Bush to Seek More Money to Fight Terrorism at Home
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 23, 2004
ROSWELL, N.M., Jan. 22 — President Bush said today that he would ask Congress for another major increase in financing for domestic security, and, in a clear indication of the strategy his aides say he plans to pursue in his re-election campaign, he urged Americans against taking false comfort in the absence of terrorist attacks on American soil for more than two years [P6: emphasis added].
Mr. Bush's warning at the New Mexico Military Institute here came less than 48 hours after he used the State of the Union address to defend the invasion of Iraq and to counter arguments from Democratic candidates that his pursuit of Saddam Hussein hampered the broader fight against terrorism.
One senior political adviser to Mr. Bush described the president's strategy in the coming months as "a healthy mix of optimism and the fear factor," tapping into what White House officials believe is a wariness among swing voters about putting the nation's security into the hands of any of the Democratic aspirants.
While White House officials gave few details of the 9.7 percent increase Mr. Bush is proposing in the domestic defense spending — about $2.8 billion, they calculated, though there is significant dispute about how to categorize many of those spending programs. Democrats and critics of Mr. Bush's domestic security strategy have argued that some of the money already sent to state and local agencies had been diverted to projects that had only a peripheral relationship to security efforts.
Posted by P6 at January 23, 2004 09:53 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/89
Comments
This is a thought exercise, not a slam -- how safe is safe enough?
Posted by Phelps at January 23, 2004 11:16 AMThat's something the Bushistas need to answer. To my mind, less chance of a problem than being struck by lightning is safe enough.
Posted by P6 at January 25, 2004 12:59 AMSo 73 dead Americans a year by terrorism is good enough for you? When it comes to satisfying the American public, they aren't going to be satisfied with a number that high.
I would say they would be unlikely to satisfied by anything with more than one digit.
Posted by Phelps at January 26, 2004 01:34 PM73 dead Americans a year, with a population of 290,809,777 is .000025% of the population.
Yes, that's good enough for me.
Posted by P6 at January 27, 2004 04:38 PMWe're already past 500 dead Americans in Iraq and it hasn't even been a year. But apparently Phelps stands for that just fine.
I'm curious how many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and other domestic terrorists. More than 73 a year?
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at January 28, 2004 03:06 AMI'm curious how many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and other domestic terrorists. More than 73 a year?
By way of analysis, between 1890 and 1920 (when it was endemic), there were a a total of 3,107 lynchings. The population of the USA in 1890 was 38.6 M. By 1920 it was 106.0 M (for an annual increase of 3.4%). Between 1888 & 1922, 3,436 persons were believed to have been killed. For both periods, the death toll was an average of 101-103 per year; but in 1892, the worst year, 230 persons were lynched (1890 US pop 63.0 mil means 3.58 per million).
73 dead Americans per year = 0.25/million.
(Incidently, between 1882 and 1964, the total was 4,743; NY state had 2 for the whole period, while it had the largest population of any state the entire time. NH had 0. WI had 6; AR, with a very small population, had 284. Annual stats)
This does not include hate crimes, which are obviously subject to scrutiny. I don't think domestic terrorism furnishes steady mortality rates.
We're already past 500 dead Americans in Iraq and it hasn't even been a year. But apparently Phelps stands for that just fine.
Just fine? No. The lesser of two evils? Yes. Saddam was killing at an average of 16,000 a year. (That's the average over 20 years. He went on the occasional spree and sometimes slowed down to just a few thousand a year.) That's about 30 Iraqis for every American killed -- in the first year. There is every indication that Saddam had quite a few years in front of him, and would likely turn his country over to a son just as evil.
Finally, there is little to indicate that the deaths will continue at this rate in Iraq. The attacks have been tapering off since shortly after they dragged Saddam out of his hole. The remaining rebels have had to resort to suicide bombing to try to maintain the rate, which has its own attrition and recruiting problems, and has the side effect that it tends to kill more Iraqis than Americans, turning more of the rest of the Iraqi population against them. Saddam's Iraq is winding down.
Posted by Phelps at February 2, 2004 06:17 PMFinally, there is little to indicate that the deaths will continue at this rate in Iraq. The attacks have been tapering off since shortly after they dragged Saddam out of his hole.
There is actually quite a to indicate the deaths will continue at the present (or some higher) rate in Iraq. One is welcome to pay a visit to the site of Prof. Juan Cole, especially this post. If that is not enough, you can pay a visit to the BBC, or this revealing article by Zaki Chehab.
You probably imagine that Saddam was so horrible that anything would have been better; and perhaps you are right. Certainly I hope that the danger of a protracted civil war, polarizing swathes of the region into warring camps, does not materialize. But either the warring factions unite against us, or they erupt into civil war, or we somehow dig up another Saddam to impose the desired order on the country--or, perhaps if we are exceptionally fortunate, some sort of modus vivendi is achieved. But then it will have been through the grace of God and no merit on the part of the WH--of this you may rest assured.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 3, 2004 04:29 PMBut either the warring factions unite against us, or they erupt into civil war, or we somehow dig up another Saddam to impose the desired order on the country--or, perhaps if we are exceptionally fortunate, some sort of modus vivendi is achieved. But then it will have been through the grace of God and no merit on the part of the WH--of this you may rest assured.
Has it ever occurred that they might not be savages who need a warlord chaining them down, and that they might actually be able to govern themselves?
(And I'm done with the beeb. They ruined their credibility sexing up their reporting.)
Posted by Phelps at February 3, 2004 05:12 PMHas it ever occurred [to you] that they might not be savages who need a warlord chaining them down, and that they might actually be able to govern themselves?
Of course it has. You certainly don't have far to look:
JRM: [...]or, perhaps if we are exceptionally fortunate, some sort of modus vivendi is achieved.
Civil wars, including the really protracted ones, however, do not occur because the society is inhabited by savages. They occur because the foundations of civil trust have been shattered. That wasn't our fault, BTW, but smashing Saddam and our methods of occupation seem to be ensuring that grounds for comity amongst the rival clans, sects, or urban classes have been severely weakened.
And I'm done with the beeb. They ruined their credibility sexing up their reporting.
That would make Pecksniff barf. I can't believe you're being serious. You HAVE to be sarcastic.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 3, 2004 09:24 PMThat would make Pecksniff barf. I can't believe you're being serious. You HAVE to be sarcastic.
Nope. The Beeb and the NYT have done pathetically on reporting since the turn of the century. If you want to talk about institutionalized bias, those two are the poster children. The Beeb in particular has been systemically anti-American, and it offends me.
Posted by Phelps at February 4, 2004 04:22 PM