THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE AMERICA LESS SAFE (DNC Research)

[MaineDem]

(This is long.)

For Immediate Release
August 31, 2006
Contact: Karen Finney/ Stacie Paxton - 202-863-8148

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE AMERICA LESS SAFE

As President Bush kicks off his latest PR campaign in an attempt to regain
public support for his failed policies in Iraq and the war on terror leading
into the midterm elections, a new document from DNC research outlines how the
Bush Administration’s policies have made America less safe at home and around
the world.

FROM MISSION ACCOMPLISHED TO LOWERED EXPECTATIONS

May 2003: Mission Accomplished. On May 1, 2003, Bush dramatically landed atop
an aircraft carrier to proclaim major combat operations over in Iraq; he spoke
in front of a banner reading, “Mission Accomplished”. During his speech he
stated that “*major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of
Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” 5/1/03]

March 2006: Bush: Iraq will be left to “Future Presidents.” President Bush made
it clear that there would be American troops in Iraq when he left office and it
would be his successor’s job to bring them home. In response to a question in a
White House news conference about if there would come a day when there would be
no American forces in Iraq, Bush answered, “That, of course, is an objective.
And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.”


August 2006: Administration Lowering Expectations for Iraq. The Bush
Administration was significantly lowering expectations of what could be
achieved in Iraq, recognizing the United States would have to settle for far
less progress than originally envisioned. “What we expected to achieve was
never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a
senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a
process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the
unreality that dominated at the beginning.” According to an article in the
Washington Post, “The United States no longer expects to see a model new
democracy, a self-supporting oil industry, or a society in which the majority
of people are free from serious security or economic challenges.” Post, 8/14/05; Christian Science Monitor, 8/15/05]

* War in Iraq About to Exceed Length of WWII; Since Beginning of War, 2,637
Have Died and 19,323 Wounded. In September 2006, the duration of combat
operations would exceed the length of time that U.S. forces fought in Europe
during WWII. Since the beginning of the war, 2,637 US troops have died and
19,323 have been wounded. accessed 8/30/06]

* Bush Approves Involuntary Call-Ups For the Marine Corps, Ordering Thousands
Back to Active Duty. “The Marine Corps said Tuesday that it would begin calling
Marines back to active-duty service on an involuntary basis to serve in Iraq
and Afghanistan - the latest sign that the American force is under strain* the
Iraq war has forced the Army, and now the Marines, to rely on the ready reserve
to fill holes in the combat force.” The call-ups were approved by President
Bush.

* Involuntary Call-Ups Supplemented By Stop-Loss Orders That Keep Soldiers On
Active Duty Even After Their Commitment Is Complete. “For much of the conflict,
the Army also has had to use "stop-loss orders" - which keep soldiers in their
units even after their active-duty commitments are complete - as well as
involuntary call-ups of its reservists. Both actions have been criticized as a
"back-door draft" and are unpopular with service members, many of whom say they
have already done their part.”

* 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton Says Iraq Is Breeding Ground For Terrorism. In
an interview on Meet the Press, Hamilton said, “I think there isn't any doubt
that it's a breeding ground for terrorism today.”

IRAQ FACES CIVIL WAR; US MILITARY STRETCHED TOO THIN

IRAQ FACING CIVIL WAR

Generals Raised Fears Of Iraq Civil War. In testimony before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on August 3, 2006, Generals Abizaid and Pace both expressed
fears that Iraq was headed towards a civil war. Responding to questions about
escalations in violence in recent weeks, General John Abizaid admitted that “
Iraq could move toward civil war.” He described the sectarian violence as “
probably as bad as I have seen it<.>” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
concurred with Abizaid’s assessment that Iraq was in danger of civil war on its
current path. Pace said at the hearing, “We do have the possibility of that
devolving into civil war.” While Pace indicated that he did not see this path
developing one year ago, Abizaid admitted that the trend has been consistent,
saying that it was obvious one year ago that sectarian violence was on the
rise.

