Conservatives Bow to Industry, Block Amendment to Scan All Shipping Containers
Conservatives Bow to Industry, Block Amendment to Scan All Shipping Containers
Early this afternoon, conservatives in the House Homeland Security Committee voted down an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have mandated 100 percent scanning of American-bound shipping containers for radiological weapons.
The vote followed an “aggressive lobbying campaign” by a “coalition of industry groups” who pressed conservative members to oppose the amendment. Yesterday, committee chairman Peter King (R-NY) announced that he was caving to industry interests. His excuse was that Markey’s plan was “not realistic“:
There’s no sense putting something in the bill if it’s not realistic, if it’s not going to be implemented and can’t be done. We want a real bill, not a headline.
In fact, the plan is realistic: for well over a year, Hong Kong has been successfully using high tech screening machines to inspect every single container. Achieving that in the United States will undoubtedly take time, but it is technologically feasible, and should be our number one port security priority. Businesses that rely on shipping simply don’t want to spend the money, and conservatives are bending to their will at the expense of our homeland security.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I Know this is unrelated to the topic at hand, but no comments on the Capital Softball League Split? The Republicans who split to form their own league (dems are invited, but the republicans do not want to be in the league sponsored by dems apparently) may have a point in that the playoff system is unfair. But it has been that way for years and they choose to split and use inflamatory hateful rhetoric to justify their split. Does everything have to be partisan these days?
April 26th, 2006 at 4:21 pm“Estimated costs for the new system are $6.50 per container, if ultimately passed on to shippers.”
Is that installation costs, or upkeep/personal/etc. costs, or both
April 26th, 2006 at 4:22 pm“Within 3 years of enactment, the Department of Homeland Security must ensure that the only containers that can enter the U.S. from larger ports have been inspected both for radiation and using X-rays before the containers are loaded onto boats headed for this country. Smaller ports are given 5 years to comply;”
So if other countries choose not to/can’t comply with in 3-5 years, we loose any business from them? How many ports would need to buy this tech to not cause any major disruption to US imports?
April 26th, 2006 at 4:26 pmWell, if Rep. King think we need a “real bill…not headlines,” what is he proposing as an alternative to this?
Anyone?
April 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pmSeveral of the ports already have this type of thing in place, Hong Kong for example. Besides if we are going spend money on security, I think making sure that chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons don’t enter the US is a good idea.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pmSilly you, WMDs are only important if they are in Iraq. Or Iran. Got it?
April 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pmThe last two posts on TP
1. Container scanning
2. Troop Funding
Should be enough for DEMS to come out and appear on TV to expose the frauds that exist in the current Republican Party
‘
This is honestly disgracful
April 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pmThis is why, if you are a human being, you must help get rid of the Republicans this November. They clearly would rather see businesses benefit from the government before people do.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pmThe fact that they turned down the amendment SHOULD make headlines. Just as some of have learned the hard way - do not believe what they say — watch what they do. It’s the Republican controlled Congress caving to their “friendly” donaters from business.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:38 pmTell me again that the Dems don’t have ideas and plans. Tell me again how the Dems are the problem in Congress. Yeah, right. We KNOW who are the Congressional problems, and we should make certain that they are voted out of office!
How do we ensure that the containers arriving in the port are safe and do not have a nuke on board?
April 26th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#10 How do we ensure that the containers arriving in the port are safe and do not have a nuke on board?
Thats why this bill would have forced all containers leaving foreign ports to be scanned, not containers arriving in US ports.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#7
Indeed it is! The Dems need to have daily press briefings on these and other issues that go to the heart of the issues. Pound away, I say. The next step is to check the list of companies that are part of the “coalition of industry groups” — two that I read of are Wal-Mart and Target — and give them a ring and ask them (1) why they oppose such a plan; (2) what they are doing to help overcome their obstacles to this amendment; and if the answer to # 2 is “nothing,” then (3) why the hell are you giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
April 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pmThere you go Squeege,
April 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pmlet the foreign governments pay for the scanning. call it the price of sending your cheap junk to the US. We have the biggest market in the world. They will comply.
Republicans never were serious about national security. That’s how we got 9/11.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:55 pm.
#10 Just trust everything the republican congress, senate and administration do. You will be just fine if you do. Of course, your kids or grandkids, if you care, are the ones that will end up paying for these mistakes we are making now.
But who cares about kids, repubs only care about fetuses, guns and money. Hell yeah, git er dun. God, I really should move back to NYC. But NeD is there and I’m bound to run into him at the Local 27. HA!
April 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pmI am going to e-mail Lou Dobbs this evening. It was just a few days ago that Dobbs had Peter King on his broadcast, on a matter of border security, and praised him as the best.
Peter King is in the pocket of the interests that are against this bill. Lou Dobbs should know it and hear about it.
Perhaps he spoke tooooooo soooooooon.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:07 pmSo once AGAIN, the Republicans prove that they are AGAINST domestic security.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:10 pm#11
The bill is basically telling foreign governments that they must scan their U.S. bound containers…which isn’t a bad idea. This isn’t going to fly ;however, since every other country is going to demand the same thing for their containers. The 3 and 5 year time frames that Rep. Ed Markey is what is unrealistic, especially when you are talking about hunderds if not thousands of ports world wide. BTW what diplomatic leverage does the DHS have over foreign governments anyway? Again I am not against the premise of the amendment, but to put it on such a short time frame makes this nothing but political grandstanding by a U.S. representative who is up for re-election this year, as is every member of the House.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:14 pm#14
Who was in charge of national security during the multiple terrorist attacks against the U.S. of the 1990s?
April 26th, 2006 at 5:16 pmHow do I find out how my Representative voted? Unfortunately, he’s on this committee.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm#19 - Who was in charge of national security when the “Millennium bombings” were kept from going off as the terrorists planned during the 90’s? Hint: It wasn’t Pres. Bush (Sr.)
You know, the “Jordan bombing plot”, the “LAX bombing plot” and the “USS Sullivans attack plot”?
Who ignored the Presidential Daily Briefing titled “”Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”?
Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass houose.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThis just goes to show that Republicans want lots of things, but they’ll sacrifice most those things for an extra $6.50 in the profit margin.
So squegee, tracy….Are you going to apologize to every family that loses a loved one when a bomb finally does come ashore?
btw - We should be scanning every single continer that hits a US port.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:23 pmRemember when Clinton wanted to go after bin Laden in the late 1990s? What did the repukes in congress say? “He’s wagging the dog, trying to get attention diverted from his sexcapades”. They dragged their feet and consequently, it didn’t authorized.
What did the Bush Administration say to FBI investigator John O’Neill when he wanted to delve deeper into the link between bin Laden, the Taliban and money coming from Saudi Arabia back in the summer of 2001? “Please back off, John, because we’re trying to negotiate this sensitive pipeline deal with Afghanistan right now”.
