It depends on what you mean by "safe"

President Bush has long insisted that invading Afghanistan and Iraq made us all safer from terrorism. However, a National Ingelligence Estimate described in today's New York Times that was completed last April by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies flatly contradicts that claim, finding that "the war in Iraq, rather than stemming the growth of terrorism, had helped fuel its spread across the globe." This assessment echoes one delived by the National Intelligence Council reported by the Washington Post in January 2005.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines safe as "secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss." Perhaps President Bush mistakenly used his Orwellian Doublespeak Dictionary when he looked up his definition of "safe."

The politicization of tragedy

In his address to the nation on Monday, President Bush expressed concern for the victims and survivors of the 9/11 attacks while using their suffering to promote his unpopular political agenda. Despite his insistence that "staying the course" is the only option for success in Iraq, reports from US military commanders suggest that strategy has failed. Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that failure, and using the tragedy of 9/11 as a platform for garnering support for his policies, is simply wrong.

There is a better way. As Joe Volk, FCNL Executive Secretary writes:

President Bush, war is not the answer to the problem of terror. Terror is not a person, not a place, and not a thing. It is a tactic. You cannot defeat tactics with weapons and armor. Terror can be deterred and stopped through active diplomacy, through multilateral cooperation, and through the rule of law....Civilization is protected by and built on law, not on war. Peace is possible, if you choose peaceful means to achieve it.

Five years ago, we allowed our country to be led into war against Afghanistan and later in Iraq, based on the false choice "between good and evil" offered by President Bush. If we've learned nothing else since then, we've learned that war is not the answer.

The path to rewriting history

Tonight, ABC is airing the first installment of a "docu-drama" it claims is based on the 9/11 Commission Report findings, despite the fact that several 9/11 Commission members dispute that claim. The script was written by self-proclaimed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh, who has fabricated scenes aimed at placing the blame for the 9/11 attacks on the Clinton administration, while valorizing the Bush administration. It seems that ABC and the creators of this right-wing fairy tale think we've forgotten (1) how President Bush ignored the warnings of possible attacks that had been bubbling up all summer, and (2) the way he actually reacted on 9/11. First he sat in a Florida classroom, listening to elementary school children showcase their reading skills and waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Then he flew from one "undisclosed location" to another like a frightened rabbit for much of the day. In all likelihood, those scenes are on the cutting room floor. Six years ago, CBS decided not to air a mini-series, "The Reagans," after conservatives argued it contained fabricated dialog about Ron and Nancy. Yet for some reason, it's all right to re-write the history of 9/11 in order to conceal the criminal culpability of the Bush administration. If you're interested in learning about the real path to 9/11, you might consider skipping ABC's partisan revision and read the final report of the 9/11 Commission instead.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) just issued an action alert regarding a recent article in the New York Times that re-writes history by revising President Bush's reasoning for invading Iraq:

The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop 'weapons of mass destruction' and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq.

Of course, back then President Bush wasn't warning about the "possibility" of WMD, he was saying that Iraq already possessed stockpiles of WMD that posed a grave threat to the safety and security of the world.

FAIR is asking us to tell the New York Times to correct the record on the Bush administration's prime reason for invading Iraq, and provides the following contact information:

New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652

Peace now

In 1967, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us.” Religious and community leaders throughout the US are calling on Congress to set a new course in Iraq by September 21, the United Nations International Day of Peace. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused the deaths of 2,500 US soldiers, at least 100,000 Iraqis, and consumed billions of dollars in resources. We can urge our members of Congress to develop a specific and comprehensive strategy for ending the war by withdrawing our support for the current open-ended occupation of Iraq. As Rev. Lois Powell writes, "It is time for those of us who love our country to act and speak out."

Three cheers for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann for having the courage to speak truth to power in response to President Bush's cynical attempt to silence media critics by insinuating that they are al Qaeda propagandists.

Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is holding up the release of a report on the use (and abuse) of pre-invasion intelligence until after the mid-term elections in November. Is it possible that the Republicans have something to hide?

Look for the union label

This Labor Day, I'd like to thank the women and men who have fought for workers' rights and brought us:

child labor laws

the 40-hour work week

Social Security

unemployment insurance

minimum hourly wages

laws protecting workers' safety and health

Muchas gracias!

Deja-vu all over again

Vice President Cheney has emerged from an undisclosed location to try to scare the living daylights out of us again, characterizing any change in policy on Iraq as a "retreat" and "an invitation to further violence against us." Meanwhile President Bush threatens that ending the occupation of Iraq would put us at risk of terrorist attacks “in the streets of our own cities.”

Compare this frightening rhetoric to what the Bush administration has done to protect us and decide for yourself who is "soft on security":

Eroded our civil liberties and engaged in illegal surveillance of citizens.

Evaded the laws of the US and the world to commit torture.

Invaded Iraq with no post-war security plan, creating chaos, civil war, and a training ground for new terrorists.

Failed to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to secure US ports, transportation outlets, and high risk facilities.

Now that's something to scream about.