ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Rice: Iraq War Has Not Fueled Terrorism

By Judd Legum on Jul 7, 2005 at 4:04 pm

Condoleezza Rice was interviewed today by the BBC and she was asked a very good question:

BEALE: Do you think that Britain and America in Iraq are perhaps fighting the wrong war? They went to war to remove physical weapons of mass destruction but partly Saddam Hussein as well, but that hasn’t stopped the terrorist attacks in Western cities like Madrid, in London today. It seems to have fueled those attacks.

RICE: Oh, I don’t think that anything is being fueled here except the fact that the terrorists are finally being confronted. Again, they were — they’ve been doing this now for a couple of decades and for a while the world, going all the way back to Beirut and going back to the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 or the attacks on American Embassies in 1998, this has been going on for a while.

Rice’s response underscores the fundamental problem with the Bush’s attitude and approach to the war on terror. The president and his closest advisors refuse to acknowledge — no matter what happens — that the Iraq war has precipitated more terrorist attacks and more terrorists. This has been confirmed by the CIA and the State Department.

The decision to make the Iraq war the central component of the war on terror was a mistake. Rice should spend less time spinning past mistakes and more time creating a new strategy.

Security

The Bush Record on Transit Security

By ThinkProgress on Jul 7, 2005 at 1:34 pm

Britain and Spain are two countries with as much experience in combating terrorism, by the IRA and ETA respectively, as anyone in the world. The fact that neither has been able to stop attacks during periods of heightened alert is a clear sign that a strike on a U.S. transit or rail system is a very real security threat. The bombings in London today should serve as a wake-up call that the U.S. desperately needs a stronger, progressive approach to rail security. Consider:

JUDGE FINDS ‘NO CONSISTENT, COMPREHENSIVE’ RAIL SECURITY POLICY: Just three months ago, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled on a rail security case involving CSX Transportation. In his decision, Sullivan criticized the Bush administration for having no “consistent and comprehensive federal policy addressing the risks of terrorism on our interstate rail system,” despite the fact that “the federal government has the lead role in regulating the rails and that a community can intervene only when a subject cannot be addressed by national standards or rules.”

2005: JUST $115 MILLION IN RAIL SECURITY FUNDING: Bush’s 2005 budget allocation for train security was just $115 million, equal to what the U.S. spends on eight typical hours in Iraq. (The White House spent $15 billion on airline security, “though as many as 16 times more people ride rail lines than airplanes.”)

SINCE 9/11, BUSH HAS RELIED ON “VOLUNTARY” RAIL SECURITY STRATEGY: Some 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the United States is privately owned. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, the Bush administration has not worked to compel the private sector to raise their safety standards since 9/11. Instead, the administration and transit companies have agreed on “voluntary measures by the companies to address terrorism-vulnerability concerns.” The obvious problem: stricter security measures also cost more, so transit companies have, by and large, ignored them.

For a progressive approach to rail security, check out “Putting Rail Security on the Right Track,” a component of our Critical Infrastructure Security Series.

Politics

Is Karl Rove Getting Lonely?

By Faiz Shakir on Jul 7, 2005 at 12:23 pm

As the focus of the investigation regarding who in the White House leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent begins to narrow in on Karl Rove, he may soon be finding that his list of friends starts to dwindle. Here are a number of close Rove associates who have spoken out harshly against the act of leaking the name of a CIA agent:

GEORGE W. BUSH: “This is a very serious matter. And our administration takes it seriously… this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action.” [10/6/03]

ED GILLESPIE: “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative — it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.” [MSNBC Hardball, 9/30/03]

KAREN HUGHES: “President Bush has said — and I agree — there are too many leaks in Washington. We didn’t experience that kind of situation when we were here in Texas. I think it’s very disruptive to democracy Whoever did this leak obviously was not serving President Bush very well.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/2/03]

JOHN ASHCROFT: “Let me just indicate that this is a matter of great concern to me, that I have not ruled out any options. Leaks are a serious matter. When information is classified, it’s classified for a reason, and classified because it is in the national interest of the United States of America that the information not be shared. And anyone who purposefully leaks information that has been classified is, for some reason — it’s incomprehensible to me, but for some reason — subordinating a national security — if they purposefully leak information — suborting the national security in the interests of the United States to some interests of their own.” [News conference, 10/16/03]

GEORGE H.W. BUSH: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]

COLIN POWELL: “Not only do you put her at risk, or any undercover agent at risk, by letting it be known that they are an agent, but you also put the sources they have worked with over the years at considerable risk.” [9/30/03]

Politics

FRC’s Hypocritical Attack on Schumer

By ThinkProgress on Jul 7, 2005 at 10:30 am

The right-wing Family Research Council is outraged — they just put out a release denouncing Sen. Chuck Schumer’s so-called “Declaration of War.” They’re referring to this report by Matt Drudge that Schumer was overheard on a subway yesterday saying “We are contemplating how we are going to go to war over this [Supreme Court nomination].” FRC head Tony Perkins called Shumer’s comment “against the process of judicial honor and shameful.”

Which is, to put it mildly, deeply ironic. After all, on the very day that Justice O’Connor announced her retirement, FRC put out a release claiming Americans (and, in particular, their grassroots activists) were “primed for the fight” over the next nominee. (The same release attacked Justice O’Connor as a “judicial activist.”)

The public is primed for the fight it will take to confirm a nominee. FRC can motivate significant grassroots support for the President’s nominees. We will wage an unprecedented effort for a fair and prompt up or down vote through the mobilization of 20,000 churches across the nation, weekly conference calls in targeted states, the strengthening of the FRC team and activation of grassroots through www.frc.org.

Feel free to call FRC’s press contact, Amber Hildebrand, and ask her to clarify FRC’s position: (202) 393-2100

Politics

Steele on The Ehrlich Administration: We Are The Fulfillment of MLK Jr.’s Dream

By Judd Legum on Jul 7, 2005 at 8:54 am

Yesterday, we wrote about how Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich held a $100,000 fundraiser at an all-white country club. Neither Ehrlich nor Lt. Gov. Michael Steele think it was a big deal.

When Ehrlich and Steele where sworn in on January 15, 2003, here is what Steele had to say:

Forty years ago, Martin Luther King had a dream. How fitting today we celebrate not only the inauguration of a new era, but the birthday of a man who dreamed this day would come.

Email Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele and ask them if, in light of their commitment to Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy, they will continue to support institutions that practice racial discrimination.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up