Democrats go after Bush on domestic security

Though writing about politics, elections, and the conventional wisdom while the nation is on the brink of war is difficult, I’m left thinking if The Note can do it, then I can too.

While Democratic presidential candidates are clearly not united on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein or the utility of the soon-to-be war, they seem to have settled on an important chink in Bush’s security armor: domestic security. (You’ll notice I don’t use “homeland security”; the phrase just gives me the creeps)

As the Washington Post notes today, John Kerry became the latest to point out Bush’s commitment to protecting Americans from terrorism here in the U.S.

The article notes that Kerry, in a speech today to the International Association of Fire Fighters will “recommend creation of a new domestic intelligence unit, saying that neither the FBI nor the administration’s new agency for integrating and analyzing information about terrorist threats is sufficient to do the job. He will also offer measures to improve the federal public health service to combat bioterrorism.” Kerry, whose plan will cost about $50 billion, will also argue that Bush “has not done enough to protect the homeland, nor has the administration moved to tap the willingness of many Americans to contribute in some way to homeland defense in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

I think Kerry is right to focus on this issue because it’s a clear vulnerability for the White House. (It’s also right for the other candidates, especially Edwards, who have been talking about this issue for months. Edwards, in fact, made a similar proposal to Kerry’s in December)

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush made clear that protecting citizens on U.S. soil would be a top priority. The White House has not, however, followed through on all of its promises and Democratic presidential candidates are not the only ones who’ve noticed.

Last month, for example, the Wall Street Journal’s Al Hunt noted that Bush’s budget plan included $3.5 billion for “first responders” (police, fire/rescue, emergency crews), but that the plan was a “shell game” because most of the money was “taken from other crime-fighting or emergency management measures and paraded as new monies.”

The next week Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley, in an op-ed in the Post, said the president wasn’t doing enough to provide necessary resources to state and local agencies for prepare for potential threats. As O’Malley explained, Baltimore has spent $11 million on security upgrades since 9/11, but less than 10% came from the federal government. He argued the feds, and the Bush administration in particular, has failed to provide necessary resources for improvements such as “proper protective equipment and training for all first responders,” a “local intelligence network” for local police, a hospital-based “bio-surveillance system,” and necessary security upgrades for all domestic ports.

“If the drug cartels’ cocaine and heroin can still flow uninterrupted into America’s unprotected and uninspected ports, how hard could it be for Hussein or Osama bin Laden to smuggle a dirty bomb or a nuke?” O’Malley asked. “Not hard at all when, on average, 2 percent of America’s incoming port cargo is inspected, about the same percentage as on Sept. 11, 2001.”

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman noted that “New York’s elected representatives stood side by side with [Bush] a few days after Sept. 11 in return for a promise of generous aid. A few months later, as they started to question the administration’s commitment, the budget director, Mitch Daniels, accused them of ‘money-grubbing games.’ Firefighters and policemen applauded Mr. Bush’s promise, more than a year ago, of $3.5 billion for ‘first responders’; so far, not a penny has been delivered.”

Even the Weekly Standard, a staunchly conservative political magazine that is reluctant to criticize anything the Bush administration does, acknowledged recently that the White House isn’t doing enough to bolster our first lines of defense.

In a recent issue, the Standard’s Fred Barnes writes, “(W)e’re in a perilous war against terrorism, and scrimping may not be wise.” While he predictably chides Democrats’ use of “demagoguery” and labels governors looking for domestic security funding as “whiners,” Barnes nevertheless argued that additional homeland security funding for states “would be helpful now.”

Even congressional Republicans are bickering with the White House over which of them is responsible for failing to adequately fund security needs.

Democrats are realizing this is an issue that is of great concern to nearly all Americans and that Bush’s failure to follow through on the problem leaves him open to criticism. President Clinton talks about the fiasco in nearly every public speech, even mentioning it in his minute-and-a-half on “60 Minutes” a couple of days ago. Look for this to be a matter of significant import as the campaign heats up. After the war, that is.