The “War on Terror” is a Brazen, Bald-faced Lie
Put these two stories together. Boldface is mine, to emphasize the primary contrast. First from the Associated Press via MSNBC:
The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press. …The [Homeland Security Department] wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half — $1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document.
And then this, from Voice of America News:
But the president’s top priority is to win congressional approval of his $196 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money is for the 2008 fiscal year, which began October 1. The president and the Pentagon argue that further delays in approving these funds would force cuts in military operations across the United States and ultimately compromise the war on terror.
The administration’s stated reason for slashing counterterrorism funds domestically: he doesn’t think that the money was “well spent.” Because, after all, the trillion and a half dollars the Iraq War has and will cost has been spent very wisely.
Pay careful attention to the last sentence in the second quote: “The president and the Pentagon argue that further delays in approving these funds would force cuts in military operations across the United States and ultimately compromise the war on terror.” Ah. Massively underfunding counterterrorism at home somehow bolsters the “War on Terror,” while not spending 140 times more on a failed war in a country with zero relevance to terrorism would “ultimately compromise” the “War on Terror.” Gotcha.
Just more proof that the Bush administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about fighting terrorism; it is a pure and flagrant front for massive new military spending, engorging fatcat contributors and cronies, and imposing a neocon agenda on the Middle East (in a remarkably idiotic and incompetent manner).
In other words, money “well spent.”
Your point was made clear to me several years ago during the Dubai ports deal. The idea that foreign owned firm, a firm owned by a foreign government was bad enough, but one that was located in the Middle East that had ties to terrorist and funded the terrorist, that was absurd.
Yet the Neocons from David Brooks on down complained about how ‘bogus’ the objection to the deal was.
The whole war on terror as Bush is fighting it, is for the most part, bogus.
We are a nation of chumps.
No, no, no. Don’t you get it, Luis? We’ve been so amazingly successful at fighting the terrorists over there that we don’t really need to worry about them ever coming over here. This is why it’s a brilliant plan: By spending nearly 200 billion dollars fighting terrorists over there, we spare ourselves the trouble of having to spend nearly 2 billion dollars protecting ourselves from terrorist attacks over here. We’ve preempted the possibility of terrorist attacks on our beloved homeland with our shrewd budgeting, don’t you see?
😉
Sako: Silly me, I didn’t see that.
I’m disappointed in you, Luis. I would have thought that it was plain and obvious. That’s really the only line of reasoning that fits. I mean, if it were anything else, you would practically be forced to draw the conclusion that the president is full of crap–and we all know that can’t be true, right?
😉