The now-concluded Sept. 11 Commission gave dismal grades today to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States.
Meeting for the last time since being appointed by Congress in 2002, commission members gave the government "more Fs than As" among the 41 grades measuring progress on security recommendations they issued last year.
"We shouldn't need another wake-up call," said former commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor. "We believe that the terrorists will strike again, so does every responsible expert that we have talked to. And if they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuse be?"
***
Should we be surprised?
The Bush Administration is blaming Congress - spokesman Dan Bartlett was very visible on this morning's talk shows - in another display of the buck stops anywhere but at the White House.
Bush has had the rare fortune of having Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. A majority of Americans didn't blame his administration for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and until very recently, that same majority felt that he and his fellow Republicans would be better able to defend the homeland than the Democrats.
And what has that faith gotten them? A president who was against the formation of the 9/11 commission, and who (along with the vice president) wouldn't testify under oath to that commission. A president who was against creating a Department of Homeland Security. A president who stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center in the days after the attack and implied he would bring Al Qaeda to justice, and then launched a war against Iraq - which the 9/11 Commission concluded had no role in the terrorist attacks. A president who has not captured Osama Bin Laden, nor dismantled or even slowed Al Qaeda, and turned Iraq into the terrorist haven that he and his administration falsely suggested it was when trying to convince the American people of the urgent need to go to war. A president who silently approved the Republican leadership in Congress rejecting Democratic proposals to spend Homeland Security dollars to protect chemical and nuclear plants, and airports, sea ports and train stations.
But the administration is good at pointing fingers.
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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Silas Kain
The Bush Administration is blaming Congress --
That's fair. Congress shoulders a great deal of the blame. There's no pork available when it comes to National Security.
...that same majority felt that he and his fellow Republicans would be better able to defend the homeland than the Democrats.
Well, that's a Democrat problem. The Democrats have consistently been weak in foreign policy. In matters of National Security, the GOP has always been light years ahead in rhetoric. The bottom line is that neither party has done anything proactive.
Why are so many deadlines being missed? Amazingly, the official excuse is that there are too many deadlines.
And this is a surprise? Is America really getting the quality government is pays for? Again, this is not a partisan thing. At least there were qualified people in place in the Clinton Administration. I've little faith in the people this President has appointed.
Look at some of the report -- the one "A" and 12 "Bs." Don't look at the nine "Cs," 12 "Ds," five "Fs" and two incompletes. Isn't that how George W. did it at Yale?
What do you want? We have lower expectations of our President than Presidents past. He's lowered the bar, made a mockery out of the Oval Office and while the message he's trying to convey is rather good, he's a complete and utter failure on follow through. This man has changed so many horses in midstream that the National Equestrian Association is filing a complaint with the ASPCA.
Because when the administration is caught failing to follow through on its promises, all that it is left with is empty spin.
Can't pin it all on the Federal government, Mr. Mark. State and local officials need to be proactive. Again, the lessons from Katrina prove that there must be better communications between all levels of government. They are all in a turf war, worrying about giving up some power. Has it dawned on anyone that this is America's turf war? Unless people come out of their homes and get proactive in their neighborhoods, the same drivel will be spewed forth by McClellan and his successors.
It's easy for us to point fingers when we're outside of the Beltway and not actively involved in the process. Judging by the turnout of the electorate I give the American people an "F" for actually caring about how we're governed. Imagine, it took weeks for the Israelis to form a third political party with balls. Can you see Americans forming a third party which could stand up to the status quo and make a difference? Let's stop pointing fingers at George W. Bush and Congress. Let's start by going to local town meetings and talking to each other. Get involved damn it!
2 - Alisha Karabinus
Silas Kain for President. Damn.
Silas, that is an excellent point about the third party issues. All WE do is sit around and point fingers about everyone else pointing fingers -- we don't do anything about it. We didn't vote Bush out, but it was no great secret that he wasn't shaping up to be the best President every, war or no war. We haven't done anything.
