Bush Warns Congress on Homeland Bill ("Go ahead. Make my day.)

The Washington Post ^ | 7.26.02 | Curt Anderson

[mhking]

President Bush sternly warned Congress on Friday against passing a bill that limits the personnel and budgetary powers of the head of a new Department of Homeland Security, giving the clearest indication yet that he would veto a measure now before the Senate.

"A time of war is the wrong time to weaken the president's ability to protect the American people," Bush told a White House audience that included governors, mayors, firefighters, police and lawmakers.

FULL STORY

[Johnny Shear]

The Department of Fatherland Security can do no more to protect you from the generalized threat of politically-motivated criminal attacks than the DoD, FBI, NSA, CIA, Coast Guard, and FAA could as of September 11, 2001.

Why don't you just move out to Idaho and become a Freeman...Or head out to Ruby Ridge and get your family killed by disregarding lawful orders, or move down to Waco and start a FREAK Cult?? Just do it already and get it over with.

The rest of us will enjoy CIVILIZATION and the few rules that one must live by in order to make it all work...

I am sure the CIA and the FBI have done things that you or I will never know about that have DIRECTLY stoped more than one attack on this country since 9-11. This is a big freaking country and not all of us live in vans down by the river. Deal with it!

[justshe]

You wrote: For that, the U.S. government, to whom we pay over $2 trillion a year, has the blood of those 3,000+ people on its hands.

Kitkat already adequately addressed your 'spouting' bilge. And she also is correct that knives were allowed on 9/11. Do you know that no one on those flights didn't have a weapon of some type?

I find your blaming the U.S. government for the actions of a terrorist network to be despicable, in fact. If you want to accurately place blame, look back to the fact that the previous administration completely abdicated their responsibility to protect the citizenry of this country. Funds and resources were shifted from international to domestic terrorism ( right wing, anti-government, christian groups: http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/722231/posts ) and even turned down the opportunity to take custody of Usama Bin Laden. But even then, it wasn't the entire government, it was ONE MAN.

[SteamshipTime]

Get back to your campaign, Janet.

[Howlin]

The Dems are out to create another slothful civil service bureaucracy with the Homeland bill. Its THEIR constituency.

Oh, move to the head of the class, friend. That is EXACTLY what is going on here; Bush wants people in this department HE can trust. This is one way around those stupid "keep 'em forever" government rules.

[Howlin]

Well said!

[justshe]

BINGO!

And GW's statement that he requires flexibility and NOT be micromanaged is right on too. It goes hand in hand with 'accountability'! And it's about damn time. Wouldn't it be wonderful if at some point in the future, this department was used as an example for weakening or diabling some of the more ridiculous of the civil service regulations?

[Johnny Shear]

Get back to your campaign, Janet.

Get back to your shack, Ted.

[justshe]

Good job......a voice of sanity.

[SteamshipTime]

The head of the CIA which utterly failed in its intelligence-gathering mission, George Tenet, was a Clinton appointee.

The head of the DOT which disarmed pilots and passengers and currently targets American grandmothers for searches, Norm Mineta, was a Clinton appointee.

The head of the BATF which butchered Randy Weaver's wife and infant child and which butchered 95 people at Waco, John Magaw, was promoted by Boy George to head Transportation Security.

You must be proud of all the Clinton appointees Boy George has chosen to reward.

An armed cockpit and armed passengers, and we would not be having this debate. And if a Democrat had proposed this redundant, wasteful federal agency, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

[88keys]

from the article: "Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said the president's plan amounts to "a blank check to hire, fire, sanction, whatever, individual employees."...

Make that, "government employees"...

First off, this is what it's like for everyone who's not a union employee...not to start a flame war here, but union benefits really do come out of the "benefits" of the lower level so-called "white-collar employees"...

Second off, I'm all for fair labor practices, even if it takes legal action, which we have recourse to...what I object to (and the President likewise, apparently) is the inability of employers to stop spending their/our money to pay employees who are inadequate or incompetent, but are tenured/unionized...

