|
July 23, 2004
Is air security a threat to better "relations"?
I have not had time to read the entire 516 page 9/11 Commission report. But the Philadelphia Inquirer has, and I can only hope that they're wrong, because they declare -- as a central thesis of the report -- that the United States must: ....repair relations with Muslims around the world, saying that growing hostility among Muslims toward American power and influence had fueled the terrorist movement.I don't know what that means, but I worry that it's code language for appeasement. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think the war debate is shifting gears -- away from Iraq and towards the idea of whether we are (or should be) at war. Everywhere I look, I see evidence that the country that the country is divided into two groups: those who acknowledge that we are at war, and those who won't. The latter believe that the war can be wished out of existence, and will go away if we make peace with people who are sworn to destroy us, and have been doing their best for years. I agree with Ryan Boots: Here are just a few questions we really need answered:Via Glenn Reynolds, who reflects elsewhere on the sorry state of airline security nearly three years after 9/11: Bureaucracies are naturally slow learners, but they've had nearly three years -- and an expensive new Cabinet-level agency -- to learn the lessons of September 11. It looks as if they haven't gotten there yet. That's particularly sad since, as Brad Todd noted, it took American civilians only 109 minutes to learn the lessons in question. I hoped that things were getting better, but now that seems doubtful.I think the reason they're not is because of an inherent conflict between "repairing relations" and fighting the enemy, which of necessity means ensuring Americans are safe when flying in their own skies. Political correctness has made it impossible. Bush and the Republicans not only can't change things, they've institutionalized political correctness. Does anyone imagine that a Kerry administration would do otherwise? UPDATE: In a related vein, I heard something on the radio today that I have been unable to confirm on the Internet. David Hackworth, speaking on the Liddy Show, stated that when agents of the Border Patrol, in the course of their duties, apprehended a group of aliens trying to cross the U.S. at the Arizona border, an Arabic-speaking agent discovered them speaking in Arabic. Colonel Hackworth was told that they were wearing baseball hats and American-style clothing [the garb of choice for Mexicans trying to blend in as United States citizens], and that the Border Patrol has been ordered not to discuss this incident. Wish I could provide a link, but I am unable to find this story anywhere. (That does not disprove it, however, and so I decided to share it here.) Justin speculated that one reason this story might be suppressed would be the inevitable political fallout from predictable defenders of the Arabic-speaking aliens: that they shouldn't be treated any differently than any other aliens trying to slip through! I certainly hope that wouldn't happen, but in a way, I wish it would, and I hope the story is confirmed. Perhaps if enough people yell holy hell, something will change. MORE: Also from the Arizona border, there's this report about the successful sneaking of fake WMDs into the United States: American Border Patrol spokesman Glenn Spencer told the Arizona Daily Star the test was intended to show how easy it would be for terrorists to sneak deadly weapons across the border.Looks like there's a lot of stuff not to be commented on these days..... MORE BORDER INSECURITY: The 9/11 Commision ducks the issue of easy availability of visas for Saudis: Afforded only a brief mention—buried in a footnote on page 492—was a reference to what Mr. Mohammed reportedly told U.S. interrogators last year: that 15 of the hijackers were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas.If the problem is "buried in a footnote," is it fair to guess what will be done about it? posted by Eric on 07.23.04 at 08:33 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
We are at War. The very survival of the United States of America and our Western civilization is at stake. We are at War. Appeasement and Political Correctness with destroy us. We are at War. And the sooner every red-blooded American wakes up to that cold, hard fact, the better. Wake up, America! Wake up, Mr. President! We are at War. The "Religion of Peace" is the Religion of Death. We are at War -- War to the knife. Us or them. Either/or. Victory or slavery. We are at War. Wake up, America!