The Bush Record on Transit Security
The Bush Record on Transit Security
Britain and Spain are two countries with as much experience in combating terrorism, by the IRA and ETA respectively, as anyone in the world. The fact that neither has been able to stop attacks during periods of heightened alert is a clear sign that a strike on a U.S. transit or rail system is a very real security threat. The bombings in London today should serve as a wake-up call that the U.S. desperately needs a stronger, progressive approach to rail security. Consider:
JUDGE FINDS ‘NO CONSISTENT, COMPREHENSIVE’ RAIL SECURITY POLICY: Just three months ago, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled on a rail security case involving CSX Transportation. In his decision, Sullivan criticized the Bush administration for having no “consistent and comprehensive federal policy addressing the risks of terrorism on our interstate rail system,” despite the fact that “the federal government has the lead role in regulating the rails and that a community can intervene only when a subject cannot be addressed by national standards or rules.”
2005: JUST $115 MILLION IN RAIL SECURITY FUNDING: Bush’s 2005 budget allocation for train security was just $115 million, equal to what the U.S. spends on eight typical hours in Iraq. (The White House spent $15 billion on airline security, “though as many as 16 times more people ride rail lines than airplanes.”)
SINCE 9/11, BUSH HAS RELIED ON “VOLUNTARY” RAIL SECURITY STRATEGY: Some 85 percent of the critical infrastructure in the United States is privately owned. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, the Bush administration has not worked to compel the private sector to raise their safety standards since 9/11. Instead, the administration and transit companies have agreed on “voluntary measures by the companies to address terrorism-vulnerability concerns.” The obvious problem: stricter security measures also cost more, so transit companies have, by and large, ignored them.
For a progressive approach to rail security, check out “Putting Rail Security on the Right Track,” a component of our Critical Infrastructure Security Series.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“BUSH HAS RELIED ON “VOLUNTARYâ€? RAIL SECURITY STRATEGY”
Who has more at stake, some unionized federal bureaucrat, or the people who own and operate the rail systems?
Leave it to the left to think “voluntary” is a dirty word.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:48 pmI should think they both have a roughly equivalent stake, as the security of the passengers on said railways should be the utmost priority of the rail owners. And those passengers are also constituents of the bureaucrat, so it’s in the best interest of both parties to keep citizenry safe on the rails. Keeping it voluntary keeps it from getting done, as neither wants to affect the bottom line. If you don’t force them, they’ll prolly not get around to it.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:56 pmI personally would not trust these companies to keep us safe, they seem to worry about what will make them the most money and effective security measures will cost them. And if anything happens, the federal goverment will bail them out.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:58 pmDear American Federalist Journal, you are right. Government has no duty to protect its citizens.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:59 pmyes, lets have the companies who will make more money by not increasing security be in charge of our safety.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:08 pmVoluntary IS a dirty word in this particular context. Nader’s raiders among other LEFTIE groups had been fighting FOREVER to get government to install stronger cockpit doors in planes. Did the “voluntary” airline industry go with it? Not until AFTER 9/11, and even that after a GOVERNMENT mandated rule.
Shame on our president for not prioritizing Homeland Security. Remember during the debates when Kerry mentioned port and rail security, Bush responded saying “That’s a huge tax gap” or something of the sort? FOR SHAME…
July 7th, 2005 at 2:17 pmWho has more at stake, the owner of the rails, or the passengers? Why not a “voluntary” system of security, i.e. let the passengers look out for themselves (if they so choose)?
Editor shows his lack of thinking. The Federal government has the resources and ability to secure things like rail lines, and Bush has chosen not to.
How about voluntary immigration procedures? Voluntary law enforcement? Voluntary medical care? That would save a lot of money, wouldn’t it?
July 7th, 2005 at 2:21 pmAnd put an ease on the population strain, if you want to think of it that way. It’s Darwin’s grab-bag!
