John Kerry Stimson Thorne Heinz: Hypocrite

The Ponderosa | 12/27/2005 | Mr. Buzzcut

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Kerry: 'America Can Do Better' We shouldn't be letting 95 percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected.

Kerry Blasts Bush Over NSA Spy Program

WASHINGTON — Domestic spying authorized by the White House "doesn't uphold our Constitution" and President Bush's defense of the practice is "lame," Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday.

Lessee if we have this straight ... by failing to inspect more than 5% (if you accept Kerry Stimson Thorne Heinz' numbers) of the container ships sailing into our harbors -- 100% would be great, but a logistical impossibilty -- the president has been lax in his Constitutional duty to "provide for the common defence".

[MNJohnnie]

THANK YOU! I was wondering when anyone was going to make this connection!

[massgopguy]

John Kerry and his brother bugged the campaign headquarters of his opponent in Lowell MA in his first election.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Ack ...! This is an excerpt!.

[Marine_Uncle]

But it also does not do our country good to allow some liberal judge to tell a NSA team they are not permitted to wiretap some Muslim from say a known mosque highly regarded as a terrorist cell safehaven to talk with some foreign scumbag goon in say Yemen, where voice intercepts show someone is trying to set up the right connections to plant a nuclear device in say New York city.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

No, that's common sense ... which eludes the typical Moonbat.

[Vigilanteman]

I'm actually in the business of bringing shipping containers into the country-- materials we need to keep our factory operating.

Last year, we had three of four shipments "profiled" in one month. I cannot prove it, but suspect it was just because of the same kind of bellyaching as the know-nothing Kerry was doing.

We are a well-known shipper (NYSE listed company) with tight quality and security standards. The only logical reason we got inspected was because customs had to make a quota-- much like my wife is a TSA Magnet-- one actually told her that they had to pull over so many middle-aged white women to make their numbers and prove they weren't profiling.

Does anyone think it would be any different if 10 or 20 or 50% of all containers, rather than 5%, were inspected.

And yes, these random inspections can be costly as well as disruptive to the lean production model so many of our plants follow today. In one case, we actually had to cancel a work shift because materials were delayed by the inspection. In another, we got a bill for $500 because the container had to be trucked to a customs yard for inspection, then shipped back.

[jw777]

wouldn't we be violating the rights of the shipper or recipient by inspecting their containers?

stupid libs.

[Marine_Uncle]

"No, that's common sense ... which eludes the typical Moonbat.
Perhaps it really is high time we start pushing for manned rocket launches into deep space, and you can imagine who I would suggest being placed in the capsules.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

wouldn't we be violating the rights of the shipper or recipient by inspecting their containers?

I would think so, unless it originated in Pakistan ... I wonder what Senator Kerry Stimson Thorne Heinz thinks ...

[Mr. Buzzcut]

and you can imagine who I would suggest being placed in the capsules

Monkeys are too valuable, but far braver than Moonbats ... Tough call.

[jw777]

So, we must inpsect all containers arriving in our ports, but we must not inspect or intercept any communications that could lead to thwarting an attack. So, Heinz Thorne Skerry says:
We should intercept things that may carry dangerous cargo but we should not be intercept communications that may trigger that dangerous cargo?

Sounds right for a man who voted for something before he voted against it.

[xmission]

[Marine_Uncle]

Getting back to the article. Surely we are all highly concerned with all the containers coming through that never get checked. But as usual, a scum bag like Hanoi John will not indicate in his ahhhhemmm discontentment, that many studies have been conducted that show it is near impossible to do this.
The huge volumes of various type containers do lend themselves well to total examination, e.g. opening them up and going through every box stacked inside, every very large container entirely to large for any form of gamma ray, x-ray or other known detection device to be able to effectively examine the inside of a container. And even if one could have a super sensitive scinillation counter (radiation detector) at ever port of entry, again, what would prevent someone from having put a small nuclear device very well shielded (lead, boron plates etc.), from being able to detect it, if it where placed inside a huge say, dry chemical container.
It is not that we have not, and are not currently trying to better equipe our ports. It is a matter of just how well available detection equipment operates, and detection techniques will lend any credence (warm fuzzy feeling), that we are somehow going to stop incoming bad stuff from getting in.
Just think of the huge port areas that have millions of tons of containers constantly being moved about, stacked, then depending on ground transportation routing etc., moved again perhaps only hours after being lowered of a friegher.
There are no simple cure it all solutions at present.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

many studies have been conducted that show it is near impossible to do this.

While it IS easily possible to monitor/screen ALL calls between foreign terrorists and US residents.

Which leads us to ask (knowing the answer): Whose side are these people on?

[goldstategop]

If we can't spy, how can we can intercept Al Qaeda from smuggling nuclear warheads into the country? I'm sure French Boy has an answer but it involves more red tape - precisely the last thing we need in the War On Terror.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[xmission]

[Marine_Uncle]

" While it IS easily possible to monitor/screen ALL calls between foreign terrorists and US residents. Which leads us to ask (knowing the answer): Whose side are these people on?"
Makes one wonder. Such a mixed bag of goons. I am sure many here could propose a long list as how to classify them into various descriptions that all added up would make one prefere to say walk into a waist deep sesspole then want to be in the same room with these folks.

[xmission]

If containers are a weakspot, why does these people keep announcing it on tv?

[Marine_Uncle]

"If containers are a weakspot, why does these people keep announcing it on tv?"
Because, and I really believe this and am not trying to be clever. They really do not care about national security. Some most likely think that if they can scare the American public into yelling for action, then perhaps their announcements may in effect not be stupid, or un-patriotic.
But as has always been the case, the free press leaks out to our common enemies with impunity where they have the perfect right to do so based on our constitution.
It is no different in what they are doing then back in WWII, where a few press corps folks promised..... a hand shake agreement, man to man, with General Eisenhower not to make mention of General George S. Patton Jr., slapping a few soldiers. They needed George very much to lead large armies in the European campaign. Then a jerk, George Marrow came along and spilled the damn beans. And an uproar was produced by certain senators and others to have this much needed general fired.
Morrow should have been bitch slapped over and over for perhaps months on end, for having been a sneaky little bastard.
So it is with these goons in our so called news media today. They are mostly trained propagandist at best as we all can see on a regular basis.