Resilience in Place of Fear

NEW YORK --- After a decade of war with al-Qaida the potential for another devastating terrorist assault "remains very real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday following a somber visit to ground zero of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.

Fire that writer, Mr President

Mr. President: Fire the writers who wrote your budget speech today. The issues are lost, the seriousness is lost, and the strength of your arguments are ineffectively presented in a rambling disjointed speech. The ideological flow will not persuade or convince those now so used to hyperbole and simple, baseless slogans. Choose 4 to 6 specifics and break down each to simple three word summary for presentation to the masses.

The Budget Battle

Assuming for the sake of argument that the most recent national election constituted a political "mandate" to firmly address the federal deficit, there is NO national mandate rationally discernible from that election to cut either federal regulation of air quality standards or support for women's health programs (labelling this by both political parties as "abortions" is inaccurate and misleading) or remove funding, for purely ideological reasons, for other programs of relatively insignificant budgetary effect.

Nor should a majority party in one House of Congress presume to speak for all Americans when the Executive and the Senate are controlled by the opposing party under the continuing mandate of two national elections. Eliminate all "riders" to the funding bill and the ideological issues can be argued and presented directly to the electorate for 2012.