July 7th, 2005 at 2:23 pmMost competitive businesses have operate on a fairly low margin. Implementing security measures when your competitors don’t puts you at an immense disadvantage. It’s the classic prisoner’s dilemma and only the government can compel equal cooperation.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:29 pmIt surprise seeing london got bombing today, look at the time (london time) 8:49am that is excatly the same time from sept 11 my theory is WHY same time it seem very odd, because president bush is in England/Scotland, i believe his team who plant the bomb because of the same time. when Blair on news (Bush is behind of blair) i can see bush is very guilty because of his face impression his eye were moving around than left to right than right to left it clearly to seem to me that his lips are slightly smile under the pout lips. how can they say it was terriost BECAUSE IT TIME TIME 8:49am, finish was around 10:50am (i think) it look the same as Sept 11 tower collapse finish. i have worked it out and theory have you had forgotten about timing. SEE what i make sense, Now excatly bush is trying to get away again, the London police said that is not clearly about terriost website because it weak sense. that is not very smart move because bush knew all along with it, if bush wasnt being in president it would be different by now. ONCES again bush keep saying it on now WAR AGAINST TERRIOST is ON. (all he thinking about WAR WAR WAR WAR) when he is going to stop thinking about WAR because he likes VIOLENCE and he likes to KILL MORE PEOPLE because more $$$$$$$ on bush HEAD. i believe bush is planning more ATTACK under finger point saying it was TERRIOST.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:33 pmSo you think it’s cheaper on companies to rebuild infastucture, pay claims made by victims and their families, and absorb the financial loses from reduced passenger traffic after an attack, as opposed to maintaining a level of security that is reasonable and people like you and your buddies at the aclu will accept? So if Bush says full cavity search for all buses, trains, and subways tomorrow, that’s ok with TP? It is fitting that liberals as usual argue both sides of the issue. And where would you guys spend more money? Shaking down old ladies at the bus stop so as not to upset your sensibilities with what you would call racial profiling? I know, X-ray all backpacks and packages? metal detectors? No, you just want to throw figures around like that’s an alternative plan. Wait maybe bring home the troops, and militarize our country? I know you guys don’t mind US tanks rolling over religious extremists on American soil, hell Wus Clarke signed the order, just as long as they are Christians in a red state.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:40 pmwe could stop the war in Iraq for more money, thats a few billion. Repeal the ill considered tax cuts George handed out to his ultra rich buddies. And stop handing huge sums of tax money back to large corporations.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:45 pmRAAFSP, blames bush in broken English. Did the Israelis help him there? Does Rove have an alibi? Freaks.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:48 pmTed,
I never said “Government has no duty to protect its citizens.”
Why do so many on the left seem so incapable of telling the truth?
July 7th, 2005 at 2:50 pmED,
Maybe you should look at what you posted and rephrase it, sans the snide attitude? Clarify your point.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:02 pmI agree, Rove is a freak.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:04 pmBUSH knew that PM Blair dont like bush anymore that WHY, Before he went to UK for G8 meeting he knew that blair wouldnt want to talk to him because blair found out the truth about War is FLASE so that would embarrassed BUSH.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:11 pmSkid:
“I agree, Rove is a freak.”
Maybe you should look at what you posted and rephrase it, sans the snide attitude? Clarify your point. *L*
July 7th, 2005 at 3:14 pmi was just wondering what the hell fake is even talking about? did he even read the report? i think we all know that there are reasonable steps can be taken to reduce the risk of an attack. no one said anything about body cavity searches.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:17 pmBlogViews: London Terror
People might be talking about other things, but around the blogs today London seems like the only important topic…
July 7th, 2005 at 3:19 pmThat’s rich, ED! *PHQ*
July 7th, 2005 at 3:24 pmfake –
You’re right, liberals are forced to “argue both sides of the issue”, we are the only constructive debaters left in the country. We come up with great ideas like the very creation of a Department of Homeland Security, concrete steps such as making sure trains have either no trash bins or clear plastic or bomb resistant ones, or having more bomb-sniffing dogs in subways, and the list goes on…
Instead right-wingers go “Lib’ruls hate America”!! or as the prez himself said, Homeland Security? “It’s like a huge tax gap…!”. Pretty sad.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:50 pmi think we all know that there are reasonable steps can be taken to reduce the risk of an attack. no one said anything about body cavity searches.
