Civil War

It's fairly apparent to all but the most kool-aid-drinking Bush-o-paths that Iraq is in a de facto civil war.

Patriotism & Bigotry: the other side of security

Let me start by saying that the impetus for this post was the nausea created by what appears to be another Bush administration sound-bite mantra: "the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of security." [for those of you with poor--or selective--memories, here are a couple examples of prior Bush-bites: it's your money, every nominee deserves an up or down vote, cut and run, etc.].

Is bigotry behind the uproar to delay or even stop the completion of the Dubai Ports World deal? Of course. But that's not nearly the whole story. Unfortunately, bigotry is a motivating factor for some people, and maybe even a partial motivator for a fair number of people. With that being said, what about the other side of security...the side that has nothing to do with bigotry. The side that created our nation. The side that runs through the red, white & blue veins of so many Americans. Yes, patriotism, although often mistaken for, is by no means the same as bigotry. And it is patriotism that fuels the majority of concerns regarding the Middle East in general, and this port deal specifically. It is fundamentally wrong to have a country with known financial and human resource ties to al Qaida run several of our major ports. Yes, yes, I hear that Coast Guard mantra--but this is akin to saying that we shouldn't have the right to bear arms, because, after all, the army will provide security. Yes, it's that stupid. As with all Bush-bite mantras, that are true at least at a superficial sound bite level, it is of course true that the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of security proper, but that is NOT the whole story. It's like saying that the owner of your place of employment is not responsible for hiring/firing because he or she has a HR director who is in charge of that. Or that the owner doesn't know the layout of the physical plant because the maintenance department is in responsible for physical plant matters. Ridiculous. And then there's the new "revelation" that most all of our ports are foreign-owned. Even if this is news to most folks--and it may very well be so--that doesn't equate to giving this plan the green light. Somehow, and you can call me prejudiced here--a Brit ain't the same as an Arab or Emerite or whatever a person from UAE is called. Believe me when I tell you Joe Scarborough, you squinty-eyed blow-hard, that this isn't going to play well in mid-America. And let's not even get into who personally benefits from this deal being approved.

Homegrown

I'll say it again, some things in life are best if homegrown. This goes for vegetables as well as homeland security. At the urging to block, at least temporarily for further investigation of, the contract for Dubai Ports World to provide security for our major ports, the Bush administration's response is to contend that the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror. Critics naturally countered this by noting that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE.

Well how 'bout the Ordinary Netizen? I don't care if the UAE is an ally...I don't care if it were instead the bloody Brits. And guess what, I don't care if two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE either. For all I care, all or none of them could have been from the UAE. The point is: we cannot outsource our national security! Period.

First Dell tech support, now our ports!

I remember the first time I called tech support for a computer I owned (I think it was a Dell) and was transferred to an obviously (from the thick Indian accent) outsourced support department. I was a bit dismayed, but always the open-minded sort, I figured that it wasn't so bad. But, I gotta tell you, when it comes to direct national security, homeland security, call me an archaic isolationalist but I draw the line there on outsourcing!

By now you've obviously heard about the acquisition of a couple companies charged with guarding several major US ports to Dubai Ports World, which is based in the capital of the United Arab Emirates. Well this process was scrutinized (and I use that word loosely) by the White House and given the okeedoke. See CNN article.

Thank God, even the usually very right of center Senator Lynsey Graham, has expressed concern and called for an investigation (alright, maybe that was just politically-savvy lip-service, but I'll take what common sense I can get from Republicans), and called this "tone-deaf politically." I like what former Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge said when he called for more "transparency" in this transaction. That gets the Duh! award. That speaks for just about everything the Bush administration does. What I honestly agree with is Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, when he said:

"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it
is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign
government, particularly one with a troubling history," he said in a statement.
"We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration
in secret to secure our ports."

Terrorism. Safer Now?

The question of whether or not we are safer from terrorism subsequent to the Bush administration's policies and actions is one that has been asked frequently since 9/11. Allow me to provide a brief answer, and then if time permits elaborate. The brief answer would very likely be a qualified yes. Now Democrats, don't be shocked, let me explain.

