Bush and the GOP FAIL to Protect America

Let's Count the Ways they fail to meet their obligations

from JoeUser Forums



We hear how only the Republicans can protect America from terrorism. It is true there have not been any other attacks in America since 9/11. It is also true that the Bush administration has rallied cooperation among other countries as well as strengthened our own homeland security. However, when you look at the willingness to provide all that is needed, a very different picture emerges. Let's look as some of the security measures that Bush and the GOP has refused to fund:

Provide Radiation detection at the ports. The Democrats supported a 1.5 Billion investment to provide automatic radiation detection on EVERY crane in our ports. The Bush compromise was to include $50 Million in the budget for a $1.5 Billion dollar project.

Provide staffing at the ports that allow for inspection of ONLY 5% of the containers that come into America. What about the other 95%?

Bush included funding for 200 of the 10,000 added Border guards that HE said were required to help secure the Mexican Border. What about the remaining 9,800 guards?

Bush has refused to provide the funding to equip commercial aircraft with anti missile protection similar to what Israel has provided for their commercial aircraft.

Bush has not requested the needed funding to properly staff the Coast Guard which is hopelessly under staffed to protect our shores.

Bush has not increased the size of the active military despite his campaign statements in 2000 that our military was too small to meet its obligations which were far less in 2000 then they are today.

How anyone can assert that Bush and the GOP is the party that can protect us from terrorism in light of the above facts is amazing. We have the money for Iraq. We can grant tax cuts to Big Oil. We can give the wealthiest 5% of Americans tax cuts THEY DO NOT NEED. WE can not find the money to fully protect America!
politics
11,272 views 37 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hillary just proposed we spend $90 million and use the CDC to see whether video games are bad for kids. I wonder how many border guards that would pay for? Not that you'll ever acknoledge that Democrats waste as much as Republicans. That would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would not support that either. However, Bush and the GOP are in control. In the budgets of 2002, 2003, 2004,2005,2006,2007 Bush has NOT provided the Billions needed. Just think how much the $12 Billion in tax cuts to Big Oil that the GOP and Bush included in the Energy Bill would fund. A lot more then $90 Million. You can not push these failures onto anyone but Bush and the GOP. They have the power and are not using it to fully protect us from terrorism! When the next attack takes place, which every expert says will happen; we will see which of these failures will be responsible. Then you can make more excuses for Bush!
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
We hear how only the Republicans can protect America from terrorism. It is true there have not been any other attacks in America since 9/11. It is also true that the Bush administration has rallied cooperation among other countries as well as strengthened our own homeland security. However, when you look at the willingness to provide all that is needed, a very different picture emerges. Let's look as some of the security measures that Bush and the GOP has refused to fund:


So first you admit that Bush has done a good job protecting us then you nit-pick to try to find fault anyways? With 98% of you articles being against Bush in one way or ather you would still claim not to be a Bush Basher Col? OK You like to nit-pick, let's nit-pick.

Provide Radiation detection at the ports. The Democrats supported a 1.5 Billion investment to provide automatic radiation detection on EVERY crane in our ports. The Bush compromise was to include $50 Million in the budget for a $1.5 Billion dollar project.


So you complain about the deficit being too high yet we should spend $1.5 Billion on this project? If only you took time to look at yourself in the mirror and realize all the contradicting you do, maybe you would be taken more serious. At least he gave $50 million which is better than ignoring it.

Provide staffing at the ports that allow for inspection of ONLY 5% of the containers that come into America. What about the other 95%?


More for the deficit to grow, man you are on a role here Col. You couldn't have enough people to check 100%, otherwise most carge will be late. Get a clue Col. We don't need more people, we need better technology to be able to inpect things faster with less human error.

Bush included funding for 200 of the 10,000 added Border guards that HE said were required to help secure the Mexican Border. What about the remaining 9,800 guards?


Again, more money for the deficit, that's 3 for 3 Col. Again we don't need more people, we need better technology. They don't only come in over the border, they also make caves that can't be seen from above. We need a fence, better technology and better vehicles.

Bush has refused to provide the funding to equip commercial aircraft with anti missile protection similar to what Israel has provided for their commercial aircraft.


