Following the horror of 9-11, government moved in to instill order and begin its mission for justice.  What has it accomplished?

Has it caught the organizers of the attack?  Has it taken measures that will lessen the likelihood of a similar strike?  Has it made airline travel safer?  Has it managed its activities within the domain of the Constitution, the document politicians pledge to uphold?

You know the answers -- no, no, no, and hell, no.  The Constitution, government reminds us, is not a suicide pact.

Politicians have always hated the Constitution, especially the first Ten Amendments.  Pols like to wield power -- forget that "We the People" stuff.  That's why the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments instead of the foundation of the original document -- the federalist framers didn't want it.

The Constitution ceased long ago to be an obstacle to political ambition.  And the Patriot Act has made supporters of the Constitution eligible for terrorist classification.  Think about that.  A consistent defender of the Constitution -- the highest law of the land -- is regarded as an enemy of the state.  And given the state's behavior, it's easy to see why.  In spite of nonstop constitutional infractions by elected officials, we are told that whatever they do represents the American way and is good for Americans, no matter how ruinous the consequences.  The Constitution is indeed not a suicide pact; we get that from the demagogues who ignore it.

If a crisis presents an opportunity, an endless crisis presents endless opportunities.  With bin Laden currently off the radar, the administration is drooling over Hussein.  Here's a political trophy just waiting to be snatched.  We know where he is, everyone hates him, and he's probably amassing dangerous weapons like almost every other country.  Anyone with such weapons poses a threat to our security, therefore we are justified in "removing" him.  Hussein is the one tyrant we can get away with killing, and the political and economic payoff appears mind-boggling.   

But if we look around, we might wonder if someone else poses a bigger threat.  Last October, while President Bush was exchanging handshakes and smiles with China's President Jiang Zemin, who claims to loath terrorism in all its flavors, Beijing TV was promoting a video it made that celebrates the WTC attacks.  "This is the America the whole world has wanted to see," the video's narrator alleges.  "Blood debts have been repaid in blood." [1]

China is not part of the administration's famous axis, yet they are reportedly within a year of having the Dong Feng 31 ICBM operational.  DF-31 missiles can deliver a 3-megaton H-bomb to your doorstep.  The Chinese navy will soon be able to launch Julang 2 missiles from some of its submarines.  JL-2 missiles can hit just as hard as DF-31s and can be launched undersea. [2]

A recent congressional brief states that China is still active in proliferating Weapons of Mass Destruction to regimes openly hostile to the United States.  The brief notes that, in spite of frequent promises to behave, China "remains a 'key supplier' of technology inconsistent with nonproliferation goals -- particularly missile or chemical technology transfers" to countries like Pakistan, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Iran. [3]

Is Saddam really more dangerous than China?

Russian President Putin plays the smile-and-handshake game too.  Russia has lucrative "cooperation plans" with Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and has sold China new navy vessels that it may arm with Russian Yahont cruise missiles.  Yahonts can hit targets 162 nautical miles away, while traveling just under Mach 3 speed at tree-top heights. [4]

When President Bush accused Iraq of supporting terrorists in his State of the Union address last January, he could have repeated himself for any number of countries, including the U.S.  As taxpayer-funded government ads have stressed, drugs finance terrorism, though not because of drug users, as the ads state, but because of government-enforced prohibition that makes illegal drug trafficking highly profitable.

Our military and intelligence forces trained, assisted, and defended bin Laden and Hussein when they were fighting regimes we opposed.  If we're serious about ending states that sponsor terrorism, a fundamental policy change in the U.S. is long overdue.

Even if the government manages to remove Saddam, what then?  Western-hating Kurds could step in and replace him.  The country that farmed-out most of the 9-11 hijackers will still be our official ally.  China and Russia will still be hard at work selling weapons to terrorist states while building their own arsenals.  Our Department of Defense will still be protecting American interests in foreign countries and unavoidably creating enemies, thus endangering American lives at home.

In the early years of our country, Americans enjoyed relative peace and international respect because government was small, as the Constitution directs.  Beginning in 1860 aggressive nationalism took over, and this is where it's brought us.  

Government seems to deserve a failing grade for its 9-11 response, until we look more closely at what it's doing to us.  If it's true we were attacked for our prosperity and freedom, then government's strengthening our security every day it's on the job.

References

1.  China's Video Games, Rip Rense, Nov. 7, 2001

2.  China/Russia Deploy New Missiles, Charles R. Smith, Nov. 7, 2001

3.  China's Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Current Policy Issues, Issue Brief for Congress, Shirley A. Kan, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, July 25, 2002.

4.  China/Russia Deploy New Missiles, Ibid.