Not As Safe As We Could Be

Condoleeza Rice is in Europe telling off doubters of rendition and CIA 'black sites' by pointing out how many European lives it has saved and including Saudi Arabia in the 'civilized world' (a term that leaves an unstated arrogance about the rest of the world, the 'uncivilized' part?). Meanwhile, back at home, the 9/11 commission is issuing a report giving the government 5 Fs (out of 41 categories) on the ability to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack. The Reuters article notes:

"We are safer but we are not yet safe. Four years after 9/11, we are not as safe as we could be. And that is unacceptable," said Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey. "While the terrorists are learning and adapting, our government is still moving at a crawl."

The former commissioners issued a "report card" reviewing how the commission's 41 recommendations have been implemented, and gave the government five failing grades of F -- including one for not providing adequate emergency communications.

So, by creating terrorists out of non-terrorists who become so offended by our treatment of prisoners in the war on terror and not providing emergency communications to emergency workers is the way to go? According to Condi, apparently yes. The Administration doesn't care about terrorism. They care about forcing their vision of the world onto everyone else. The war on terrorism provides them with a state of permanent war (1984 anybody?) in which to try their hand at empire building. And the American people are the guinea pigs (either by serving in the military, having a family member in the military or being more vulnerable to a retaliatory terrorist attack that the Administration refuses to prepare for).