Many on the right dislike Krugman for his political stance, but he is correct in delineating how Bush, the terrorist-warrior, has failed to protect the US from potential terrorist attacks.
Excerpts
Consider, for example, the case of chemical plants.
Just days after 9/11, many analysts identified sites that store toxic chemicals as a major terror risk, and called for new safety rules. But as The New York Times reported last fall, "after the oil and chemical industries met with Karl Rove ... the White House quietly blocked those efforts."
Nearly three and a half years after 9/11, those chemical plants are still unprotected.
Other major risks identified within days of the attack included the possibility of terrorist attacks on major ports or nuclear plants. But in the months after 9/11, the administration flatly refused to allocate the sums that members of the House and Senate from both parties thought necessary to secure these sites.
And when the administration does spend money protecting possible terrorist targets, politics, not national security, dictates where the money goes. Remember the "first responders" program that ended up spending seven times as much protecting each resident of Wyoming as it spent protecting each resident of New York?
Invariably, Mr.Bush is going to only be partially successful in his efforts. There are many reason why many of the current efforts will fail, the most important of which is that the world is far more complicated than the critics of both Mr.Bush, Mr.Clinton and past presidents are willing to admit. The macho types seem to think that you can simply send in a unit of anti-terrorist specialists armed to the teeth with weapons to deal with any situation. The peaceniks seem to feel that if you try dialogue with anyone positive changes will happen. Both positions miss the reality that there are evil people in the world, they will not change and sometimes you cannot do anything to them because of politcal realities that you cannot control. I fully expect another terrorist strike on our soil. My one hope is that we react to it in a united and courageous way and avoid pointing fingers. The view expressed by Mr.Bush that many people around the world hate us for what we have is simplistic, a large number of people have reasons, real or imagined for not liking us. But the view that any president, including Mr.Bush does not work his ass off to prevent terrorist strikes and looses sleep over them is also simplistic, the reality is always much more complex.
Afghanistan is a 100% success- the Taliban are coming in and taking the pardons. Iraq is a success. It's getting better every day. More schools being fixed, infrastructure being fixed, elections with voting in of leaders and no murdering of political opponents.
Liyba saw the light. And the terrorists in Sri Lanka petitioned for negotiations just 2 days after seeing U.S. aircraft carriers delivering aid. I believe there is a chance for peace in Israel now more than ever.
I think Syria and Iran are gonna straighten up and fly right. I think that the leaders of Europe see President George W. Bush as the leader of the free world and are gonna follow him.
Bush made a fantastic speech in Belgium. And those stupid Europeans are gonna abandon that stupid socialism that is keeping them in chains. Chains!!! Yes. socialism and excessive taxes are chains!
And guess what. social security is gonna be privatized too. And all the leftys are gonna have to eat crow. Cause it's gonna be a fantastic success.
What gets my goat is that the Belgium socialists used thousands of Belgian tax dollars to put posters of George Bush in urinals all over the country in order for Belgians to say that they peed on President Bush. Well how about this, why don't you Belgian leftys go lick a medical school picture of Michael Moore's dirty hairy hemorrhoid butt. Or better yet, lick his butt for real!
You and I are largely in agreement. However, during the campaign, Bush/Cheney relentlessly trashed Kerry, claiming that the country would be safer under Bush. This was a lie that unfortunately went unchallenged by the media. The reality is, as you point out, more complex. The fact is that neither Bush nor Kerry would be able to completely guarantee the security of the US.
But given the Bush/Cheney position during the campaign, it is only reasonable to examine the administration’s track record to date. The fact is that this is another area where the administration's rhetoric is miles away from the truth. In fact, it can be argued that the administration's line on terror is a form of propaganda used to manipulate public opinion and maintain power.
Disneyland or Disneyworld go up in a mushroom cloud or some other major destruction.
Let's be honest, Sept. 11 has gone from a national tregdy to a political strategy for both major parties.