Britain’s Outgoing Ambassador To Iraq Forecast That “Civil War” And “Division”
Of Iraq Was More Likely Than A “Stable Democracy,” Contrary To British Public
Statements. William Patey, the outgoing British Ambassador to Iraq, wrote in
his final diplomatic telegram from Baghdad that Iraq would likely fall into
civil war, end up in ethnic division, and not be an ally in the war on terror.
Patey’s cable forecast a bleak future for Iraq: “The prospect of a low
intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at
this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.”
Patey added that Bush’s “lowered expectation” for the country “must remain in
doubt,” expectations which he described as “a government that can sustain
itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror<.>”
According to Reuters, the statement “gives a far more pessimistic assessment
for prospects in Iraq than Britain has disclosed in public.” Reuters, 8/3/06]

Former Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Said Iraq Was In Civil War. Iyad Allawi
former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister and leader of the Iraqi National List a
secular nationalist party made up of Sunnis and Shiites said that Iraq was
already in a civil war. Allawi said, “It is unfortunate that we are in civil
war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the
country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war
is.”

Experts Say Iraq Has Been In A Civil War Since 2004. “‘By the standard that
political scientists use, there's been a civil war going on in Iraq since
sovereignty was handed over to the interim government in 2004,’ said Stanford
University's James Fearon*American military analyst Stephen Biddle says U.S.
policy-makers make a mistake if they ‘miss the nature of the conflict, which in
Iraq is already a civil war between rival ethnic and sectarian groups.’” 3/15/06; Los Angeles Times, 2/25/06; Washington Times 3/15/06]

National Intelligence Estimate Warned in 2003 Of the Strength of the Insurgency
and the Possibility for Civil War. “U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly
warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in
Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war,
according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the
reports.”

MILITARY STRETCHED TOO THIN

2006: Military Stretched Too Thin. Experts say that the Pentagon has had to
struggle to meet the manpower requirements of the Iraq war in light of the
continuing insurgency and civil unrest. A recent study done for the Pentagon by
Army Lt. Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments found that the military is stretched into a "thin green line". He
said that the Army lacks sufficient troop levels to avoid too-frequent
rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops are spending about a third of the
time on deployment, instead of a fifth of the time - the preferred timetable to
allow the Army to adequately rest, train and rebuild its units. With just over
a half-million active duty troops, the Army may not be able to sustain the
current pace of deployments long enough to defeat insurgencies in either Iraq
or Afghanistan.

* Iraq Veteran Says Bush Administration Is Not Keeping Its Promises to
Military. When asked about the latest plan for involuntary call-ups, Paul
Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a veteran of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, said "The bottom line is: Everyone is exhausted*It may
be legal, but it is kind of like the difference between a contract and a
promise. Overall we are eroding the promise made to our military." Times, 8/23/06]

2005: Gen. Myers Reported That Military Stretched Too Thin. “The concentration
of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's
ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest
ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress that major combat operations
elsewhere in the world*would probably be more protracted and produce higher
American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon
resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

2005: Lt. General Says Army Reserve Becoming ‘Broken Force.’ The head of the
Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders
expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops and
warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a
'broken' force." In the Dec. 20th memo Lt. Gen. James Helmly lashed out at what
he said were outdated and "dysfunctional" policies on mobilizing and managing
the force. Helmly complained that his repeated requests to adjust the policies
to current realities have been rebuffed by Pentagon authorities. Post, 6/6/05]

2004: Career Officer Forced to Retire For Saying that Army Stretched Too Thin.
Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs was forced to retire in 2004 minus one star after he
gave an interview in which he said the Army had been stretched thin in
Afghanistan and Iraq and needed thousands more troops. 4/14/06]

2003: Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki Rebuked For Saying That Several “
Hundred Thousand Troops” Would Be Needed in Iraq. During a February testimony
before the Senate Armed Services committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Gen.
Shinseki to estimate “the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an
occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war.” Shinseki
replied “I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the
order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure
that would be required.” Later, Rumsfeld dismissed Shinseki’s estimate, saying
that “My personal view is that it will prove to be high,” and Dep. Sec.
Wolfowitz told the House Budget Committee that “the notion that it will take
several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq
wildly off the mark.” Senate Armed Services Committee 2/25/03; House
Budget Committee Hearing 2/27/03; Rumsfeld News Conference, 2/28/03]

EXTENDED CONFLICT IN IRAQ WEAKENS US POSITION IN THE WORLD

Newsweek: “America Is Viewed As Weak*Distracted And Drained because of Iraq.”
According to an article in Newsweek by Michael Hirsh, “America is viewed as
weak at the moment, distracted and drained because of Iraq-and everybody out
there is taking advantage of it. Too often, Americans tend to see other players
on the international stage as merely part of the backdrop, conforming to our
movements or remaining stationary while we get our act together. In fact, most
of these world leaders are aggressive players in their own right who will push
back, and hard, when they see softness*they are betting that George W. Bush is
too out of resources and time to protest while they make a mockery of his
agenda and his leadership.”

