Thursday, August 05, 2004
Why Can't They Leave Security to the Pros?
The accusations that Homeland Security and the Bush Administration are currently using alerts for political gain comes from a group of people who would sacrifice you and me to get back into power. Why? Because they really don't get it--and they really want to get back into power. This is Machiavelli 101, kids.
What's an Unsophisticated, Naive Public to Think?
Bruce Springsteen, Michael Moore or any of the Hollywood leftists who declare the president a Nazi, Fascist, whatever, show astonishing ignorance of how security is handled and why it is so important for those who know what's going on to keep the upper hand in public discussion.
My father, now gone for many years, was director of security at one of the world's largest manufacturers of precision guidance equipment for missile systems. He was responsible for 8000 employees' security clearances and a unit of top notch security officials guarding a mile-long facility. Before that post, he was head of security at one of the Manhattan Project's facilities. I won't say which one.
Although my father never, ever talked about work (he simply couldn't), I was informed by my mother that what he did was extremely important to the well being of Americans everywhere. It was not until I was older, and the cold war was over, that I was told exactly what had been going on.
Come to find out, he was one of the very few individuals in the world who knew what was happening in Los Alamos, Richland and Oak Ridge before Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The stakes then were as big as they are now, relatively speaking.
After WWII, "the big one," as Dobie Gillis' pop used to say, my dad was transferred to another area of secrecy. To everyone it looked as if he were going to his office every morning, just like an insurance executive. I didn't know why everyone called him "Chief," or why we had phone calls in the middle of the night. Talk about bliss. I was very protected.
When the Cuban Missile crisis was in full swing, my dad was at the "plant" day and night. I knew something awful was up then.
Security people don't go around flapping their gums about what they do. My father was one of those professionals who knew what was going on and how dangerous the world is. But he never had to confer with a journalist or an entertainment figure to strategize his methods. Even the idea of speaking about security was considered a breach, thus compromising the lives of millions of people.
I'm sure my dad has rolled in his grave two or three hundred times in the last ten years.
Sniveling, Craven Men and Stupid Little Women
The people who are making life miserable for the rest of us, the leftists in media and academia, have become so inured to danger warnings (they call it paranoia to be watchful), they refuse to listen to what is the worst that can happen to them.
For instance, in the Nuclear Free Zone up in Berkeley, the socialist professors wax eloquently about antiwar ideals and practices. They actually feel safe, I guess. I'm wondering; did anyone think to tell North Korea that aiming a missile at Berkeley is against the city's rules?
Or how about that Washington, D.C. council woman who's upset at the "overkill" of our national security? She complains that streets are closed in this higher alert stage, and horror of all horrors, new construction must provide for a set back from the street! Commerce, she proclaims, and convenience is sacrificed.
You want to talk about sacrifice? How about those 3500 souls who sacrificed their lives because of people like her, including those in the past administration, who were concerned about commerce and inconvenience? And legalities. Thanks, Jamie Gorelick. (She's a lawyer, for God's sake...not a security pro.)
Seeing the Enemy Behind Every Tree and Bush
There was a saying in the old days about right wing nuts seeing a communist behind every tree and bush. Actually, this charge was started by active communists in our country who felt the heat from our internal intelligence agencies. It worked nicely to advance their entree into the mainstream. It worked especially well during the McCarthy hearings. A good offense, etc.
To place our nation into further danger by questioning the wisdom of those who know the intelligence is unconscionable. Assaults on national security people from those who know nothing are derelict and irresponsible in speaking as if they do.
Intelligence, old or new, is important information. How dare these idiots question the efficacy of intelligence? Have they read it or seen it? Of course they haven't; nor has the N.Y. Times, the L.A. Times or the Washington Post. I doubt Tom Ridge cc'd Maureen Dowd on his last top secret memo to his people. Politicizing security alerts at the risk of American lives? Just how cynical can they get?
Suggesting that laymen can contribute to the security discussion is like saying a lathe operator can piece a quilt, or a ballet dancer can practice veternarian medicine, or a kindergarten teacher can perform heart surgery. Ludicrous as it sounds, that's exactly what's happening today.
Bill Clinton, at least, has the decency to state publicly that cynicism is not very helpful now and that the president is doing the right thing. Why? Because he knows well what the intelligence is saying to us. It's obvious he's a concerned as the rest of us. He's probably scared.
With due respect, President Clinton, I wish you'd speak more forcefully to your bretheren about our real dangers and the perception the enemy takes home when a large part of your party pooh-poohs the danger of an attack on our homeland. And I pray that I would give a Democrat president that same courtesy and attention.
