I don’t like flying. It’s not a phobia, per se, because I can (and do) get on airplanes with some regularity, but I’m not crazy about it.
When terrorists used four commercial airliners as missiles on Sept. 11, 2001, whatever pleasure I may have taken in flying seemed to evaporate. I took some solace, however, in knowing that the government was instituting an air marshal program that could deter — and perhaps prevent — another similar series of attacks.
With these concerns (fears?) in mind, I was astounded by two related pieces of news over the last 24 hours.
First was word from the federal government that terrorists may be plotting 9/11-style suicide attacks this summer on commercial airplanes in Europe, Australia, and the East Coast of the U.S.
According to an urgent memo sent to all U.S. airlines and airports last week, “The plan may involve the use of five-man teams, each of which would attempt to seize control of a commercial aircraft either shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing at a chosen airport.”
That’s horrible, right? I mean, we’ve heard rumors for months about al Queda regrouping and we’ve seen our “terror alert” chart fluctuate repeatedly between yellow and orange. Now we have word that terrorists want to repeat some of the same kinds of attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans.
It’s a good thing we have all those air marshals! Oh wait…
Just as the federal government was offering unusually specific information about renewed terrorist threats regarding airplane hijackings, the federal government was also announcing new cuts in security screeners and air marshals. Why? Budget cuts.
A disturbing article in the Washington Post explained that just one day after the terrorist threat memo was sent to the air travel industry, the Federal Air Marshal Service “canceled what are considered some of the most vulnerable flight missions because they required marshals to spend nights in hotels, as well as cut training for Washington-area agents next month.” The Service cited “monetary considerations,” and Transportation Safety Administration acknowledged that the undercover program is “not exempt from budget realities facing the TSA.”
MSNBC is also reporting, “The decision to drop coverage on flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack apparently stems from a policy decision to rework schedules so that air marshals don’t have to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels.”
If you’re reading this thinking you’re in some kind of bizarre Twilight Zone episode where budgetary issues and public policy make absolutely no sense, then you and I are in the same boat.
The Bush administration believes that terrorists are planning to hijack airplanes and kill untold thousands and the same administration simultaneously cuts back on the most effective defense to prevent this from happening — because we don’t want to pay for some hotel rooms.
[That sound you hear is my head exploding]
We can afford obscenely-large tax cuts and a war and subsequent occupation in Iraq, but we can’t pick up the tab for air marshals hotel rooms because of budget cuts. I’m at a total loss for words.
Remind me, how long do we have to wait until we can vote to replace these incompetent clowns? By my count, it’s only another 459 days.