[Jemian]

It's just red flags are going up as far as I'm concerned. I see a lot of opportunity for abuse. Now, I read in Fox that Bush may veto the bill to create the Homeland Securities Department, due to too many ammendments, particularly ones dealing with the abilitiy to fire incompetent workers. Click here for the article. Lieberman claims that 85% to 90% of the bill is the way the President wants it. Perhaps, I haven't checked. But that 15% which is wrong, is indeed wrong!

This is not a time for compromise. It is war.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

This is not a time for compromise.

As suggested in my opening rant, I agree with you on the Homeland Security Bill. As currently structured by the Senate, it deserves to die.

In the matter of National Defense, we must not strike a pose that shows weakness, and that works both inward as well as outward. To tollerate laxity among those who have been charged with protecting our lives and our National treasure is to invite attack, or worse.

The example I used I paraphrased from the Washington Pravda - that of a drunken border guard. Under LIEberman's bill - the 15% the President doesn't want would prevent that individual from being summarily fired. He should be.

Civil service protections can be a good thing - they prevent abuse upon the work force by a malevolent mangement. That said, if the pendulum swings too far in the other direction there is nothing to prevent the workforce from becoming malevolent in its own right. I see it every day.

I think it is inappropriate to have to wait 30 days to fire incompetent people charged with keeping our security. LIEberman and the demonflops are wrong on this.

BTW - Wanna bet IML Daschle's offer of fast track is an attempt to log roll this fiasco of a Homeland Security Bill? Hope the President doesn't bite.

[OldFriend]

As always, the democrats are more concerned with their union supporters than with the security of America.