In the aftermath of the attempted bombing of the Delta airliner landing in Detroit, much discussion has been given to the effectiveness of our nation's counter-terrorism policies, procedures and techniques. This morning as I was glancing at TV, I saw our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, answering questions regarding the incident.

While much of what she said made sense, I was stunned to hear her assert that current U.S. Government policies regarding airliner safety were products of the "previous administration", clearly implying that the Obama Administration is not yet responsible for ensuring our security today.

Throughout the first year of the Obama Administration, the President has repeatedly stated that his first priority is the protection of the American people. This is as it should be. However, to hear his Homeland Security Secretary deflect responsibility and imply the blame belongs with the previous Bush Administration is politics at its worst.

I'd say to those in Washington - Please stop playing politics with the safety and security of the American people and take responsibility for U.S. governmental actions to make us safe. You've been in power for nearly a year and that's plenty of time to match your national security rhetoric with effective policies and action. The American people deserve more today than finger pointing at the previous Administration.

General (Retired) B.B. Bell
bbbell12@yahoo.com

* * *

I agree with Gen. Bell.

We could start with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. removing his hold on Obama's
appointee to head the TSA. While they're at it, the Republicans could allow an up or down vote on all the appointees they are holding up.

After all it doesn't make sense to blame Obama if you're holding up the
people he needs to do the job.

R.W. Young
Chattanooga

* * *

While I am not one who would typically disagree with a person I respect as much as I do General Bell, I must in this case. Let me say first that I am not a fan of our current President, or the tactic of blaming one's predecessor for security lapses on one's watch. General Bell is right in saying that it is time to quit playing politics with the safety of the American people.

While saying all of this I have to look back at what the Bush Administration did after 9-11. First, they blamed the Clinton Administration for every thing and anything they possibly could.

Second, they came up with the idea of merging multiple bloated ineffective government "security" bureaucracies, into one gigantic, bloated, and ineffective government bureaucracy called Homeland Security. Third, I remember hearing from multiple government sources on NPR, Talk Radio, and the papers how most, if not all, of our so called "security" at airports under the Bush Administration were really just "expensive window dressings to make the public feel safe."

I mean really, we had six years of minimum wage earning, barely trained, a lot of high school dropouts, usually extremely over weight folks strip searching little old ladies, small children, and confiscating every expensive looking pocket knife they could. That was the disaster the current Administration inherited.

Granted, do I think this President will have the fortitude to do what the British and the Saudis have done for years and actually "profile" for possible terrorists? No, we will keep on wasting billions of dollars a year on "expensive window dressings to make the public feel safe." What saved that plane load of people was the quick thinking of the passengers who took the terrorist down, hopefully as roughly as possible.

The Bush Administration turned airport security into a bad joke. The current bunch hasn't seemed to do much better, but maybe with time they will. Especially now that they almost had a very nasty learning experience.

David Barto
zoya0@yahoo.com

* * *

Yes, this Janet is about as competent as the Janet from the Clinton
administration. Her first interviews following the bombing attempt
proffered her opinion that airline security is working just fine. She
has since reconsidered, and, as General Bell pointed out, wants to
blame Bush. Now does she want to unionize Homeland Security? Oh,
yes, that should work well.

Do what you do best: lie, deny, point
fingers, and hold Congressional hearings. Meanwhile, Rome is burning,
folks.

Hutch Smith
Signal Mountain

* * *

As a native Chattanoogan and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I salute Gen. Bell for his decades of distinguished and selfless service to our nation. I also agree with Gen. Bell's call for politics to be taken out of the equation when it comes to issues related to national security. Unfortunately, here Gen. Bell's post on Chattanoogan.com is part of the problem. When a recently retired four-star general publicly criticizes the decision-making of our nation's elected and appointed leadership, that in and of itself is an unhealthy mix of politics and national security.

The past decade has seen renewed and bipartisan political activism from our nation's retired flag officers. Readers of Chattanoogan.com will remember the so-called "revolt of the generals" when retired flag officers criticized the Bush Administration's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And every presidential campaign now competes to assemble as many retired flag officers as possible in support of their candidate.

As military historians like Richard Kohn note, though, this kind of activism is unhealthy for solider-state relations. It politicizes the military and strains relations between the general officer corps and our nation's civilian leadership. Unlike most veterans, retired flag officers continue to represent the military and its officer corps long after they retire. George C. Marshall understood this and never voted. Dwight D. Eisenhower understood this as well and voted only after World War II -- when he himself decided to run for political office.

If Gen. Bell has political ambitions of his own, I wish him the best and look forward to seeing his name on a ballot. Until then, though, it is in the best interests of the nation - and the relationship between the officer corps and our elected civilian leadership - to avoid the kind of public criticisms aired in this forum.

Andrew M. Exum
The Center for a New American Security
Washington, D.C.

* * *

Politics should never taint the discussion of protecting our country. Being a veteran, I salute all person who have sacrificed to serve their country. At the same time, many of the leaders in our military were "out to lunch" when the World Trade Center was destroyed.

I believe the senior command of our military were out of touch and were not leading by example when our country was attacked. At the time, our military was not being provided with essentials they needed to conduct urban warfare, although in the 1980's our soldiers were being trained to fight an urban war. Our soldiers were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan without basic personal protective equipment needed for urban warfare.

The instant I saw the remarks of General Bell, I remembered that the former Vice President Richard Cheney is parading around using national security as a political tactic.

Stephen Durham freethinker1963@yahoo.com