4 for 4. Do you know what it would take to put anti-missile protection on every plane the US has? And what about those that do not belong to US that Americans travel on, should they be ignored or obligated as well? How many planes does Israel have compared to the US? You see your ignorance Col, you don't even take any of this into consideration, ironically if Bush did provide the funds you would only complain that it would make the deficit higher.

Bush has not requested the needed funding to properly staff the Coast Guard which is hopelessly under staffed to protect our shores.


Hopelessly understaffed? You're a joke Col. These people complain because of the Ports deal and now they are in horrible shape? Rediculous. I'm sure our Coast Guards are just fine, they just don't like the port deal and are willing to say anything to stop it because that could mean more work for them. Plain and simple. BTW 5 for 5 on adding more money to the deficit that you rub in our faces so often.

Bush has not increased the size of the active military despite his campaign statements in 2000 that our military was too small to meet its obligations which were far less in 2000 then they are today.


Wouldn't that mean that he would have to make it a draft military rather than volunteer? But I thought you were against that? More guys and gals joining the military by force so that they can go to Iraq so that you can complain about the war so more? It is incredible how easily you let you stupidity creap out of your head more often than before.

Everyhing you outlined in this article contradicts everything you argue all the time in your other articles, especially the incredible amount of money you just added to the deficit, which is the one thing you cry about the most. I'm glad you are not running for politics, you would fit in just right with them. The power of confusion over the American people in a great power.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
They have the power and are not using it to fully protect us from terrorism! When the next attack takes place, which every expert says will happen; we will see which of these failures will be responsible. Then you can make more excuses for Bush!


Everyone knows they will, a group as obsessed as the Alqaeda will find a way no matter how much money Bush spends on security. You actually have this idea that we can be 100% safe but you are crazy.

BTW your doing a great job selling your book on this site, I'm sure it is you real agenda than searching for the truth. I don't blame you, I too would use any means necesary to sell my book.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ahhh maybe your numbers are fuzzy??

Funding has increased by more than 700% since September 11, 2001.

Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001.

DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005.

Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports, including $16.2 million to ; $32.7 million to ; $27.4 million to , $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to .

 

????

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has refused to provide the funding to equip commercial aircraft with anti missile protection similar to what Israel has provided for their commercial aircraft.

And it should be the airlines' funding, not the US government. What have the airlines done to protect their passengers? Unless you'd like the deficit to grow to underwrite all these pet projects of yours?

Funding has increased by more than 700% since September 11, 2001.
Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001.
DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005.

Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports, including $16.2 million to Baltimore; $32.7 million to Miami; $27.4 million to New Orleans, $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia.

I like the cut of your jib, Shadow. Thanks for doing the legwork that the good COL conveniently leaves out.

Ahhh maybe your numbers are fuzzy??

No, the numbers he quotes are from anti-Bush rant camp websites. COL lazily believes them, because 1. they agree with his basic premise, that Bush is the end of civilization; and 2. he can't be bothered to take time to spell check, how is he gonna do his own research?!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And it should be the airlines' funding, not the US government. What have the airlines done to protect their passengers? Unless you'd like the deficit to grow to underwrite all these pet projects of yours?


You might also want to look into the whole debate about whether the anti-missile systems WORK AT ALL. From what I understand they aren't all that reliable, especially in terms of the weapons most terrorists use.

Granted, one would expect a Democrat to toss as much money as possible at a problem whether the solution is effective or not.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
#5 by ShadowWar
Friday, March 10, 2006


The problem is that Col nit-picks and only sees the small things which is enough for him to get emotional. A lot of money was given to border security, but it wasn't all used up to hire more officers, but in his mind the technology bought does not count.

Col is so desperate he's losing his mind. OK I take that back, you can't lose something you dn't have. He must have lost it when he lost his war helmet.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Granted, one would expect a Democrat to toss as much money as possible at a problem whether the solution is effective or not.


