00-blank

Bush is Endangering America
by Carla Binion

George W. Bush has misled the public by claiming he's hard at work defending the homeland. Matthew Brzezinski
says in his article, "Red alert: how homeland security fell victim to Bush's obsession with Iraq," (Mother Jones 2004)
that U.S. airports, hospitals, borders, ports, biohazard labs and other vulnerable spots are "understaffed, underfunded,
and ill-equipped," because Bush hasn't provided them enough budgetary or political support.

For Bush, financing the Iraq war is a greater priority. The question is, are terrorists a threat to America or aren't they?
If Bush expects terrorists to strike any time soon, why isn't he acting accordingly? How does Bush think he's making
America safer by spending far more money in Iraq than on security here at home? What good will it do if we somehow
end up victorious in Iraq but at the same time experience terrorist attacks on one or more of our airlines, ports or
chemical plants? How would our being in Iraq help prevent this? The obvious answer is, it wouldn't.

According to Brzezinski, customs inspectors need more money to afford equipment sensitive enough to distinguish between
less harmful radiation and plutonium or weapons-grade uranium-235. One Customs veteran told him, "If protecting ourselves
from a dirty bomb isn't a national priority then we've completely lost track of what we are supposed to be doing."

Airlines can't afford to inspect all baggage; chemical plants are vulnerable; ninety-five percent of cargo containers still
come into the U.S. without any kind of inspection; and the FBI doesn't have the money it needs to properly track terrorist
funding, according to Brzezinski. He writes that meanwhile Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, "is landing contracts
in Iraq whose value is far more than the FBI's entire $5 billion annual budget."

You'd think if Bush took his own warnings about terrorism seriously, he'd put financing our safety ahead of pouring billions
into Iraq. We've spent around $200 billion on Iraq and far less on the Department of Homeland Security. Bush claims he's
allotted $40 billion for the department, but according to Brzezinski, that figure is misleading.

Brzenski says about a third of the allotment goes to agencies other than the Department of Homeland Security such as the Pentagon,
and he adds that "most of the remaining $27 billion is not new money - as opposed to the $150-plus billion that has been spent toppling
Saddam Hussein. Much of it simply lumps together the pre-existing budgets of the 22 federal agencies that make up the department."

George Bush knows he's not budgeting enough to even begin to protect us from a possible terrorist attack. He's aware he's misleading
the public when he presents himself as the safety and security candidate. Why would Bush leave the country at risk if he really thought
a terrorist attack likely? Bush is a notorious risk-taker, but would he take a risk with consequences that serious?

Brzezinski compares the amount of money we need to provide adequate security with what the Bush budget has allocated.
He compares those figures with what we spend in Iraq. Here are three examples:

(1) We need $3 billion to provide all U.S. airports with machines that screen baggage for explosives, but the Bush budget allocates only
$400 million. At the same time, the Bush administration spends around $3 billion (the amount needed to do the screening) in ten days in Iraq.

(2) To purchase radiation portals to detect dirty bombs in U.S. ports, we need $290 million. Bush has allocated just $43 million,
yet in Iraq the $290 million needed for U.S. port security would be spent in 23 hours.

(3) For security upgrades in subways and commuter trains in large cities, $6 billion is necessary, but the Bush budget allows only
$100 million. The needed $6 billion is what we'd spend in Iraq in twenty days.

For George W. Bush to fail to adequately fund the Department of Homeland Security is a slap in the face to the families of the
victims of the 9/11 attacks. Bush is cruelly misleading those families and the rest of America by implying he's adequately prioritizing
and funding the protection of our airlines, ports, subways, borders and other vulnerable spots. Or, if the reason he isn't focusing on
homeland security is because he has reason to believe we're not in real danger from terrorists, he's ruthless to let us think otherwise.

While Bush campaigns for votes based on the idea he'll make us safe, the truth is, thanks to him we're far less safe than we would be
with a more competent president. In fact, thanks to Bush, American citizens and our democracy are probably in more danger than
ever before in our nation's history.

Return to bartcop.com