posted
I complained here after the first public debate that Bush's only response to Kerry's criticisms about homeland security was to say "He can't pay for what he wants." Kerry was calling for some simple, common-sense measures to stop dangerous materials from coming into our country...or so it seemed to me. I did expect, though, that Cheney would respond in the VP debate. I honestly didn't expect that Edwards would reiterate the attack, only to have Cheney sink into his chair, wince, and mutter "No comment."
What are Bush and Cheney thinking? Do they somehow think that we don't care about domestic counter-terrorism efforts? That their "terror alert system" and "public service announcements," full of vague or incorrect advice and signifying nothing, make them look on top of things? It's clear that's their only real function, but it's not working. We can see the cuts in, and misallocation of, funding for real homeland security measures. Bush and Cheney need to respond, if only with one of their expert spin lines. Perhaps they could announce that John Kerry voted against funding for policemen? Not mentioning that he was voting against one funding bill and for a similar one or whatever.
Or maybe they could actually say, "Yes, we're working on securing our ports, on putting together a Terrorist Watch List, on screening airplane cargo." They're scared to do that, because if they admit it makes sense to do it, people will ask why they didn't do it already.
posted
Well for one thing it would cost alot to implement screening of all luggage. Kerry and Edwards would indeed have to close their mouths about spending money ($130B or $200B) because it would cost "alot" to screen every piece of luggage in every port, not to mention internal ports (trains, planes, busses, etc.)
Also they can't put together a "unified" terror watch list because there are "alot" of both Right Wing and Left Wing people who feel it to be an invasion of privacy that the local traffic cop have the same information about you as the FBI, CIA or other high level intelligence communities.
From "racial profiling" to "Sexual profiling" to "religious profiling" to "speech profiling" there is one huge argument for the list (which I personally agree with) but a hundred little arguments against it that must all be dealt with.
I'm not saying that Bush/Cheney are or aren't doing anything about it, but it doesn't matter who is in charge, it won't get done soon without some very obvious rights infringements.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not an expert on this, as is probably all too obvious, but it seems like screening internal ports is not nearly as important as screening what comes into the country.
JK says screening incoming cargo could be funded by repealing the personal income tax cuts on people making over $200,000. It won't be easy, but it would have been easier if we'd had competent management.
If Bush couldn't put together a unified terror suspect list, as JE alleged tonight, in three years, it's a tremendous organizational and political failure, considering it's the one thing everybody agreed, almost immediately after 9/11, could have prevented the attacks from succeeding.
If there's a legit reason, why didn't Cheney give it tonight? It was about the only time during the debate that he looked as squirmy as Bush.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* I don't suppose there's any chance of a top-secret plan that the president can't talk about on television? Because it's not like that's happened before....
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kerry and Edwards would indeed have to close their mouths about spending money ($130B or $200B) because it would cost "alot" to screen every piece of luggage in every port, not to mention internal ports (trains, planes, busses, etc.)
I don't think Kerry and Edwards have been complaining about the spending of money so much as they have about the spending of money while at the same time cutting the means to raise the money to pay the bill. Kerry even said in the last debate that his plans would cost even more money but the difference is that he would repeal tax cuts to the wealthy in order to pay for them.
To me one of the least debatable idiocies of the Bush administration is this apparent attitude that we can drop $20 billion here and $30 billion there and not only not raise taxes, but even cut them for some of the largest contributors to the tax base.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