Unless the solution is from the Rep, then they will toss garbage.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is hard to know where to start with the BS Above,

First, the areas I sighted are NOT small and do represent a MAJOR risks to our security. Nuclear is the worst WMD and we MUST be sure 100 % of the containers ARE free from a nuclear weapon. Just ONE would be a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a party. As to the funding, the tax cuts to the oil companies that are showing record profits would fund the radiation detectors, the anti missile protection for commercial aircraft and provide much of the new equipment the Coast Guard needs. The choice is more profit to an industry that is generating higher profits BEFORE THE $12 Billion Bush and the GOP gave then at the end of 2005 OR obtaining the equipment we need to protect our ports and aircraft. That is a no brainer. So why did Bush give the money we needed to protect America to the oil companies?

Saying the Airlines should pay the billions needed for antimissile protection given the fact that MOST of them have filed for bankruptcy is just ridiculous. Where in the HELL would they get the money?

As for the ongoing funding for Border guards, the Coast Guard and our military- the same question. What is more important the security of our country OR more money in the net worth of the wealthy that have far more then they need. That is just what Gates and Buffet meant when they told Bush not to cut taxes for the wealthy because they DID NOT DEED IT and WE HAD FAR MORE IMPORTANT NEEDS( like our SECURITY.)

Until Bush and Congress have provided for these glaring gaps in our security, THEY HAVE NOT DONE THE JOB!!!!!!!!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Saying the Airlines should pay the billions needed for antimissile protection given the fact that MOST of them have filed for bankruptcy is just ridiculous. Where in the HELL would they get the money?"


No, assuming the government should update planes for a private industry is ridiculous, espcially since the billions are going to go to countermeasures that don't stop all missiles.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tell that to the people after the first plane is shot down. Again giving tax cuts to oil companies and the wealthy or protecting our country.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
How many Israeli planes have been saved by anti-missile systems, Col? How many Israeli planes even have them? At a million dollars a pop, don't you think it is a bit annoying that they only stop heat seaking missiles, and not laser or radar guided or unguided?

Why don't you tell that to people after we spend billions outfitting planes at taxpayer's cost, and then a plane gets shot down the next day WITH these systems abord. I wonder how people will react when they find out how little protection chucking a few flares out the ass-end really is. I find it funny that the attacks the provoked the Israelis to used these systems MISSED even without the countermeasures.

Copying and pasting isn't good enough on some of these issues. You should at least read up a bit on them yourself before you do. There are plenty of people who oppose the defense systems, and the only people that are really banging a drum about them are the ones that want to make blind stabs at Bush, as you do.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The use of $12 Billion for EITHER tax Cuts to the oil companies or to purchase the equipment needed to insure we do not have a nuclear bomb brought into this country or have a Civilian Airliner brought down is an easy choice for anyone except Bush and his supporters. I do not understand how we can deny food for the poor, needed equipment and manpower to protect our country but we can find money to give those with all they need even more. There is no money to rebuild the homes in New Orleans but money for a war that has not made us safer. We can propose to eliminate the tax on estates which will cut $40 Billion EVERY year from the money needed for defense, education, security etc. That cut in the estate tax will help less then 1% of the population! The choices the current people that control the government are making are JUST wrong choices. They make choices that benefit the FEW and ignore the MANY!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Few people make me really sick, Col, but I have to say that when you do what you just did. Ignore, repeat, ignore, repeat. If God himself came down and told you exactly why you were wrong, you'd just type "I can't see why you don't understand" then paste your original premis behind it. I've spoken to white supremacist revisionist historians that I felt I had more chance of communicating with.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
If these systems do not work, why does Air Force One have them installed?What about the issue of nuclear bomb comming into our ports? What about not having enough equipment and ,manpower in our Coast Guard.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
" If these systems do not work, why does Air Force One have them installed?"


Because it is a single plane with redundant protection that is apt to be attacked. It also has other countermeasures. Do you expect US buses to have all the protection of the presidential limosine?

"What about the issue of nuclear bomb comming into our ports?"


As if terrorists would choose to bring a nuclear bomb into the country with a method they know could be searched, when they could bring it in a half a dozen other ways that wouldn't be. When drug cartels have to resort to using shipping containers as their main mode of smuggling, I might be more apt to agree.

"What about not having enough equipment and ,manpower in our Coast Guard."


