I’m hoping that the Department of Homeland Security is tapping the phones of one G. W. Bush. Because it appears that he’s in cahoots with a company, individuals or country that helped siphon money to the 9/11 hijackers, and is now endeavoring to take charge of half a dozen major ports–the most security-vulnerable means of entry into the country we have. And frankly, if someone is getting calls from people who may have assisted Al Qaeda, I want to know about it and know what they’re saying.
(Considering that even the most avid Bush supporters in Congress are lining up against this, it’s interesting to see that he has truly, finally become the uniter he claimed he was.)
PAD
• 
It’s not that they’re Arabs, it that its a company that has ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers and has laundered money for Al Queda.
Sure there are other ways to smuggle a nuke into this country besides ports, but why the hëll should we leave this gigantic hole in our security in the light of the possibility that someone could try to do something?
I can think of dozens of things that are easier to do then smuggling a nuke through a seaport besides even driving it across the Canadian border.
Hëll, why bother with a nuke? A suitcase full of anthrax is easier do smuggle through. Hëll, why bother with a suitcase? Just infect a few dozen people with smallpos or something else that’s easily transmissible person to person. Or just sneak into a meat packing plant with a few vials of mad cow prions.
Just because there are scenarios that might be easier to pull off doesn’t mean we should be ignoring the possibility that our ports aren’t secure.
Oh, and Kevin, about the possible outcry if all shipping containers were actually inspected: I wasn’t aware that foreign commercial shipping containers had civil rights.
And Dubai ports isn’t a UAE-based company, it’s wholly owned by the government of that country.
As for the timeframe and worry about word leaking out before the ship got here, well, the basic elements of 9/11 were allegedly in the works for years and somehome they still managed to get caught with our pants down.
I agree with PAD. No, the real security risk of this country isn’t that big of a deal, but Bush has gotten himself caught between his constant fearmongering about how only he can protect us from terrorists and his family’s instinctive need to fellate every Arab royal they encounter.
He has no one to blame for this blowing up in his face but himself.
Well, first of all, Dubai did not launder money for the 9/11 highjackers, money was laundered within the nation of Dubai, which is like saying the City of New York laundered money for the Gotti Family. Dubai is the New York of the Middle East.
Same goes for where the hijackers came from. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia originally. Except they got thrown out and were living out of country when the hijacking went down. That two of them are from Dubai is irrelevant. Its like saying the US commited the Oklahoma bombing because Tim McVeigh is from the US.
And, this whole effort is supposed to be about stopping terrorism, so I can’t hold Bush responsible for talking about terrorism for the last five years. I can give him credit for doing so on the other hand. Terrorism is a scary thing, hence the word terror in it. 3000 people died because we spent the 1990’s ingoring terror, and only by focusing on eradicating it will it go away. Fear is a useful tool, Peter, if there’s something to be afraid of.
I can remember a time, when Bush was critisized for not having taken terrorism seriously enough. That Clinton warned Bush about Bin Laden, and Bush “refused” to take action. (Boy, I love the rehtorical power of the word refuse, it makes it seem like Clinton walked up to Bush’s desk with the 9/11 plans and Bush said “Nuh-uh! nothin doin! I’m going on vaction, go away!”) Now that Bush IS taking terror seriously, Peter, you can critisize him for that too?
Thats why I pointed out what would get said if Bush was inspecting all cargo. He’s dámņëd if he does, and dámņëd if he doesn’t. No Den, foreign shipping containers do not have civil rights, but the owners of the containers do, and if so much as one owner of one container was American, duck, cause it would hit the fan but quick, count on it.
What isn’t supposed to be about is anti-Arabic racism. The US is against Arab terrorists, not Arabs, but it seems to me that those opposing the Ports deal are doing so because its an ARAB country buying the lease. It’s almost as if Chuck Schumer was engaging in racial profiling, eh?
I would agree that the Democrats are pandering to people’s base instincts of racism and fear for political points against Bush. This from the same people that called Colin Powell the houseboy and Uncle Tom. I give it about a week before I see Hillary warning us that “if them towelheads get boats in America, it’ll be over my dead body!”–That’ll put the fear of God into ’em, don’t ya think?
Kev
But, Kev, Dubya doesn’t take terrorism seriously. If he took it seriously, he might decide that maybe just sending US troops into Iraq, without any training whatsoever in local customs, could possibly be a not-so-good idea, that could recruit more terrorists for various organizations.