Comment by amanda
Name one and tell me how much it costs? What step do you see the need to implement that has not been done? Name it. What could we do to stop a London or Madrid style attack here that you would agree with, and fix a dollar amount to your idea, I dare you? Even if you had an unlimited budget you would still need a plan, a plan that would pass the aclu smell test. I’m listening.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:55 pmI remember just before BUSH Arrival to australia he was forced his security do some search around the place like London today,Remember BUSH went to UK last year for visit, it did the same thing SEARCHING the place before HIS ARRIVAL. that the theory. it means we have to pay BUSHY security do the work, SO WORKED YOURSELF and see what that is about, WHY BUSH WANTS $$$$$ and if they refuse $$$ that much amount which BUSH ask how much, than he would force his security to plot MAKE SENSE.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:01 pm“we are the only constructive debaters left in the country.”
Yes, the daily “Bush is Hitler” comments are very constructive. *L*
July 7th, 2005 at 4:06 pmuhh actually the comparisons with Bush and Hitler are pretty clear.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:09 pmWe come up with great ideas like the very creation of a Department of Homeland Security, concrete steps such as making sure trains have either no trash bins or clear plastic or bomb resistant ones, or having more bomb-sniffing dogs in subways, and the list goes on…
Comment by Darth
So you guys were in power for 8 years, much of that controlling congress, and we created that department when? So you remove trash cans, cost: saves money, con: greens cry foul. Clear trash cans would take clear trash to be effective now wouldn’t they? More bomb dogs? What, one per car? Per passenger? Sniffing old ladies in the station? con: Muslim find dogs to be culturally insensitive, aclu sues, wins. What do you want that money for?
July 7th, 2005 at 4:15 pmfake, now you are arguing both sides of the issue. 9/11 changed everything, and you blame Clinton for not taking a post-9/11 approach?
Why do you list only ridiculous “security measures” rather than go look at the ones which have been proposed?
Or if ALL security measures are as ridiculous as you say, what is the use of voluntary measures anyway?
Which is it? Are there reasonable measures which could be taken? If so, are you against implementing them, or should they be optional? Or do you favor putting the burden of homeland security on the backs of industry?
http://boxer.senate.gov/issues/hsec.cfm
July 7th, 2005 at 4:26 pmi was wondering if anyone is able to have a discussion with fake that does not result in a bunch of nonsensical ramblings about sniffing old ladies?
July 7th, 2005 at 4:29 pmI am not a security expert, but the steps recommended in the above article seems pretty logical to me. maybe you should read the report by the center for american progress and then you can complain about it.
and by the way, humans work with dogs in all kinds of jobs and people don’t seem to have a problem with it. could you try to make sense for a change?
Good straw man fake. With gov. spending at an all time high, and overpayments made to cronies who overcharge for material and services, how can someone not involved in the debacle give you a price, let alone the appropriate price? As for ideas, how about securing our port systems? Cut the waste in overpaid defence contracts and military logistics, perhaps that money could be put to better use? Capitalism and free market brings in a little too much into this country if we can’t afford to secure the ports, huh? Boy the money’s good though.
The muslim-dog comment is twisted at best. The problem is dogs used in torture and interrigation, not bomb-sniffing. Then there is the muslim profiling, but thats a whole different animal… Nice try.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:33 pmI’m still waiting to hear good ideas from your side about how to improve rail security. Ed? Fake?
Ed: “daily “Bush is Hitlerâ€? comments”
fake: “Sniffing old ladies?”
At least can you ask your the Bush Administration NOT screw up again like they did last year when they BLEW a double agent’s cover, forcing the Brits to prematurely arrest Al-Qaeda members? Who knows if the ones who escaped did this dastardly act today. It’s the least you can do.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:39 pmfake doesn’t want to use bomb-sniffing dogs because they offend muslims. Karl Rove recently had something to say about that kind of attitude.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:42 pmHey “The Editors”, why don’t you allow comments on YOUR site? There’s some real junk over there worth commenting about.
Oh, and why would private transit systems spend money on security when their pals in Congress constantly manage to absolve them from accountability, by, among other things, removing the threat of being sued for instances of not providing a safe environment? When a private American transit vehicle gets blown up, watch how fast they cry for better “public” US protection. Morons.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:51 pmOur site does allow comments.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:33 pmI question the reading comprehension abilities of you people, but maybe if we just spent more money on education right? Do you people even know what hazmat is? What does that have to do with subways and buses? Homicide bombers? Who proposed the trash can nonsense, was it me? So you are ok with racial profiling, I am. Maybe we are getting somewhere, just kidding, don’t worry, I know you are still clueless. Hazmat exclusion zones, that’s great idea, LOL.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:33 pmI’m still waiting to hear good ideas from your side about how to improve rail security. Ed? Fake?