What happened to John O’Neill? He quit his career post with the FBI in disgust, and became the security director for the WORLD TRADE CENTER, two friggin’ weeks before Sept. 11. He died in the catastrophe that the Bush administration allowed to happen.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:27 pmI’m not sure it is money or time well spent scanning containers filled with salmon coming from Norway. But whatever floats your boat.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pmBusiness should foot the cost of port security.
Allowing a nuclear weapon into the country sure would be the mother of all externalities wouldn’t it?
April 26th, 2006 at 5:34 pmDemocrat Soldier,
Please. The Clinton administration got lucky on stopping the terrorist on the Canadian border - and everyone with a nonpartisan brain knows it. I’m not sure what Jordanian bombing plot you are talking about, or USS Sullivan.
You ask: Who ignored the Presidential Daily Briefing titled “â€Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in USâ€?
I don’t know, would you like to tell us? Be sure to tell us why you conclude this to be so. I can’t wait to hear it. Thanks.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:35 pmPlease. The Clinton administration got lucky on stopping the terrorist on the Canadian border - and everyone with a nonpartisan brain knows it.
Wrong again. You’re referring to one lucky break that was part of a dozen leads in several countries that helped stop the Millenium attacks. Only someone with a partisan brain would make it a point to forget the whole picture.
You go right on citing rightwing talking points and I’ll go right on beating your ass. It’s easy, but it’s fun!
April 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pm.
You ask: Who ignored the Presidential Daily Briefing titled “â€Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in USâ€?
I don’t know, would you like to tell us? Be sure to tell us why you conclude this to be so. I can’t wait to hear it. Thanks.
Comment by Seixon — April 26, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
Anyone have Rice’s quote when she was asked about the this briefing? Didn’t she say there wasn’t enough evidence to go on or something?
April 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pmif the retardicans are still in the majority on november 12, i will be totally convinced that have fixed every election since 2000. i have not let my self believe that it was possible, but the country is fully informed of what these self serving bastards are up to. and if they are not voted out, i for one, will be convinced that our once great country is headed for full failure as a democracy. if we aren’t already there.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThats why this bill would have forced all containers leaving foreign ports to be scanned, not containers arriving in US ports.
Now, that’s trustworthy as heck.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pm#15
Why did you move out of NYC?
April 26th, 2006 at 5:46 pmIf we are reasonably free from foreign attack, how can we justify unending preventive war. We need to be unsafe and unsecure in order for the (I’m sorry) stupid American public to support our activities around the world. It’s not that Americans are more evil than the rest of the world, we are not, its just that doing the right thing requires a greater sacrifice than we are willing to make. When was the last time you were willing to give up you Humvee? Still, I do trust America to do the right thing.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:47 pmLou Dobbs is going to have a field day with this.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:47 pmHere ya go…bin Laden Determined to Strike in US., presented on August 6, 2001.
Your handjob of a president was too busy cleaning up pig shit on his fake ranch to pay any attention to this.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pm[…] Republicans blocked an amendment to require ports to scan 100% of all shipment containers. […]
April 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pmPreznit Pinhead, thanks for your post. After reading it, I got this sick feeling in my stomach as with all the other comments read “like yours†that surface interesting and curoius coinicdences with 9/11. Someone ought to list out all these strange coinicndental situations as I’m sure the list is going to be huge. Let’s not forget all the incidents where people were told not to fly and don’t go there too.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#23
“They dragged their feet and consequently, it didn’t authorized.”
Clinton didn’t have to get the Congress to authorize something that he himself had full authority to do alone. Give us a break!
April 26th, 2006 at 5:52 pm#21
“Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass houose.”
How many terrorist attacks against the U.S. were there during the 1990s?
How many terrorist attacks have there been against the U.S. since 9/11/2001?
April 26th, 2006 at 5:54 pmWhen I moved back to the US two years ago from Europe, I received notice from the mover that the container with my household goods was held up at the port to be scanned, to the tune of some $400. As an individual, I had no recourse but to pay the ransom for my furniture. At the time, I wondered whether or not the container was truly scanned - there was no way for me to verify.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:55 pmGrand Moff Texan,
I know what happened on the eve of the millenium. The border guards got lucky and busted Ressam. If they hadn’t stopped him, he would have bombed something. The Clinton administration had absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether they stopped other things is irrelevant, as that was the biggest breakthrough they had - which partisans such as yourself have sought to accredit to Clinton ever since.
Preznit Pinhead:
Your handjob of a president was too busy cleaning up pig shit on his fake ranch to pay any attention to this.
Evidenced by what? What leads you to believe that he ignored it? I’d love to hear the answer.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pmYes.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:57 pmRice testified that her reaction to the email was that the document contained “historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information.”
So they toss old reporting when it comes to Bin Laden, but not when the old reports involved Saddam’s activities. Then the old reports are fresh as a daisy! Absolute truth. “They’ve got ‘em”.
How Rice manages to lie through THOSE big teeth, I will never know, but they are certainly not fresh lies. They came from her superiors and they will take down the entire administration eventually because the American People are beginning to understand that an American President sent those young soldiers onto the battlefield to die for a lie. They are horrified. Talk about a breech of trust!
A better question would be how many died in terrorist attacks in the US during the 1990’s, and how many died in the 9/11 attack, because Bush decided to ignore warnings of possible attacks.?
April 26th, 2006 at 5:57 pmHaving worked with WMD’s in the military, the scanner that would be required to find the relatively large amount of consentrated enriched nuclear material in any container would not be that hard to build but the fast unlosd and ship proceedures of the ports might have to change, the nuclear radiation emitted by any nuke is large close up so each container would only have to pass such a scanner and be stopped if the scanner went off. The gamma radiation could only be stopped by large amounts of lead sheilding or concrete and there would be ways to determine that too, but the all mighty dollar comes first as far a sthis administration is concerned………
April 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pmEither there really is no terrorist threat and we’ve been bamboozled again, or these conservatives are a bunch of sellouts. They would sacrifice the safety of our nation to make a profit for Wal-Mart. Its about time we started calling them what they are, traitors!
April 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#28 Krazny
April 26th, 2006 at 6:07 pmCondoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor to President Bush, stated to the commission that she and Bush considered the August 6th PDB as just an “historical document” and stated that it was not considered a “warning.”
I can’t believe someone denies that the August 6 PDB was ignored!
The Rethugs simply cannot face reality. Their crew is inept and incompetent, corrupt liars, in over their heads, sumbling around and striking out in the dark.
Well, ol’ handjob must not have done much because if you believe the official accounts, 19 guys with boxcutters were able to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in the ’states, and the mighty U.S. spending billions (trillions?) of dollars on “defense” was apparently helpless to prevent it.
We know handjob told the FBI to back off investigation of the links between the Taliban, bin Laden and money from Saudi Arabia during the summer of 2001 while the pipeline deal in Afghanistan was being negotiated.