We have, after all, captured or killed many extremists including low, medium and some high ranking Al-Qaeda members. We have increased security measures in our air--and to a lesser extent land--transportation system. Undoubtedly, the agencies such as the CIA and FBI have been focusing their efforts more than ever on prevention and interdiction of terrorism since 9/11. These are but a few examples of actions taken by the current administration to make the United States safer from terrorism.

So, what's the problem you ask? This all sounds very good, and in some respects it is, so why are Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration so up in arms over homeland security? After all, this is the one area in which, polls have shown, the current administration, perhaps until recently, is strongly supported by the American people. One thing that I am convinced of is the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11, although absolutely a positive thing, is certainly not a sufficient condition to allow us to say that we are safer now. Some would say that zero attacks on US soil is a necessary but not sufficient condition for defining how safe we are and to evaluated government efforts to prevent terrorism. Although I tend to agree with this, I'm not absolutely sure that I would even go that far...in the same way we were no safer on September 10th than we were on Sept 11th.

The Bush administration certainly has made efforts to keep us safer. I believe that President Bush and his administration want to do this. How could anyone believe otherwise? We see (some of) the efforts; they are tangible and real. Certainly for the two thousand plus service members killed in Iraq and their friends and family, the actions are tragically clear.

The problems are as follows:

Our security is outsourced. The recent flap over a UAE company guarding our ports is a perfect but so sad example of this. It seems as though our security goes to the lowest bidder...unless of course there's money to be made by a crony's company or connections to that company--a-la Haliburton--then the contracts can be 'no-bid.'

Pervasive secrecy corrupts. In an era of political corruption, perhaps the likes of which this country hasn't seen in many decades, it is indeed difficult to reconcile the co-existence of secrecy--even necessary and appropriate secrecy--with the current administration's well-deserved public distrust. The congress has even been kept unnecessarily in the dark.

One hand doesn't know what the other is doing. One only has to look at the Katrina
disaster for proof of this. The Office of Homeland Security is looking more
and more like the office of homeland INsecurity.

And there are other errors too, for which I don't presently have the time to elaborate...

*Alienation of allies and neutral nations and groups within our own country is a dangerous course.

*Extremism never defeated extremism.

*Melding of church and state contributes to a theocracy-like state and thereby fuels the fires of the jihadists.

*Some isolationism is not necessarily a bad thing, just as compromise is not a dirty word.

*America cannot afford Bush's brand of fundamentalism--his policies and actions are defined by not only secrecy, but also rigidity, domination and exclusion.

The chief question to ask is whether or not the direction we are going in is one that will bring lasting security and prosperity to our country. Tragically, the Bush administration's stance on nearly everything from ostensibly fighting terrorism directly (Iraq war) to supreme court nominees (see for example, and there are countless, AP headline Bush cites religion as reason for picking Miers) to human services (e.g., faith-based initiatives), to education (vouchers for parochial schools), brings us closer and closer to dividing the people of the world, namely Moslems versus Christians/Jews, and ultimately to the very jihad that extremists desire.

Yes, we may be temporarily safer now, but the path we are on is far more ominous. Sometimes short-term gain is at the expense of long-term security. We can do better by charting a different course.

So, you see, the question shouldn't be, "are we safer?" It should be, "how safe are we and what can we do, what direction can we take, to be even safer?" Further potential answers and ideas regarding this question in a later post.

Hair-Trigger Dick!

Well, everyone is blogging about this so thought I'd add a self-captioned cartoon.
Cheney's hair-trigger is ironically symbolic don't you think?

The Bush administration disregarded the expertise of the intelligence community

"...the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the 'war on
terror' and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing
on the country's militant post-9/11 mood."

Although by now the lack of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda is fairly obvious to me, it seems as though many would like to believe that the Iraqi war is part of the war on terror. The above quote is from Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. Hopefully his disclosure will enlighten those still in dark, or hiding in the Bush, so to speak.

Back Again

Now that I've finally been successful in switching my web host and have obtained the domain name, OrdinaryNetizen.com, we'll see how things develop with my blog.