Friday, June 02, 2006
Low-Risk District
You've got to be kidding me.
Washington, D.C. will get fewer anti-terror funds than Rhode Island?? Utah?? Montana?? South Dakota??
"Homeland Security officials said the District had far fewer potential targets than the larger jurisdictions, such as California, it competed against."
Well, nobody told the terrorists, because they still hit DC, not California.
The DHS claims that this was the result of their attempt to divide the funds fairly. Well, of course that's a fresh pile of bullshit, and if Michael Chertoff really believes that "fair distribution" is what should drive the allocation of funds, he does need to resign. Rather, we need him to resign.
"[Tracy] Henke said she could not provide exact details of how the District's low-risk score was calculated but said it includes factors such as population, vulnerable assets and intelligence information. When asked whether the score included consideration of the Sept. 11 attacks, which included plans to strike either the Capitol or White House, Henke said, 'We're looking at the most recent information.'"
Of course she can't provide exact details, because she'd next have to provide her resignation letter. If the DHS is excluding the fact that DC has actually been attacked---because, hey, that's just so 2001---and if more recent and relevant intelligence information has led them to rank certain states above DC as potential terrorist targets, then perhaps the good folks of Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, and Wyoming need to be informed of how much danger they're in. They should know that they live in an area with assets that are so valuable and so vulnerable that Evildoers worldwide have taken notice and may strike Laramie at any given time, maybe even block Wyoming's attempts to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse off the Endangered Species list.
Oh, and then there's New York: "A DHS risk assessment sheet for New York said the home of the Statue of Liberty and other landmarks had zero 'national monuments and icons.'"
I don't get it. It's not April Fool's Day.
"Henke said the nation's capital ranked in the lowest 25 percent of states and territories in part because it competes with much larger jurisdictions, which have much higher numbers of 'critical infrastructure' targets. 'When you look at the District of Columbia, you have to look at its scale,' she said."
Pee-yew. Another steaming pile.
DC may be smaller in scale than California, Wyoming, or South Dakota, but there's a reason why the terrorists aimed for DC. Here's a thought: Maybe scale shouldn't be a factor at all. The terrorists certainly seem to have disregarded it.
"...officials want to 'spread the money to other places,' Chertoff said. He said New York has received more than $500 million in grants since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Washington region, meanwhile, has received more than $213 million in urban anti-terror grants, records show."
But Tracy Henke said that you were looking at the most recent information, right? So, the way I see it, either the millions in grants since 2001 shouldn't matter or the fact that DC and NYC were attacked should count toward the score.
Clearly, something else is afoot, and in time we may actually discover what it is. My suspicion is that we're being punished for something, but I can't guess which thing. DC is guilty of so many things. Then again, who isn't?
As for all that fair distribution jazz, this isn't some suburban youth sports group, where everyone wins and all must have trophies. DHS is supposed to assess potential risk, not fairness. God love Wyoming, Rhode Island, and all of our states and territories, but when it comes to terrorist targets, some targets are more "potential" than others. DHS can spread out funds, but they can't spread out the risk.
You've got to be kidding me.
Washington, D.C. will get fewer anti-terror funds than Rhode Island?? Utah?? Montana?? South Dakota??
"Homeland Security officials said the District had far fewer potential targets than the larger jurisdictions, such as California, it competed against."
Well, nobody told the terrorists, because they still hit DC, not California.
The DHS claims that this was the result of their attempt to divide the funds fairly. Well, of course that's a fresh pile of bullshit, and if Michael Chertoff really believes that "fair distribution" is what should drive the allocation of funds, he does need to resign. Rather, we need him to resign.
"[Tracy] Henke said she could not provide exact details of how the District's low-risk score was calculated but said it includes factors such as population, vulnerable assets and intelligence information. When asked whether the score included consideration of the Sept. 11 attacks, which included plans to strike either the Capitol or White House, Henke said, 'We're looking at the most recent information.'"
Of course she can't provide exact details, because she'd next have to provide her resignation letter. If the DHS is excluding the fact that DC has actually been attacked---because, hey, that's just so 2001---and if more recent and relevant intelligence information has led them to rank certain states above DC as potential terrorist targets, then perhaps the good folks of Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, and Wyoming need to be informed of how much danger they're in. They should know that they live in an area with assets that are so valuable and so vulnerable that Evildoers worldwide have taken notice and may strike Laramie at any given time, maybe even block Wyoming's attempts to take the Preble's meadow jumping mouse off the Endangered Species list.
Oh, and then there's New York: "A DHS risk assessment sheet for New York said the home of the Statue of Liberty and other landmarks had zero 'national monuments and icons.'"
I don't get it. It's not April Fool's Day.
"Henke said the nation's capital ranked in the lowest 25 percent of states and territories in part because it competes with much larger jurisdictions, which have much higher numbers of 'critical infrastructure' targets. 'When you look at the District of Columbia, you have to look at its scale,' she said."
Pee-yew. Another steaming pile.
DC may be smaller in scale than California, Wyoming, or South Dakota, but there's a reason why the terrorists aimed for DC. Here's a thought: Maybe scale shouldn't be a factor at all. The terrorists certainly seem to have disregarded it.
"...officials want to 'spread the money to other places,' Chertoff said. He said New York has received more than $500 million in grants since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Washington region, meanwhile, has received more than $213 million in urban anti-terror grants, records show."
But Tracy Henke said that you were looking at the most recent information, right? So, the way I see it, either the millions in grants since 2001 shouldn't matter or the fact that DC and NYC were attacked should count toward the score.
Clearly, something else is afoot, and in time we may actually discover what it is. My suspicion is that we're being punished for something, but I can't guess which thing. DC is guilty of so many things. Then again, who isn't?
As for all that fair distribution jazz, this isn't some suburban youth sports group, where everyone wins and all must have trophies. DHS is supposed to assess potential risk, not fairness. God love Wyoming, Rhode Island, and all of our states and territories, but when it comes to terrorist targets, some targets are more "potential" than others. DHS can spread out funds, but they can't spread out the risk.
Comments:
Post a Comment