But then again, who can we elect? Very few of our politicians seem to have any balls at all.
3 - gonzo marx
oh my stars and garters....where to begin?
i can easily agree there are plenty of places where this whole Issue can spew "blame"
i can also Agree with Silas that a big part of what needs to be done is required of the Citizens...being Informed, getting off their asses and making a shitstorm to demonstrate their displeasure
however..the Responsibility for the ENTIRE range of fuck ups that our elected representatives and the Agencies they run in OUR fucking Names belongs directly in the lap of the totalitarian GOP controlled government
lesser Responsibility to those state Administrations that have spent money earmarked for defense and security on bullshit pork
and a special Ring of Hell is reserved for the Profiteers...eternal vivisections with a rusty spork would be far too merciful for the traitorous swine who exploit decent Intent for the False Profit of $
i would love to see a viable third Party show up...but i ani't holding my breath...i had hoped for the Bull Moose Party to rise again in 2000 with McCain...but the olde Soldier bent over and took one for the Gipper's Ghost dressed in the NeoCon's "noble lie"
what to do?
good fucking Question....
me?..i'll be working/hoping/begging JuJu, (may his tusks always glow with the LIght of Reason), for complete Gridlock come '06...as long as the opposing gang(read:political Party), holds either House or Senate...the sheer possibility of supeona powered Investigations is usually enough to keep all of the miserable pigfuckers from stealing TOO much
and until another Way of political Thinking steps into the limelight...one that puts the well being of the People ... rather than the money and Lobbyists... as the Most Important Priority, comes along ....
well..then this rambling Fool will be happy just for some quiet and Gridlock
we have seen just how fucking abysmally unfettered Power has been handled by the GOP
where's Vito Corleone when we need him? at least he would have gotten shit taken care of
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
4 - Silas Kain
If Vito Corleone were running the Executive branch you can bet your buttocks that there'd be efficiency or there would be mass executions on Capitol Hill.
5 - G. Oren
Good posts all - Gonzo has me laughing out loud. Bring on gridlock, at least then someone might actually care about homeland security.
6 - Dave Nalle
I have to point out - having now read the report - that the Bush administration isn't blaming Congress, the commission is blaming congress, specifically in the areas of homeland security funding and reforming the FBI. They also put some blame on local jurisdictions and a certain amount on the administration. I'd hardly say they singled out the administration for the lion's share. Good lord, they even blamed citizens for not pressuring government enough to implement their suggestions.
Dave
7 - Silas Kain
Oh my God, they blamed citizens. It's about friggin' time! We're so busy blaming the government that we've forgotten that we ARE the government. We can make or break any politican if we choose. It's no wonder Jesse Ventura is a cynic. When I look at the talent that comes here to BC it makes my blood boil to know that this talent could be put to great use in government. But why should any of us try? Running for office means selling your soul to the highest bidder. Your entire life is placed under a microscope. The only "G" word we care about in this country is GOSSIP.
8 - david r. mark
Dave, how is it you are so consistently fact-challenged???
DAVID R. MARK: "The Bush Administration is blaming Congress -- spokesman Dan Bartlett was very visible on this morning's talk shows -- in another display of the buck stops anywhere but at the White House."
DAVE NALLE: "The Bush administration isn't blaming Congress."
THE FACTS SHOWING THAT DAVE NALLE IS WRONG:
From PBS Online Newshour, Dec. 5:
DAN BARTLETT: They are funding things based on old models, pre-9/11 models. We think it's important that homeland security dollars go to where the threats are. And that's something that we'll be constantly pushing the Congress to change.
From the New York Sun, Dec. 5:
A White House counselor, Dan Bartlett, said the Bush administration wants to base funding on threat but is frustrated by the way Congress spends homeland security funding.
"They are funding things based on old models, pre-9/11 models. We think it's important that homeland security dollars go to where the threats are," Mr. Bartlett said yesterday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
From Fox News, Dec. 5:
"Congress has more work to do in the way that they fund certain grants and projects at the local level for homeland security fundin," White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told FOX News.