Boston Globe: Bush’s Reaction to Escalation of International Violence Shows
Foreign Policy Has Undergone “A Sea of Change.” According to an article in the
Boston Globe, “The dramatic escalation of violence in Israel and Lebanon
yesterday added yet another international crisis to the Bush administration's
list of mounting problems, which include a looming confrontation with Iran over
its nuclear program, North Korea's missile tests, and steadily rising sectarian
killings in Iraq. As Bush heads to the summit of the Group of Eight industrial
countries in Russia this weekend, analysts and administration officials say his
reaction to these erupting international crises shows that his administration
has undergone a sea change in foreign policy: The tough-talking superpower
willing to use unilateral force is now a quieter player that urges moderation
and restraint and is more willing to let allies take the lead.” 6/14/06]

Time Magazine: The End of Cowboy Diplomacy. A cover story in Time Magazine
entitled “The End of Cowboy Diplomacy,” explained how the war in Iraq has
affected American ability to affect foreign policy change regarding other
important matters. “Bush’s response to the North Korean missile test was
revealing: Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il
would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action. Instead, the administration
has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's
provocation. The Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried
to apply it. Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision
to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has come at a steep
cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad. The
administration is paying the bill every day as it tries to cope with other
crises. Pursuing the forward-leaning foreign policy envisioned in the Bush
Doctrine is nearly impossible at a time when the U.S. is trying to figure out
how to extricate itself from Iraq.”

Academic Dean at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. According to Stephen
Walt, academic dean at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, “the
Iraq war was corroding all*elements of US power. Our armed forces have been
weakened and our economy burdened by the costs of occupation, and the abuses at
Abu Ghraib jail are a stain on the US's reputation.” 10/19/05]

Scholar at Conservative at American Enterprise Institute: Reversal of Bush
Middle East Policy “Shameful.” Michael Rubin , a scholar at the conservative
American Enterprise Institute, and a former defense department official under
Bush, was critical of Bush’s stalled efforts to impact the Middle East. “I am
willing to blame Bush because I think the reversal of his policy is shameful,”
Rubin said. “What he did was the equivalent of the doctor starting surgery on a
patient, opening him up, and then getting tired and leaving him on the table.”


Former National Security Council Member: “Administration Has Lost Control.” “I
think what we are seeing is an administration that has lost control, that is
reacting to events, not shaping them,” said Ivo Daalder, who served on
President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council staff. 6/14/06]

Former National Security Council Member: “Administration Has Lost Control.” “I
think what we are seeing is an administration that has lost control, that is
reacting to events, not shaping them,” said Ivo Daalder, who served on
President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council staff. 6/14/06]

U.S. Peace Envoy in Middle East: Bush Administration “Preoccupied with Iraq.”
Middle East experts warned that a weakened Bush administration may be too
preoccupied with its problems with Iraq and Iran to deal with the sharply
escalating crisis around Israel. Dennis Ross, a longtime U.S. peace envoy in
the region, said that “the Bush administration is preoccupied with Iraq and
Iran and North Korea, and doesn’t seem to have much time for this issue.” Ross
said that because it was distracted by the other crises the administration
appeared to looking at the crisis in Gaza, where one Israeli soldier was being
held captive, in narrow terms. In reality, the resolution of that problem “is
going to have a very big impact” on future relations between Israel and the
Palestinians, he said.