This, and the August 6, 2001 PDB leads me to conclude that 3000 Americans died because the Bush administration was asleep at the switch.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:07 pmHe just had to know how My Pet Goat ended.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pmIf a nuclear device gets shpped into America via a port that did not screen the cargo containers, then the shipping company CEO and others involved must receive the death penalty! Big Business does not care about American lives, so they must go to prison!
April 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pmI think that making them pay for clean up, reconstruction, and medical expenses for those affected would be a far better punishment. One thing corporate America understands is money.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pmThe 3 and 5 year time frames that Rep. Ed Markey is what is unrealistic, especially when you are talking about hunderds if not thousands of ports world wide. BTW what diplomatic leverage does the DHS have over foreign governments anyway? Again I am not against the premise of the amendment, but to put it on such a short time frame makes this nothing but political grandstanding by a U.S. representative who is up for re-election this year, as is every member of the House.
Comment by Tracy —
#18
April 26th, 2006 at 6:21 pmIt should be obvious that if the current administration–particularly the GOP–were really serious about security, a move like this aleady should have been made not long after 9/11. Almost four and a half years have passed since then, and you Rethugs are saying that a 3-5 year timeframe–meaning almost 10 years after 9/11–is unrealistic. And, of course, as I’ve pointed out several times already, the Bush administration has yet to develop a comprehensive program to increase the number of intelligence agents competent in Arabic, Farsi, and other languages spoken in Muslim countries. Having an adequate number of agents able to translate the intelligence gathered is one of the most basic steps in any kind of war, but the Bush administration still doesn’t get it. Are you aware as well that the 9/11 Commission, headed by a Republican, gave mostly Fs and Ds to the current administration’s (lack of) action in following its recommendations?
Post 49 CEOs never care about paying fines or even medical expenses because they use stockholders money > only thing that scares a corrupt CEO is being publicly hanged!
April 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pmYou all have it wrong. Rep. King killed this amendment because that might be where the next 9/11 comes from.
Karl Rove has probably already called up his buddy Osama bin Laden and coordinated the next 9/11.
God help us all.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:23 pmGood point Jay,
how about the CEO’s have to pay for the costs out of their salary? Do you think that would work?
April 26th, 2006 at 6:26 pmMarty, #36, go to 911truth.org for more info.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:33 pmPost 53 It would not work because a corrupt CEO would raise his own pay to cover it! They really are greedy whores > if we have a least one hanged a year, that might scare the others to do ethical business and not screw people over! Sad but true!!!
April 26th, 2006 at 6:33 pmWhich greedy CEO should be hanged first to scare the others? Hmm I think Michael Eisner of Disney who is so greedy he gets over a half billion in pay a year and makes kids pay 50 bucks a head to get into Disney World! He also pays Haitians a dollar a day to make Disney products like shirts which he charges consumers big bucks! Real sleazy guy > even Walt Disney if alive would agree Eisner needs to be hanged! Open to suggestions which CEO gets hanged first?
April 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pm#56 Do they have to be current ones? Can we still hang Kenny Boy Lay for his offenses against humanity? It might still work at getting the message out.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pmWell we could hang one of the Oil Cartel CEOs like that fat ugly one on the TP threads recently > price of gasoline would drop overnight to 2 bucks a gallon again > lol.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:48 pmI’m confused (Shocking I know)
We were against DPWorld doing out operations for security reasons because thy were a foreign company (The largest I believe but I may be wrong here) They would not have security responsibilities or anything.
Now a bill gets struck down that requires them and every other country out there to be directly responsibile for the security of the containers coming to us? We are upset why?
Wouldn’t a bill that requires us to scan every container be better?
April 26th, 2006 at 6:51 pmPost 57 > hang Kenny Lay anyways > he deserves it, but probably would not work to scare current whore CEOs?! They kinda wrote him off anyways > I am surprised he has not been bumped off by the Bush clan yet > lol.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm20 & 33 - lou dobbs has a link to:
Gregg Amendment
Read how lawmakers voted on the Gregg amendment, which provides $1.9 Billion in emergency funds for border security.
tells you where he’s at…
April 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#50
“Almost four and a half years have passed since then, and you Rethugs are saying that a 3-5 year timeframe–meaning almost 10 years after 9/11–is unrealistic.”
Not since something like this was proposed by ANYONE. You can’t include the 4 1/2 years prior when there was never an amendment like this one proposed in the first place. Everyone here is to blame unless you can point out a U.S. congressman who attempted to do something like this four years ago.
AGAIN, what diplomatic leverage does the DHS have over foreign governments anyway? Considering you didn’t respond to this point, do you know of someone who does have knowledge on this?
“Are you aware as well that the 9/11 Commission, headed by a Republican, gave mostly Fs and Ds to the current administration’s (lack of) action in following its recommendations?”
Yes, I am aware of their wish list.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#60 Not only does he know where the bodies are buried, he left notes with them.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pmTracy,
The US is the largest market in the world for consumer goods. If a company wishes to make money selling their goods in the US, The DHS can sure as shit say we want containers scanned. If they don’t like it, they can sell their goods elsewhere.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pmTracy if port security was as important as rebuilding Iraq(giving free money to Halliburton thru KBR) then it would already be done……..
April 26th, 2006 at 7:05 pm#48
All those drugs and medicines produced by Pfizer are useless? What about those MRI machines produced by GE? What about the computer you are using right now? You’re laughable…at best!
April 26th, 2006 at 7:08 pm#64
“If a company wishes to make money selling their goods in the US, The DHS can sure as shit say we want containers scanned.”
It would be the government of the country in which that company ships goods…would it not? Of course the company would do it, but dealing with a foreign government is a whole different ball game.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:11 pm#19 who has been in power when the united states was attacked on 9/11? Who has been in power as the US has been attacked thousands of times since 9/11? Just curious. Of course we know that whatever the answer it ultiamtely ends up being the clenis that caused us to drop our terrorism guard.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:12 pmAll those drugs and medicines produced by Pfizer (at much higher costs here than elsewhere)are useless? What about those MRI machines produced by GE? What about the computer you are using right now(probably made overseas)? You’re laughable…at best!
Comment by Tracy — April 26, 2006 @ 7:08 pm And you are pathetic as usual…..
April 26th, 2006 at 7:15 pmBefore i leave for the night, I just want to point out to Tracy (#66) that Jay’s comments to which you refer said nothing about Pfizer’s drugs being “useless”. Why are you putting words in someone else’s mouth? And the drugs, MRI machines and computers were made because someone wanted to make a lot of money.
I will say this, though. If Pfizer really did care about lives and not money, they wouldn’t charge so much for their products. The whole debate about rising health care costs won’t get anywhere until the debate is reframed the way it should be. The question shouldn’t be, “Why does health care cost so much?” It should be, “Why do they charge so much?”
