Subject: Whatever happened to Homeland Security?
From: "N. Czerniak"

by Rick Shenkman

February 26, 2004


Wondering what the Bush administration is doing to protect you from the
catastrophic terrorist attack it keeps telling us to expect? Here's what my
Internet search turned up in the way of press coverage: The Christian
Science Monitor reported that Border Patrol agents - increasingly feel
unsupported by the country they are trying to protect - even though they are
supposed to be playing a key role in homeland defense; Sen. Patty Murray
(D-WA) revealed that the Bush administration's new budget provides no funds
for a project she sponsored to track cargo coming through American ports.
Then, there was the disturbing story uncovered by the House Homeland
Security Committee: When inspectors testing the capabilities of the U.S.
Park Police deliberately left a suspicious black bag on the grounds of the
Washington Monument, the police failed to respond quickly or effectively.
One officer reportedly was caught sleeping. When a committee official called
the Department of Homeland Security, he got a recording: "Due to the high
level of interest in the new department, all of our lines are busy. However,
your call is important to us and we encourage you to call back soon."

Scary? Sure, but as Bob Dole might say, "Where's the outrage?"

One answer is that the media have been burying these stories. Not one of
these disturbing accounts of administration failure made it to the front
pages of America's papers. Not even Murray's hometown newspaper, the Seattle
Times, gave her complaints much attention. The port security story appeared
on page B1, even though Washington State is peculiarly vulnerable to a bomb
hidden in incoming cargo.

Perhaps editors simply believe Bush administration's indifference to cargo
security to be old news. After all, when the Bush administration suddenly
discovered that the Federal Aviation Administration was running low on funds
last year, officials quietly raided the cargo program budget for the money
they needed. To force the government to spend the money Congress
appropriated, Murray had to put a hold on a budget nominee. In the end, of
the $75 million Congress appropriated for the cargo program, the government
spent just $58 million. Even worse, the administration is appropriating just
7 percent of the $7.3 billion that the Coast Guard estimates it will need to
implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) to be over 10
years. In that case, we can expect to be protected by roughly 2018 or so.

It would be one thing if the administration were known for its
penny-pinching. But a government which has just committed $87 billion to
Iraq can't make the claim that it's a careful and prudent steward of
taxpayer funds.

Not that the Bush administration hasn't tried. Asked about the
administration's crimped spending on port security, Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge responded, "We need to have a public debate as to
whether or not it is the taxpayer's responsibility to continue to fund port
security whether or not since these basically are intermodal facilities
where the private sector moves goods in and out for profit, that they would
be responsible for picking up most of the difference."

Astonished at his answer, Murray retorted, "I'm listening to your logic, but
I would just respectfully say that if one terminal or port in this country
said, 'We're not going to ante up the money - we don't have it,' and a
terrorist used that weak link to come into this country - all of us would be
paying for the consequences of that."

So now we are going to privatize national security involving American ports?
Surely this should have made front-page news. It didn't even make the back
pages. The New York Times has yet to mention Ridge's misguided scheme to
privatize port security in the name of saving money, though it gave plenty
of notice to the 10 percent increase in the department's budget next year to
$40 billion. Was it too complicated to mention in passing that while the
department seems to be spending a lot of money it is shortchanging one of
the most vital programs it runs?

It's not as if these are difficult stories to cover. Indeed, they tend to
provide the kind of simple narratives the media usually prefer. And nothing
sells like stories about government mismanagement. NBC News has turned such
stories into show-stopping ratings bonanzas for years.

The chief consequence of media inattentiveness is that the public has no
real idea if the Bush administration is doing a good or a bad job protecting
the homeland. About the only time homeland security even merits much public
notice these days is when Ridge announces that the government is picking up
a lot of frightening terrorist chatter. And news of this kind is singularly
unhelpful. The average citizen can't do anything with this information
except reach for a Zantac.

The news that would be of help - news about the effectiveness of Ridge's
operation - the media aren't providing in any detail. Do you have any real
idea if Ridge is succeeding or failing? It's virtually impossible to say
because the media haven't done enough stories to be able to determine if the
port security case is a unique example of incompetence or part of a larger
pattern.

In the absence of real knowledge, voters are relying on their partisan
prejudice. As a Republican reader of the Buffalo News wrote in a letter to
the editor complaining about the paper's coverage of Bush's war on
terrorism, the Bush administration must be doing a great job because "since
9/11, Bush and his team have batted 1,000 percent in protecting our land
from a second attack." Huh? Not even the Bush administration claims that the
absence of an attack is reason to cheer. As officials keep reminding us,
another attack is inevitable.

So what gives? Why have the media not seen fit to assess the effectiveness
of the homeland security measures the government is taking? It's evident
that the media think by and large that the work of the Homeland Security
Department is child's work compared with the wars being fought in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

To be sure, war is inherently more dramatic and deservedly draws our
attention. But by defining the war on terrorism narrowly - as mainly about
foreign wars - the media have allowed the administration to promote the
politically winning narrative of a war president fighting distant enemies in
a robust manner. Defining the war on terrorism this way gives the White
House what it wants. Who, after all, wants to be caught second-guessing a
president in the middle of a war? As we've seen over the last two years even
Democrats who loathe the administration find it difficult to challenge the
president's leadership as commander-in-chief.

While it is obvious why the administration keeps public attention focused on
our foreign wars, it is not obvious why the media do too. Where's the debate
about Ridge? Why, nearly two and a half years after 9/11, has the Homeland
Security Department still not put in place a vigorous program to check cargo
coming into American ports? There can't be too many tasks that are more
important for the department than securing the cargo that comes in by the
ton day after day.

If the Bush administration is right about our vulnerability to another major
attack, the country will be asking, as it is now about 9/11, what went
wrong? Unfortunately, the media will be in part to blame for not asking the
questions that should have been asked.

