- With George Bush's overall approval rating
down to 34% it's become apparent that the country has wised up to the frightful
reality that we have a totally incompetent president. But even when Bush
was at the height of his approval ratings, polls showed that a majority
of Americans opposed most of his policies---from failure to protect the
environment, tax cuts that overwhelmingly rewarded the wealthy, the social
security privatization plan, massive job losses, etc. But in spite of such
opposition Bush won reelection, although barely. He did so for one simple
reason -- namely, that America has not suffered a terrorist attack since
9/11/01. A small majority of Americans, terrified by the prospects of further
terrorism in the U.S., somehow found it in themselves to credit Bush for
this and were willing to write off his multiple failures as president.
-
- This morbid fear of terrorism does not
comport with reality. In an article by Zbigniew Brzezinski, entitled "The
Dilemma of the Last Sovereign," Brzezinski puts the matter of global
terrorism in proper perspective, citing highly credible sources, including
our own Department of State (which once had credibility before Colin Powell
and Condi Rice stunk up the place):
-
- "According to official World Health
Organization and Department of State statistics, global deaths per year
due to physical violence amounted to 1,600,000 (2002), traffic
- accidents, 1,200,000 (2004), and terrorism
625 (2003)."
-
- And yet, here in America, our whole world
turns on this subject of terrorism. 9/11 took care of that. America, never
before attacked on its own soil in modern times, was traumatized. There
is an argument that even if there were another terrorist attack in the
U.S., Bush would still win political points because of his demonstrated
willingness to use military power. There are those who still believe this
to be the solution, in spite of Bush's debacle in Iraq, which has led to
an incredible wastage of human life, a current cost of $300 billion, the
loss of national prestige, and the creation of a breeding ground for future
terrorists.
-
- But the sad and scary truth is that there
is no end of soft targets in the U.S. and there is no shortage of suicide
bombers. A terrorist attack is intended to induce fear. So, an attack need
not be as colossal as that of 9/11. Any shopping mall in any city in the
country would suffice. Look at the London bombings in July 2005. It wasn't
Buckingham Palace or some major financial center. It was three underground
trains and a bus. The final death toll was 52 (not counting the four suicide
bombers). But Londoners pressed on with their lives and in matter of days
life was back to normal. The matter was treated as a criminal act and turned
over to Scotland yard. There were no widespread arrests of Muslim "enemy
combatants," no torture camps set up, no looking for a weakling third
world country to bomb just to "send a message." London kept its
cool.
-
- America's vulnerability to terrorism
has long been a matter of great concern to terrorism experts and was a
major focus of the 9/11 Investigation Commission. As the Commission noted,
the primary soft target is America's port system. Only about 5% of incoming
cargo is physically inspected. All cargo is scanned for radioactivity to
protect against a radioactive "dirty bomb," but the Coast Guard
has complained that many of the detectors are unreliable. According to
an article by the Associated Press, "[These] devices have frustrated
port officials in New Jersey because bananas, kitty litter and fire detectors
- which all emit natural radiation - set off the same alarms more than
100 times every day."
-
- But it took the Dubai Ports World issue
to bring all this to the public's attention, which was instantly and overwhelmingly
negative. The president's and Congress' failure to protect America's port
system is now public knowledge. And this being an election year, it was
perhaps not surprising that a House Committee vote against the DPW deal
by the incredible margin of 62 to 2. DPW has since withdrawn from the deal.
It was reported that through some Karl Rove machinations, DPW was convinced
to withdraw in order to save George Bush still further embarrassment.
-
- There have been many editorials arguing
that DPW was a perfectly credible company, that the United Arab Emirates
was an ally of the U.S. in the fight against terrorism, and that it was
wrong to turn away a country simply because it was Arab. I agree. But these
arguments are incomplete. They miss the point. As the New York Times noted
in an editorial,
-
- "The [Dubai Ports World] deal was
approved by an obscure committee of second-level officials. The committee
is headed by a Treasury official whose department focuses on promoting
trade rather than on security requirements. When [security] concerns were
raised, they were never flagged for higher-ups."
-
- In other words, security was never an
issue, as it should have been, no matter what company from whatever country
was bidding for the ports deal. Our ports are too critical to ignore security
concerns. But that's exactly what George Bush did. It turns out that Bush
was never really involved in the details of the deal. It was all handled
by "an obscure committee of second-level officials," as the NY
Times put it.
-
- Even on a matter of national security,
Bush was once again AWOL.
-
- The Times also noted that, "The
president. has not fought for the money needed to keep the ports secure.
The administration has [even] worked to eliminate a port-security grant
program from the budget."
-
- So, if George Bush can't even bring himself
to deal with the issue of terrorism at home, is there anything he can do
right? The answer is no, and it is time to take impeachment seriously.
The country can't go on like this for three more years. Or if not impeachment,
censure. Sen. Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution for Censure of
President Bush for violating the law by using the National Security Agency
to spy on Americans, an act which is in clear violation of the Federal
Surveillance Act. As Feingold put it, "There has to be, at least a
first step, some accountability." Appearing on ABC's "This Week,"
-
- Feingold added:
-
- "What I'm interested in is my colleagues
acknowledging that we as a Congress have to stand up to a president who
acts as if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on September
11. We didn't enact martial law on September 11. We still have a constitutional
form of government, and if the Congress of the United States does not stand
up for that authority at this point, it will be an historic failure of
our system of government."
-
- Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in aerospace
industry for 22 years. He now teaches in the California Community College
system. He can be reached at grellick@hotmail.com
-
- http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/03/bush-and-terrorism.html
|