Al Queda is no longer an evil, it's a debate point.
It's gonna take mass murder of children before US citizens reach the level of outrage required to get serious about destroying the evil of radical Isalamic terrorism-regardless of required sacrifices.
People sacrificed during WW-I and WW-II, but now we don't want to "surrender" anything because of this blatant paranoia and black helicopter crap about government conspiracies.
"The report ranks Afghanistan a dismal 173rd out of 178 countries surveyed in terms of human development, with five sub-saharan African nations faring worse."
I haven't noticed Bush getting his "Marshall plan" ready for Afghanistan. Moreover, it's hard for a country to thrive when it's main crop (opium poppies) is being eradicated. (I hate to say the price of wheat on the world's market sucks, and the land in Afghanistan is almost useless for farming it.) Maybe, just maybe we shouldn't be fighting two intrinsically unwinnable wars at the same time?
You're seeing the Bush administration through cataracts *and* rose colored glasses. Optimistic, and uncontaminated by clarity or fact.
After you've started with such a misstatement, I think I'll skip the rest of your post.
domestic sites unprotected, such as chemical plants.
People still see Al Qaida as evil....there just were no Al Qaida in Iraq, so some of us are a bit confused why we're there...
Also, I watched both political conventions, and the Republicans used 9/11 as a political tool way more than Dem's. They said "September 11th" over and over and over.
Finally, I agree that people sacraficed more during WWI and WWII. Back then people had to ration certain commodities. Nowadays, we just give people tax breaks during wars. And as a side note, the "tax breaks" (which are really just a loan against our childrens futures) do benefit me quite a bit. I've worked hard in my life and have caught a few breaks where I've been in the right place at the right time, so I'm in an income bracket that receives a lot of benefits these days. But it makes me sick that for me to get these tax cuts, we have cut veterans benefits, left our ports (and chemical plants) unprotected, and underfunded many of our nations schools. So I happily donate the money I gain from these tax cuts. This brings me to a final point:
Do any Bush supporters see the difference in the roles of people as both consumer and citizen??? I think it has devestating effects on society when people cannot make the distiction between the two...
domestic sites unprotected, such as chemical plants.
People still see Al Qaida as evil....there just were no Al Qaida in Iraq, so some of us are a bit confused why we're there...
Also, I watched both political conventions, and the Republicans used 9/11 as a political tool way more than Dem's. They said "September 11th" over and over and over.
Finally, I agree that people sacraficed more during WWI and WWII. Back then people had to ration certain commodities. Nowadays, we just give people tax breaks during wars. And as a side note, the "tax breaks" (which are really just a loan against our childrens futures) do benefit me quite a bit. I've worked hard in my life and have caught a few breaks where I've been in the right place at the right time, so I'm in an income bracket that receives a lot of benefits these days. But it makes me sick that for me to get these tax cuts, we have cut veterans benefits, left our ports (and chemical plants) unprotected, and underfunded many of our nations schools. So I happily donate the money I gain from these tax cuts. This brings me to a final point:
Do any Bush supporters see the difference in the roles of people as both consumer and citizen??? I think it has devestating effects on society when people cannot make the distiction between the two...
Click on your post, then on the "edit message" button in lower right. Edit message (i.e., take out all text, change subject line to "Duplicate post. EOM". Then save message.
This Roman Meal bakery just thought you'd like to know.
... my thinking is that we can never protect ourselves from terrorism with certainty. Further, there is no sure path to increasing our level of protection: we will never be sure if "homeland security" or "taking it to the terrorists" has the better marginal payoff at any time. That is why any policy about this will try to do both in some mix. The marginal political arguments will be about the mix.
My personal opinion is tat the higher marginal value is in homeland security. We are becoming more technologically integrated. Any highly integrated organization gets more vulnerable to various attacks: many things that make us efficient would cause huge problems if they were destroyed or shut down.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