Ed: “daily “Bush is Hitler� comments�
fake: “Sniffing old ladies?�
At least can you ask your the Bush Administration NOT screw up again like they did last year when they BLEW a double agent’s cover, forcing the Brits to prematurely arrest Al-Qaeda members? Who knows if the ones who escaped did this dastardly act today. It’s the least you can do.
Comment by Darth Filibustrous
This is how this site decided to frame the attacks in London, with an attack on Bush, then linked a site that asks for hazmat exclusion zones like that has a freaking thing to do with bombings on passenger trains. It does not. You people complained about money, I asked what you thought throwing money at the perceived problem would solve. The hippy thinks your trash can ideas are as dumb as I did, but you might want to ask him. I think the bong hits confused him. Maybe all of you : )
July 7th, 2005 at 5:41 pmOn the issue of public versus private responsibility for security–the problem with leaving _any_ infrastructural issue up to the magic of the marketplace is that the least denominator rules. When you have 2 companies, and the CEO of one wants to take precautions and the other one gambles on nothing going wrong, the latter takes in larger profts (or can lower the price, enhancing market share.) _If_ something goes wrong the other guy might recoup these losses–or might never if they are already driven out of business by then. In the realities of modern corporate America, long before this moment of truth, the “less efficient” company with a costly and inconvenient investment in security will have been angrily rebuked by its stockholders for not performing to market standards and “reformed” as necessary to make it “competitive” once again with its happy-go-lucky rival. That way when the day of reckoning comes, _both_ companies just shrug amid the wreckage and say “market forces” prevented any better precautions than they had in fact employed.
If there is a legal mandate setting adequate standards on all competitors, then this arena is removed from competition; all companies are on the same footing–and the overall level of security is far higher than we can expect unregulated competition to deliver.
At that point, it would be about an even call whether to expect each company to provide security that meets tha sandards, or to provide the security by government agents paid for by taxes.
“Voluntary standards” is no standards at all.
July 7th, 2005 at 5:49 pmFormer Governor Jim Thompson (IL) (911 Commission) stated today that there is absolutely no way we will ever be 100% safe.
That is the first time I’ve heard a republican make a logical statement.
He’s right so get on with your life and don’t allow Bushie to capitalize on the attack on London.
There will be more because we drew first blood on Iraq and the muslims worldwide.
votetoimpeach.org for a safer U.S.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:35 pmfake but fake: in the marketplace of ideas, you’ve acheived junk bond status. Name calling does not help.
Tell me how more money can make air travel safer. Now apply the same principle to rail travel. There are measures to take. Nobody here is a rail travel expert, including you, so passing judgement on specific policies is pointless. The big picture is how little attention this issue has gotten compared to, say, invading Iraq which was supposed to make us safer. Do London commutters feel safer? Judge Bush’s policy on the results. That’s all that needs to be said.
Of course, the best bang for the buck is actually spreading democracy and freedom, something Bush doesn’t seem interested in doing.
July 7th, 2005 at 6:56 pm“There will be more because we drew first blood on Iraq and the muslims worldwide.”
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing – Bush’s fault.
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing – Bush’s fault.
The 1998 African embassy bombings – Bush’s fault.
The 2000 USS Cole attack – Bush’s fault.
Susan clearly has her tinfoil hat on way too tight.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:20 pm“The big picture is how little attention this issue has gotten compared to, say, invading Iraq which was supposed to make us safer. Do London commutters feel safer? Judge Bush’s policy on the results.”
Does ex-hippie really believe Bush rail safety policy is responsible for an atack in London, or is this just another lame knee-jerk partisan cheap shot? *L*
July 7th, 2005 at 7:24 pmVery good buckshot. You finally got it right, Bush’s fault.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:28 pmED,
Are you into S&M? I’m trying to understand why you’re here? I know fake is, for it’s been comin’ round for a while now. It’s when fake disappears that I get worried.
Now back to the show…
July 7th, 2005 at 7:57 pmNow perhaps Susan will explain how exactly the 1993-2000 attacks I listed are Bush’s fault. This oughtta be a hoot.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:07 pmLet’s see…
First let’s start with what failed business ventures GWB was tanking from ‘93 on. Then what cronies he was catering to while he was Gov. up to 2000…C’mon fake, ED, help me out. He’s your boy, remember?