And I agree that CEOs should be responsible for what their corporation does under their watch.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:16 pm#62
(Lora…hope you don’t mind me butting in here…)
Tracy, Lora is saying that an amendment like this SHOULD have been offered soon after 9/11 but wasn’t. It’s a rhetorical, um, suggestion. I believe she is using the 10 year timeframe to put things in perspective. In other words, had the amendment passed, we would be looking at a minimum of 10 years before action was taken to scan all containers.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:19 pmTracy is a simple trool-bot who spews to defend the corrupt ZBushco admin and the corps that fund the corrupt GOP, thus anything bushco, the GOP, or corporations do is good and anyone who dares to critisise is _________.(liberal, crazy, unpatroitic, communist symphatiser, aiding the enemy, laughable, unrealistic, etc…)
April 26th, 2006 at 7:29 pmWC
April 26th, 2006 at 7:33 pmNo, I don’t mind your butting in; you’ve pretty much summed up what I mean. And the reichwingers like Tracy still have offered no explanation about why the Bush administration has done nothing about increasing the number of intelligence agents competent in Arabic and other languages likely to be spoken by terrorists.
I haven’t investigated where the DHS might have clout abroad. However, from my diverse travel experience, I have noticed different customs rules are applied for different countries. Even with tulip bulbs sold at the Amsterdam airport, they have notices which countries will accept the Dutch-inspected ones–meaning that a person might have them confiscated at Customs at ports in other countries. In other words, people who work at ports should be used to dealing with the rules of different countries.
And dismissing the 9/11 Commission’s suggestions as a “wish list” indicates to me that Tracy is about as (un)serious about security as the Bush administration.
Tracy I think got my post confused with another one > lol.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pm[…] Think we should scan all shipping containers? Well, too bad, because that won’t be happening! I guess safty of US ports by the Republicans is all but a pipedream, much like the War on Terror, catching Osama, WMD, a good economy, low gas prices, trickle down economics, Christianity, and all the other things Conservatives and Republicans claim but fail to implement in any way, shape, or form. Conservatives Bow to Industry, Block Amendment to Scan All Shipping Containers […]
April 26th, 2006 at 8:02 pmWhy not discussion on putting sensors inside each container?
April 26th, 2006 at 8:06 pmIt’s a damn shame that an operating unit of Halliburton wasn’t in the cargo screening business. True, we’d pay 4X the price and they probably wouldn’t work, but at least we’d make AQ think we were taking Homeland Security seriously.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:27 pmJane E. Schneider, #54, Thanks for the link.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:30 pm#42 Krazny: Bravo. Nice dodge. Still waiting for your explanation as to why you know that Bush ignored the “shocking” intelligence that Osama bin Laden wanted to kill Americans.
#45 Marie: I can’t believe someone denies that the August 6 PDB was ignored!
Ignored, or understood to be containing no actionable intelligence? If we had given you the same memo, what would you have done differently than the Bush administration? Could you have prevented 9/11? If not, what’s the beef?
#46 Preznit: Well, ol’ handjob must not have done much because if you believe the official accounts, 19 guys with boxcutters were able to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in the ’states, and the mighty U.S. spending billions (trillions?) of dollars on “defense†was apparently helpless to prevent it.
Actually, only the Pentagon flight was reported to have had boxcutters. As for the US spending billions on defense, I’m not sure how that would prevent hijackers on commercial aircraft. With thousands of planes flying around the country at the same time, a few of them dipping off the radar, with a hijacking not happening since the 1960s, I think it’s quite easy to believe that 19 hijackers forced their way into 4 cockpits and steered 4 planes to their demise.
Of course, you split your tongue in your post, first implying that the government allowed it to happen, then saying that Bush was asleep at the switch. What, you can’t muster up the courage to voice your true opinion that Bush was behind 9/11? Yeah, you know that’s because the others around here will quickly shush you up because they don’t want crazy people amongst their ranks.
#52 MrBlueSky: Karl Rove has probably already called up his buddy Osama bin Laden and coordinated the next 9/11.
Heh. I rest my case.
#54 Jane Schneider: Marty, #36, go to 911truth.org for more info.
Heh again.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:30 pmConservatives Block Scanning of All Port Containers…
“We only support security measures that don’t hurt the profits of our corporate masters.”…
April 26th, 2006 at 8:32 pmBut seriously, does anyone here want to tell me that we need to screen a container coming from Norway filled with salmon? If not, why do we have to screen 100% of the containers? Wouldn’t that just be a waste of time and money?
April 26th, 2006 at 8:35 pmIf we had given you the same memo, what would you have done differently than the Bush administration?
Comment by Seixon — April 26, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Had both the FBI and CIA do a top to bottom review of intel for the past 6 months to see if anything might have been missed….somebody named Moussaoui might have turned up or the FBI agent finding the number of foreign Arabs wanting to fly large jets(especially the ones not worried about landing), but then again Bush might have to had to cut his 30+day yearly vacation short……………….
April 26th, 2006 at 8:50 pmSeixon how do you know what is in any container….ever hear about smuggling, it appears to be a world wide problem, and if you can smuggle cocaine, stolen autos, ivory, animals, well a small nuke can be as small as 6″ in diameter and 20″ long not hard to hide in a large container of fish, or cell phones……….
April 26th, 2006 at 8:56 pmDevelopment work continued and resulted in the W-19. A 280 mm shell, it was a longer version of the W-9. Only 80 warheads were produced and the system was retired in 1963 with the development of the W-48 warhead. The W-48 was 846 mm long and weighed 58 kg; it could be fitted in a 155 mm M-45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) and used in a more standard 155 mm howitzer. The fission warhead was a linear implosion type, consisting of a long cylinder of subcritical mass which is compressed and shaped by explosive into a supercritical sphere. The W-48 yielded just 72 tons TNT equivalent.(from wikipedia about Nuclear artillery)
155mm diameter and 280mm long actually 6″ diameter, and 11″ long , 127 lbs….with the explosive equilivant of 144,000 lbs of TNT, I for one would like all containers checked by a proper system for such a small but potent device……….a geigor counter would fi9nd this round every time…….but that might cost somebody a few George Washingtons for the prevention, how many do we spend on the “war on drugs” already?
April 26th, 2006 at 9:03 pmSee Siexion having worked with Nukes in the US Army, one I am very familiar with is:
The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a United States Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one individual to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package and place it in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed.
The two-man team would place the weapon package in the target location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean where they would be retrieved by a submarine or a high-speed surface water craft. The parachute jumps and the retrieval procedures were practiced extensively.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States developed several different types of lightweight nuclear devices. The main one was the W54, a cylinder 40 by 60 centimeters that weighed 68 kilograms (the warhead was a variation of one developed for the Davy Crockett nuclear recoilless rifle). It was fired by a mechanical timer and had a variable yield (”dial-a-yield”) equivalent to between 10 tons and 1 kiloton of TNT. 300 SADMs were assembled and remained in the US arsenal until 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SADM
one man portable…..designed for covert placement…….easily disgiused…..easy to hide…..
