How safe are we?

Bush likes to alternately boast about how safe he is keeping us and, at the same time, warn that we’re in imminent danger from terrorist attacks. That we haven’t had a 9/11-type attack in almost six years is a very welcome and positive sign. The arrests of home-grown terrorist cells, such as those planning to blow up the fuel pipelines at JFK Airport, have perhaps helped to save lives.

Let’s take a step back and look at what the government actually does to keep us safe. It is certainly not the result of sending 150,000 troops to Iraq, invading and occupying a Muslim county. Most people have concluded that those actions are creating a worldwide climate of anti-American sentiment. Every day that we’re there, against the will of more than 90 percent of the Iraqi people, provides propaganda for Islamic Fundamentalists.

What has worked to break up plans to attack America is old-fashioned police work: using informants, tracing banking records and monitoring communications. All this can be done without use of our military, illegal wiretaps, torture or other immoral and illegal means.

But after the events of last week, I have to wonder how competent the Bush administration is at simply protecting our borders. A US citizen was placed on a “Do Not Fly” list while traveling in Europe. He had been diagnosed with a severe strain of TB and could have infected hundreds if allowed to travel. Not only was he allowed to fly, but while traveling under his own name, he was allowed to cross the border. The border guard saw his name, realized that this person was not to be admitted to the country and yet allowed him in.

It is this inattention to detail that allowed 9/11 to occur in the first place. The Bush administration ignored multiple specific warnings, failed to alert airlines and airport security, failed to track the hijackers (even through they had some of their names) and continues to focus efforts in the wrong places.

The issue is, and always has been, competence.

Jon Monday