Arab control of ports?

[Felix]

You mean 46 million in addition to the billions spent by state and local governments and also in addition to the 8.1 billion dollar Coast Guard budget which was increased an additional 500 and something million over last year.

Billions spent by the states specifically for port security?

Link?

[PSUFAN]

CLAIM: “There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

CLAIM: “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

CLAIM: “You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02

CLAIM: There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

[Felix]

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey alone has a five billion dollar budget this year.

So in other words you are putting the responsiblity of port security on the states....good plan, that way if a nuke is smuggled in the Bushites can always blame it on the Port Authority of New York.......

What else are they (Port Authority) responsible for overseeing with that budget? Lets see there's airports, there's bridges, there's tunnels, there's railways, there's ferries......so exactly how much of that budget was spent specifically on PORT SECURITY?

Why do you suppose the head of the Coast Guard said that our ports are in serious need of security upgrades, and why hasn't this become a priority of the Bush Administration....after all isn't it all about security?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The sight of so many Americans taking an anti-business, anti-Capitalist, isolationist stance should warm my heart, and yet strangely, it hasn't.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The sight of so many Americans taking an anti-business, anti-Capitalist, isolationist stance should warm my heart, and yet strangely, it hasn't.

You must be sensing the insincerity of their position.

Yep. Another swing-and-miss at Bush from the American [cough]"left"[/cough].

[Felix]

A bureaucrat clamoring for more tax money? Why this must be the first time in recorded history something like this has ever happened. Oh wait...this happens every day. Nevermind.

god you're a simp......

[Felix]

The next department head who is satisfied with his budget allocation will be the first in recorded history.

So what you're saying here is that Admiral Thomas H. Collins, who took over the office under Bush's watch is nothing more than a bureaucrat that is less interested in national security than he is in padding his budget......

gotcha......

[Felix]

How is he doing with that 8.1 billion we already gave him?

Guarding the coast I hope.....but didn't you say that the states are responsible for port security? Why then would you be so concerned about the Coast Guards budget?

From your reponses, I get the impression that you feel that Bush has done everything humanly possible to make this country as secure as possible, is that what your saying?

[Felix]

You're the one claiming it is inadequate.

Why would I say that, I have no idea what the Coast Guard budget is and whether it's adequate or not. I did claim (and you agreed) that federal funding for port security is woefully inadequate

Yes, I believe he is doing everything he can to make it so. Bureaucratic squeakings for more money do not impress me as "indifference to national security".

Oh BTW, go ahead and link me up to this claim here. I'd like to see when it was made.

sure thing pal

http://www.zeltech.com/News/News_Sept_1 ... gabyss.asp

The Coast Guard has estimated that upgrading the nation's maritime sites and vessels to meet the law will cost about $7.3 billion between 2003 and 2012. But the $491 million in grants Congress has issued to ports and vessels to improve security in the past three years - about $163 million a year on average - won't come close to meeting the 10-year cost estimates if the spending patterns continue. For many sites, the new costs include adding security personnel, new access-control methods, fencing and high-tech surveillance systems, and periodic reviews.

while we're at it, why don't you go ahead and link me up to site that explains how additional money for Port Security would be funneled into the Coast Guard budget.......

tia

[Uncle Fester]

I wonder why you didn't include this from the bottom of the article...or did you even read that far?

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

We went from this:

The Coast Guard report, written in December, said, "There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential DPW and P&O Ports merger."

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," it added.

To this:

"Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security," Coast Guard spokesman Commander Jeff Carter said in a statement.

Gee, I'll sleep better, now. They received strong assurances. I guess that wraps it up for the mvscals of the world.

Maybe they said something like, "Heyyyy, don't woorry, be happy! All Eees Well! Forget about it and get up off of our backs as we are all Twat Bitch and friends, Allah willing."

Who knows, maybe cash and Dubai vacation deals were included along with the "strong assurances."

[Felix]

September of 2004, huh? That would probably be too late to include in the '05 budget request, however, the '06 request included a $571 million dollar increase over the 05 expenditure.

That's great, now if I ever need to know the Coast Guard's budget I know where to look. But that's really not what we're talking about now is it. How does Bush's budgeted 46 million for port security stack up against the previous years budget allocation for the same expenditure. Google that then get back to me will you?

you want to talk about port security belonging to the states, then you want to talk about the Coast Guard's budget, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand...that being federal monies allocated to port security.....

divert much.....

[Dinsdale]

The Administration that requested a total of 46 million for Port Security

(Thank God and GOD Congress increased that to 140 million)

What was the extra 134 million spent on?

I'm guessing it wasn't math education.

[Felix]

It isn't a regular, recurring expenditure.

Sure it is.......

The Coast Guard's budget necessarily includes budget monies for port security.