April 26th, 2006 at 9:17 pmdo you want these available…(plus the soviets also had the back pack and artillery shells like we did……….nuclear dectectors would find these, but the cost sooooo much especially compared to the cost of rebuilding the damage from a small nuclear blast…..such pre-Katrina thinking………
BTW seixon the back pack has the explosive capability of up to 1 kiloton….Hiroshima was about 15 kilotons….THINK ABOUT IT
April 26th, 2006 at 9:19 pmIt’s obvious that Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” is total concocted crap, because otherwise the Republicans would want all the shipping containers inspected! The Mexican border is wide open, so even a stupid terrorist could walk across and enter the United States! Airport security is a sick joke with security checking women’s bras for bombs as Muslim guys get on board carrying Sony Walkman players and cell phones too! Next terror attack in America will be laid at the feet of Dubya and the GOP!
April 26th, 2006 at 9:24 pmSeixon has a point. If somebody wanted to smuggle a weapon into the US from Norway, they would certainly change the manifest from fish to radioactive material. How obtuse we are not to see this.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:52 pmI still don’t understand why we would spend billions to outsource our port security to EVERY other country that ships.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:52 pm#89 How would this be outsourcing our port security to other nations? Currently 100% of those cargos are not inspected. Having them inspect 100% is not foolproof but it is an additional safeguard, lowering the chances that anybody could smuggle a weapon into the US. This does not take the place of any other safeguard. It is another obstacle to the smuggling. I am all for a multilayered port security system.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:05 pmTundra a nuclear bomb in the New York Harbor is as effective as it would be sitting on shore, you want to find it before it gets in the ports…….like on somebody elses shore…kinda like find it there before we see the mushroom here….
April 26th, 2006 at 10:06 pmInstead of having Dubai Ports be responsibile for checking the containers that leave there, why would we not setup a system to check them here?
It seems like a waste of money to do it the otherway (To me)
April 26th, 2006 at 10:09 pmLike the priviledged and entitled people of all empires, Americans have forgotten that you get what you pay for. And George Bush won’t remind them. He is, in historical terms, a perfect storm of cronyism and ignorance.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pm#92 Sure we should check them here too. But if you can catch a nuke before it gets here all the better.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:17 pmTundra a nuke would be easily set to detonate upon arrival via a reciever set to detonate a certain way. The nuke would not have to be unloaded, and a nuke going off in NY or LA harbor would do immense damage both to the trade and the cities around the harbors. It is not as hard to set it up…the nuke is the hard part.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:36 pmInspections of cargo should be done at the sending end and receiving end too! Tundra is correct that cargo containers must be inspected at our ports too > why trust China in shipping things to US? Cliff is also correct that a nuke could be set to explode in one of our harbors before inspection too! Seems strange to me that absolutely NOTHING has been done to inspect cargo containers coming into the United States and it is almost 5 years after 9/11?
April 26th, 2006 at 11:06 pmRepublicans are mental. What is common sense to the rest of the world is rocket science to Republicans.
Ban Republicans, Save the World!
April 26th, 2006 at 11:22 pmDear Bush — please explain how this keeps us “safer”?
April 27th, 2006 at 12:17 amJP your mistake is Dear Bush -please explain….and expecting an intelligent answer that involves anything you asked….
April 27th, 2006 at 12:20 amHow long do you suppose it will be before the RNC try to twist this to make it seems the Dems were the ones opposed to 100% inspections of containers. I’ll be taking bets.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:56 amInspections of cargo should be done at the sending end and receiving end too!
April 27th, 2006 at 2:48 amI agree here. But I agree with the Republican Senator who said it was a wasted bill. We are telling the rest of the world they need to bow to our wishes when we don’t follow them ourselves. Lets get us inspecting 100% before we tell others they have to inspect before they send to us. Sort of like saying we have xxxxx number of nukes but you have to check yours through us before you can have any.
Tundra you get no grief from me about us getting serious about actually securing the ports border and other sensitive areas like chermical and nuke plants….but those in DC seem to want to play the same pre 9-11 game with post 9-11 rethoric. Both sides are guilty…Dems as much as repugs, just right now the repugs control all the levers of power so they need their feet held closer to the fire to get them to act, if in November the dems take either house I for one won’t feel the slightest regret if they fail they get the same crys to do more for the countrey and its people and less for their pockets and contributors. And they need to clean up the system so that money does not trump the voter as it does right now.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:48 amIn 2003 about 75 per week
April 27th, 2006 at 6:23 amIn 2004 about 150 per week
in 2005 about 350 per week
in 2006 about 700 per week
Living in a port city that is also on of the largest military centers I’ve often thought about this issue. If I was a terrorist I’d be looking to ship an old Soviet warhead in a container and disable a major port/military base. That repugs don’t place a priority on scanning containers illlustrates their phoney agenda. Their loyalty to corporate interest outweighs their national loyalty. That is unfortunately true of most Democrats as well.
Nationalism and patriotism are merely tools to whip up votes or soldiers.
April 27th, 2006 at 6:59 amHomeland Absurdity at its finest?
April 27th, 2006 at 8:09 am#38 - “How many terrorist attacks against the U.S. were there during the 1990s?”
One internal WTC bombing one month after Pres. Clinton entered office. After that, no more internal terrorist attacks while Pres. Clinton was in office. I don’t really count the OKC bombing as it was a white christian military veteran who orchestrated that bombing.
“How many terrorist attacks have there been against the U.S. since 9/11/2001?”
Lets see, there have been how many soldiers killed by “terrorists” in Iraq and Iran? 2390? How many mortars have been dropped on the “green” zone in Baghdad? Wow! Pres. Bush really sucks in his “war on terra”!
Thanks for helping me make my point that Pres. Bush is so much worse for American security that Pres. Clinton ever was.
April 27th, 2006 at 8:49 amRep. Peter King, of New York, is a huge hypocrite and a complete stooge for Big Business, so the good citizens of New York State must kick his ass out of office in November! His being against the Dubai Ports World deal was subterfuge bullcrap > he does not care about port security > PERIOD.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:41 amIt all boils down to class loyalty. The ruling class has it. The working class needs it.
April 27th, 2006 at 10:19 amIsn’t it strange that when another country such as China can implement complex scanning technologies that further secure their ports, It seems “impossible” or “unrealistic” for the US to secure our own borders with the same technology. Why are the Repubs denying this security measure. I thought they were trying to protect our borders. But apparently, they were only trying to protect their OWN interests, NOT the American people’s. While at the same time, they want to look good for their “Industry Constituants”. But what they don’t realize is that “We’re all in this together”-quote by Lee R. Raymond. And that is true. What affects the American public will ultimately affect these Republicans. And eventually, ALL of the American people will start banding together and start a revoultion if things don’t change and soon. People are tired of the excuses and lies of the Rich,Corrupted Politicians, and Executives. This Administration, Oil Companies and other corrupt establishments the profit from ripping off Americans seem to forget one thing…THEY need US more than WE need THEM. If ANY of you doubt that last statement I typed, watch what happens MAY 1st.
