RSS - Posts
I guess the bright-side assessment of a 40 percent reduction in Homeland Security funding for New York and Washington anti-terror programs means that residents of those cities can breathe easy: They’ve been deemed less likely to be attacked by al Qaeda!
“I’m very sensitive to how leaders in New York City and Washington, D.C., feel about this,” [Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett] said. “This is about protection, and I think looking frankly at the history of terrorism, oftentimes what you can expect is that the next incident won’t be like the previous incident.”
In other words, the Bush Administration is subscribing to the homespun theory that if your house is robbed once, it’s less likely to be robbed again.
The biggest huff is over the DHS fund-dispersement assessment that New York’s grand total of “national monuments and icons”, subject to terrorist targeting, is zero. Statue of Liberty, Times Square, Brooklyn Bridge… Nah, nothing to see here, folks.
With this sort of thinking, not only do I question whether or not the United States should be the world’s policeman — I question if the guys in charge right now are qualified to be their own country’s cop.
Because, really, once you attack the WTC by, say, blowing up some vehicles under it, you wouldn’t try to attack it again.
Granted, they can’t attack the WTC for a while, but something, sometime, somehow will end up in it’s place, and it’s likely to be big enough to target, again.
Comment by Michael Conlen — 06/02/2006 @ 7:36 AM
Just a thought…..
Is it possible that alot of the initial Homeland money was for infrastructure improvements that have been completed, thereby lessening the need for the same amount every year? It’s fiscally responsible to review each year and adjust the money allocated. This may be a rare instance of this administration’s frugality. The real question I have for you is: Do you feel safe?
Thanks for the great site, I check in every day!
Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 06/02/2006 @ 7:41 AM
Chuck, that’s certainly one of the arguments they are using, along with “your anti-terrorist plans were above average but still worse than everyone else’s” (not making that up).
Frankly, I can’t imagine the infrastructure issues have been addressed. And “Infrastructure” often doesn’t mean just construction, it also means maintenence and staff. Clearly NY and DC don’t think those needs have been addressed.
CT, one excuse I heard for not counting the Statue of Liberty (for example) is that it’s federal, not state, property. Why that ranks differently (nor not at all) I don’t know. Here in DC, where most of the property is federal anyway, that would clearly be a drawback. My thinking is that it’s probably easier to scam a lot of the grant money off the top in Nebraska or Rhode Island than it is in New York.
Comment by Thud — 06/02/2006 @ 9:17 AM
I understand the pie’s got only so many slices, and the desire to not create a perpetual feeding trough for this funding. Still, the assessment criteria (i.e., few or no targets worth protecting) is worth critiquing. And sorry, but a terrorist hit in the Midwest or elsewhere simply wouldn’t have the same national-psyche impact as a successful attack in NYC. Like the Mayor said: Every bona fide suspect they detain has a map of New York in his pocket. Not Charlotte, not Milwaukee. Says it all, I think.
Comment by CT — 06/04/2006 @ 3:55 PM