America and her allies can view the situation from atop the tallest mountain, thanks to the experts. We know the enemy; we've seen his tactics; we know he is here living among us. Now, we must let the pros do their jobs.
Thanks for the read.
What's an Unsophisticated, Naive Public to Think?
Bruce Springsteen, Michael Moore or any of the Hollywood leftists who declare the president a Nazi, Fascist, whatever, show astonishing ignorance of how security is handled and why it is so important for those who know what's going on to keep the upper hand in public discussion.
My father, now gone for many years, was director of security at one of the world's largest manufacturers of precision guidance equipment for missile systems. He was responsible for 8000 employees' security clearances and a unit of top notch security officials guarding a mile-long facility. Before that post, he was head of security at one of the Manhattan Project's facilities. I won't say which one.
Although my father never, ever talked about work (he simply couldn't), I was informed by my mother that what he did was extremely important to the well being of Americans everywhere. It was not until I was older, and the cold war was over, that I was told exactly what had been going on.
Come to find out, he was one of the very few individuals in the world who knew what was happening in Los Alamos, Richland and Oak Ridge before Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The stakes then were as big as they are now, relatively speaking.
After WWII, "the big one," as Dobie Gillis' pop used to say, my dad was transferred to another area of secrecy. To everyone it looked as if he were going to his office every morning, just like an insurance executive. I didn't know why everyone called him "Chief," or why we had phone calls in the middle of the night. Talk about bliss. I was very protected.
When the Cuban Missile crisis was in full swing, my dad was at the "plant" day and night. I knew something awful was up then.
Security people don't go around flapping their gums about what they do. My father was one of those professionals who knew what was going on and how dangerous the world is. But he never had to confer with a journalist or an entertainment figure to strategize his methods. Even the idea of speaking about security was considered a breach, thus compromising the lives of millions of people.
I'm sure my dad has rolled in his grave two or three hundred times in the last ten years.
Sniveling, Craven Men and Stupid Little Women
The people who are making life miserable for the rest of us, the leftists in media and academia, have become so inured to danger warnings (they call it paranoia to be watchful), they refuse to listen to what is the worst that can happen to them.
For instance, in the Nuclear Free Zone up in Berkeley, the socialist professors wax eloquently about antiwar ideals and practices. They actually feel safe, I guess. I'm wondering; did anyone think to tell North Korea that aiming a missile at Berkeley is against the city's rules?
Or how about that Washington, D.C. council woman who's upset at the "overkill" of our national security? She complains that streets are closed in this higher alert stage, and horror of all horrors, new construction must provide for a set back from the street! Commerce, she proclaims, and convenience is sacrificed.
You want to talk about sacrifice? How about those 3500 souls who sacrificed their lives because of people like her, including those in the past administration, who were concerned about commerce and inconvenience? And legalities. Thanks, Jamie Gorelick. (She's a lawyer, for God's sake...not a security pro.)
Seeing the Enemy Behind Every Tree and Bush
There was a saying in the old days about right wing nuts seeing a communist behind every tree and bush. Actually, this charge was started by active communists in our country who felt the heat from our internal intelligence agencies. It worked nicely to advance their entree into the mainstream. It worked especially well during the McCarthy hearings. A good offense, etc.
To place our nation into further danger by questioning the wisdom of those who know the intelligence is unconscionable. Assaults on national security people from those who know nothing are derelict and irresponsible in speaking as if they do.
Intelligence, old or new, is important information. How dare these idiots question the efficacy of intelligence? Have they read it or seen it? Of course they haven't; nor has the N.Y. Times, the L.A. Times or the Washington Post. I doubt Tom Ridge cc'd Maureen Dowd on his last top secret memo to his people. Politicizing security alerts at the risk of American lives? Just how cynical can they get?
Suggesting that laymen can contribute to the security discussion is like saying a lathe operator can piece a quilt, or a ballet dancer can practice veternarian medicine, or a kindergarten teacher can perform heart surgery. Ludicrous as it sounds, that's exactly what's happening today.
Bill Clinton, at least, has the decency to state publicly that cynicism is not very helpful now and that the president is doing the right thing. Why? Because he knows well what the intelligence is saying to us. It's obvious he's a concerned as the rest of us. He's probably scared.
With due respect, President Clinton, I wish you'd speak more forcefully to your bretheren about our real dangers and the perception the enemy takes home when a large part of your party pooh-poohs the danger of an attack on our homeland. And I pray that I would give a Democrat president that same courtesy and attention.
America and her allies can view the situation from atop the tallest mountain, thanks to the experts. We know the enemy; we've seen his tactics; we know he is here living among us. Now, we must let the pros do their jobs.
Thanks for the read.