April 27th, 2006 at 10:47 amThe 3 and 5 year time frames that Rep. Ed Markey is what is unrealistic, especially when you are talking about hunderds if not thousands of ports world wide. BTW what diplomatic leverage does the DHS have over foreign governments anyway? Again I am not against the premise of the amendment, but to put it on such a short time frame makes this nothing but political grandstanding by a U.S. representative who is up for re-election this year, as is every member of the House.
Comment by Tracy
This Tracy-troll claims “not (to be( gainst the premise of the amendment” but that the 3-5 year time frames are unrealistic. In other words, obtaining port security in what would be almost 8 to 10 years after 9/11 doesn’t seem realistic to Tracy-troll. When I pointed out on another thread that the US intelligence agencies remain woefully short of staff competent in Arabic, Farsi, etc. Tracy-troll similarly claimed not to be against the idea of setting up language schools the way FDR did for Japanese almost immediately following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 but successively presented a number of excuses why it might be hard/unfeasible, one of them being the possible difficulties from our latest modern technolgy. In reality, while old-fashioned correspondence courses are not be so good for learning a foreign language, I think interactive e-learning would work fairly well. In any case, Tracy-troll could not produce a good reason for why the Bush administration hasn’t even devised a comprehensive program to increase the number of intelligence agents capable of translating/interpreting Arabic or other languages likely to be used by terrorists in the nearly 4 1/2 years since 9/11–already more time than between Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII.
April 27th, 2006 at 11:05 amWhile I admittedly haven’t read all of Tracy-troll’s comments on various threads, so far the only suggestion I have seen her/him give for making the US more secure is to revise the FSA to allow Bush to wiretap legally without warrants. I had to point out again that changing the law would be meaningless since there is already a backlog of hundreds of thousands of hours of intercepted calls that remain untranslated.
Now in this thread, Tracy-troll even dismissed the mostly ignored (by the Bush administration) suggestions by the 9/11 Commission as a “wish list,” which has convinced me once and for all that this troll is undoubtedly a shill, paid or unpaid, for the Bush administration, or else a grave koolaid addict.
Has anyone else noticed that Tracy-troll seems to be most active, when our usually very vocal trolls like IRI and Mighty Hypocrite are either silent or semi-silent? Is this just a mere coincidence? Methinks probably not.
#36, there is a movie out called “Loose Change 2″ that does a pretty good job at tidying up all those coincidences. Not sure if this administration or any organization for that matter can really orchestrate all that is portrayed in the movie though.
April 27th, 2006 at 11:17 am#70
“Jay’s comments to which you refer said nothing about Pfizer’s drugs being “uselessâ€.”
He was basically saying that those who run Pfizer, a huge corporation, should be put in prison. For doing what?
“And the drugs, MRI machines and computers were made because someone wanted to make a lot of money.”
That is total BS! Those CEOs that oversee those scientists and the engineers in those those companies create those products because they want to improve people’s lives. Being an architect, I don’t design buildings to make money. The head principle/owner of my firm doesn’t. Those who by and sell stocks, for example brokers are in it strictly for the money. Most professionals however, just don’t do their job for the money only.
“The question shouldn’t be, “Why does health care cost so much?†It should be, “Why do they charge so much?—
That is a combination of things. Government regulation, trial lawyers suing every doctor and drug company they possibly can, and of course the companies themselves who are just as culpable. There is NO WAY you can just blame just the companies who make the products.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pmIf they went and inspected every container for nukes, that would blow the idea of sending a bomb to the Port of LA, eliminating millions of Dems and having something really good to blame on the Chinese, Muslims, Illegal Immigrants, Michael Moore or Bill Clinton. How are we ever gonna get another war started if we can’t rally the common rubes–I mean, citizens?
April 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#69
Any comment about your asinine statement about those in big business needing to go to prison?
April 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pm#112
Litigation adds 2% to the nations health care bill. Insurance premiums rise because the return of the invested premiums themsleves isn’t enough for their shareholders.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:08 pm#112
Litigation adds 2% to the nations health care bill. Insurance premiums rise because the return of the invested monies from the premium payments isn’t enough for the insurance companies shareholders.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#112
Litigation adds 2% to the nations health care bill. Insurance premiums rise because the return of the invested monies from the premium payments isn’t enough for the insurance company’s shareholders.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#72
(liberal, crazy, unpatroitic, communist symphatiser, aiding the enemy, laughable, unrealistic, etc…)
Liberal - shouldn’t be a insult to them…I don’t think. They should take it as a compliment.
crazy - sometimes
unpatroitic - I never said such a thing.
communist sympathizer - I never said that either.
aiding the enemy - unknowingly/unwillingly…happens all the time.
laughable - that’s was you think when someone makes an ansinine statement. Some have said the same to me.
unrealistic - usually because it is.
April 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pm#73
I referred to it as a “wish list” because many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission are in the process of being implimented or have been done. Of course not every recommendation is like one of the Ten Commandments that MUST be implimented. There is a HUGE amount of debate as to the methodology of this implimentation. Also, when the commission recommends their own chairman Thomas Kean or vice-charman Lee Hamilton to be the new intelligence czar, that immediately reeks of politics.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#103
That was funny!
April 27th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#106
“Lets see, there have been how many soldiers killed by “terrorists†in Iraq and Iran? 2390?”
When U.S. military personel are attacked by insurgents though small arms fire or IEDs that doesn’t make them a terrorist. The terrorists are the one killing the civilians. Remember there is a WAR going on in Iraq….as we speak. How did that one slip your mind? Quit making me laugh!
April 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#110
“Tracy-troll could not produce a good reason for why the Bush administration hasn’t even devised a comprehensive program to increase the number of intelligence”
There is NO good reason. It should have been done already. I thought we had cleared this up in a previous thread. Why is your memory so short?
“In other words, obtaining port security in what would be almost 8 to 10 years after 9/11 doesn’t seem realistic to Tracy-troll.”
Please don’t attempt to take my comments out of context and skew them for those who are following this thread. Go back and inform everyone here that I was specifically referring to the amendment time frame proposed by congressman Markey.
“While I admittedly haven’t read all of Tracy-troll’s comments on various threads,….”
That is blatently obvious.
“Has anyone else noticed that Tracy-troll seems to be most active, when our usually very vocal trolls like IRI and Mighty Hypocrite are either silent or semi-silent? Is this just a mere coincidence?”
