Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Politics: CUT ANTI TERROR BUDGET? WE'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE

News that the Bush administration quietly was seeking to cut the budget for development of new explosives-detection equipment---just as terrorists were seeking to exploit advances in liquid explosives technology---comes with a discomforting whiff of deja vu.

***But yet the Republicans keep trying to convince the American people that they are better on national security that any other party! Yeah, right!

Pensacola News Journal dot com
August 15, 2006


Fortunately, Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together to reject the funding cuts. They also criticized the Homeland Security Department's technology research efforts, calling it a "rudderless ship."

***I hope somebody remembers this when the Republicans are on the campaign trail! Why would Bush do this if he is doing "everything" in his power to keep us safe? Evidently, HE'S NOT and the Republicans are out there lying to us again!

Given the vulnerability of air travel to terrorism---and the dramatic, worldwide impact when it succeeds---you'd think the administration would be stepping up technology research.

***No, instead he wants to take $6 million away from research. This proves that he is not doing "everything" he can to keep us safe!

But while this administration never spares the political rhetoric about terrorism, it sometimes seems less committed to the actual fight.

***You got that right!

It might have something to do with its long fixation with Iraq, which has diverted so much money and military and intelligence assets from fighting terrorists.

***There's something in Iraq that is more important than the American people to the Bush administration. The people just haven't figured it out yet!

Those with long memories remember that despite warnings from outgoing Clinton administration officials that al-Qaida and terrorism would be their primary challenge---a prescient warning---the main subject of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting was---Iraq.

***Makes you wonder why we got hit on his watch!

Meanwhile, after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, it came out that the administration, led by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, was seeking to cut anti-terrorism budgets.

Despite the warnings about al-Qaida---including the now-famous August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief headlined "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."---reports from Newsweek and other sources said the administration had been moving to 'de-emphasize" counterterrorism efforts.

Newsweek reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, Ashcroft denied an FBI request for almost $60 million to hire more counterterrorism agents, analysts and translators.

***Maybe it's because they weren't really needed and the Bush administration already knew that! Think about it!

It was also reported that Ashcroft wanted to cut $65 million from a Department of Justice program to equip and train first responders in the event of an attack.

***You don't go doing things like this unless you know it's not needed!

It was former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who reported that the main topic of the January 2001 National Security Council meeting was Iraq and the Available military options.

***Because he said this, they now claim that he was a disgruntled ex-employee!

And former terrorism "czar" Richard Clarke said that on Sept, 12, 2001, Bush called him to find out if the attacks were linked to Saddam Hussein, despite Clarke's---accurate---protest that it was "clearly" al-Qaida.

***Bush has been looking to disrupt the peace process in the Middle East for a long time now. Not that it was his planning, but it was it supporters. The neo-cons, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Shultz, so on and so forth!

Last year, Vanity Fair magazine reported that former British ambassador to the United States Christopher Meyer said that at a dinner soon after Sept. 11, Bush "made it clear he was determined to topple Sadam," and the internal debate was about whether to attack Afghanastan or Iraq first.

The knee-jerk response of the administration and its media mouthpieces---especially Internet bloggers---is to characterize critics of its Iraq policy as being against fighting terrorists. In truth, many of those critics have long complained that the emphasis on Iraq---never substantively tied to 9/11, or to al-Qaida before the war---had detracted from the fight against terrorists who did attack us.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home