Posted on 08/12/2006 2:19:20 PM PDT by Graybeard58
After two wars, thousands of deaths and many billions of dollars, the United States is still vulnerable to terrorists. That painful reality has ignited a political frenzy over who's to blame and who's best qualified to protect Americans.
The one thing that Republicans and Democrats agree on is this: Five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster, terrorists want to strike again and the country is not safe. To hear both sides talk, the wonder is that America hasn't been hit yet.
"We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people," President Bush said Thursday. "But obviously we're still not completely safe."
There are plenty of reasons for that. U.S. borders don't stop people who shouldn't get in. Buses and subways are vulnerable to bombings. Few cargo containers are inspected. Detection is inadequate for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies are still troubled by rivalries and poor communication.
Republican Thomas Kean, who was chairman of the 9/11 commission, said the United States is gradually moving in the right direction to fix the problems but he still worries.
"At top levels, it wasn't taken seriously enough. It wasn't on top of the priority list. ... And that's what I see happening again," Kean said. "It shouldn't be a political issue. It should be something that everybody supports."
But with Americans souring on the war in Iraq, the fight on terrorism is a divisive issue for the November elections that will determine which party controls Congress. Unhappiness over the war was a major factor in the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.
Many Democrats accuse Bush and the GOP-led Congress of mishandling Iraq and the broader war on terrorism. "As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
National security traditionally has been an issue that favors Republicans. Bush won re-election with a tough-on-terrorism argument and the promise that the United States was better off confronting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq than battling them at home. In Bush's view, Iraq and the war on terror are one and the same.
But Americans appear to be tiring of that argument after more than three years of fighting in Iraq, a death toll of nearly 2,600 U.S. troops and a price tag of more than $320 billion.
Public approval of Bush's handling of foreign policy and terrorism has slumped to 40 percent, near the lowest levels of his presidency, according to AP-Ipsos polling in August. Approval of his handling of Iraq, 33 percent, is at the lowest level yet.
Democrats were favored over Republicans by 46 to 38 percent in an ABC-Washington Post poll early this week when people were asked whom they trusted more to handle the fight against terrorism.
Republicans and Democrats were faulting each other about national security even before Thursday's disclosure of a plot to blow up multiple flights from Britain to the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney led the charge by volunteering his analysis of the defeat of Lieberman, who had been portrayed by his opponent as too supportive of Bush and his war policies.
Cheney said Lieberman's loss might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."
As Cheney made those comments, the administration was aware of the plot unfolding in Britain but waited for a signal from the British government before moving forward with the public alert.
Thursday's disclosure resonated loudly in congressional elections.
In Ohio, for example, Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown issued a press release slamming the Republican senator whose seat he wants. "Mike DeWine and the Bush administration have failed to secure Americans," Brown charged.
Republicans counterattacked by saying Brown had voted against vital intelligence funding. "I don't question his patriotism," said Ohio Republican Chairman Bob Bennett, "but the fact is if Sherrod Brown had his way, America would be less safe."
Some analysts believe the United States has made important progress and is in better shape than countries like Britain because of efforts to reduce feelings of alienation in the U.S. Muslim community.
"Any time a plot like this is foiled there's this heightened sense of security,' said Farhana Ali, a terrorism analyst at the Rand Corp. "We react responsibly every time. We make the necessary changes to continue to disrupt these attacks."
Daniel L. Byman, a security expert at Georgetown University, said Americans need to have a realistic view about terrorism.
"Some level of terrorism is inevitable. We have other priorities other than terrorism," he said. "Our goal should be zero terrorism, but we should not declare our policy a failure if there is limited or low-scale terrorism."
Terence Hunt has covered the White House since the Reagan presidency.
This is just a laundry list of Democrat nonsense.
Nothing can be completely safe.
Never has; never will.
The good in pursuit of perfection.
Moron alert!
That really is all there is to it. They have no alternative plan--none--they only bitch about the (imperfect) actions Bush has taken.
They are children.
We've probably been a bit safer in spite of the libs. But we'll never know because the NYT prefers to only leak information that aids and abeds the enemy.
Worse than children they are the enemy! (Democrats)
If that poll is at all accurate then American is in deep trouble. A plurality of Americans think the Dems will do better on terrorism?? After all that has happened, if people really believe that then either they are really stupid, gullible, or both. Unless maybe they thought the question was who would handle the terrorism issue better from the perspective of the terrorists!
Rational people do not trade freedom for unattainable safety.
Hurrah for the one-man one-vote system...heh heh heh
we have never been 100% safe and never will be.
No place is ever invulnerable. Never has been, is not, never will be; not now, not ever, never. But, making a political frenzy over the impossible is a sign of elections approaching. Inbetween elections polemics can't be stopped either. Comes with the turf--every two years, and four the outs want in.
Ditto...
Questions framed by imbeciles. That's a technical term having nothing necessarily to do with intelligence.
Sure we will... As soon as we become Muslim.
We can make America safe just by announcing that the next attack that kills an American will be followed by a bombing of (fill in the blank)________.
A. Tehran
B. Damascus
C. Beirut
D. or some other city where terrorists are given succor.
Okay, I'm convinced. I feel safer just knowing that they're not in Power.
Scatey isn't it??????
The USA has never really faced up to the evils of Islam, and when we do wake up, it will be too late. We were harder on Communism, and it is not as dangerous.
The USA has never really faced up to the evils of Islam, and when we do wake up, it will be too late. We were harder on Communism, and it is not as dangerous.
Exactly! When have we ever been safe? There are dangers for us, domestically and internationally, everywhere. Always have been, always will be. Best way to deal with the hazards is to slap them down the first time so hard they never get up again. If that means kill them, fine. If that means deal with hazards another way, fine. Stop talking about it and do something about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.