And your name is not Lora-troll? Very voacl when Neat isn’t posting.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:11 pm#115
http://www.iii.org/ media/ hottopics/ insurance/ medicalmal/
“Costs to the Public: In March 2006 Towers Perrin released its U.S. Tort Costs: 2005 Update. The study found that over the 29 years since 1975, when medical malpractice insurance data were first separated out from other types of liability, medical malpractice cost increases have outpaced other tort areas, rising at an average of 11.7 percent a year, compared with 9.0 percent for all other tort costs. In 2004 medical malpractice costs totaled over $28.7 billion, up from about $26.5 billion the previous year.
A February 2006 study, prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers for America’s Health Insurance Plans, examined the factors contributing to rising health care costs and analyzed where the health care dollar goes. It found that medical liability costs and defensive medicine account for 10 percent of medical care costs. Defensive medicine is when doctors order more tests, prescribe more medication and make more referrals than they believe are necessary to protect themselves from being accused of negligence. The study, “The Factors Fueling Rising Healthcare Costs 2006,†also estimates that health insurance premiums rose 8.8 percent between 2004 and 2005.”
April 27th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#121 - “Quit making me laugh!”
OK, I’ll stop talking about the failures of Pres. Bush and the Republican congress.
By the way, the attacks in Iraq are not all “insurgents”. Terrorists have found out how easy it is to get into Iraq since we only care about the safety of the oil facilities, and left the borders wide open, so they’ve got their hands full killing Iraqi’s and our military. You can stick your head into sand as long as you like. We’ll still be here when you want to wake up to reality.
April 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#123 - You’re leaving out information.
“The cost of medical malpractice insurance began to rise at the beginning of this decade, after a period of essentially flat prices. Rate increases were precipitated in part by the growing size of claims, particularly in urban areas. Among the other factors driving up prices was a reduced supply of available coverage as several major insurers exited the medical malpractice business because of the difficulty of making a profit.
New research suggests that premium increases may be moderating but for any turnaround to take root significant reforms in the delivery of medical care and in the liability system need to occur, industry observers say.” (Italics mine.)
April 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pmThis is just more BS from this (mis)administation, yet another exhausting example of how they PRETEND to want to protect this country and then conveniently “aren’t able to”.
WORDS VS. ACTIONS
I read somewhere about 9/11: “If they let it happen, they made it happen.”
But it is obvious they wanted it to happen and obvious who did it and who had the motive. And it wasn’t 19 arabs with boxcutters, looking for their 80 virgins.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
http://www.infowars.com
April 27th, 2006 at 2:59 pm[…] Next up, and this does relate, is an article highlighted by Nico at ThinkProgress. Early this afternoon [4-26], conservatives in the House Homeland Security Committee voted down an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) that would have mandated 100 percent scanning of American-bound shipping containers for radiological weapons. […]
April 27th, 2006 at 3:29 pm#121 first there are terrorists in Iraq, and now there are not - which is it? I thought Chimpy said Iraq was the ‘central front’ on the ‘war on terra’ - why do you question your Commander-In-Chief - why do you hate Amurka?
April 27th, 2006 at 3:44 pm#124
Why are do you make up things like attacks on our soldiers as being the acts of terrorists? This was nothing more than a LAME ploy to deceive everyone into thinking that the attacks on U.S. soldiers qualify as terroist attacks. Why do you not want the accept the fact that there hasn’t been a single attack on U.S. interests here OR abroad, by a terrorist group since 9/11 and that there were multiple attacks during the 1990s here AND abroad?
April 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#129 - “Why do you not want the accept the (false assumption) that there hasn’t been a single attack on U.S. interests here OR abroad, by a terrorist group since 9/11 and that there were multiple attacks during the 1990s here AND abroad?”
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Just go ahead and follow the blind prophet telling you that the war in Iraq is because of all those WMD’s and because Saddam was the lost brother to Usama bin Laden, and that Pres. Bush never ever EVER tells a single lie ever, and that there is not one single terrorist in Iraq and that all the dead soldiers died because of the liberals.
No wonder Pres. Bush has a 33% approval rating. It seems that some people can be fooled all the time.
By the way, I never “claimed” that there were no terrorist attacks abroad before Sept. 11th. All I said was the truth: There were NO foreign terrorist attacks in the US after the WTC bombings, until Pres. Bush failed in 2001. And THAT is a fact, little lady. But, go ahead and believe the lies you’ve been told believe. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:31 pm#128
There are terrorists AND insurgents in Iraq…it’s not either or.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:32 pmSo now we don’t even trust the Norwegian port authority. Smuggling nukes through Norway? Yeah. Let me know when you guys are back in the real world.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:33 pm#130
“Whatever helps you sleep at night.”
Where is the false assumption in regards to the number of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests since 9/11 vs. those that happened during the 1990s?
“Just go ahead….”
Where did you get all of that BS from?
“All I said was the truth: There were NO foreign terrorist attacks in the US after the WTC bombings, until Pres. Bush failed in 2001″
Oh whatever, you were trying qualify terrorist attacks and make everyone think that there was or is a difference between a terrorist attack on U.S. interests abroad one here in the U.S. Nice try though. You then went further and lied when you implied by saying that all of the U.S. soldiers that have died in Iraq were all from terrorist attacks.
BTW I have already omitted, MULTIPLE times, to Bush failing to protect the U.S. on 9/11, so when are you going to admit that Clinton failed repeatedly to protect our country during his presidency and that he bears a large share of the blame for 9/11…especially the plotting part.
“And THAT is a fact, little lady.”
Little lady? You still haven’t figured out that one LITTLE man.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#125
Thank for putting that in. It further reinforced my earlier post…especially that last paragragh you inserted.
April 27th, 2006 at 5:06 pmNothing different here. Republicans (and I’m a former republican) prefer the US nuked vs installing border/container security and would rather see Americans dead from BSE before testing all cattle for mad cow.
The strangest part I’ve experienced is most republicans are largely ordinary ‘wannabe’s’ as in wanna be rich, famous, successfull businessmen and are so easily sold the propaganda that profitability will rub off on them as they labor away at making the nooses with which to hang their countrymen down through their own children.
This is a very late wake up call to extract our heads from our rumps and take back our government from those running it off Mount Everest’s peak.
April 27th, 2006 at 5:26 pm#133 - My pardon. I’ve only known one male named “Tracy”, and his boyfriend was named “Rene”. I’m 5′10″. Not all that “little”. Not like my boyfriend who’s 6′8″.
“you were trying qualify terrorist attacks and make everyone think that there was or is a difference between a terrorist attack on U.S. interests abroad one here in the U.S.”
I wasn’t trying to qualify, I stated it quite clearly. “One internal WTC bombing one month after Pres. Clinton entered office. After that, no more internal terrorist attacks while Pres. Clinton was in office.”
You were the one trying to imply that NOT ONE SINGLE SOLDIE HAS DIED BECAUSE OF A TERRORIST AFTER SEPT. 11TH. Go back and read your initial post. It’s quite obvious that you’re the one “qualifying” your statements.