So what I've gotten so far from you is that

1) Port Security is the responsiblity of the states
2) The Coast Guard budget includes allocations for port security
3) You feel that Bush has done everything in his power to insure our national security (how are those new and improved immigration laws working out?)
4) If additional monies were allocated to port security, that money would fall under the perusal of the Coast Guard and the bureaucrat that runs it.....
5) Port security is not an annual expenditure in the national budget
6) Anytime this administration finds itself in any kind of trouble, they just ratchet up the color coded warning system to scare us into believing that a terrorist act is imminent.....(look for CODE ORANGE coming soon to your neighborhood)

that about sum it up......

[Uncle Fester]

But hey...who needs facts when you have a knee to jerk, right?

Facts like these?

SAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness. The Department of State remains concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Americans should maintain a low profile, vary routes and times for all required travel, and treat mail and packages from unfamiliar sources with caution. In addition, U.S. citizens are urged to avoid contact with any suspicious, unfamiliar objects, and to report the presence of the objects to local authorities. Vehicles should not be left unattended, if at all possible, and should be kept locked at all times. U.S. Government personnel overseas have been advised to take the same precautions. In addition, U.S. Government facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time as necessary to review their security posture and ensure its adequacy.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_t ... _1050.html

I'm glad you have such faith and trust in Dubya on this issue. But this is the same guy who back in 2001 was warned about Bin Laden and possible terrorists attacks on US soil. His response was to take a month-long vacation in August and sit around "thinking" about the horrors of stem cell research. I wonder if he put a bucket on his head ala Gomer Pyle?

[Felix]

SAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness. The Department of State remains concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Americans should maintain a low profile, vary routes and times for all required travel, and treat mail and packages from unfamiliar sources with caution. In addition, U.S. citizens are urged to avoid contact with any suspicious, unfamiliar objects, and to report the presence of the objects to local authorities. Vehicles should not be left unattended, if at all possible, and should be kept locked at all times. U.S. Government personnel overseas have been advised to take the same precautions. In addition, U.S. Government facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time as necessary to review their security posture and ensure its adequacy.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_t ... _1050.html

pshaw, a report that old (July of 2005) has no relevance today.....

sincerely,
mvsineversawabushbillididntapproveof

How many terrorist attacks have happened in the UAE?

see, that's all the proof you need.....

[Mister Bushice]

How does Bush's budgeted 46 million for port security stack up against the previous years budget allocation for the same expenditure.

It isn't a regular, recurring expenditure.

then you want to talk about the Coast Guard's budget, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand...that being federal monies allocated to port security.....

divert much.....

The Coast Guard's budget necessarily includes budget monies for port security. Anyone with two live braincells to rub together understands this.
Evidently that leaves you out.

The thing you continually avoid here is the fact that Bushs allocation for port security was slightly more than 10% of what was requested.

However his verbal allocation re:port security was 100%

We're talking abotu a significant gap in what is being done and what needs to be done.

And don't give me that "bureaucrats always ask for more than they get" BS. You'll have a hard time working Iraq into that scenario.

Since it's all related to the "War on Terror", why does our port security take a back seat to Iraq? That is backasswards.

[Felix]

And what we have gotten from you so far is...well, nothing at all.

Then why do you keep responding idiot.....

Fortunately the World Shipping Council and National Industrial Transportation League among others called him on his absurd bullshit.

What's their position on transferring port control to the UAE. or do they have one?

as an aside, I'd like to point out to you that there's never been a terrorist attack in North Korea either, so I guess that makes them okey........

[Mister Bushice]

Another major point made by the five organizations was that they are aware of no justification for demanding $400 million a year in port security grants from the federal government,

Oooh!! oooh!!! I know one!!!

The fact that only 1 of every 3 potentially dangerous containers enters our country unscreened. only 6% of over 10 million containers per year are inspected?

I'll take my answer off the air.

[Felix]

Needless to say, a meager $40 surcharge per container would raise that sum easily without cost to the taxpayer.

Fair enough.....who'll be imposing those charges and when can we expect all of the necessary implementations/upgrades to our port security systems to occur.....

I mean seriously, if the Bushites acted like they gave a shit I might be more understanding....but they continue to do nothing (s'up immigration reform)....why do you suppose that is?

[Mister Bushice]

Oooh!! oooh!!! I know one!!!

The fact that only 1 of every 3 potentially dangerous containers enters our country unscreened. only 6% of over 10 million containers per year are inspected?

I'll take my answer off the air.

Needless to say, a meager $40 surcharge per container would raise that sum easily without cost to the taxpayer.

Naturally the thought never occured to you, being that you are a socialist dumbfuck and expect the government to do everything for you.

I'd be satisfied with Bush shutting the fuck up about doing everything possible to make our ports safe. It's a bald face lie.

[Felix]

So I'm all for the government allocating the money to secure the ports now, and collecting it much like a loan repayment.....

[Mister Bushice]

Hey. If they're going to spend our money as recklessly as they do, I'd like to see a bigger portion of it go to protecting what we have here instead of pissing it away into the desert half a world away.