As for smuggling nukes in from Canada, an al-Qaeda operative tried that once, back in ’01, at the Blaine, WA, border crossing (apparently with the idea of blowing up the Space Needle during the New Year’s celebration). He made it about five miles past the border crossing. He’s in prison now. Didn’t work so well, did it?
Yes, you and I know that the border of Vermont and Quebec isn’t quite the same as the border of Washington and British Columbia, but remember, emotionally these people are used to nations that could be driven across in a day, given good roads. I doubt that they really grasp the difference, no matter how many maps they read (how many Americans really grasp what the terrain in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region is like, even though many newpapers and magazines have published maps of the area?).
No Den, foreign shipping containers do not have civil rights, but the owners of the containers do, and if so much as one owner of one container was American, duck, cause it would hit the fan but quick, count on it.
Nah, if Americans don’t care if Bush taps their phones, they won’t care about whether a shipment of GI Joes gets rifled at the docks.
Fear is a useful tool, Peter, if there’s something to be afraid of.
But there is always “something to be afraid of” — and that fear in and of itself does not constitute a justification for pushing a particular policy.
Bush has appealed to everybody’s worst instincts, Kevin — for you to completely dismiss it while bringing up a few ill-chosen phrases on the Democratic side is basically just acting ill-informed. The Bush campaign ads strongly implying “if Kerry wins we’ll all die” (remember the “Wolves” ad? remember many of Cheney’s speeches in October?) are nothing more than fear-mongering towards a political end.
And as for “the same people that called Colin Powell the houseboy” … if memory serves, that was Harry Belafonte. If you could let me know exactly what position he holds in the Democratic leadership, I’d like to know about it — and for you to use this as an example while decrying others’ generalizations about Dubai is bordering on the deeply hypocritical.
TWL
As for smuggling nukes in from Canada, an al-Qaeda operative tried that once, back in ’01, at the Blaine, WA, border crossing (apparently with the idea of blowing up the Space Needle during the New Year’s celebration).
Whoa whoa whoa–somebody was caught with actual nuclear material??? Was this hushed up? This is the first I’ve heard of it.
Tim,
I thought the 2004 election was relatively free of overt fear mongering, at least compared to previous ones. Face it, every presidential election has elements of “Republicans want to poison the water, make old people eat dog food and drag Black people behind trucks” element, to go along with the “Democrats want to take all your money and spend it on pornographic art displays while our enemies build laser generated Death Stars” memes.
I thought the wolf ad was clever, though most thought it sailed right over the average voter’s head. But then, I liked a lot of the Dukakis ads that portrayed the supposed Republican handlers trying to spin Dan Quayle, which everyone said were way too subtle.
Kevin, Tim is correct about the “Houseboy” comment–near as I can tell only Belafonte and lots of grouchy bloggers have ever used that to describe Powel. One could argue that since all of the Democrats did not immediately decry his remarks they were giving them approval–the same argument used against republicans every time some prominent conservative says something stupid–but I think that’s a bad argument no matter which side uses it. There isn’t enough time in the world to waste distancing ones self from every foolish utterance from aging former celebrities.
Now those who continue to appear on stage with him…fair game, though Belafonte is the very model of logical decorum compared to the shamefest that is Al Sharpton.
Anyhoo…I, for one, can’t wait until the 2008 election. First time in 52 years we won’t have a vice-president or incumbent president running. Who the parties choose to have as their standard bearer will reveal a lot about them. Should be interesting.
Whoa whoa whoa–somebody was caught with actual nuclear material??? Was this hushed up? This is the first I’ve heard of it.
Okay, Bill, it was a slight exaggeration, to simplify a point. He was, in fact, smuggling in regular explosives. Think how much more difficult it would have been if he’d been trying to bring across something that needed to be encased in radiation baffles…
Point being, since the folks who work for al-Qaeda can’t be that bright (how smart is it to associate with a group that wants you to bow yourself up?), they’re likely to find themselves deterred by this example. Instead, they’ll look for some other way to get their boom-boom on, probably either by ship (untried, might work) or by plane (it worked before, didn’t it? And won’t Allah shield them from the eyes of the infidels?).
That was, of course, supposed to be “blow yourself up”, not “bow yourself up”. Fracking typo demons…
I have to agree with Tim. The 2004 campaign was full of fear-mongering about terrorism. The wolf ad was one example, even if it did sail over many people’s heads. Beyond the ads, there was a great deal of rhetoric in the speeches by many Republicans that greatly implied that a vote for Kerry was a vote for another 9/11.
