halberstam). The rich among us may not worry about much more than that, at least until recently. Now that terrorism has become a risk factor that threatens the well-off even more than the rest of us--a sort of affirmative action killer--it is even more important for Bush and friends to keep the fear alive among his 'base'. A little book published last century--"War is a Racket"--was written by the most-decorated Marine who ever lived. It distills his personal experience with the political aspects of warfare and, as the title clearly indicates, he reached some strong conclusions on the subject. Al Qaeda has fewer members than the Hell's Angels, and I would guess that most Americans have as little chance of being killed or injured by terrorism as they do being hit by lightning. Do you see any legislation funding lightning protection for Americans? Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer on December 24, 2005 at 5:24 AM | PERMALINKActually, Jon K., we see every other type of environmental fear funded fairly adequately. My contention is that one type of Americans went overboard with their Cold War fear and hysteria, and another type has gone bonkers with ecological nightmares that trace amounts of anything can kill them. I was exposed to huge amounts of a | |