President of Council on Foreign Relations: Iraq War “Absorbed A Tremendous
Amount of U.S. Military Capacity,” “Weakened Our Position.” Richard N. Haass,
president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations and head of policy
planning at the State Department during the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003,
said that in hindsight, while history's judgment would depend on how things
turned out in Iraq, the impact on U.S. foreign policy at this point was “
clearly negative.” The war, he said, "has absorbed a tremendous amount of U.S.
military capacity, the result being that the United States has far less spare
or available capacity, not just to use in the active sense, but to exploit in
the diplomatic sense. It has therefore weakened our position against both North
Korea and Iran.” He said that it had also “exacerbated the U.S. fiscal
situation, which obviously has all sorts of economic repercussions.” “For all
that, a lot of the impact on U.S. foreign policy still awaits how things turn
out,” Haass says. “It’s a very different impact if Iraq suddenly implodes or
becomes the venue for not just a civil war but a regional war. Obviously, in
such a circumstance, the implications for U.S. foreign policy would be both
greater and more negative.”

UNDER GEORGE BUSH, AMERICA IS LESS SAFE

Under Bush Republican Leadership, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Have Not
Been Properly Implemented. The 9/11 Commission gave the Bush Administration 5
F's and 12 D's on the implementation of the Commission's recommendations for
homeland security.

AIRPORT SECURITY: Still No Unified Terrorist Watch List. There remains no
unified terrorist watch list for screening airline passengers. In its December
2005 report card, the 9/11 Commission gave the Administration a failing grade
for its efforts to improve passenger pre-screening, noting that "few
improvements have been made to the existing passenger screening system since
right after 9/11. The completion of the testing phase of TSA's pre-screening
program for airline passengers has been delayed. A new system, utilizing all
names on the consolidated terrorist watch list, is therefore not yet in
operation." While $130 million has been spent on the Secure Flight program - a
system that would match airline passengers against terrorist watch lists - the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that it remains in development
and faces considerable management and oversight challenges. Secure Flight was
suspending the program in March due to security and privacy concerns. <9/11 [br />Public Discourse Project, December 2005; govexec.com, 6/25/06]

PORTS: Screening Technology at U.S. Ports Still Inadequate. “The radiation-
detection technology currently used in the world’s ports by the Coast Guard and
Customs and Border Protection Agency is not adequately capable of detecting a
nuclear weapon or a lightly shielded dirty bomb*The flaws in detection
technology require the Pentagon’s counterproliferation teams to physically
board container ships at sea to determine if they are carrying weapons of mass
destruction. Even if there were enough trained boarding teams to perform these
inspections on a regular basis -- and there are not -- there is still the
practical problem of inspecting the contents of cargo containers at sea*This
factor guarantees that in the absence of very detailed intelligence, inspectors
will be able to perform only the most superficial of examinations.” <“Port [br />Security is Still a House of Cards,” Stephen E. Flynn, Far Eastern Economic
Review, January/February 2006]

BORDERS: Millions Wasted On Inadequate Border Security Efforts. Millions of tax
dollars have been wasted as a result of failed border security technology
initiatives that have been undertaken by the Department - the Integrated
Surveillance Intelligence System and the America’s Shield Initiatives. The
Administration has failed to provide promised funding for Border Patrol agents
(20 percent short), detention bed spaces (20 percent short), and the
Immigration and Customs agent resources called for by the 9/11 Act (75 percent
short). <“The State of Homeland Security, 2006” prepared by the Democratic [br />Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06]

FIRST RESPONDERS: Emergency Preparedness Still Inadequate. The President’s
budget for 2007 proposed to cut $612 million from first responder grants and
training programs. The budget cuts funding levels for programs designed to
assist state and local law enforcement agencies by more than $1 billion
compared to FY 2006, the Firefighters Grant Program was cut by 50 percent, and
the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, which trains first responders,
was cut by 66 percent. In addition, the President’s 2007 budget requested no
funding to enhance interoperable communications. <“The State of Homeland [br />Security, 2006” prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland
Security; 2/06]

CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY: Bush Dropped Chemical Plant Regulations, “A Victory
for Major Chemical Manufacturers.” The Washington Post reported Bush “
abandoned* tough new security regulations” on the chemical industry, calling
it, “a victory for major chemical manufacturers*” The decision to abandon these
new regulations was made despite the fact that only about one-sixth of the
15,000 facilities with large amounts of dangerous chemicals are covered by
federal security requirements. Efforts Are Addressing Security Issues at Chemical Facilities, but Additional
Action Is Needed, 4/27/05; Washington Post, 10/3/02]

