vin/020329.html
Members of Congress are pressuring the Bush administration to send Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge before them to answer some questions about what he's been up to.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., wrote to Ridge this week, asking: "How do you propose that Congress exercise its responsibility to oversee this critical process (of heightening national preparedness), and your key decision-making role, without your guidance and insight?"
The White House responds that Gov. Ridge might be willing to visit the Hill for some informal "background" sessions, but that he's under no obligation to submit himself to formal, public questioning -- even if congressmen agree beforehand to close portions to the public for security reasons.
Why? Because (despite his impressive title) Ridge is merely a presidential adviser, the White House explains. The former Pennsylvania governor has no statutory responsibilities. His appointment was not subject to Senate confirmation, nor does he have a formal budget of his own, as does the secretary of Defense or even the director of the FBI.
For all these reasons, Ridge's duties are not subject to legislative oversight, the White House contends.
While all this may be technically true, the White House's position raises the question of whether it has engaged in something approaching a public relations flim-flam. If Gov. Ridge's position is little more than that of a gussied-up presidential speechwriter or adviser, why was it created with so much ballyhoo following the assaults of last Sept. 11? The clear implication was that individual agencies which had once been considered responsible for protecting us -- the FBI, the INS, the security guards hired by local airports under FAA supervision, the Department of Defense itself -- had been found wanting, or were functioning in a manner so uncoordinated as to leave huge gaps in the protection of the populace from foreign enemies.
If Gov. Ridge's job is to patch systemic failures of that significance, why (start ital)doesn't(end ital) he have a budget and a staff -- and the congressional oversight that go with them?
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld clearly doesn't believe all this is (start ital)his(end ital) job. In fact, Mr. Rumsfeld recently said, while here in Las Vegas, that he hopes the military personnel we now see guarding our airports will be there only temporarily -- he doesn't see that as an appropriate, permanent military role (probably a good thing, given Americans' justified and ongoing suspicion of military troops used for domestic "peacekeeping.")
It's all rather curious -- the Department of Defense says it's not very interested in domestic "defense," having more pressing matters to deal with overseas ... while the character offered to us a few months back as being in charge of domestic defense is now represented by the White House as having no more power, staff, budget -- or concomitant responsibility to the pursekeepers in Congress -- than the orderly who presses the president's shirts.
A "Homeland Security Director" who hasn't even authorized airline pilots (and law-abiding passengers, including current and retired police and military personnel otherwise permitted to carry concealed firearms) to fly while armed -- who can't seem to prevent dead Sept. 11 terrorists from being routinely issued flight-school student visas, but who instead spends his time developing "state-of-alert" color charts -- verges on the pathetic.
In a concerted effort to end this ongoing carnival of euphemism and public-relations "spin" and restore a regime of straight talk, the first thing President Bush might now do is ask that Secretary Rumsfeld's department be given back the far more accurate title it bore from 1789 to 1947 -- the War Department.
Then, he should indeed relent and allow Gov. Ridge to appear before Congress, where the members' first questions might well be: "If you're not in charge of America's domestic defense, Gov. Ridge ... who is? And if the answer is that state and local authorities are now expected to step up and take responsibility -- given that you're little more than a glorified presidential errand-boy -- don't you think it's past time to tell them?"
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, a monthly contributor to "Shotgun News," and the author of "Send in the Waco Killers." For information on his monthly newsletter, "Privacy Alert," or on his new book, "The Ballad of Carl Drega," dial 775-348-8591, e-mail privacyalert@thespiritof76.com, or write 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503.
***
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com
************************************************************* This is a FREE distribution of Vin Suprynowicz' syndicated column 'The Libertarian.' Permission to forward is granted, as long as you wait until the embargo date listed at the top of each column, and keep ALL headers and footers intact. To subscribe, just send an email to subscribe@thespiritof76.com with subscribe in the subject line and your email address and subscribe in the body of the text. We never rent or sell our subscription list to anyone - ever! To unsubscribe, just send an email to unsubscribe@thespiritof76.com with unsubscribe in the subject line and I'll remove you. Please include your email address and unsubscribe in the body of the text. ************************************************************* "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759