Good angle, guys. I’ll do some diggin’. Hoot Hoot!
July 7th, 2005 at 9:15 pmThe 1993 World Trade Center bombing – Bush’s fault.
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing – Bush’s fault.
The 1998 African embassy bombings – Bush’s fault.
The 2000 USS Cole attack – Bush’s fault.
WOW! 4! I never knew how to do math that way! 4 in 7 years! Finally America elected a dumbass dumb enough to take the bait!
July 7th, 2005 at 10:03 pmOh yeah, and dumb enough to let it happen on his watch…..
July 7th, 2005 at 10:04 pmOh yeah, and dumb enough to let 9/11 happen on his watch…
Only Dumbya! Let Dumbya do it! Even Poppy wasn’t that Dumb! He never took the bait! Until Maggie told him to grow a pair!
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing – Bush I’s fault. And Reagan’s, too…
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing – Bush I’s fault.
The 1998 African embassy bombings – Bush I’s fault.
The 2000 USS Cole attack – Bush I’s fault.
There, I fixed it for ya!
July 7th, 2005 at 10:07 pmCurrent numbers:
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/
Look Poppy! I presidented all by myself!
Mission accomplished!
July 7th, 2005 at 10:10 pmCurrent Numbers
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002
July 7th, 2005 at 10:11 pmThe Eds at AFJ have just shown us all a classic conservative (neo-con, republican) debating tactic.
1) Put words in your opponents’ mouth; rearrange or deliberately misinterpert what they say — or just flat out lie.
2) attack your opponent for what YOU said he said. This way you never have to defend you position. Very few listeners are skilled debaters, they will accept whatever you say if it “sounds sorta like” what the other guy said.
See Susan above. She never stated that the first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Cole attacks, etc. were Bush’s fault. But once the EDs put those words in her mouth, they can attack her endlessly for them — and their mouth-breathing followers will cheer them for slamming another liberal.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:58 pm“Does ex-hippie really believe Bush rail safety policy is responsible for an atack in London, or is this just another lame knee-jerk partisan cheap shot? *L* ”
AFter 9/11 Bush was charged with one thing: make sure it doesn’t happen again. He accepted the task and chose a strategy to accomplish that. Ever since the invasion of Iraq any criticism of Bush’s policy has been met with, “It must be working — we haven’t been attacked again.” Well, now we have.
Bush’s stated policy is one of fighting them there so we don’t fight them here. His theory is that the terrorists are being drawn to Iraq, therefore they won’t come here. The whole invasion is predicated on the notion that we are on the offensive, that we are wiping them out to prevent another attack.
Did his strategy work?
July 7th, 2005 at 11:55 pmlaurelie, don’t forget the classic: Make up whatever you say they said at some indeterminate point in the past, e.g. “Liberals will never accept the fact…” or “Liberals are constantly saying…”
It’s really only a question of how long before reality intrudes and makes their disengeuous lies painfully apparent to everyone.
July 7th, 2005 at 11:57 pmWin another one for the Gipper!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8497845/
July 8th, 2005 at 5:02 amI have nothing to add of a factual nature. My head and ass both ache.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:23 amNobody here is a rail travel expert, including you, so passing judgement on specific policies is pointless.
- hippy
So then you agree the premise of this whole thread is flawed because Think Progress is just complaining about a subject they know nothing about? The report sited is bitching about hazmat exclusion zones and TP tried in vain to link that to the London bombings. I’m not qualified to discuss railway safety issues but you are qualified to criticize railway safety? So what is the correlation between hazmat exclusion zones and homicide bombers? If you think the feds and local law enforcement are not watching the nations railways, why don’t you got out to the nearest railway and take some photos of the trains or act suspiciously near some tracks and you will find out how wrong you are. Trains hauling hazmat and military equipment are under surveillance, passenger lines are watched as well. I’m just glad we agree Think Progress was just complaining to hear it’s self complain, was not qualified to comment, and linked a report totally unrelated to homicide bombings of passenger trains out of ignorace of the subject: )
July 8th, 2005 at 10:50 amFrom the report linked: “September 11 transformed how the federal government conducted airline security. The same can’t be said for March 11, 2004 and the string of train bombings that occurred in Madrid. There has been no wake-up call for rail security. *EXCEPT* for marginal improvements in physical security, there have been no major operational changes in response to the on-going risk of terrorist attacks against major cities and our national transportation infrastructure.”
