Unbelievable
Yesterday, I posted a rant about how the Department of Homeland Security slashed the budget with which New York City fights terrorism by 40%. Per State Spending figures from the DHS are here. (pdf)
Today ABC is reporting that a Department of Homeland Security strategic report published just a week before Tuesday’s announcement that New York’s anti-terror funds would be cut stated New York’s rail terminals and commuter rail lines are at the top of the terrorist hit list. Of course, the proper thing to do is leave them less protected. What infallible logic.
The NYTimes reports that, in a classic case of “blame the victim,” our anti-terror programs (which terrorism experts have stated should be a model for other cities to follow -pdf file-,) were graded poorly by the DHS. The DHS also said our funds were cut because we faxed our application, instead of submitting it electronically. Only... we didn’t: City and state officials insisted that they had made no mistakes. And a state official provided a written acknowledgment from the federal government saying that the city’s application for grant money had been “successfully submitted” and said that the city could “log in” any time to view the application.
...
“The White House tried to minimize the effect on New York. The grants will be reconsidered each year and could change if “some grand and unforeseen need arises,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary. ”
So if we’re attacked for a third time, the White House assures us that the Federal government will show up with money we can use to bury our dead. Here’s a thought. How about doing everything you can to prevent an attack in the first place? How about deciding failure and covering your own asses after the fact is not an option? Doesn't your country deserve better?
The excuses DHS is giving us don’t add up. They identify New York City as a high risk target. “...the report said the city was in the top 25 percent of urban areas at risk...” (from the Times article). Are they kidding? Top 25%? Try at the very top of the list. They say we have no national icons, which is blatant bullshit. They claim we misfiled our application, so they’re punishing us. They say we’re misallocating funds but make no effort to work on fixing the problem. (They rated our application in the bottom 25%.) And DHS rated Washington DC in the bottom 25%, which makes no sense whatsoever. At the risk of repeating myself, only two cities were targeted on 9/11: NYC and Washington, DC. Nothing has changed since 2001 to change their status as terrorist targets. .
Regular readers of this space know I don’t subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy paranoia. But, I’m now beginning to wonder if the DHS is interested in seeing us attacked before the midterm elections. The excuses they’re making don’t justify the risks being posed to our national security.
Either that or they’re a bunch of morons. Neither conclusion bodes well for our safety.
Today ABC is reporting that a Department of Homeland Security strategic report published just a week before Tuesday’s announcement that New York’s anti-terror funds would be cut stated New York’s rail terminals and commuter rail lines are at the top of the terrorist hit list. Of course, the proper thing to do is leave them less protected. What infallible logic.
The NYTimes reports that, in a classic case of “blame the victim,” our anti-terror programs (which terrorism experts have stated should be a model for other cities to follow -pdf file-,) were graded poorly by the DHS. The DHS also said our funds were cut because we faxed our application, instead of submitting it electronically. Only... we didn’t: City and state officials insisted that they had made no mistakes. And a state official provided a written acknowledgment from the federal government saying that the city’s application for grant money had been “successfully submitted” and said that the city could “log in” any time to view the application.
...
“The White House tried to minimize the effect on New York. The grants will be reconsidered each year and could change if “some grand and unforeseen need arises,” said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary. ”
So if we’re attacked for a third time, the White House assures us that the Federal government will show up with money we can use to bury our dead. Here’s a thought. How about doing everything you can to prevent an attack in the first place? How about deciding failure and covering your own asses after the fact is not an option? Doesn't your country deserve better?
The excuses DHS is giving us don’t add up. They identify New York City as a high risk target. “...the report said the city was in the top 25 percent of urban areas at risk...” (from the Times article). Are they kidding? Top 25%? Try at the very top of the list. They say we have no national icons, which is blatant bullshit. They claim we misfiled our application, so they’re punishing us. They say we’re misallocating funds but make no effort to work on fixing the problem. (They rated our application in the bottom 25%.) And DHS rated Washington DC in the bottom 25%, which makes no sense whatsoever. At the risk of repeating myself, only two cities were targeted on 9/11: NYC and Washington, DC. Nothing has changed since 2001 to change their status as terrorist targets. .
Regular readers of this space know I don’t subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy paranoia. But, I’m now beginning to wonder if the DHS is interested in seeing us attacked before the midterm elections. The excuses they’re making don’t justify the risks being posed to our national security.
Either that or they’re a bunch of morons. Neither conclusion bodes well for our safety.