As for the Dukakis ad being clever. Well, maybe it was too clever for his own good. He did lose after all.
Point being, since the folks who work for al-Qaeda can’t be that bright (how smart is it to associate with a group that wants you to blow yourself up?), they’re likely to find themselves deterred by this example.
And yet they’ve managed to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in world history and several smaller ones. Sometimes you don’t have to be smart, just persistant and have a nearly endless supply of dupes looking for their 72 virgins.
Instead, they’ll look for some other way to get their boom-boom on, probably either by ship (untried, might work) or by plane (it worked before, didn’t it? And won’t Allah shield them from the eyes of the infidels?).
The ship idea is one we really need to worry about. Actually, if they can get a nuke, they wouldn’t even need to unload it at the port, just sail up New York Harbor or the Chesapeake. If they got stopped by the Coast Guard, they would still likely be close enough to a populated area to detonate it in the harbor and kill hundreds of thousands of people.
The ship idea is one we really need to worry about.
Well, we already know it can work on some level – the attack on the USS Cole was done by small boat with explosives.
Or just imagine if one of those cruise boats actually did get hijacked. Haul a nuke aboard one of those, and you’ve got plenty of hostages to make a civilized nation think twice before sinking it in open waters.
Anyways, we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on airline security, but I still don’t feel any safer. I mean, sure, I know I won’t get to be flown in to a building, but instead I get to wait and see whether some nutter jams a pair of scissors into my neck or something.
Oh, and that stupid $2.50 fee security bs fee we’re paying? The government wants to double it to $5. And I’m sure security won’t get any better if that happens.
I thought the 2004 election was relatively free of overt fear mongering, at least compared to previous ones.
That’s your prerogative. I don’t.
The 2000 election didn’t seem to have much of a “we’re all gonna die!” feeling to it, though it certainly got nasty in spots. The 2004 stuff, however, oozed fear-mongering to me on a level not seen since 1964’s “daisy” ad.
First time in 52 years we won’t have a vice-president or incumbent president running. Who the parties choose to have as their standard bearer will reveal a lot about them. Should be interesting.
Yes — it’ll reveal who can sew up the money machine early on with empty promises. If it actually reveals something about each party’s core beliefs, now THAT’ll be interesting.
TWL
feeling very cynical today
My prediction: Whichever party nominates a senator will lose. If both parties nominate one (say, Clinton v. McCain), the advantage will go to the Democrats because of Bush fatigue.
Looks to me (right now at least) that Evan Bayh is emerging as a strong Democrat contender…
He did some good things as Governor for Indiana…
Boy, that’s a lot of critiques. I’ll take ’em one at a time.
1. I’m not sure that Bush did send troops into Iraq without training on local customs. In fact, since the military has been familiarizing overseas troops in foreign customs since World War II I’d bet he did in fact have them trained.
What that has to do with wether Bush is serious about terrorism is beyond me.
2. Jonathan, yes it is true that some people get caught sneaking things across the border, others don’t, and it only needs to work once. What we were originally talking about is wether a terrorist would need to use a port cargo container to smuggle a weapon into the US or if there was an easier way. I maintain there’s lots of easier ways. An we also aren’t talking about the average Arab, but a trained terrorist on a mission for which he would be provided maps.
3. Seeing as the NSA tapping scandal has been on the headlines for weeks now, I imagine Americans DO, in fact, care if their phones are bugged. However, what wound up coming out of that news cycle was that the administration was not running around bugging everyone, but only international calls. You can still count on major headlines the second one american’s cargo gets searched without warrant or outside of the regulation book.
4. Bill Mulligan makes an excellent point that there’s almost always politcal mongering during elections. (Who woulda thunk?) This speaks to my point that those who don’t like Bush will critize him wether he searches 5% of cargo or 95%, wether he raises taxes or lowers them or wether he holes himself up in the White House or spends the rest of his presidency in Texas.
5. Yes, Harry Belefonte made the houseboy comment, and no, he isn’t in the democratic leadership, but he sure is around them a lot, and regulary appears on liberal talk shows. When I referred to “Democrats say…”, I meant that, same as “Republicans say…” might include Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.
Oh note to Tim Lynch, who made the comment that bringing up a few ill-chosen coments from the democratic side is “ill-informed”….how many ill-chosen comments from the left would you like to qualify me as “well-informed”?