Finally, it's really the "flexibility" that's crucial here...re-organizing the existing bureaucracys is a huge task in itself, but I would just point out the upset that ensued when Mr. Mineta announced "no arming of pilots" a while back...I kind of admire W's "strategery" on that one!!!

[justshe]

Flame war? I think you and I are on the same page here.

[Ciexyz]

I'm willing to be educated by everyone's opinion. Like many of you, I too am afraid of a new monolithic government bureaucracy whose unionized workers worship at the Democratic alter. For the record, I myself am a federal worker, but I vote Republican and believe in the conservative party platform, including pro-life issues and gun owners' rights.

[dsutah]

Harry Browne, I presume? I see, but could you tell me just how he could have done better than G. Bush? Thanks

[dsutah]

Before you get all wound up in your rant, could you make a list of all the 'Clinton appointees' G. Bush has 'rewarded'? As far as I can see, there's only one person on his cabinet who may have been in the Clinton admiinistration. Who else?

[88keys]

"I think you and I are on the same page here..."

I think so, too! So I addressed my comments to you to avoid potentially starting an argument with a "fellow Freeper" (not that that's ever been known to happen...!) but it would seem my "fears of flaming" over my remarks were groundless, anyway...! ;)

[SteamshipTime]

Cabinet level, Mineta is the only Clinton appointee. He and Bush see eye-to-eye on Second Amendment issues. Tenet was appointed to head the CIA under Clinton. Tenet, you may remember, did a wonderful job focussing the CIA on aspirin factories in the Sudan and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe, even after a militant Islamic group tried to collapse the WTC in 1993. Apparently, Bush admires his track record.

Magaw was appointed to head the BATF by Clinton. Since you and the other Republicrats weren't on these boards then, you do not appreciate just how criminal the actions of our government were at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Bush rewarded Magaw's butchery by anointing him head of the TSA.

[dsutah]

Ok, then where are the other ones? I don't know about Magaw that much to comment. But there are a lot of Clinton people still in there, that Bush certainly didn't put in there. I believe there is a process underway in which he is trying to put them out, or move them to other places. He may not be able to get rid of them, because of the unions.

Bush is quite strong on gun issues. He was supported, and encouraged by the NRA during the campaign, as governor, he allowed and signed for the Concealed-Carry for weapons in Texas. What are you driving at when you insinuate that Bush is with Mineta on Second Amendment Issues? I don't really like your tone!

I know Mineta didn't initially support the idea of pilots carrying weapons on the aircraft, because initially, Bush wasn't for it either. I'm sure he had his reasons. However, I know he supports other Second Amendment issues strongly. I also happened to read lately that Mineta is giving another look at the issue of the pilots carrying weapons on the aircraft. Let's wait and see what they decide, huh?

[Charles_Bingley]

President Bush needs to know the growing discontent on homeland security in Fly the unfriendly skies. In short, Homeland Security Department is a pig in a poke; the Democrats will love the power of this Department when their guy(gal) gets back into the White House and love it more that our guy gets the political blame.

[SteamshipTime]

I don't really like your tone!

I don't really like your flaccid intellect.

[dsutah]

I still don't like your tone, I don't have to put up with your attitude. I think you're very rude! Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't give you the right to insult me!

I simply said I don't know enough about Magaw or Mineta to comment on them. I'll read up on them, especially Magaw. I'm simply giving these men a benefit of the doubt until I do find out.

However, I do know much of G. Bush's positions on things, so I can be somewhat objective about him. You obviously don't support him, so you can't or won't be objective about him. But I will not be pushed around by bossy tyrants like you! If you can't get people to go along with you, and agree with you implicitly, you resort to insults about their intellect!

This would be a dull site, if everyone agreed all the time, you know. People come from different backgrounds in experience and education, can't you respect that? I may disagree with you; but I won't question your intellect. Why do you slam mine? I might scold you for your attitude, but I won't insult your intellect. I do have more respect for others on here than that, even for you!

Which would you prefer? People who agree to disagree, or robots who think what you think, saying or writing what you write? Do you want people to think for themselves, or let you and some others do the thinking for the rest of us? I would hope you'd choose the former!