[Mister Bushice]

That is where we differ. I see the war in iraq as a useless exercise, and you see it as an essential tool in the war on terror. I see iraq reverting to savagery as soon as we leave, you think somehow it wil make us safer HERE.

Drawing a line in the sand has not done jack shit to stop worldwide terrorism and it won't until the countries where it is occuring agree to fight it too.

In the meantime we should turn this country into a fortress and make any terrorist fear setting foot upon our soil.

[Felix]

And those countries aren't going to agree to do that until we bring that war to their doorstep and give them no choice in the matter.

so I guess we can anticipate a few more "preemptive" strikes against additional targets......er......countries.......

so how many constitutes "those countries".....

do you suppose we can hold the invasions.....er.....preemptive strikes to a relatively reasonable number......cap it at say five or six max.....

[Mister Bushice]

That is not the intent of reviewing more closely critical security decisions made by this very fucked up administration. If they had done anything else right up until now maybe congress and most of the country would have more faith in them.

And I disagree about bring the war to their doors. That will only increase the enmity the world feels towards us, and make us the target. The muslims will bring it there soon enough, they already have in many places. They are a savage people who train their youth to kill unbelievers in the name of their god. They will always go too far and eventually we will see a global war against them.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

They are a savage people who train their youth to kill unbelievers in the name of their god.

You are an embarrassment as a human being.

Your whole country is savage. Witness the hundreds you ignored as they were swept away
by Hurricane Sam* (Katrina).


* Hurricane Sam. The unnatural disaster that is the ruling class in America, namely Uncle Sam.

[War Wagon]

Amid all the paranoia over inadequate port security, I haven't heard or seen of one instance of a terrorist attack being propagated thru these ports. Why is that, do you suppose? And why all the feigned indignation over what is essentially a business dealing?

The Bush haters are pathetically amusing. They never rest looking for the slightest reason to pounce, and when they think they've found a really good stick to swing, it's Katy bar the door.

Then, it all blows up in their astounded faces when silly things like facts and common sense shred their shrill arguements to tatters.


Fuckin' A rack mvscal for keeping the ignoramuses in their place and preventing them from running completely amok. Somebody has to do it, and he does it quite well. Props, dude.

[Mister Bushice]

They are a savage people who train their youth to kill unbelievers in the name of their god.

You are an embarrassment as a human being.

Your whole country is savage. Witness the hundreds you ignored as they were swept away
by Hurricane Sam* (Katrina).


* Hurricane Sam. The unnatural disaster that is the ruling class in America, namely Uncle Sam.

But the separation is that we don't murder people and riot over cartoons. The ineptness of our government to quickly react to a crisis was unintentional. Had their been celebrations in the streets because of it, I'd say you'd have some ground to stand on here, but you don't.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

But the separation is that we don't murder people ...

Huh?

:?

Read newspapers much? Do you even have an inkling of a clue how much misery you spread around the globe by propping up rotten regimes and bombing the rest that wont tow the line?

[Mister Bushice]

But the separation is that we don't murder people ...

Huh?

:?

Read newspapers much? Do you even have an inkling of a clue how much misery you spread around the globe by propping up rotten regimes and bombing the rest that wont tow the line?

Don't cut and paste part of a quote.

The full quote was:

"But the separation is that we don't murder people OVER CARTOONS"


piss poor troll job.

:roll:

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Right. Your reasons for murder are much more legitimate.

Profit.

Which you stupid fucking chimps that support the war from your barstools, don't even reap the rewards from. Suckers.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Because you love cartoons soooooo much....

[Diogenes]

Bottom line, Hugh Hewitt says it best.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[PSUFAN]

Because you love cartoons soooooo much....

that's just a ridiculous cartoon.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

a matter of opinion

[PSUFAN]

In this whole discussion, the most manic, senseless argument is that the ports are secure simply because we haven't been attacked with materials brought in via compartments. It's never happened, so it never will, one is supposed to believe.

Prior to September 11th, 2001, I suppose there were a lot of folks who, by that logic, assumed that our flight security system was perfectly sound.

It's just an asinine argument, top to sagging bottom.

Here's an important clue: we don't know where attacks are going to come from next. We certainly can't assume that they aren't going to come because of lax port security, or any other avenue simply because it hasn't been done yet.

No wonder you people don't understand the seriousness of this issue. Thank goodness most Americans aren't nearly this thick-headed.

[Mister Bushice]

But unfortunately for the rest of us one of the most thickheaded of the rest is sitting in the oval office.

It will only take one container packed with explosives out of the 10 million that come in per year to completely take out any major port.

Good thing we rebuilt those schools and shit over in iraq, to make sure that don't happen.

[PSUFAN]

I love how he didn't even know about it but once he finally did, he was sure it was a good idea. Idiot.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Good thing we rebuilt those schools and shit over in iraq...

Really? When did that happen?

[Mister Bushice]

You're too late. blowed up again...