Kevin Ryan
Seeing as the NSA tapping scandal has been on the headlines for weeks now, I imagine Americans DO, in fact, care if their phones are bugged.
Except that we’re constantly told by the talking heads class that this isn’t a big deal and Americans fully support Dubya on this. My own reading of the polls shows it to be more of a 50-50 split, but then, I’m not paid by Fox “News” to spout my opinions.
However, what wound up coming out of that news cycle was that the administration was not running around bugging everyone, but only international calls.
And Quakers.
You can still count on major headlines the second one american’s cargo gets searched without warrant or outside of the regulation book.
1) Current law allows for the searching of international cargo containers w/o a warrant. The only reason that more aren’t seached is lack of resources. (Incidentally, some of the more vocal critics of the port deal, like my personal favorite Sen. Santorum, have repeatedly voted against additional funding for port security). Put simply, a commercial shiipping container does not have the same expectation of privacy as, say, your house does.
2) If the inspectors simply follow the rules and regulations on the books for inspections, then they have nothing to worry about. The heart of the wiretapping issue is not that Bush can’t order them. It’s that he found it too much of a bother to follow the rules for FISA, so instead of asking Congress to revise the law, the just decided to ignore it.
3) If, even after they follow inspection rules to the letter and they still get criticized, they have an ironclad counterargument in favor of 100% inspections: “My critics aren’t taking protecting this nation seriously. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11.”
Of course, all evidence so far indicates that port security is one issue that Bush doesn’t take seriously.
Den,
What evidence are you referring to? Or, actually, not referring to?
The government, by the way, were not wiretapping quakers, they were attending anti-war meetings open to the public.
And Quakers.
And PETA, and anti-war activist groups, and…
The list isn’t quite so short nor foreign-dominated as the Bush Administation & Pentagon would want us to believe.
Oh note to Tim Lynch, who made the comment that bringing up a few ill-chosen coments from the democratic side is “ill-informed”….how many ill-chosen comments from the left would you like to qualify me as “well-informed”?
Actually, that’s not what I said. I said that dismissing Bush’s appeals to fear while simultaneously trying to use said ill-chosen comments as evidence is what makes you look ill-informed.
The post is up there — anybody who wants to can go have a look-see.
Your willingness to change the substance of my critique does nothing to change the impression that you’re ill-informed.
TWL
What evidence are you referring to? Or, actually, not referring to?
You mean besides the fact that five years after 9/11, virtually nothing has been done to improve port security? That nothing has been done to improve the dismal 5% inspection rate?
The government, by the way, were not wiretapping quakers, they were attending anti-war meetings open to the public.
Riiiight. Explain to me again how they were considered a “threat” in the first place?
Den,
5% is considered an appropriate sample size. The amount of cargo searched has never been a valid concern. I sad it before, we COULD search all the cargo, each and every one, however, if we did, we’d hear complaints that import/export economy was being slowed to a crawl, that the government was out of control, etc. As I’ve said, dámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t.
There is no question that since 9/11, the government HAS in fact prioritized additional security. One cannot have it both ways, that Bush is “fear-mongering” be focusing on terror, and that he has nothing about terror at the same time.
As to the Quakers, how were they considerd a threat in the first place? That’s easy. First of all, it wasn’t “The Quakers”. It was the “Friends Anti-War Coalition”, who pro-actively critisied the government’s efforts to fight terror. ANY group who is actively opposing government action is likely to be investigated, no matter who’s in the White House.
However, investigation itself is not a big deal. See, once again, we can’t say Bush did’nt do enough to investigate terror, then critize because he did investigate. Investigation just means we looked to see what was going on.
There are community groups with names like “Arabic Freinds of Peace and Harmony”, who later turn out to be funneling money directly to Al Queda. There are groups with names like “Friends of the Earth” who burn down houses because the owner works in an animal testing lab, so I have no problem with investigating stuff.
Have you ever been looking for your car keys and looked under the sofa cushions, only to find they were really hanging on the peg by the door? You just investigated the sofa, just turns out there was nothing there, same with the Florida Quaker group.
What becomes problematic is inapropriate investigation techiques. What the DOD did in Florida is send in an agent to go to a public meeting that ANYONE can go to. I have no idea who that agent talked to, or about what, but I do know THAT AGENT found something he felt was a threat. Maybe it was someone talking out their behind about “taking down” George Bush, or the local kook who said he planned to blow up the local Dairy Queen cause the government agents there were plotting to turn him over to aliens, who knows.
