Give a man a fish and feed him for a day....Teach him to use the internet and he won't bother you for weeks!
Just two days after 9/11, I learned from Congressional staffers that Republicans on Capitol Hill were already exploiting the atrocity, trying to use it to push through tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. I wrote about the subject the next day, warning that “politicians who wrap themselves in the flag while relentlessly pursuing their usual partisan agenda are not true patriots.”
The response from readers was furious — fury not at the politicians but at me, for suggesting that such an outrage was even possible. “How can I say that to my young son?” demanded one angry correspondent.
I wonder what he says to his son these days.
We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration’s fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever.
Fecklessness: the administration has always pinched pennies when it comes to actually defending America against terrorist attacks. Now we learn that terrorism experts have known about the threat of liquid explosives for years, but that the Bush administration did nothing about that threat until now, and tried to divert funds from programs that might have helped protect us. “As the British terror plot was unfolding,” reports The Associated Press, “the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.”
Cynicism: Republicans have consistently portrayed their opponents as weak on terrorism, if not actually in sympathy with the terrorists. Remember the 2002 TV ad in which Senator Max Cleland of Georgia was pictured with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Now we have Dick Cheney suggesting that voters in the Democratic primary in Connecticut were lending aid and comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” There they go again.
More fecklessness, and maybe more cynicism, too: NBC reports that there was a dispute between the British and the Americans over when to make arrests in the latest plot. Since the alleged plotters weren’t ready to go — they hadn’t purchased airline tickets, and some didn’t even have passports yet — British officials wanted to watch and wait, hoping to gather more evidence. But according to NBC, the Americans insisted on early arrests.
Suspicions that the Bush administration might have had political motives in wanting the arrests made prematurely are fed by memories of events two years ago: the Department of Homeland Security declared a terror alert just after the Democratic National Convention, shifting the spotlight away from John Kerry — and, according to Pakistani intelligence officials, blowing the cover of a mole inside Al Qaeda.
But whether or not there was something fishy about the timing of the latest terror announcement, there’s the question of whether the administration’s scare tactics will work. If current polls are any indication, Republicans are on the verge of losing control of at least one house of Congress. And “on every issue other than terrorism and homeland security,” says Newsweek about its latest poll, “the Dems win.” Can a last-minute effort to make a big splash on terror stave off electoral disaster?
Many political analysts think it will. But even on terrorism, and even after the latest news, polls give Republicans at best a slight advantage. And Democrats are finally doing what they should have done long ago: calling foul on the administration’s attempt to take partisan advantage of the terrorist threat.
It was significant both that President Bush felt obliged to defend himself against that accusation in his Saturday radio address, and that his standard defense — attacking a straw man by declaring that “there should be no disagreement about the dangers we face” — came off sounding so weak.
Above all, many Americans now understand the extent to which Mr. Bush abused the trust the nation placed in him after 9/11. Americans no longer believe that he is someone who will keep them safe, as many did even in 2004; the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in Iraq have seen to that.
All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won’t go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself.
" … I think President Bush is not doing his job on defense or domestically."
"… the American people are tired of George Bush’s policies. They want a new direction in this country, and the voters have spoken… The way to help this country is to limit Republican power. They have failed in the budget. They have failed in Iraq. They have failed with Katrina."
"The Republicans hope, once again, to win an election based on fear. You know, fear-mongering, whining and complaining and name calling is not going to lead America. We need a new direction in America. We need a new direction to defend America and we need a new direction to make the homeland safe, not just in terms of safety from terrorists but safe for the middle class again."
I just got back from North Dakota. There’s not more than a war on terror going on in this country, there’s a war on the middle class going on. You know, those folks need help. And we need help domestically. We need a change in this country. We need a new direction."
"This is a President who has been bad for America. You should see what’s going on in North Dakota. Farmers who haven’t had any drought relief, people losing their health care. The President’s paying no attention to the middle class. Kids want to go to college. They can’t do that now because the President’s cut their Pell Grants. There’s a lot of problems in this country not being addressed."
"We need a strong middle class to make America strong again, and with Democratic leadership we’ll have that middle class strong again with the ability to go to college, with the ability to count on your pension, and with the ability to decent health care."
“The President has failed to defend America. Since he has been in office, the number of nuclear weapons in North Korea has quadrupled, Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons, Osama bin Laden has set up shop in Pakistan five years after the fact. I think one of the 9/11 chairs just said it very well, if your top priority isn't defending the America homeland then you’re not doing your job."
"We need a much different strategy. … What we should have been concentrating on is getting rid of the Taliban once and for all in Afghanistan, who are now making a resurgence. Making sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. That, we cannot afford to allow. And, to make sure that North Korea is disarmed. Those ought to be the major priorities, because if nuclear weapons get in the hands of terrorists, we have a much more serious problem than Saddam ever posed to the United States or to the region."
"… we believe [on the war in Iraq], along with the majority of the American people, that this war was a mistake and that it’s a complete lack of leadership for the President of the United States to say, ‘well, we’re going to leave this to the next President.’ That is not leadership."