RAIL AND TRANSIT SECURITY: Bush Has Not Improved Rail and Transit Security.
Terrorist groups have already targeted surface transportation for attacks,
including the attack on a Moscow Metro rail car in 2004, a coordinated series
of 10 explosions on four commuter trains in Madrid that same year, and a
coordinated series of four explosions on three London subway trains and one bus
in 2005. Despite this, the TSA budget dedicates only 1 percent of the
department’s funding to surface transportation security. The budget also
eliminates dedicated grants used by public transportation systems to increase
security, forcing surface transportation to compete with ports and other
critical infrastructure for funding. <“The State of Homeland Security, 2006” [br />prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06]

UNDER GEORGE BUSH, THE WORLD IS LESS SAFE

HUNT FOR BIN-LADEN: Failure to Hunt for Bin Laden "Gravest Error in The War
against al Qaeda." According to the Washington Post, "The Bush Administration
has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora
late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was
its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda* "We messed up by not getting
into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work," said a senior
official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. "Clearly a decision
point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb,
because that's when he escaped.We didn't put U.S. forces on the ground, despite
all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then."


* Bush Administration Closed CIA Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden. The
Central Intelligence Agency closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of
hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. The unit, known as Alec
Station, was disbanded in late 2005 and its analysts were reassigned. Michael
Scheuer, a former senior CIA official who was the first head of the unit, said
the move reflected a mistaken view within the agency that bin Laden was no
longer the threat he once was. "This will clearly denigrate our operations
against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda
appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

* Al Qaeda Linked to Recent Plot To Blow Up US Bound Flights. Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff said the plot bore the hallmarks of al-
Qaeda, which has called on supporters to renew attacks against both nations.”
Terror expert Rohan Gunaratna said, "It's a classic al-Qaeda tactic. It's a
hallmark of al-Qaeda to carry out coordinated, simultaneous attacks." Another
terrorism expert Paul Beaver insisted that British military action in Iraq and
Afghanistan helped make us a target for Osama bin Laden's thugs. He said: "In
the last two months, al-Qaeda promised it would avenge Iraq and Afghanistan by
attacking British and American aviation assets. I see a direct link with that."


NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Arms Program. Iran hid its nuclear
program for more than a dozen years from the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the nuclear monitoring arm of the United Nations, and now the United
States and Europe contend that Iran is pursuing an arms program. In January of
2006, Iran restarted its effort to make atomic fuel after negotiations with
Britain, France and Germany over the fate of its atomic program broke down.


* Experts Say Bush Administration Strategy Emboldened Iranian Nuclear Program.
The Bush Administration refused to negotiate with Iran for years, when the
country was willing to make real concessions on its nuclear program. Just after
the U.S. takeover of Baghdad in 2003, Iran proposed a dialogue with the United
States. According to former senior director of the National Security Council,
Flynt Leverett, the offer was "a serious effort." The Bush Administration's
refusal to enter into talks, according to Middle East expert Trita Parsi,
"strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe that the only way to
compel the United States to talk is not by sending peace offers, but by being a
nuisance."

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: North Korea Pursuing Nuclear Arms Program. Since 9/11,
North Korea has accelerated their nuclear efforts. A report by the National
Security Advisory Group issued in July of 2005 states that “North Korea’s
runaway nuclear program could be a direct path to nuclear terror*North Korea
sells missiles and other dangerous technology worldwide, with no apparent
limits or compunction* leaders and elite engage in smuggling,
counterfeiting, and other illicit activities. These same people might traffic
in nuclear materials the way A.Q. Khan trafficked in Pakistan’s nuclear
technology.” Group, July 2005]

* Experts Say Bush Administration Strategy Has Claimed Credit For Diplomatic
Process But Failed to Take Any Responsibility for a Lack of Results. A report
by the National Security Advisory Group issued in July of 2005 states that “
Since 9/11, in the face of North Korea’s runaway nuclear program, U.S.
policymakers: did nothing as North Korea crossed redline after redline; claimed
credit for diplomatic process (the Six-Party Talks) but have taken no
responsibility for total lack of results; attempted to outsource the issue to
China and then blame the failure on China; tried to blame the Clinton
administration, the administration that actually stopped plutonium production
in North Korea.” The report continues by saying that during the Clinton
Administration, North Korea had no plutonium, but during the Bush
Administration, North Korea has at least four to six nuclear weapons worth of
plutonium. July 2005]


Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.
org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's
committee.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Kick and recommend!

