I find it troubling

Sparx

New Member
· It’s troubling that the Washington Post reports Bush Administration had credible intelligence about the terrorist threats they’re announcing today but held that information for a month. [Washington Post, 5/26/04, A1]

· It was wrong to sit on this information so long. I certainly hope the Administration is following a security schedule, not a political schedule.

· The best way to prevent terrorist attacks is to prepare, prepare, prepare. That requires two things: sharing intelligence information from the federal government, and equipping our fist responders with the tools they need.

· A Government Accounting Office investigation found the process created following 9/11 to share information, “no level of government perceived the process as effective.” John Kerry believes – and I agree -- that appropriate state and local authorities should have immediate access to national terrorist lists and 24-hour operations center should be created to link local and federal law enforcement.

· The other thing we need as local officials from the Bush Administration are the resources to protect our local communities. A study last fall by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed 90 percent of cities had not received their share of the $1.5 billion allocated by the nation’s largest homeland security funding program.[AP, 2/12/04]

· On top of that, the Bush Administration has consistently cut funding for the COPS program, which had put more than 100,000 cops on the street.[AP, 2/3/03] This comes at a time when we need our police, our “first responders” more than ever for homeland security.

· And the Bush Administration hasn’t done nearly enough to protect ports, rails and chemical plants.

· It’s also a question of priorities. President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy cost $2.6 trillion over 10 years. But he’s only dedicated $36 billion per year to homeland security funding. No wonder the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (I.B.P.O.)– who endorsed George Bush in 2000 – are standing with John Kerry this election.

· For all these reasons, it’s absurd for the Bush campaign to be attacking John Kerry on homeland security. Democrats proposed the creation of the homeland security department after 9-11; it was Bush who led the fight to block it for months.

· In 1997, John Kerry even wrote a book called “The New War” on the emerging dangers of international terrorism and global crime.

· John Kerry has a comprehensive homeland security plan to close what he has called the “preparedness gap.” He has a homeland security plan that will keep America safe.

· His plan calls for: 1) Enlist the National Guard and Americorps in Homeland Security efforts to create community defense services 2) Ensure that first defenders are equipped and ready 3) Bring information technology to War on Terror 4) Reforming domestic intelligence 5) Implement public health initiatives and 6) Improve port security, bridges, tunnels and private infrastructure. [Kerry remarks regarding the “Preparedness Gap” New York, NY 7/16/03]
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Sparx
· It’s troubling that the Washington Post reports Bush Administration had credible intelligence about the terrorist threats they’re announcing today but held that information for a month. [Washington Post, 5/26/04, A1] If they'd released that information any sooner, you'd have just said they were trying to boost Bush's poll numbers. AND you'd have made fun of Homeland Security and poohpoohed them

· It was wrong to sit on this information so long. I certainly hope the Administration is following a security schedule, not a political schedule. I rest my case

· The best way to prevent terrorist attacks is to prepare, prepare, prepare. That requires two things: sharing intelligence information from the federal government, and equipping our fist responders with the tools they need. Then I assume you won't be voting for John Kerry, since he votes to gut intel and military funding?

· A Government Accounting Office investigation found the process created following 9/11 to share information, “no level of government perceived the process as effective.” John Kerry believes – and I agree -- that appropriate state and local authorities should have immediate access to national terrorist lists and 24-hour operations center should be created to link local and federal law enforcement.
Then why does he vote against funding to do so?

· The other thing we need as local officials from the Bush Administration are the resources to protect our local communities. A study last fall by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed 90 percent of cities had not received their share of the $1.5 billion allocated by the nation’s largest homeland security funding program.[AP, 2/12/04] Of course you know that Congress releases state funding, not the President, right?

· On top of that, the Bush Administration has consistently cut funding for the COPS program, which had put more than 100,000 cops on the street.[AP, 2/3/03] This comes at a time when we need our police, our “first responders” more than ever for homeland security. Again, Bush doesn't deal with funding anything - that's Congress you're thinking of.

· And the Bush Administration hasn’t done nearly enough to protect ports, rails and chemical plants. Apparently he has, considering there have been no incidences reported.

· In 1997, John Kerry even wrote a book called “The New War” on the emerging dangers of international terrorism and global crime. Woo woo!