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
DRM, from the quotes you lay out, I don't see any sign or mention of blame. I see a drive to change something, but I don't see declarations of "Look what you did! Bad boy!" and then they rub their noses in it.
That's just what I see, though.
10 - david r. mark
All I see is Bartlett making the rounds and talking about how Congress is using an old model to fund Homeland Security, frustrating the White House. He said the same thing over and over on all the morning talk shows.
Speaking about the White House, Bartlett and McClellan each said that progress has been made, but more has to be done.
Take those two thoughts side by side. Which one sounds negative, and which one sounds positive?
Bartlett may be trying to change something, but to promote the need for change, he's suggesting that there's something wrong -- and that something is Congress.
11 - Nancy
Gonzo, good rant, as always.
I would ask, Silas, how the American public can be responsible for anything, when in fact they can't even be trusted to be responsible for themselves, witness getting to safety before H. Katrina? They possess no common sense, no ability to think logically or rationally, Madison Ave has seen to that. From birth, 99% of the population of this country has been conditioned, like Pavlov's dogs, to react on command to whatever sound bites are played loudest & most insistently. They respond to fearmongering & glib lies, not facts or presentations requiring them to weigh all angles and judge accordingly. Whatever is packaged slickest & marketed most aggressively, wins, as we have seen in the last two elections. They have become in fact as well as theory, the embodiment of Kornbluth's "Marching Morons". The 1% who can & do think & judge rationally & logically, cannot possibly hope to stem the tide against such an army of zombified consumers of dumbed-down pap. It would be like blaming sheep for being preyed on by wolves, which is essentially the situation we have here. Consider: 30, 40 years ago, people could be counted on to rise up in outrage & demonstrate against what they considered to be evil, misgovernment, wrong. Today? You can't get them worked up unless you're marketing the latest electronic toy like the Xbox. We are, as the title of another article says, a nation of morons, idiots, and fools, bred & carefully educated to respond only to advertising & 15-second sound bites.
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
Positive or negative? Who cares?
For high-paid officials, politicians sure are whiny babies when it comes to "bad words."
What to do about Homeland Security is another example of an issue that everyone in the nation's capital agrees on and cares not to admit it until someone on "the other side" decides to "take the heat."
13 - Nancy
Homeland Insecurity. I can tell you where the HS money is, as can anyone else who volunteers for a fire or rescue dept.: it ain't here in the community where it's supposed to be, fer sure.
I volunteer at a fire dept. not too far from DC. There's lots of money around here, and plenty of pols living in the area, too, so you'd think we'd have plenty of FEMA funds & the HS equipment we were promised 4 years ago to protect their sorry spoiled butts? Hah. We scrape & scrounge for every nickel & set of PBI gloves. So where IS the money? I can tell you: some months ago, the WP ran a story about the executive chef at the HS HQ, and also the really nifty designer private dining room for the upper crust HS personnel, and the really, really nifty leather-upholstered, museum-quality art decorated, Chinese silk rugs on the floor, fine-china & real sterling silver furnished, super private dining room for his nibs the HS Secretary & his cronies. No SCBA gear; no HAZMAT equipment or training; but the BushCo HS Secretary gets to eat in style.
Your tax dollars at work.
14 - Dave Nalle
Sorry David, make that 'the Bush administration wasn't first in blaming congress - the commission put the blame there first'. Now go peddle your bigotry somewhere else.
Dave
15 - Dave Nalle
DRM, from the quotes you lay out, I don't see any sign or mention of blame. I see a drive to change something, but I don't see declarations of "Look what you did! Bad boy!" and then they rub their noses in it.
That's just what I see, though.
Suss, that's because when you see statements from administrative representatives you take them on their merits like a sensible person. When David sees them he assumes they're part of a vast conspiracy that exists entirely in his head.