:thumbsup:

[liberal N proud]

2. Is this posted somewhere on the DNC web site?

[MaineDem]

6. Not sure

I got the press release in the mail.

[dweller]

3. White House More Secure than Airports

AMERICAblog is talking about White House security, namely that their security is better than at our airports. What?

From the Boston Globe:

Since the early 1990s, AS&E has made SmartCheck, a $50,000 low-intensity X-ray scanner that can spot a bottle of organic compounds in a passenger's pocket.

But is the liquid an explosive, or a batch of baby formula? Ahura says its $30,000 handheld laser scanner, the First Defender, can answer the question. The device can ``see" through glass or plastic bottles and identify any of 2,500 different chemical compounds in about 15 seconds. The FBI and New York City police already use the Ahura system, which went on sale about a year ago.

Joe Reiss, AS&E's vice president of marketing, said his company's SmartCheck systems are used at the White House and the US Supreme Court. But they're not widely used in airport security. TSA agreed last year to conduct tests of the system. But Reiss said those tests had not yet begun.

Aravosis connects the dots:

And just let the White House tell us that these systems aren't really proven technology. Then why is the White House using them at all?

Why has the Bush Administration underfunded aviation security? Is the tired Republican fear-mongering ploy working so well that the White House and the Supreme Court now need "state of the art" security systems beyond what we have at our nation's airports?

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/white_house_sec.php


dp

[texpatriot2004]

4. less safe indeed nm

[civildisoBDence]

5. Bush told Brian Williams he needs to "lower expectations."

Mission Accomplished, George!

When it comes to protecting this country, DUHbya has not only failed miserably, he's put a huge target on all of our foreheads.

News and commentary, left to right

[rodeodance]

7. kandR

[mkb]

8. Building The Foundation For A Better World

     From here above the Columbia River in Washington State,
to the "other" District of Columbia, Washington
D.C., to Iraq, it all seems to be the same, if you catch my
drift.  Or at least similar.  But those who "get it"
should realize as that sharpie Stan Goff would say, there are
primary and secondary contradictions.  Which I take to mean
one representation is more accurate and "telling"
than the other.  It's all metaphorical, but if you can
understand it, more power to you.  Hopefully you can assist us
in some way, perhaps discretely, to make the world a better
place.
     If you're struggling with all these concepts, just try to
do the best you can, because almost everyone can make progress
if they don't get discouraged and give up.  Take a break, do
something you know how to do, and then maybe work on solving
more advanced problems over time.  There are many ways to know
and help the situation improve.
     If it's confusing, try to remember what we're building
on, from the ground up, so to speak.  You can read my other
posts to get an idea of some basic ideas that we think will
make sense to you and hopefully you can make progress, as I
think you can.
     Important to remember is that the right-wing branch of
the establishment, namely PNAC, or Project For A New American
Century, planned to invade the Middle East well before 9-11. 
It's also true that they have tampered with the economic
structure of Iraq since the invasion, imposing their
"free market" ideology designed to extract the
wealth of Iraqi's.  This can be found by researching topics
like Order 39 of the Coalition Provisional Authority, if
you're willing to expose your identity on those websites. 
Think it over carefully.
     I suggest that these facts are the underlying reasons for
what's happening, although one can always do more research on
the subject, particularly past history.  Even so,
"terrorism" cannot in my opinion be stopped by
invading these countries and occupying them.  The United
States has hundreds of military bases around the world,
including the ones they're building in Iraq, and the most
powerful military too.  Ask yourself what you might do if
Arabs or any other nation or group had bases close to or
inside our country?  You might end up being a
"terrorist" in someone else's eyes.
     There aren't any guarantees in life, and trying to be
certain that somebody can't blow something or someone up is in
my opinion, hard to do, unless you eliminate all the weapons. 
People in weaker positions should not be expected to give up
weapons while others are allowed to have them.  That's unfair,
and leads to what we are seeing now.
     There are always new challenges to face, and we hope that
you can find the right way to help things get better.  This
should add to the foundation that I think many of us are
trying to create to build a more benign, peaceful, and
hopefully happy world to live in.  Best of luck in your
efforts.