· John Kerry has a comprehensive homeland security plan to close what he has called the “preparedness gap.” He has a homeland security plan that will keep America safe. If he's so concerned, why doesn't he share his plan with Bush and maybe help keep us safe BEFORE the election? PS, have you noticed that we haven't had a single terrorist attack in this country since 9-11? I feel pretty safe right now.
 

Toxick

Splat
· The other thing we need as local officials from the Bush Administration are the resources to protect our local communities. A study last fall by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed 90 percent of cities had not received their share of the $1.5 billion allocated by the nation’s largest homeland security funding program.[AP, 2/12/04] Of course you know that Congress releases state funding, not the President, right?

· On top of that, the Bush Administration has consistently cut funding for the COPS program, which had put more than 100,000 cops on the street.[AP, 2/3/03] This comes at a time when we need our police, our “first responders” more than ever for homeland security. Again, Bush doesn't deal with funding anything - that's Congress you're thinking of.


Goddam friggin' Republican congress! :cussing: :burning:




:biggrin:
 

soul4sale

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
If they'd released that information any sooner, you'd have just said they were trying to boost Bush's poll numbers. AND you'd have made fun of Homeland Security and poohpoohed them

I'm going to go with vraiblonde on this one. Terror intel is a damned-if-ya-do, damned-if-ya-don't kind of thing. It's hard to gauge when to release it. If the intel is erroneous or it prevents an attack from happening, people accuse you of crying wolf. If it turns out to be correct, then people berate you for knowing something might happen and not doing enough to stop it. You can't win. The only indication that the public really ever gets that we are stopping terrorism is that we haven't been attacked. That's why I think Tom Ridge should have thought twice before taking the Homeland Security job. He's now the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong, without getting much credit for what he gets right.

Whatever the nation's watchdogs are doing has seemed to work so far. I don't feel like I'm at risk in SoMD, but I wouldn't want to be any closer to D.C. right now...
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by vraiblonde
And the Bush Administration hasn’t done nearly enough to protect ports, rails and chemical plants. \
Apparently he has, considering there have been no incidences reported.

Wasn't there a similar quote at the pentagon on 9-10-01?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by soul4sale
Whatever the nation's watchdogs are doing has seemed to work so far.
It's like you said - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Everyone was making fun of Ridge for his color-coded warning system but if he didn't release a warning and something DID happen, his head would be on a plate.

To me, though, it's just feel-good crap for the unwashed masses to titter about. If a terrorist attack DID happen, there wouldn't be anything the average citizen could do about it anyway, so why bother warning them? Then you get these idiots that freak out and asphixiate themselves with duct tape. :rolleyes:
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Not that I'm aware of. But you can make one up if you like! :cheesy:

Point being, I don't understand the ignorance of "It hasn't happened, so we're safe". I don't go around wondering if my next step will be on a landmine, but I also am aware that if they want to, they can pretty much strike anywhere, any time they please. Just something we accept. So no, just because rails haven't been hit doesn't mean our intelligence community stopped anything. Could just mean they haven't tried it, yet.
 

Pete

Repete
Awful hard to take a nation that has been open for over 200 years and close it up tigtht. Especially when you are fought every step of the way, IE; Patriot Act, Homeland Security Department, Airport Security. :ohwell:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by SmallTown
So no, just because rails haven't been hit doesn't mean our intelligence community stopped anything. Could just mean they haven't tried it, yet.
I'll bet any number of attacks are thwarted every week. They just don't tell us because they don't want Ma and Pa Kettle getting out the duct tape.

But who would have thought a bunch of ruffians could hijack not one, not two, but FOUR planes with box cutters?

The problem with our government is that they're not particularly coherent or sensible. Arabs hijack planes with box cutters so what do the Feds do? Make sure no teenage white girls get on a plane with a compass.

:ohwell:
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by vraiblonde
I'll bet any number of attacks are thwarted every week. They just don't tell us because they don't want Ma and Pa Kettle getting out the duct tape.

But who would have thought a bunch of ruffians could hijack not one, not two, but FOUR planes with box cutters?

The problem with our government is that they're not particularly coherent or sensible. Arabs hijack planes with box cutters so what do the Feds do? Make sure no teenage white girls get on a plane with a compass.

