No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

Why are the Bushies ignoring the REAL threats to the US?

Kevin Drum ( of Calpundit) points out that the real danger to the US is nuclear weapons or biological weapons. Here is what he says:

As bad as conventional terrorist bombings are, they aren't the real problem on a global scale. The real problem is (a) the future possibility of serious biological weapons, and (b) the very present possibility of a terrorist group getting its hands on a nuclear weapon.

So how are we doing on the nuke front? Let's see:

The most serious danger probably comes from suitcase nukes smuggled into the country via container ships, but after signing a port security bill last year with great fanfare President Bush has consistently failed to fully fund it. Instead, missile defense, which is of no value against terrorist attacks, receives billions of dollars a year in funding.

Russia and Eastern Europe have loads of highly enriched uranium that needs to be secured and decommissioned, but Bush has declined to push for more flexible rules that could free up funding for some of the most dangerous sites. Luckily, Ted Turner is doing it for us.

Pakistan has nukes, their scientists are known to have met with Osama bin Laden, they supported the Taliban, and they have sold nuclear technology to North Korea. Result: post-9/11 they promised to be good and are now supposedly a strong ally.

North Korea has nukes and George Bush has known about them for years. Response so far: nada.

As happy as I am that Saddam Hussein has gotten his just desserts, shouldn't playtime be over now? Invading Iraq has done very little either to combat terrorism or to make the United States more secure, and while port security and HEU decommissioning may not be as flashy as foreign wars and missile defense systems, they are probably more important in the long run.

The reason Bush gave for going into Iraq was that they had WMDs, and Saddam was insane, so there was a strong likelihood that Saddam would give WMDs to terrorists to use against the US. Because of this, we had to invade Iraq preemptively, and do it Right Now. But as ABC news has pointed out, that was NOT the reason why we went into Iraq. That was simply the reason the Bush administration gave the US public. < a href ="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html">ABC News They had their own, other reasons. They were making a statement of American power and our willingness to use it.

OK. Iraq was not really an immediate threat to the US. But the Nuclear weapons in the old USSR really are an immediate threat to us. Why does the Bush budget NOT recognize this real threat to the US?
posted by Richard at 4:35 PM