“implied by saying that all of the U.S. soldiers that have died in Iraq were all from terrorist attacks.”
Well, I’ll give you that one, only because I didn’t clearly make my statement. I should have said “there have been how many soldiers who’ve died in the “war on terra” in Iraq, where we cannot prove their killers were NOT terrorists?”
Well, I think you get the picture. You’re “implied” statement led to more “implied” statements. Lets get off the “he said, he said” back & forth. Pres. Clinton wasn’t a perfect President and people died from terrorism on his watch. Pres. Bush isn’t a perfect President and people died from terrorism on his watch, and there are still people dying because of terrorism, even after Sept. 11th.
#134 - yes, I agree. There does need to be more work done to help drive down malpractice suits. Something that might help is getting doctors properly trained, and getting patients properly knowledgable that not all doctors know what they’re doing. I’ve known one person who sued a doctor, and the doctor in question had 12 other suits. After the first few, maybe it’s not the patients fault. All the suits were because of improperly prescribed medication.
Let’s chat about this in another post. I’ve got to get home and take care of my 5 month old Min. Dauchshund, Dante! Have a good day, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye!
April 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pmPs. Tracy,
April 27th, 2006 at 5:33 pmI didn’t mean to imply that you are either Mighty Hypocrite or IRI–just that you may be working in cahoots with them.
And that’s all I have to say to you; a Bush shill like yourself isn’t worth any more of my time.
Liberal College Professors!!!!
April 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pmTHAT’S what’s REALLY important!!
Thanks Seixon, you just knocked down one righty talking point about “outsourcing” port security.
April 27th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#136
Ok wait a minute, are you a man or a woman?
“I should have said “there have been how many soldiers who’ve died in the “war on terra†in Iraq, where we cannot prove their killers were NOT terrorists?—
You are right there are most definitely instances were American soldiers were killed from a terrorist attack aimed at Iraqi civilians.
“Pres. Clinton wasn’t a perfect President and people died from terrorism on his watch.”
Finally!
“Have a good day, even if we don’t see eye-to-eye!”
You do the same!
April 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pm#137
And a bitch like yourself isn’t worth anymore of my time either.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#141 Aww, your misogynistic side is showing Tracy. It is sooo cute.
April 27th, 2006 at 7:42 pmTo JPark,
April 27th, 2006 at 9:04 pmThe funny thing is I think Tracy meant in #142 to take aim at me, but in reality the #137 poster he accused of being a “bitch” was Democrat Soldier, whose min Daschund Dante probably isn’t even a veritable “bitch.”
I hope this will be final comment on this issue, but Tracy has accused Rep. Markey’s interest in port security as mere political grandstanding in an election year. I don’t know much about Rep. Markey’s district, however, since it’s in Massachusetts, it’s probably a fairly safe Democrat seat. (Most incumbent seats, regardless of party, are safe.) I also once saw on CNN Rep. Jerrold Nadler of NYC grilling people on when the American people can expect 100% or even better than 50% port security. Since I used to live in Nadler’s district, I know for sure that it votes overwhelmingly Democrat and that he wouldn’t have to grandstand over port security just to get re-elected. There are some politicians who, unlike the Busheviks, are truly concerned about making the USA secure for everyone–not just for themselves and the wealthiest corporations.
April 27th, 2006 at 9:14 pm#140 - “Ok wait a minute, are you a man or a woman?”
Would it make a difference to you? I’m a man, and yes I have a boyfriend.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:31 am#143
It was most definately directed to you…Lora.
April 28th, 2006 at 9:29 am#145
“Would it make a difference to you?”
Absolutely not. My best friend from highschool was light in the loafers. My wife’s father is also gay.
April 28th, 2006 at 9:31 am#142
Why would you think that I hate women?
April 28th, 2006 at 9:47 am#147 - Just so you know, I never wear “loafers”. I’m more of a hiking boot’s kinda guy. ;-)
April 28th, 2006 at 10:27 amIt was most definately(SIC) directed to you…Lora.
Comment by Tracy
Yes, I know it’s directed at me, but do you think I am Lora, Ryan, or both? Never mind; it really doesn’t matter, as I know who I am. And I certainly don’t mind being called “bitch” as a sort of kneejerk reaction by someone who can’t otherwise defend his positions.
April 28th, 2006 at 10:38 amAdios, Au revior, sayonara, zaijien, Shill.
#150
Same goes for the same knee jerk reaction to someone who calls someone else a shill.
April 28th, 2006 at 11:11 amSame goes for the same knee jerk reaction to someone who calls someone else a shill.
Comment by Tracy
#152 Tracy,
April 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pmI gave my reasons for concluding you’re a shill. Your immediate kneejerk reaction was to call me a “bitch,” mainly because you ran out of arguments for your hollow points. It also proves that you were upset about being called “shill.”
Anyway, unless you are being paid by Ken Mehlman or Karl Rove to disrupt this thread, trying to convince most of the people here that the Rethugs are really concerned with security is futile. We’ve seen too much evidence to the contrary, even if you are too drunk on kool-aid to see it.
May your ignorance not always be bliss.
#152
You have given absolutly ZERO evidence or valid reasons to conclude that I am a shill, therefore it’s obvious that it was most definately a “knee jerk” reaction on your part and not warranted. It’s also clearly obvious that you are upset being called a bitch or you wouldn’t have replyed AGAIN after you said you wouldn’t. Also, please know what the definition of the word is that you are using first so you don’t get in trouble next time.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill
May 1st, 2006 at 10:41 am[…] The House yesterday overwhelmingly approved a $7.4 billion port security bill, though conservatives “blocked consideration of a Democratic amendment that would have required that all cargo be screened before it leaves foreign ports for the United States.” […]
May 5th, 2006 at 9:01 am[…] Yielding to industry interests who deemed the proposal “impossible,” House Republicans have blocked a vital port security measure. The Democratic proposal would have mandated that 100% of incoming shipping containers be scanned for nuclear materials — just like they do every day at the Port of Hong Kong. – Tim Dickinson […]
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 amRush is in the business of dirt digging. Despite popular beliefs–Rush is not right. All he’s ever done is bash the opposite side.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:25 amThe earth’s ecosystem is not fragile? Take a look around you. Would you want drink the water from the lakes around you if you saw the green algae and black stains that cross the beaches in my area? Would you want to eat the fish with mercury contamination? Would you like to see what kind of crap you’re breathing in? Do you want to see the animals losing their homes? No more deer hunting, what a shame.
[…] In the relevant House committee, the Republicans shot down a bill that would have had every container coming into US parts scanned for radiological weapons. Why? Industry doesn’t want it. Too bothersome, costs too much to do. Funny that Hong Kong, one of the busiest ports on Earth, does it every day, but - hey, this is America, and we need security (but not if it’s too much trouble to big business). […]
November 21st, 2006 at 2:08 pm