Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Bush and Homeland Security

51% of the American people seem to have felt that George W. Bush would do a better job keeping them safe than John Kerry. Despite the Bush regime ignoring Richard Clarke's and the Clinton administration's warnings before 9/11 of the threat from al-Qaeda. Despite Bush getting a Presidential Daily Bulletin before 9/11 titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." Despite Ashcroft telling his subordinates at the Justice Department, prior to 9/11, that he "didn't want to hear about terrorism anymore."

Despite the Bush regime's failure to aggressively pursue Bin Laden in Tora Bora. Despite the Bush regime's opposition to the creation of a Department of Homeland Security (you see, Bush voted against it before he voted for it). Despite the Bush regime invading Iraq and turning it into a breeding ground for terrorists.

Well, the American people got what they voted for. In order to cover the $17.3 million that Washington, DC will have to spend on the inaguration -- up from an apparently thrifty $8 million in 2000 -- the Bush regime has refused to give the city funds to pay for the inaguration: "Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack."

DC had "earmarked federal homeland security funds for such priorities as increasing hospital capacity, equipping firefighters with protective gear and building transit system command centers." But I guess the inaguration is more important than any of those things. Which is strange, because before the election, Bush and Cheney were out there telling us that a terrorist attack was coming any day, maybe even election day, and that if Kerry won he would divert funds and resources from Homeland Security, making America less safe.

But I guess you don't need the terrorism boogeyman anymore once you've won.

Oh, and at a time when the Bush regime is trying to destroy Social Security and has failed to purchase the armor and equipment needed by the troops in Iraq, the total cost of the inaguration to the Federal government is going to be around $100 million. By way of comparison, Rumsfeld is talking about cutting procurement of F-22 Raptors for the Air Force, which are the fighter plane that will carry American air dominance out into the middle of this century, replacing the thirty-year-old planes we're using now. Well, if the government wasn't spending $100 million dollars on the inaguration, we could buy two F-22s right there!

The problem is that Bush has a different definition of the word "Security" than everyone else, you see. Homeland "Security" actually means "securing massive, no-bid contracts for Halliburton." And Social "Security" means "making stockbrokers and companies rich while squandering benefits for retirees."

Well, America, I hope you're proud of yourselves.


Post a Comment

<< Home