Dave
16 - gonzo marx
ok...wait a second...
Mr Nalle sez...
*Suss, that's because when you see statements from administrative representatives you take them on their merits like a sensible person.*
the Variable here is "on their merits"....Apologists for the Administration tend to see those statements via the rose tint of their personal sympathies for the Bush ideology
those that hate the Admin see just the opposite
but let us take a look at the Objective fucking Reality here...
THIS Administration has been in charge, with complete control of all assets and aspects of not opnly the problem, but the money and the ability to shape Policy for the Soloution
have they done a good job? have they lived up to THEIR OWN FUCKING TIMETABLE for accomplishing their OWN goals as set out by themselves?
the Answer, gentle Readers, is a resounding FUCK NO!!!!
no matter how you try and spin it, no matter how you attemnpt to shift the blame, no matter which way you attempt semantic tricks or distractions....the final, completely Objective conclusion based solely on the policies/goals provided by the Administration itself show an abysmal fucking Failure
now, i know some folks have wanted to place a chunk of this at the feet of the American Public...that IS where the ultimate Responsibility lies, because we ARE a government by and of the People...
however...once in office, and when a single Party controls every branch of Government so not only the People but the Opposition Party cannot effectively pursue investigatory checks and balances....then the SOLE Responsibility lies in the hands of the "ruling Party"...Q.E.D.
to top it all off, the Administration's hand picked Commission on these matters not only made reccomendations that the WH said they would follow...but has now given failing "grades" when it comes to many "key" areas...
where are the Priorities? apparently NOT with making our Nation more secure against this threat than we were over 4 years ago...at least not according to the 9/11 Commission
so where the fuck is all this money going? what the fuck is the newest,largest governmental Agency, the Dept of Homeland Security, actually DOING?
distract, distort, deny and destroy...the tactics of this Administration when dealing with bad news or criticism....
fuck that
get the job done...period
our Responsibility, as Citizens lies in tossing out the bastards that are NOT doing their jobs comes 2006...and between now and then, letting the bums know we are Watching, and we are pissed off
so those who can't accept the objective realities of the situation...on EITHER side... do us all a Favor...shut the fuck up
yer not helping
nuff said?
Excelsior!
17 - Dave Nalle
Yes, Gonzo. But the fact remains that being half-incompetent, venal and feckless doesn't make them evil as DRM would have you believe. Sure, they've fucked up here and there, but that doesn't mean that their every statement needs to be spun into some sort of lie or conspiracy or that their motives are evil and inhumane.
Dave
18 - david r. mark
Dave Nalle: "(T)he Bush administration isn't blaming Congress"
Dave Nalle: "(M)ake that 'the Bush administration wasn't first in blaming congress - the commission put the blame there first'
So once again, Dave Nalle agrees with me. But since he can't admit that, he has to immediately turn around and smear me. Hence ...
Dave Nalle: "When David sees them he assumes they're part of a vast conspiracy that exists entirely in his head."
What conspiracy? I said very simply:
"The Bush Administration is blaming Congress -- spokesman Dan Bartlett was very visible on this morning's talk shows"
Then I backed that up with direct quotes from Bartlett in which he criticizes Congress, says how Congress has frustrated the administration, and how the administration is making progress, but could make more, if not for Congress.
How much more straightforward can you get?
But Dave Nalle knows that if he can steer the conversation to this minor point, maybe people will stop paying attention to the larger point -- the Republican failure to follow through on Homeland Security promises -- or maybe they'll stop reading the thread altogether.
Dave Nalle has learned well from the myriad of conservative guests populating the television and radio talk shows. When the information -- even from non-partisan or bipartisan sources -- is anti-Bush, they start flailing their arms, trying to change the subject and create a lot of white noise, to confuse the audience or to turn them off altogether. Bravo, Dave, you would make Ken Mehlman proud.