--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "

Whatever happened to Homeland Security?

by Rick Shenkman

February 26, 2004


Wondering what the Bush administration is doing to protect you from the
catastrophic terrorist attack it keeps telling us to expect? Here's what

Internet search turned up in the way of press coverage: The Christian
Science Monitor reported that Border Patrol agents - increasingly feel
unsupported by the country they are trying to protect - even though they

supposed to be playing a key role in homeland defense; Sen. Patty Murray
(D-WA) revealed that the Bush administration's new budget provides no

for a project she sponsored to track cargo coming through American ports.
Then, there was the disturbing story uncovered by the House Homeland
Security Committee: When inspectors testing the capabilities of the U.S.
Park Police deliberately left a suspicious black bag on the grounds of the
Washington Monument, the police failed to respond quickly or effectively.
One officer reportedly was caught sleeping. When a committee official

the Department of Homeland Security, he got a recording: "Due to the high
level of interest in the new department, all of our lines are busy.

your call is important to us and we encourage you to call back soon."

Scary? Sure, but as Bob Dole might say, "Where's the outrage?"

One answer is that the media have been burying these stories. Not one of
these disturbing accounts of administration failure made it to the front
pages of America's papers. Not even Murray's hometown newspaper, the

Times, gave her complaints much attention. The port security story

on page B1, even though Washington State is peculiarly vulnerable to a

hidden in incoming cargo.

Perhaps editors simply believe Bush administration's indifference to cargo
security to be old news. After all, when the Bush administration suddenly
discovered that the Federal Aviation Administration was running low on

last year, officials quietly raided the cargo program budget for the money
they needed. To force the government to spend the money Congress
appropriated, Murray had to put a hold on a budget nominee. In the end, of
the $75 million Congress appropriated for the cargo program, the

spent just $58 million. Even worse, the administration is appropriating

7 percent of the $7.3 billion that the Coast Guard estimates it will need

implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) to be over 10
years. In that case, we can expect to be protected by roughly 2018 or so.

It would be one thing if the administration were known for its
penny-pinching. But a government which has just committed $87 billion to
Iraq can't make the claim that it's a careful and prudent steward of
taxpayer funds.

Not that the Bush administration hasn't tried. Asked about the
administration's crimped spending on port security, Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge responded, "We need to have a public debate as to
whether or not it is the taxpayer's responsibility to continue to fund

security whether or not since these basically are intermodal facilities
where the private sector moves goods in and out for profit, that they

be responsible for picking up most of the difference."

Astonished at his answer, Murray retorted, "I'm listening to your logic,

I would just respectfully say that if one terminal or port in this country
said, 'We're not going to ante up the money - we don't have it,' and a
terrorist used that weak link to come into this country - all of us would

paying for the consequences of that."

So now we are going to privatize national security involving American

Surely this should have made front-page news. It didn't even make the

pages. The New York Times has yet to mention Ridge's misguided scheme to
privatize port security in the name of saving money, though it gave plenty
of notice to the 10 percent increase in the department's budget next year

$40 billion. Was it too complicated to mention in passing that while the
department seems to be spending a lot of money it is shortchanging one of
the most vital programs it runs?

It's not as if these are difficult stories to cover. Indeed, they tend to
provide the kind of simple narratives the media usually prefer. And

sells like stories about government mismanagement. NBC News has turned

stories into show-stopping ratings bonanzas for years.

The chief consequence of media inattentiveness is that the public has no
real idea if the Bush administration is doing a good or a bad job

the homeland. About the only time homeland security even merits much

notice these days is when Ridge announces that the government is picking

a lot of frightening terrorist chatter. And news of this kind is

unhelpful. The average citizen can't do anything with this information
except reach for a Zantac.

The news that would be of help - news about the effectiveness of Ridge's
operation - the media aren't providing in any detail. Do you have any real
idea if Ridge is succeeding or failing? It's virtually impossible to say
because the media haven't done enough stories to be able to determine if

port security case is a unique example of incompetence or part of a larger
pattern.

In the absence of real knowledge, voters are relying on their partisan
prejudice. As a Republican reader of the Buffalo News wrote in a letter to
the editor complaining about the paper's coverage of Bush's war on
terrorism, the Bush administration must be doing a great job because

9/11, Bush and his team have batted 1,000 percent in protecting our land
from a second attack." Huh? Not even the Bush administration claims that

absence of an attack is reason to cheer. As officials keep reminding us,
another attack is inevitable.

So what gives? Why have the media not seen fit to assess the effectiveness
of the homeland security measures the government is taking? It's evident
that the media think by and large that the work of the Homeland Security
Department is child's work compared with the wars being fought in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

To be sure, war is inherently more dramatic and deservedly draws our
attention. But by defining the war on terrorism narrowly - as mainly about
foreign wars - the media have allowed the administration to promote the
politically winning narrative of a war president fighting distant enemies

a robust manner. Defining the war on terrorism this way gives the White
House what it wants. Who, after all, wants to be caught second-guessing a
president in the middle of a war? As we've seen over the last two years

Democrats who loathe the administration find it difficult to challenge the
president's leadership as commander-in-chief.

While it is obvious why the administration keeps public attention focused

our foreign wars, it is not obvious why the media do too. Where's the

about Ridge? Why, nearly two and a half years after 9/11, has the Homeland
Security Department still not put in place a vigorous program to check

coming into American ports? There can't be too many tasks that are more
important for the department than securing the cargo that comes in by the
ton day after day.

If the Bush administration is right about our vulnerability to another

attack, the country will be asking, as it is now about 9/11, what went
wrong? Unfortunately, the media will be in part to blame for not asking

questions that should have been asked.

--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "know" that

so." -- Will Rogers