"We will act, whenever it is necessary, to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people," promised The Superbrain during his Independence Day sermon. It's a lie as big as the hole in his arse. But it's one that is accepted as Divine Writ.

"National Security," the pundits claim (and the Democrats faithfully ditto) is Bush's ought-four ace-in-the-hole. The only question begging is whether his towering "National Security" gravitas will be undone by his Voodoo Economics achilles heel. Here's one of what must be five million examples by now, from Sandeep Kaushik in the July 31 edition of The Stranger (referring to the Democrats' strength with Washington state voters): "President Bush's popularity, and the post-9/11 emphasis on national security (which heavily favors Republicans), could change that."

Even setting aside (for now) the national insecurity inherent in a polity beset with never-ending increases in those unemployed and/or incarcerated, never-ending cut-backs in -- and privatizations of -- essential services, a psychotic fundamentalist berserker in charge of the "justice" system, a virtually nonexistent health care system, the ever-increasing frankensteinization of our food supplies, impending ecological catastrophe, and the revival of a nuclear weapons production program; to focus only Bush's skills in protecting Americans (or at least those not already locked up or deported) from being annihilated by terrorists, one can't but wonder: what in the holy fucking hell are the talking heads thinking?

Are they living in a parallel universe where September 11th didn't happen? Do they not realize that September 11th occurred during George W. Bush's presidency? Is it not self-evident that the Bush Administration -- through almost incomprehensible levels of either hubris, neglect, incompetence, or complicity -- bears a major burden of responsibility for having allowed it to happen? Could they not conclude; when the Administration immediately enacted an executive ordering to keep all Presidential records sealed for "perpetuity," did everything it could to stall and obstruct an investigation, and finally redacted dozens of pages of the official report on the tragedy; that it had something to hide? Did they not raise an eyebrow when the Administration named Henry Kissinger --Henry fucking Kissinger--to head up the investigation into the tragic day's events?

Yes, it would've been preferable for the hijackers' plans not to have been put into action in the first place. (Better still had Bush, upon inauguration, immediately renounced this nation's shameful history of bombing Third World countries early and often, and offered up reparations to all victims, past and present, of said policies.) Surely, surely, the perpetrators of such deeds were and are some sick fucking wankers, who ought to be apprehended and made to stand trial. (We may, if we're permitted to recall events that took place more that ten months ago, here note that the Taliban offered on more than one occasion to extradite bin Laden should the United States offer up some evidence of his complicity.) But having said all that, how in the fuck can the man whose administration allowed the events to happen be straight-facedly campaigning as a guarantor of "National Security"? And how in the fuck can such assurances be received straight-facedly?

Moreover, what the fuck does the administration expect us to make of its repeated warnings that another attack is "inevitable"? Unless it's supposed to be some sort of bizarre reverse-psychology ruse to dupe would-be terrorists into not planning and implementing future attacks, the Administration is openly acknowledging that it is patently incapable of "protecting the lives and the liberty of the American people." Sure, let's repeat that sentence: the Administration is openly acknowledging that it is patently incapable of "protecting the lives and the liberty of the American people." So why, whenever George W. opens up his fucking hole of a mouth, doesn't some, any, member of the press corps thrust a juicy hard-boiled egg inside?

Ashcroft unwittingly laid the cards on the table in early August, warning that, "They want to strike us whenever and wherever they can," and averring that bin Laden's latest threat "signals to us that the war is still under way, that al-Qaeda still has the same intentions toward the United States that it did when it unleashed its savage attack." September 11th should have demonstrated beyond any doubt that the greatest military force in the history of the world, the most massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, lasers and satellites patrolling the heavens, cracking down upon immigration, & cetera; will not make the country safe from future attacks. (Or Dubya could simply have asked the Israelis how secure they feel.)

If we want to decrease the probability of future attacks, we need to take measures to assure that those who currently want to "strike us whenever and wherever they can," in future don't want to do so. The answer is the same now as it's been since the dawn of humanity: do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

Cease engaging in terrorist activities, cease befriending and arming brutally repressive dictators, cease bombing Third World countries into oblivion, cease meddling in others' affairs, cease toppling democratically elected governments, cease stealing others' resources, cease imposing devastating austerity programs; and these injustices will cease "blowing back" and biting us in the ass. It's really not terribly complicated. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has taken precisely the opposite course.

Alas, nobody seems to have noticed that the Administration's reaction to its own monumental failure to prevent the September 11th attacks--the declaration of a military crusade against all "dark-skinned" people everywhere (including here at home), approximately zero per cent of whom have anything to do with endangering the lives and the liberty of Americans -- greatly exaggerated the likelihood of another attack against the lives and the liberty of Americans. Do intellectuals not read their own fucking newspaper headlines? To wit: "U.S. Warns Of New Global Terror Threats Due To Iraq Occupation," "Iraqis Warn U.S. Killings Will Breed Terror Recruits," "Afghanistan: Launchpad For Terror," "Taleban Leader Warns Of Jihad," "Al Qaeda May Be Rebuilding," "Al-Qa'ida Has Moved Its Base To Asia, G-8 Leaders Say," "Al-Qaeda Preparing New Attack In U.S.," "Report: New Threat From Al-Qaeda," "Al Qaeda May Be Back, And Stronger," "Terror Crackdown Has Not Reduced Al-Qaida Threat, Warns Think Tank," "U.S. Warns Of New Terrorist Onslaught," "U.S. Fears Network Has Regrouped, Fanned Out," "Attacks Show Al-Qaeda Is Back," "Iraq War Helped Boost Al Qaeda," "Britain: Al-Qaeda Capable Of Unconventional Attack," "Videocassette Warns Of More Terror," "Al Qaeda Mutating Like A Virus," "Did War Compromise Al-Qaida Hunt?," "Report: Iraq War May Have Helped Al-Qaida."

On top of that, while the Bush Administration has been busy dicking off on its military adventures and rising military spending to dizzying heights, the Department of "Homeland" Security is "understaffed, unorganized and weak-willed"; "Huge gaps remain in the defense of the American 'homeland' against terrorism"; "The Department of 'Homeland' Security's color-coded terror warning system has become ineffective because it serves only to alarm the public with information too vague to be of much good"; "The federal government faces numerous difficulties in preparing itself to handle the threat of a biological attack"; "Only 10 percent of the nation's fire departments could respond adequately to a building collapse"; "Measures taken by the U.S. administration against Arab and Muslim immigrants after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon have not only failed to protect U.S. security, but may have made it more vulnerable"; "The Los Alamos National Laboratory has lost track of a small quantity of plutonium"; funding for needed security measures have not been forthcoming; and a former insider insists that, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure."

Feeling safer yet? Feeling as though your life and liberty are being protected? Feeling confident that George W. is going to zoom down and "get" those baddies before they get you? Feeling like he'll be able to do so even while re-colonizing the entire Third World -- thus allowing us to have our cake and it eat, too? Feeling...ah, hell, maybe this author is the one living in a parallel universe. It would explain a lot.

Citations available at http://feedthefish.org/blog/archives/000155.html.