Talking the Talk, But Are They Walking the Walk?

One of the things that I find most fascinating about the Bush administration, is their constant refrain of being tough on terrorism. Moreover, they continually suggest that the Democrats are soft on terrorism. This seems to be played out in the polls, as the majority of Americans do indeed seem to believe that the Republicans are best placed to fight the (ahem) 'war on terror'. It is a measure of the compliant nature of the US press, that the truth is very different. Several points spring to mind whenever I hear those on the right proclaiming that the Republicans are 'tough on terror'. Here are a few points that question this belief:

• If the US government is so keen to bring Bin Laden to justice, why did they fail to take their best opportunity of capturing him? As reported in the Sunday Times: A combined force of SAS and SBS commandos was just 20 minutes behind Bin Laden, but they were pulled off to allow US troops to go in for the kill. It took several hours for the Americans to get there, by which time he had escaped. You would assume that being so close, they wouldn't have bungled the capture of Bin Laden. This suggests gross incompetence on the part of the American military, or a lack of will in actually capturing Bin Laden. Why were the men of the SAS pulled away from the task of capturing him when the nearest American forces were several miles away??

• Why did the US government abandon attempts to capture Bin Laden to go to war with Iraq? At the time, they made great play of the fact that Iraq co-operated with Al-Qaeda. This has been proven to be entirely false (except amongst the far-right of course). There were no links between the two, according to British intelligence. So why did the 'coalition' abandon the chase for Bin Laden to enagage in an unpopular war that has created many more terrorists?

• Why did the US disband the unit that has been dedicated to Osama Bin Laden for ten years? Michael Scheuer, who headed up Alec Station, is probably the leading expert on Osama Bin Laden in the West and yet his unit was forced to close and he subsequently left the employment of the CIA. Of course, it maybe that the expert knowledge of Scheuer didn't fit with the political intentions of the Bush administration. Scheuer has spoken out against the links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, an idea beloved of Bush et al. On Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC (16/11/2004), Scheuer confirmed the deception of the US administration:

MATTHEWS: Did they believe that when Secretary Powell, who has just resign, that he had the true facts when he went to the U.N. and made the case for war or didn‘t he? Was that a sales pitch, rather than a fact-based argument?

SCHEUER: The only part of that I know about, sir, is that the—I happened to do the research on the links between al Qaeda and Iraq.

MATTHEWS: And what did you come up with?

SCHEUER: Nothing.

• Finally, why has the US administration cut funding to security on public transportation? This is particularly strange given the terrorist attacks in London that focused on the public transport system. You would guess that a government serious in fighting the 'war on terror' would take its obligations seriously when it comes to protecting the population. Instead, the US government cut funding from $150 million to $100 million, much to the dismay of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Why would the administration want to cut funding on security when the terrorist threat is so high and when public transport has been a key target? So concerned were APTA, that a letter was written to the Chairman on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security asking for this to be reconsidered to ensure that 'we do not have to face the consequences of an attack on our critical transit infrastructure'.

It certainly seems that, although there is plenty of rhetoric, there is very little action to back this up. The tough talk certainly plays well amongst many on the right, who always love a tough talker. However, the tough talk merely masks the reality that the Republic administration is certainly not tough on terror. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a huge difference between the administrations view of the threat in public, compared to what they believe privately. This is certainly worth remembering when the right smear the Democrats as being 'weak on terror' in the lead up to the November elections.