Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also

By Ellen Ratner
President Bush is oft touted as the commander in chief supreme of the "War on Terror." His loyal followers and converts call him consistent and determined. They consider him the best man able to protect America from the "evildoers." I have one question for the president’s fan club.

If this is true, why is he letting the assault weapons ban die after 10 years and despite pleas from every living former president, (with the exception of his father), to pressure Congress to extend the ban? Why – as Sen. John Kerry pointed out last week – would we allow weapons to go on the street that are specifically listed on the al-Qaida shopping list?

I found it ironic that the front page of USA Today’s 9-11 anniversary edition this past Friday showed a picture of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor who is believed to be the second in command of al-Qaida, with an assault weapon as the backdrop.

Aside from the fact that al-Qaida tells its members to purchase assault weapons in the USA, there’s another reason these weapons pose a threat to winning the war on terror. Namely, guns have already been used to "terrorize" innocent people. Does anyone remember the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport on the Fourth of July weekend, 2002? A gunman opened fire on the El Al ticket counter. Imagine if he had an assault rifle? Or what if El Al didn’t have undercover security agents on duty to stop the assailant?

The Republicans’ determination to let the ban expire, coupled with the president’s lack of leadership to pressure them to renew it, is a complete course reversal on what the president describes as his most solemn duty, to protect the nation. The only way to describe this gross inconsistency in the war on terror is to concede that ultimately the president’s heart is where his treasure is, in the pocket of what he euphemistically calls his "base" and what I call one of his pet special-interest groups. As goes the National Rifle Association, so goes the nation.

The Bush campaign’s response to John Kerry’s plea for President Bush to pressure the Republican Congress to renew the ban was equally puzzling in the context of homeland security. There was no mention of homeland security or any specific response to John Kerry’s claim that these weapons are known to be used by terrorists and that no gun owner can honestly say that his-her rights have been impeded during the 10-year-old ban. Instead the Bush-Cheney campaign said that John Kerry had spent a career in the Senate voting against hunters. Huh? The Bush campaign shifts the argument to enhance its political base and away from the issue of making our nation more safe.

The War on Terror has been an enormously effective campaign issue for President Bush. His convention should have been advertised as, "The 9-11 Show, Live from Madison Square Garden!" The president has taken over this national tragedy as though it was a family business that he has exclusive franchising rights to.

But the president’s failure to renew the assault-weapons ban takes the shine right off the president’s War on Terror medals. When forced to choose between America and his base, the president is going to choose his base every time.