Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Many questions arise

Friday, Sept. 28, 2001 | 4:24 a.m.

HOT PURSUIT sounds good to me.

It has been almost three weeks since thousands of Americans and our guests were murdered in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. Since then we have waited for some word that the United States, the world's only superpower, was doing something about those murdering thugs who committed the "acts that changed America."

On Friday President Bush gave us a glimpse of what we are doing. We are "in hot pursuit." Not that the news was a surprise because recent stories have indicated that towns hosting military bases have been empty of soldiers over the past two weeks. Adding two plus two from there has been easy. But speculation is one thing, and confirmation is far more satisfying. The news that special forces commando units have been combing the countryside in Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and his henchmen is good. Something, at least, is being done, which means that success will come.

That's what is happening elsewhere. It is time to talk about what is happening at home.

First, my bona fides.

I am one of the 90 percent of Americans who approve of the job Bush has been doing with regard to this terrorist war he is prosecuting. I would have already retaliated against someone, anyone, which makes his cooler head at this time preferable to mine and gives one of many good reasons why he is in the White House and I'm not.

I joined hundreds of millions of people the other night to applaud the president's tough talk before the joint session of Congress. He said the right things and he said them the right way.

And, finally, I am one more American who is ready, not very able, but willing to do whatever I can to help stomp out this scourge that has dampened our zest for life while damning those who pursue this madness.

All that makes me as patriotic as the next guy. Now, I have some comments to make.

Since the attacks, the FBI, CIA, NSA and every other alphabet agency of the federal government have been working overtime to ferret out any leads that can tell us who these murderers were and where the rest of their conniving colleagues are so we can root them out and destroy them. Their efforts, it appears from news reports, have been outstanding. So much so that we can say with a degree of certainty that our intelligence capabilities are among the best, if not the best, in the world.

The question, therefore, has to be centered on what happened. How did the best intelligence on the planet allow these bums to hijack four airplanes with knives and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? This is not an exercise in finger-pointing, because that does no good at this point. But the answer to that question will help ensure against a future breakdown that could lead to other attacks. What should our crime fighters and spy catchers be doing to stop these people at the border? Should they follow up on leads that constantly come in but which were obviously ignored or not given high priority? Should they focus on prevention rather than apprehension?

There will be time after the bad guys of this world are destroyed to delve into this subject. But delve we must because it would be folly to ignore it. What's that old adage about not paying attention to history dooms us to repeat it?

And then there was the news that our NATO allies and others haven't been satisfied that we have the required level of proof that lays the blame for the attacks directly at bin Laden's door. I suppose that would give some of them a reason to avoid signing up on our side in the war against terrorism.

There are two questions that must be asked. Are we hearing the truth? And, if so, who cares what they think?

Bush made it quite clear that bin Laden is the guy. He also blamed countries and governments that harbored the terrorists and provided them the resources to carry out their attacks. Now is the time for the American people to know exactly who our friends are. If our president says bin Laden and his buddies must pay, then our friends must stand with us. If it is true that they are weaseling about looking for "proof" and "facts" that may never be conclusive, all they do is undermine our ability to proceed as a responsible member of the world order. That is not what friends do.

That brings to mind the second question. The president has asked people to sign up on our side or theirs. There is no room for middling this deal. If you aren't on our side ... well, why should Americans ever care what happens to those who are against us in this fight? The danger about talking too long with our friends is that we will always find ways to "understand" their reasons for nonsupport. That may work at diplomatic levels, but it will be a very hard sell when the dust clears and the American people read the list of those who sided with us and those who didn't.

I also have a question about the airline bailout. I believe the government must pay for every penny the airlines lost as a result of their being grounded following the attacks. That's the right and fair thing to do. But, in the aftermath, when the fear of flying has gripped America to the point that people are staying home, why should the taxpayers bail out the airlines and not every other industry that depends upon the traveling public for a living?

Take Las Vegas, for example. When people don't fly, Las Vegans don't eat and thousands of people don't work. It wasn't our fault, so why shouldn't the government put us on the same bailout list that it has placed the airlines? And, where do we stop? Surely, the taxpayers can't bail everyone out. But why just the airlines? And, when they get that money, will all their people go back to work or will the shareholders reap the benefits?

Hey, don't get mad at me, I am just asking some questions.

And, finally, on this bright and sunny day, let me ask the "big question."

Why isn't the president supporting a plan to make the security agents at the airport government employees -- be they National Guardsmen, regular military personnel or some other group responsible to our government for the safety of the flying public and the security of the cargo that accompanies those passengers? It isn't enough to tell us to get back on the airplanes without assuring us that they are safe to fly.

It seems that we have run into a philosophical roadblock with President Bush and some Republicans and Democrats balking at the idea of growing the size of government. Well, here is a news flash. I have done a survey on that question and the results are as follows:

One hundred percent of the public believes that "providing for the common defense" means exactly what it says. If ever there were a responsibility of government to provide for the safety and security of the public, this is it.

And, on the question of letting partisan politics get in the way of making us safe, 50 percent of those responding said that the people seeking political advantage on this issue should grow up.

The other 50 percent were not so kind.

archive