So this BS report invokes the Madrid bombings, then says nothing about passenger train safety?
“First and foremost, the federal government should approve the District of Columbia’s rail and truck hazardous material or “hazmat” exclusion zone rather than continue to fight it. Second, it should undertake a national review and identify other major cities where similar re-routing options exist. Third, it should encourage localities to enact a broader set of physical security initiatives, particularly regarding railway sidings and private track hazardous material storage. Fourth, the country needs a genuine homeland security partnership, not a rivalry, one based on better communication, coordination and action. Finally, the federal government needs a comprehensive hazardous material strategy that looks at the supply and demand for hazardous materials and encourages changes in manufacturing and operating processes that should reduce the volume of toxic, explosive and lethal substances on the nation’s railways.”
First of all, most cities are built around railways and hazardous materials include the fuel you all use in your cars and natural gas to heat homes and operate many power plants. The idea you are going to remove hazardous materials from population centers is ludicrous. So shall we move all the gas stations to the country side? build new tracks around all our cities and move all our refineries? And when the cities grow shall we just move them again? This boils down to another case of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and a greenie agenda masking itself as a strategy in the GWoT. You are clueless as usual.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:07 amEditors of the American Federalist Journal:
July 8th, 2005 at 12:50 pmI laugh at your comment “Why do so many on the left seem so incapable of telling the truth?” Just like the “nuclear” option, the neocon right has no ability to see both sides or distinguish between truth and fiction. How else to explain “we will be viewed as liberators”, “there are WMDs” and the Swift Boat liars.
Also, on government responsibility to protect its citizens, doesn’t the Preamlbe to the Constitution state something about “porovide for the common defense”? Or is that something else neocons like the Editors of the AFJ dismiss a la the Patriot Act? It is the responsibility of gov’t and private industry alike since there is a common good that can be derived by both.
As usual, neocons cannot tell the truth, do not know the truth when they hear it, and continue to spew a vile form of thought, just like the tone of the Editors of AFJ.
ex-hippie —
“Bush’s stated policy is one of fighting them there so we don’t fight them here. His theory is that the terrorists are being drawn to Iraq, therefore they won’t come here. The whole invasion is predicated on the notion that we are on the offensive, that we are wiping them out to prevent another attack.
Did his strategy work? ”
Uh, London is not “here”. Sounds like you need to buy an atlas.
When did Bush say there would be no terrorist attacks ever again anywhere in the world? Put up or shut up.
July 8th, 2005 at 8:58 pmThe notion of “voluntary measures” to deal with a tough problem doesn’t really make me feel too good. Businesses exist to make money and their solutions tend to come from high falutin’ spreadsheets that weigh and measure and cipher out the nicest return, not the nicest “measures.”
Public safety requires more than that spreadsheet provides.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:38 amThe notion of “voluntary measures� to deal with a tough problem doesn’t really make me feel too good.
jnlhnc
Well if spending more money on railway security would “make you feel” better well hell that’s good enough for me, here’s a blank check. The premise of this thread is, Bush hasn’t spent enough money or moved hazmat traffic where the libs think he should have and they are trying to scare you with Madrid and now London’s tragic mass transit bombings that have nothing to do with the report that was linked and will not be solved by throwing money at the problem. How about throwing some more money at border enforcement? Surveillance of terror suspects? Those things I could get behind.
July 9th, 2005 at 1:11 ami don’t have all the soluteions but i think when you have all false statements and nothing but lies coming from the people in power, we have the worst problem of all.
July 9th, 2005 at 7:55 amIs George Bush giving up?
But not only has George Bush failed to make our rail lines more secure, he still has no plan for making our rail lines more secure and actually wants to decrease their security.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:40 pmbreast torture pictures
Think Progress »…
October 23rd, 2005 at 7:46 amphendimetrazine 35 mg
imprimatur toughly insist:opium rehearsals doxycycline http://www.real-estate-shop.com/doxycycline.html
November 26th, 2005 at 9:56 pmParents have no right in spanking you – Or do they? That could be another persuasive speech topic
February 28th, 2007 at 7:03 pm