Bush Administration Hasn't Followed Through On Anti-Terror Measures

When a key figure in the Bush Administration says the administration is doing "everything we can" to protect the homeland from another terrorist attack, should we believe them?

Bush and others in the administration use this bit of rhetoric a lot -- especially as last year's presidential election grew near.

For example:

-- Last July, Bush said, "Our government is doing everything we can to stop another attack. ... In the past three years, we have taken unprecedented steps to defend the homeland, to increase security."

-- The previous October, Vice President Cheney said: "So our task is to do everything we can to achieve our objectives and to make this nation much more safe and secure for our kids and grandkids."

-- Then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, testifying last May to the 9/11 commission, said: "We must and we will do everything we can ... those charged with protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the time."

-- During last year's Republican National Convention, televised speakers mentioned 9/11 nearly 200 times. And, as would be expected, every televised speaker praised the administration for its "leadership" in making the homeland safe again.

But as JABBS readers know, with this administration, action speaks louder than words. The administration has always shown an aptitude for knowing what to say -- what talking points will comfort the faithful, what spin lines will work best for television, radio and print media audiences.

So, is the administration following up its words with actions, or a bunch of excuses?

According to an Oct. 30 Associated Press report, the administration far too often has failed to meet homeland security deadlines. And rather than admit this shortcoming, the administration instead has offered excuses.

Is the administration doing "everything we can"? Apparently not. Let's remember, in most cases, the Republican-led Congress set the deadlines. Anyone who spins this into a partisan battle isn't paying attention to their dance card.

And the deadlines missed weren't for minor issues, the AP reports.

For example:

-- A Homeland Security study on the cost of giving anti-terrorism training to federal law enforcement officers is three years overdue. Its plan to defend ships and ports from attack is six months late. Its rules to protect air cargo from infiltration by terrorists are two months late.

-- A Coast Guard report on cargo container security is eight months overdue. A national security plan for marine transportation is well past its April 1 due date.

-- The Transportation Security Administration missed a March 17 deadline for a plan to deploy bomb-detection machines at airports.

Why are so many deadlines being missed? Amazingly, the official excuse is that there are too many deadlines.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke told the AP that the department goes to great lengths to work with Congress. But, he said, "there is an extraordinarily high number of reporting requirements." The department has to submit 256 reports to Congress every year, while the TSA alone has 62 reporting requirements, Knocke said.

That includes deadlines imposed by President Bush. The missed Coast Guard deadlines were established by a law signed by Bush on Nov. 25, 2002.

***

Additionally, in one recent example, Homeland Security asked Congress for a deadline extension, then failed to meet the new deadline.

As the non-partisan General Accountability Office reported last month, at issue was the deadline for a TSA transportation sector-specific plan, as established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The GAO reported:

"In an April 2005 letter to Congress addressing the missed deadline, the DHS Deputy Secretary identified the need to more aggressively coordinate the development of the strategy (of a transportation sector-specific plan) ... The Deputy Secretary further stated that DHS expected to finish the strategy within 2 to 3 months. However, as of July 31, 2005, the strategy had not been completed. In April 2005, senior DHS and TSA officials told us that in addition to DOT, industry groups such as APTA and AAR would also be more involved in developing the (transportation sector-specific plan) and other strategic plans. However, as of July 2005, TSA had not yet engaged these stakeholders in the development of these plans."

Too many deadlines? How about too many excuses. In this case, TSA didn't start its project.

***

Why isn't Bush using the bully pulpit to insist that his government do "everything we can?" Because he doesn't have to. It's so much easier to use spin lines.

And when Bush and other senior cabinet members aren't touting their desire to do "everything we can," the conservative noise machine picks up the slack.

Let's face facts. It's easier to trumpet a slogan like "doing everything we can," then to fact-check that slogan. And even if one could turn the laundry list of missed deadlines into a meaningful soundbite, the administration and the conservative noise machine would quickly denounce that soundbite as "partisan," or perhaps "Bush-hating." Television viewers and newspaper readers would be left scratching their heads.

Of course, it doesn't help that only a handful of newspapers nationwide carried the AP story. When facts are not made available, it's much easier to spin the American people.

Still, while the Bush team and its conservative cohorts congratulate themsleves for all the hard work they are doing, some in Congress are actually pushing to get the various late reports and studies completed.

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security spending, put a provision in the Homeland Security spending bill signed into law last month, withholding $5 million from the department until it submits its plan for deploying bomb-detection machines at airports.

It's a start.

***

This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

they gambled we wouldn't need "protecting" and bush's cronies pocketed the cash they were given to set up protection.

Makes you wonder if they "knew" there wouldn't be any more attacks on our soil

yes, there are terrorists.

with an incompetent government in place, they can even be a serious threat.

but with reasonable diligence (and no MIHOP-LIHOP desire for "Pearl HArbor-type events"), terror is a nuisance on a par with bank robbery. It certainly is FAR less a threat to global well being than corporatism's white-collar crime.

They sold us on the strawman, flog it unmercifully every time they open their pie holes, but they don't know what to do to fight this phantom of their own creation and are so grossly incompetent that they can't fight the much smaller actual problem.

and yes, they took the money and ran.