Dave (to steal a line from the recent movie, "Mean Girls"), just because you call me stupid doesn't make you smart. Every time that you smear me or resort to name-calling, I'll just respond by showing BC readers the facts. You aren't going to prevent me from continuing to use facts as the basis for my articles -- even if those facts don't please true believers like you.
19 - david r. mark
Dave Nalle: "But the fact remains that being half-incompetent, venal and feckless doesn't make them evil as DRM would have you believe."
I never said evil. I've said the Bush Administration has misled the nation. I've said their priorities are wrong. I've said they've flip-flopped. I've said they failed to follow through on promises. And I've defended each of those statements by attributing facts from mainstream media sources, the GAO, congressional testimony, and their own words. I've never used the word "evil," or any synonym, to describe the Bush Administration or its supporters.
But hey, keep smearing me, Dave. When you're fact-challenged, I guess that's all you have left.
20 - Dave Nalle
David, I've laid out more facts than you can shake a stick at and pointed out flaw after flaw in your own finely spun factoids. Keep denying all you like, but the truth is obvious.
As for your unreasoning hatred, I assumed it was because you think Bush is evil. Maybe you hate him for more personal reasons. That might be even worse.
Dave
21 - Matthew T. Sussman
Personally I don't care what someone thinks of somebody. Like Dave N. said about my feelings in Comment 9, I place value in words, not meta-feelings behind them, because I can't prove they exist. Even if I could, nothing profitable result from it.
The argument occurs outside the arguer, so who gives a damn what's inside?
Now, Dave R.M. makes a good point now and then, and if nothing else he's a good news gatherer, but some of them â€" like the one about Michael Brown eating at a nice restaurant and getting a dogsitter â€" make no sense to me.
But as long as I'm on the topic, I've never been a fan of a piece which puts emphasis on certain phrases, which David R.M. As a reader, I'll be the judge of what sticks out in my head. Bold tags are only good for formatting and subheading.
22 - david r. mark
As for your unreasoning hatred, I assumed it was because you think Bush is evil. Maybe you hate him for more personal reasons. That might be even worse. >> Dave Nalle
You're really just a broken record, aren't you?
I don't hate the president. I don't think he's evil. If I did, I would say so.
I'm disappointed with the president. I'm frustrated by him. I don't understand many of the decisions he makes. I don't agree with his priorities.
But please, Dave, keep smearing. You have nothing else to offer, apparently.
23 - david r. mark
Matthew, I wasn't offering "meta feelings." I offered in the original article that Bartlett was blaming Congress. If you prefer, I could have said he was criticizing Congress.
The quotes I offered Dave Nalle I think show pretty clearly that Bartlett went onto all the morning shows and, each time, made sure to criticize Congress.
To me, that's classic spin. The 9/11 Commission blamed the White House and Congress. Bartlett goes on to defend the White House, and to say that Congress has work to do.
Again, I didn't think I was going out on a limb by stating this. But certainly you are entitled to interpret Bartlett's quotes differently. I can accept that a lot more than Dave Nalle denying the quotes were made, then changing his mind and saying that the quotes were only restating what the commission said, and then changing his mind again and smearing me.
24 - Matthew T. Sussman
Exactly. And again, I don't care what a writer thinks. I care what a writer writes. Maybe it's my inability to read people's minds, but I leave that for Miss Cleo and Deanna Troi.
But the way you two Daves get into it is so hideous, I'd rather watch Star Jones on her wedding night.
25 - david r. mark
Matthew, I hope you recognize that this is exactly what Dave Nalle wants. He wants people to be turned off, so that no real discussion can occur.
What would you like me to do, allow Dave to smear me, claim I'm lying or misleading or hateful or whatever bullying he comes up with? Then it's left hanging that I'm wrong and Dave is right. Is that better?
I've begged Dave to stick to discussing the issues, rather than resort to name calling and smearing. But he refuses to do it, and BC apparently doesn't care.
I'm open to suggestions, though. How does one defend one's work against a bully?