In any case, the Anti-War Group was desginated as a threat by THAT AGENT. Apparently, later on, no action was taken and the designation was changed to “peaceful group”.
Here’s how NBC news summed this up when it made the news: BUSH ADMINISTRATION MILITARY SPYS ON QUAKERS IN WHEELCHAIRS!!! Well, Bush didn’t do anything himself, neither is the entire DOD responsible, and even the agent on site took no further action. So, really, nothing happened, no big deal. Be wary of Rethoric, no matter who’s.
Kevin Ryan
ANY group who is actively opposing government action is likely to be investigated, no matter who’s in the White House.
It’s always good to see people dismiss the actions of our government so readily.
Kevin, if those troops did get training in local customs, that would have to mean that they were deliberately ignoring that training when they arrived – breaking into houses without announcing their presence in any local language, then acting shocked when the locals opened fire on what seemed to be burglars; forcing women to remove their head coverings, and even have their skirts searched; even treading on the grounds of a mosque – and this is completely leaving aside Abu Ghraib, or some of the interrogation techniques reportedly used in Guantanamo Bay…
Personally, I would prefer to think these actions proceeded from ignorance, rather than widespread malevolence. If malevolence, then our country has fallen already, and is beyond redemption. Ignorance just means our troops have something to learn.
Incidentally, I have made and received a large number of calls from overseas. I own a Dell computer, you see, and all of their departments, from credit to accounts receivable to tech support, are in India and the Phillipines. Further, until recently, my cohusband was in the Navy, and deployed to the Persian Gulf region a number of times (I’m not sure I’m at liberty to disclose the number), so some of our calls came from places like Bharain, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. It seems quite likely that my telephone contacts have been monitored by the government, which offends me for two reasons: 1) I object to having any of my freedoms abrogated without even the courtesy of an after-the-fact warrant (remember, FISA provides for the warrant to be issued up to 72 hours after the actual surveillance takes place), and 2) tracking my telephone was a shocking waste of the federal government’s time and money – time and money better spent pursuing real terrorists, in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Baghdad, rather than phantoms in the sunny vistas of San Diego.
Kevin, there’s this agency called the Department of Homeland Security. I’m at a loss as to explain what they do, but it seems that whatever it is, has nothing to do with the title appointed to it.
If your point was to say that we can’t just trust what things are called, but there’s a need to look at the facts the lie behind the title, I think that’s well made. But while we’re looking into all those innocent-sounding groups, maybe it’s ok to be asking a few questions about the truth of what goes on in our own government?
5% is considered an appropriate sample size. The amount of cargo searched has never been a valid concern.
Then explain why the 9/11 commission cited it as a critical weakness.
I sad it before, we COULD search all the cargo, each and every one, however, if we did, we’d hear complaints that import/export economy was being slowed to a crawl, that the government was out of control, etc. As I’ve said, dámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t.
And I’ve already said that I don’t buy that argument for a second.
As to the Quakers, how were they considerd a threat in the first place? That’s easy. First of all, it wasn’t “The Quakers”. It was the “Friends Anti-War Coalition”, who pro-actively critisied the government’s efforts to fight terror. ANY group who is actively opposing government action is likely to be investigated, no matter who’s in the White House.
Gee, and here I thought stating you disagreed with the government’s policies was considered an important part of the political process and protected by the 1st Amendment.
Silly me.
However, investigation itself is not a big deal. See, once again, we can’t say Bush did’nt do enough to investigate terror, then critize because he did investigate. Investigation just means we looked to see what was going on.
Bûllšhìŧ. They weren’t just investigated. The Pentagon classified their meeting as a “threat”. And if there’s one group that has a long history of producing violent radicals, it’s the Quakers. /sarcasm.
Anyone who classifies the Quakers as a “threat” is a freaking moron, no matter how you try to spin it.
Here’s how NBC news summed this up when it made the news: BUSH ADMINISTRATION MILITARY SPYS ON QUAKERS IN WHEELCHAIRS!!! Well, Bush didn’t do anything himself, neither is the entire DOD responsible, and even the agent on site took no further action. So, really, nothing happened, no big deal. Be wary of Rethoric, no matter who’s.
Since when did I become the spokesman for NBC news? That was a bit of exaggeration, but it was stupid thing to investigate. I’m sure Bush didn’t order this directly. Hëll, I’m starting to think there’s very little he actually does pay attention to when it comes to the actual details of governing. But it is definitely a product of the paranoid and secretive mentality of this administration.