We could double the Coast Guard's budget and you could still sit here and claim there isn't enough. There's no standard that you can point to that one person's stance on how it should be funded is any better than anyone else's. If you want to send more money their way, lobby Congress.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush would rather give the money to his rich supporters
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no money to rebuild the homes in New Orleans


LOL... Like the Millions spent on trailer houses that are sitting in Arkansa, just to have them sit there because New Orleans pasted laws forbiding trailer houses. Now we are spending millions on hotel rooms for those with no homes.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
None of that money has rebuilt ONE home. They are temporary housing. There has been no decision to rebuild the levies to withstand cat 5 storms and no plan or money to help rebuild 500,000 homes.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
None of that money has rebuilt ONE home.


So your saying not one person who has received their FEMA check has rebuilt their house?

"In the six months since Katrina struck, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has approved more than $5.2 billion in disaster loans to over 73,000 homeowners, renters and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Florida." Link

They are temporary housing.


Yes, they are temporary. They are $27,000 each. That is much better then spending another half a Billion on hotel rooms each month. These homes are meant to get residence back in the New Orleans area. So that the work force (to rebuild the homes) returns and businesses have customers again.

"FEMA has spent half a billion dollars on hotel rooms in a program that has been extended numerous times since its original deadline last fall. At the program's peak, FEMA was paying for 85,000 rooms at one time, but it has been scaled back in phases over the past month." Link
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
You refuse to acknowledge the basic issue. Many, if not most, of the people whose homes were destroyed do not have the money to rebuild a permanent home. Even low interest loans require the people to be capable of repaying the loans which in many cases is not possible. SBA makes loans for Business to the best of my knowledge not for private residences. The issue of the levies has not been settled. The Corps of Engineers has only been authorized to restore the levies to Cat 3 storm protection. There can be no rebuilding in the flooded areas until the levies have been made to withstand a Cat 5 storm. The money and decisions has not even been made as to what will be done.

If the levies are not to be strengthened, then home sites will need to be relocated to higher ground which means the people who have lost their homes will need help to first secure a new home site and then the money to build on that new site. We are talking about hundreds of Billions and the money to date has been for temporary housing and clean up of PUBLIC lands. The rubble from most individual home sites has NOT been removed and I see no action that will enable either the rebuilding of 500,000 homes that were destroyed nor a decision on the levies. Thus the Fed has not done what needs doing AFTER the WORST disaster in our history. They are also not doing what needs to be done to protect us from the NEXT disaster - Natural or man made!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

If these systems do not work, why does Air Force One have them installed?What about the issue of nuclear bomb comming into our ports? What about not having enough equipment and ,manpower in our Coast Guard.


He did NOT say they didn't work fool! They only work on "heat seekers"!

You refuse to acknowledge the basic issue. Many, if not most, of the people whose homes were destroyed do not have the money to rebuild a permanent home. Even low interest loans require the people to be capable of repaying the loans which in many cases is not possible. SBA makes loans for Business to the best of my knowledge not for private residences. The issue of the levies has not been settled. The Corps of Engineers has only been authorized to restore the levies to Cat 3 storm protection. There can be no rebuilding in the flooded areas until the levies have been made to withstand a Cat 5 storm. The money and decisions has not even been made as to what will be done.

If the levies are not to be strengthened, then home sites will need to be relocated to higher ground which means the people who have lost their homes will need help to first secure a new home site and then the money to build on that new site. We are talking about hundreds of Billions and the money to date has been for temporary housing and clean up of PUBLIC lands. The rubble from most individual home sites has NOT been removed and I see no action that will enable either the rebuilding of 500,000 homes that were destroyed nor a decision on the levies. Thus the Fed has not done what needs doing AFTER the WORST disaster in our history. They are also not doing what needs to be done to protect us from the NEXT disaster - Natural or man made!


And you do love to do this: the thread is about how the GOP fails to protect America. So what happens when you start losing ground to superior arguements? You of course change the subject.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

There is a fool but guess what you can see him by looking in the mirror.

There have not been any arguments that disprove the issues in this Blog. As to the protection issue, it was in answer to other posts that got off subject.

The issues are:

WE are not protecting our ports.

We are not protecting our borders.

We are not providing the resources needed for the Coast Guard and Active Military.

We are not protecting our civilian Airliners.


You and the other Bushies can bluster all you want. These are the facts and ALL Americans KNOW IT.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess "we're" not Americans, then.