:ohwell:

If they were stopping anything of signifigance, you had bet they would be talking. They have to justify that budget somehow.
Bad thing is, regardless of how many pre-emptive attacks we make, we will always be one step behind the terrorists. They use planes to attack in, so we spend the next 2.5 years bolstering airline security. When all the time, the terrorists could care less about planes and have been planning other ways since even before 9/11.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by SmallTown
They use planes to attack in, so we spend the next 2.5 years bolstering airline security. When all the time, the terrorists could care less about planes and have been planning other ways since even before 9/11.
Yeah, that's my thought, too. But we don't know what's REALLY going on behind the scenes, so maybe they're all over it. I figure if Tom Clancy, Vince Flynn and Nelson DeMille can put together a creative terrorist plot, the Feds should be able to. :shrug:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Helpless? Can't do anything about it?

...Average citizen?

Wanna know what pre-dated suicide/homicide bombers attacking Israel?

Gunmen.

That's right, men with guns opening up at the population.

It stopped real quick.

Why? Because the average Israeli citizen started carrying a gun and too many martyrs left on their voyage with no notches on their rifle. They got gunned down before they could do much.

It became suicidal.

So, they took the next step.

A few scared men took over planes because the US disarms it's people and teaches them to sit and let the lawyers handle it. There is nothing, NOTHING dumber than spending the BILLIONS we are spending to keep me from having my pocket knife and my daughter from having her protractor.

They WILL give up their lives to kill you. I want a fighting chance.

So, can't do anything about? Laugh at thoughts of a well armed militia?

One thing they do know is that at least we aren't very much for protecting ourselves.
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Re: Helpless? Can't do anything about it?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...
A few scared men took over planes because the US disarms it's people and teaches them to sit and let the lawyers handle it. There is nothing, NOTHING dumber than spending the BILLIONS we are spending to keep me from having my pocket knife and my daughter from having her protractor.


If only those people in WTC had guns on them at the time, they could have shot down the plane before impact. Damn NYC regulations
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I presume sarcasm but yes...

...a gun would be nice.

If you watched to many bad movies the Myth Busters took care of the 'bullet piercing the fuselage decomp' fear.

The air marshalls are armed with pistols. The pilots to.

So, yeah, I'm good with a black man or yellow man or white man, as long as he is a law abiding American, legally carrying on a plane.

The nanny state paranoia the anti gun crowd creates resolves to pools of un-armed people trained to act like sheep.

PERFECT TARGETS
 

willie

Well-Known Member
Re: I presume sarcasm but yes...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...a gun would be nice.

If you watched to many bad movies the Myth Busters took care of the 'bullet piercing the fuselage decomp' fear.

The air marshalls are armed with pistols. The pilots to.

So, yeah, I'm good with a black man or yellow man or white man, as long as he is a law abiding American, legally carrying on a plane.

The nanny state paranoia the anti gun crowd creates resolves to pools of un-armed people trained to act like sheep.

PERFECT TARGETS
Just what kind of requirements, if any, would you expect a gun carrier to pass?
 

sleuth

Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
Re: Re: I presume sarcasm but yes...

Originally posted by willie
Just what kind of requirements, if any, would you expect a gun carrier to pass?

Hard to say... unlike a drivers license, owning a gun is our 'right', not a privilege.

So you can't require people to pass a target shooting test, or shooting under stress tests, etc.

The only thing you can do is make sure they haven't forsaken that right by past criminal offenses.
 

rraley

New Member
Originally posted by Pete
Awful hard to take a nation that has been open for over 200 years and close it up tigtht. Especially when you are fought every step of the way, IE; Patriot Act, Homeland Security Department, Airport Security. :ohwell:

Democrats didn't fight the Patriot Act - it passed 99-1 in the United States Senate. What has happened is that Democrats now see that there is some abuse of the law and wish to replace it with new legislation that committs it only to terrorist activities so that civil rights are more secure. John Kerry voted for it in 2001 and he has said that he supports "90% of it." It's that other 10% that we need to work on.

The Democratic Party, under Senator Joseph Lieberman, pushed for a Homeland Security Department. The only thing is that we thought that its workers deserved a union and that private companies should not be the ones responsible for screening at airports. It was details that Democrats did not stomach; not the notions.
 
Top