Bush's Legacy of Failure and Deceit: A Firefighter Speaks-out on the election, National Security and Iraq
By Bruce Monson
10/27/04
On September 14, 2001, three days after 9/11, George W. Bush stood with exhausted and grieving firefighters at Ground Zero. Standing atop a crushed fire truck, he put his arm around retired FDNY firefighter Bob Beckwith and told everyone that "The world hears you" and "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"
As a firefighter myself, I really wanted to believe that President Bush’s praise of New York’s first responders that day reflected a real appreciation of the men and women working for our country’s emergency services. I also wanted to believe that America’s own first response to its attackers would do justice to those of us who routinely respond to emergencies.
But for all the praise Bush lavishes upon firefighters and our military while the cameras are on, his actions and in many cases his inactions demonstrate an attitude of apathy if not outright disdain for our needs in this time of uncertainty and threat to our security.
To make matters worse, in taking the battle against terrorism abroad he broke two of the cardinal rules of firefighting: Gauge the conflagration well so you can mass enough force to tackle the job; and always have a plan for getting out.
According to a 2003 report by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders, "Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, . . . If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11."
Under George W. Bush, firehouses are being closed and firefighters are being laid off across the country. In New York City, six firehouses and 180 firefighter positions were eliminated in 2003 alone.
In 2002, Bush blocked $5.1 billion in homeland security funds, $340 million of which were slated for firefighting equipment and training. Bush also cut the FIRE Act programs from $750 million in 2004 to $500 million in 2005. He cut state and local domestic preparedness funds by $975 million for 2005. And he cut funding for the Urban Search and Rescue Program from $60 million to zero.
By contrast, John Kerry proposed a "First Defenders Initiative" program to put 100,000 new firefighters on the job. Kerry co-sponsored the FIRE Act, which created the program to provide direct federal grants to fire departments. Kerry co-sponsored the SAFER Act (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Response). And he is a sponsor of the Federal Presumptive Disability legislation, which would provide parity to federal fire fighters with their municipal counterparts.
Bush’s failure of vision with regard to domestic first responders is reason enough for firefighters and all people who care about emergency preparedness to not only vote for Kerry but to vote against Bush.
But Bush’s myopia on public safety now extends all the way to Iraq, causing even greater problems abroad and offering a reason for every person who values human life to vote him out of office.
George W. Bush will never admit it, but there were at least three deadly mistakes committed by him in the run-up to the war: inadequate body armor, insufficient manpower and no exit strategy – three things that firefighters know more than a little about.
Body Armor: Bush rushed to war but couldn't be bothered with making sure his shining knights were equipped with the proper body armor that was necessary for them to perform their duties safely and effectively. And to this day these body armor problems persist!
This is comparable to a fire chief sending his firefighters into a structure fire without bunker gear or breathing apparatus. When those firefighters die, how do you suppose the citizens of that community should react toward the fire chief and the city administration? Should they buy into the argument that by challenging the chief’s policies they are "driving down firefighter morale" and "giving comfort to arsonists?"
Manpower: Bush and his war hawks in Washington were told repeatedly by military commanders that they needed more manpower--a lot more--and yet these requests were denied. The results of this policy failure are manifest in the chaos and insecurity that plagues Iraq today.
From a firefighting perspective, has it ever occurred to anyone why it was that so many firefighters died on 9/11? The reason is that it takes immense manpower to fight highrise fires. As professionals, we know and understand what it takes to not only effectively fight such fires, but how to do so in the safest possible manner. Of course, there are risks to deploying everything you need. On Sept. 11, the unthinkable happened and the result was a catastrophic loss, but that does not change the tactical and safety considerations that were being properly addressed that fateful day.
The same may have been true in Iraq. Had Bush deployed all the forces needed to truly win the war, there may well have been days in which massive casualties were sustained due to the larger size of the force itself. But if a larger force was what was required to accomplish the objective, then that is the reality they should have faced. In the end those initial losses might well have been the end of it, whereas the situation today suggests we will continue to lose 4, 6, 10 soldiers a week for months or years to come.
Imagine firefighters pouring just enough water on a fire to keep it from raging out of control, but not enough to put it out. Would you support that team with your taxes, or support the continued employment of that chief?
Exit Strategy: In his memoir, A World Transformed, George H. W. Bush offered succinct reasoning for why he stopped short of Baghdad in the first gulf war. Of particular significance was his comment that “We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see.”
Now spring ahead to an episode of Meet the Press on March 16, 2003. The following conversation took place between Tim Russert and Dick Cheney: RUSSERT: “If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?” CHENEY: “Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.”
Cheney was Bush senior’s Secretary of Defense, so how could he be so naïve about this? How could he, as vice-president, have no contingency plan for dealing with a situation that the former President Bush and literally dozens of military professionals and foreign policy experts warned would be the case?
Such a lackadaisical approach to planning and safety is negligent at best and criminal at worst. This would be comparable to a fire ground commander ordering a truck company to the roof of a fully-involved building to cut a vent hole, and once the crew was on the roof, ordering their ladders (a primary aerial ladder and a secondary ground ladder for “secondary egress”) be removed—leaving them stranded and in mortal danger.
I’m not suggesting that a structure fire in any sense approaches the complexity of variables that occur when one country invades and then occupies another country. But as we’ve seen there are comparisons that apply to each in regard to strategies, tactics and a fundamental approach to safety. And a principle aspect to firefighter safety is to always—always—have an exit strategy in case things go bad.
George W. Bush did not—and does not—have an exit strategy for Iraq, and the price is being paid for not only by our men and women in the military, but tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who are needlessly dying and suffering as a direct result of Bush’s poor planning.
After 9/11 George W. Bush probably had, as John Newhouse observed, "the largest field of maneuver available to any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt after December 7, 1941." We had the support of virtually the whole world, including Arab and Muslim countries, many of whom condemned the attacks and supported our decision to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan.
But George W. Bush blew it. In a very short time he managed to turn this global sympathy into, as Arthur Schlesinger put it, "a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism." The result has been catastrophic: Over 1,100 American soldiers dead; more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians dead. And Osama bin Laden, the monstrous pyromaniac responsible for those 343 dead firefighters and the 2439 others who died on 9/11, remains at large.
Bush’s actions since 9/11 show a gross disrespect for domestic emergency responders, for the military men and women he has sent abroad, and the American public he is sworn to protect.
It’s time we effect a regime change of our own.