During the 2004 campaign, Bush and Cheney said we needed to make the "right choice" and that they could "protect us." How protected do you feel?
My friend Dave pointed out something to me that I think is worth noting.
Dave reminded me that during the 2004 presidential campaign Dick Cheney made a comment that was much reported and much discussed. On September 7, 2004, he said "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." If Kerry were elected, Cheney said, there was a danger that America would fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" of complacency, leaving us open to another attack. The obvious conclusion is that we citizens would be "safer" with another 4 years of a Bush administration.
That wasn't the first time Cheney had said that America would be safer with Bush as president than with a potential Kerry administration. On March 17, 2004, he said "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security. The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004."
And indeed polls throughout the campaign year indicated that many of those who would vote to re-elect Bush were going to vote for him because they felt he was better able to protect them, their families, and the nation.
Bush and Cheney "won" reelection, and in light of the administration's response (or lack thereof) to hurricane Katrina, it's worth re-examining Cheney's controversial statement.
Clearly Cheney was referring to the danger of another terrorist attack, not a Category 5 hurricane. But does that matter? I think not. Threats to national security come in many different forms, and as the last few weeks have made painfully clear, hurricanes can be as much a threat to life and property - to our national security - as terrorists. I think that the realities of events, rather than the heated rhetoric and tough-guy blather of a campaign, are the true indication of whether or not George W. Bush and his administration are, or have ever been, capable of defending this country from threats to our national security.
From the August 2001 National Security Briefing memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," to General Eric Schinseki's warnings about troop strength in the lead up to the Iraq war, to taking us to war on false and misleading information (remember the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" speech?), to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil's warnings about the growing deficit (Cheney responded that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter") and his concern that Bush is 'detached from policy debate -- "a blind man in a room full of deaf people" -- stubbornly attached to policies regardless of facts,' to concerns about the environment, flu vaccine, the rise in the poverty rate (see this link for a comparison between the economy under Clinton's administration and under Bush so far), the rising number of Americans without health insurance, the rise in abortion rates under Bush, poor relations with our allies, nuclear proliferation ... the list goes on and on.
And of course recently hurricane Katrina struck, with dire warnings coming several days in advance. And still, the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did nothing. With more than 72 hours of advance warning, they did nothing but continue their vacations. Just like in the month before 9/11, when Bush was clearing brush instead of reading his national security memos warning of Bin Laden's determination to attack us. It seems that no matter how much advance warning they get, and no matter how dire the warnings are, they just don't seem to get the idea that protecting America takes more than tough talk, square jaws, macho swagger, and metaphoric cock waggling. (Of course now that they've been politically burned by their do-nothing response to Katrina, they're all over hurricane Rita.)
Protecting America takes planning. It takes intelligence that is not "stovepiped" for political purposes. It takes a staff that is put in place based on their experience and expertise, not on political cronyism.
So let's re-examine the issue, Americans. Are you safe with Bush in charge? Did you "make the right choice" on November 2? Well, after 5 years of a Bush presidency, after the failures listed above, and many more not listed, the answer is, quite simply... No.
As my friend Dave wrote, "If I were a terrorist intent on doing harm to the U.S. I would have learned a great deal about the preparedness of this particular administration (it's weaknesses and it's strengths) in the days following Katrina. It's my guess that any terrorist with half a brain is not shaking in his boots/sandals at the mightiness of these men, but rather, laughing at their inept blunders." Right on, Dave.
Hang in there, folks. The next 3 years are going to be rough.