Do you feel any safer since 9-11? I know I don't. In the last few weeks I have read a great deal about how much is left to do domestically to fight terrorism. What has Homeland Security meant so far? Almost nothing. We have better security at our airports and some restructuring of federal law enforcement. But not much has been done to secure our infrastructure. What's really going on here?
Dr. Stephen Flynn (a former Coast Guard Commander) has made some very good points about our lack of security here at home. On NBC's Meet the Press he pointed out that we have spent $200 billion on the war in Iraq but less than $500 million has been spent on security for our seaports (NBC's Meet the Press July 18, 2004). Flynn also points out that WMDs do not need to be smuggled into our country because security at industries such as chemical plants have been largely neglected in plans for homeland security. Now we all know that industries don't like to be regulated but I think this is a case where it makes sense. Some in the industry also believe that these are serious issues. David Arian, president of a longshorman's union in LA, is also concerned that there are not enough workers to give each shipment the security attention it deserves. He suggests that as many as 13,000 new workers could be needed. (Broder, John M. The New York Times "At Ports Cargo Backlog Raises Security Questions" July 27, 2004).
Now my point is this...the Bush Administration and Congress have the time to deal with things like gay marriage and tax cuts for the rich, but not time to deal with securing seaports and our chemical industry. I don't think gay couples are going to be killing large numbers of American civilians anytime soon. So please folks, let's stop yapping about homeland security and do something about it already!
This was sent to me as part of Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA)'s weekly e-newsletter. Can you believe it? It's another politician saying that it is Un-American to question the president. I am reminded of the words of Benjamin Franklin who said, "People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." Or how about the words of Theodore Roosevelt who said, "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 public." But I guess they were just flaming America haters too.
Maybe it would be good to flood Representative Murphy with emails, phone calls, letters and postcards if you are also offended.
Congressman Murphy Speaks Out In Debate On FY05 Intelligence Authorization Act
"By keeping politics in the discussion of intelligence, we are possible aiding our enemies"
(Following is text of speech given on the Floor of the House of Representatives)
"Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of this debate is not without its dangers. While this evening's discussion is ostensibly about the intelligence reauthorization, and I welcome the more temperate approach tonight, on other days the vituperative words here and also on the campaign trails, I believe, may have harmful consequences that demand our attention.
We may be responsible for giving weapons of intelligence to the terrorists themselves. In World War II, the Germans launched V2 rockets towards England and waited to learn where they fell. Newspaper and radio accounts of the damage could help the Nazis adjust their fire accordingly.
Now, you do not have to be a psychologist to understand the behavior of terrorists towards us is based upon the feedback they get from us. Are they getting their ideas and marching orders from the evening news?
Politicians look to incite anger and blame over gas prices. Does this lead to bombing of refineries?
Politicians raise doubt about Iraqi security strength. Is that why they attack police barracks?
Politicians questioned if Iraqi leaders were ready to take over. Did that contribute to assassinations of Iraqi leaders?
Politicians screamed about enemy prisoner abuse. Did that contribute to the capture, torture, and decapitation of American citizens?
And politicians questioned if Americans could tolerate casualties of our soldiers. Could that be encouraging attacks on our troops?
Terrorists watch the evening news for our reactions to their crimes, listen to our speeches, listen for calls to run away, watch the polls, and are emboldened by any sign we are weakening, and are thwarted by signs we remain steadfast. We tell them where, how, and how severe to strike next.
After U.S. politicians began to apply the words ``Vietnam'' and ``quagmire'' in Iraq, al Qaeda added the same words to their daily lexicon.
Terrorists are looking for ways to sway public opinion. Look at Madrid. And now the ultimate question before them is: How will a direct attack on the U.S.A. affect our fall elections?
I believe these concerns are real. But even if there exists only a remote chance of a link, should we not stop, think, and ask where we must draw the line.
And while we deliberate the intelligence bill tonight, let us stop aiding the enemies of freedom through politicized debate here or on the campaign trails. Unless we do, we risk having the blood of Americans on our hands."
.
I just saw Control Room. It was a fascinating look at how various news outlets covered the early parts of the US invasion of Iraq. Most of the film takes place in Doha, Qatar. This city housed both CentCom (The Coalition Command and their media services) as well as the headquarters for Al Jazeera. I have a lot of information to ponder about this film and I hope to have something to say about it tonight.
Some of the footage that was shown in this film was very much in line with the footage shown in Fahrenheit 9-11. Are critics expecting me to believe that two different filmmakers edited the same footage in almost the exact same way with the purpose of misleading the American Public?