If you spend any time watching Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s press briefings, sooner or later you’ll hear him do his bit on “knowns and unknowns.” Mr. Rumsfeld divides threats to the U.S. into three categories: “knowns,” something like the size of the Iraqi air force; “known unknowns,” something like the Iraqi biological weapons arsenal – we assume it’s out there, but we know almost nothing about it and “unknown unknowns,” threats to the nation we cannot anticipate. Many would classify the September 11th attacks as “unknown unknowns,” although it would be more fitting to file them under “unknown should-have-known.” The point is, Donald Rumsfeld thinks we cannot be too cautious in defending ourselves against terrorist acts. Mr. Rumsfeld’s view, however, is by no means universal in the Bush administration.
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that terrorist attacks do not fall within the realm of “reasonably foreseeable” events and because the NRC cannot “reasonably foresee” terrorist attacks, it does not see them as a threat to nuclear technology. It’s worth noting that this ruling was made September 12th, 2001, the day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has been well documented that the September 11th attacks would have been a thousand times worse if the two planes that attacks the twin towers had crashed instead into the Indian Point nuclear plant on the shore of the Hudson River.
Our new Department of Homeland Security warns us that high or low level nuclear material can be combined with conventional explosives to make a “dirty bomb” that would spread radiation over a densely populated area. Out of the other side of its mouth, the administration says it’s safe to ship nuclear waste from all over the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada and the Cheney national energy strategy calls for the construction of 25 to 50 new nuclear plants.
Bush and Cheney go running around the country wrapped in the flag, declaring that the nation is at war, throwing people in jail for no reason and on no evidence, recruiting our fellow citizens to spy on us and making air travel damn near impossible. In the other version of reality, the version that applies to Bush-Cheney cronies in the nuclear industry, there’s no wartime sacrifice. To the contrary, the government’s going to give them subsidies so they can make more potential bomb material.
On the other side of the planet is North Korea, one of the world’s last Communist regimes, a country President Bush named as among the three most “evil” on Earth less than a year ago. We’re helping them build a nuclear plant, so that rogue nation can produce its own radioactive material and not have to worry about smuggling it out of all those other countries. North Korea has trouble bringing in a decent crop of cabbages and the Bush administration wants to build it a nuclear reactor. While we’re at it, why don’t we help Saddam set up a smallpox lab? Poor old Castro is sitting down there in Cuba and can’t even get parts for a ’59 Dodge and we’re sending nuclear technology to North Korea.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence before us is clear and compelling. The Bush administration is not fighting a “war on terror.” If it were, it would make at least a few gestures toward concealing its inconsistencies. The Bush administration is engaged in a massive shift of power, away from voters and taxpayers and toward the corporations that feed the Bush-Cheney political machine.
Donald Rumsfeld is not the only American who should worry about known and unknown threats – we all should. Some of the worst threats facing us are right in this country and we’re the ones who will have to face them down or suffer the consequences.
The Devil You Know
If you spend any time watching Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s press briefings, sooner or later you’ll hear him do his bit on “knowns and unknowns.” Mr. Rumsfeld divides threats to the U.S. into three categories: “knowns,” something like the size of the Iraqi air force; “known unknowns,” something like the Iraqi biological weapons arsenal – we assume it’s out there, but we know almost nothing about it and “unknown unknowns,” threats to the nation we cannot anticipate. Many would classify the September 11th attacks as “unknown unknowns,” although it would be more fitting to file them under “unknown should-have-known.” The point is, Donald Rumsfeld thinks we cannot be too cautious in defending ourselves against terrorist acts. Mr. Rumsfeld’s view, however, is by no means universal in the Bush administration.
For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled that terrorist attacks do not fall within the realm of “reasonably foreseeable” events and because the NRC cannot “reasonably foresee” terrorist attacks, it does not see them as a threat to nuclear technology. It’s worth noting that this ruling was made September 12th, 2001, the day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has been well documented that the September 11th attacks would have been a thousand times worse if the two planes that attacks the twin towers had crashed instead into the Indian Point nuclear plant on the shore of the Hudson River.
Our new Department of Homeland Security warns us that high or low level nuclear material can be combined with conventional explosives to make a “dirty bomb” that would spread radiation over a densely populated area. Out of the other side of its mouth, the administration says it’s safe to ship nuclear waste from all over the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada and the Cheney national energy strategy calls for the construction of 25 to 50 new nuclear plants.
Bush and Cheney go running around the country wrapped in the flag, declaring that the nation is at war, throwing people in jail for no reason and on no evidence, recruiting our fellow citizens to spy on us and making air travel damn near impossible. In the other version of reality, the version that applies to Bush-Cheney cronies in the nuclear industry, there’s no wartime sacrifice. To the contrary, the government’s going to give them subsidies so they can make more potential bomb material.
On the other side of the planet is North Korea, one of the world’s last Communist regimes, a country President Bush named as among the three most “evil” on Earth less than a year ago. We’re helping them build a nuclear plant, so that rogue nation can produce its own radioactive material and not have to worry about smuggling it out of all those other countries. North Korea has trouble bringing in a decent crop of cabbages and the Bush administration wants to build it a nuclear reactor. While we’re at it, why don’t we help Saddam set up a smallpox lab? Poor old Castro is sitting down there in Cuba and can’t even get parts for a ’59 Dodge and we’re sending nuclear technology to North Korea.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence before us is clear and compelling. The Bush administration is not fighting a “war on terror.” If it were, it would make at least a few gestures toward concealing its inconsistencies. The Bush administration is engaged in a massive shift of power, away from voters and taxpayers and toward the corporations that feed the Bush-Cheney political machine.
Donald Rumsfeld is not the only American who should worry about known and unknown threats – we all should. Some of the worst threats facing us are right in this country and we’re the ones who will have to face them down or suffer the consequences.