PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Misuse of Homeland Security


kat
03-17-2004, 05:10 AM
This Time article (http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,600858,00.ht ml) is, far and away, the best piece I've read on the dynamics of the election, but for now, I want to draw everyone's attention to this paragraph:
Administration sources tell TIME that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have been asked to keep their eyes open for opportunities to pose the President in settings that might highlight the Administration's efforts to make the nation safer. The goal, they are being told, is to provide Bush with one homeland-security photo-op a month.For Bush to so obviously play politics with the Dept. of Homeland Security is nauseating. As far as I'm concerned, they have more important things they should be doing then giving him photo-op material. This is really the bottom line of the campaign, it's all smoke and mirrors. The Dept. of Homeland Security is not doing all that it needs (http://www.americanprogress .org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35992) to keep our country safe. To cite just one example, only 5% of checked baggage is screened despite the Transportation Security Administration estimating a 35-to-65% chance that terrorists are planning to put a bomb in the cargo of a US passenger plane.

When Bush does begin planting himself atop bomb sniffing dogs, Americans will know what it means: The Dept. of Homeland Security turned in their monthly photo-op. It's one thing to use 9/11 in an ad or talk about your role in keeping the country safe; it's a wholly different beast to direct a busy agency that isn't yet fulfilling its mandate to divert resources to helping you campaign. It's disgusting.

wolf_feahters
04-11-2004, 03:01 AM
Everyone who want's to stay in office will attempt a photo op. Bush with Homeland. Kerry in a way that make's Homeland look bad.

It's all about the press. If the press like's the politicion, then he will get more votes.

Wolf Feathers

Lance Walker
04-13-2004, 12:55 PM
Basically, when it comes to politicans, and it doesn't matter who they are either, wiether it's George W. or John Kerry, Democrat or Republician, President of the United States of America, or just his competition, they're all out for one thing and one thing only during an election year:....to get votes. And they don't care how they do it either, just as long as they get your vote. In other words, if Bush has to pose with the Department of Homeland Security because he feels it will get him votes, then he'll do so. If Kerry feels that say, having a photo op in front of a children's hospital or someplace else, just to try to make Bush look bad on a policy of his then he'll do so as well.

The real question comes to weither either canadate really has the best interest of the nation in mind once one of the wins the election and personally, I'm not sure about that one.

Later all,

Lance Walker :cool:

Darth Cluich
04-14-2004, 11:28 AM
For Bush to so obviously play politics with the Dept. of Homeland Security is nauseating.

The creation of the DHS was itself a political move. "Hey, look! We really are doing something to protect you!" It's really just another excuse to expand the federal government. Even though it was only formed recently, the DHS employs one out of every 12 federal employees and has at least one full-time employee in one out of every five of the nation's 3,146 counties. That, to me, is disgusting.

Firesong
04-14-2004, 01:54 PM
For Bush to so obviously play politics with the Dept. of Homeland Security is nauseating

....and the award for understatement of the year goes to....KAT! ;)


For Bush to be breathing is nauseating enough :D

the fact that he's in charge of a counrty....horrifyin g! :eek:

WhiteCrowUK
04-14-2004, 04:29 PM
....and the award for understatement of the year goes to....KAT! ;)


For Bush to be breathing is nauseating enough :D

the fact that he's in charge of a counrty....horrifyin g! :eek:

Hey I hope when you come to vote you remember what your attorney general said - Sept 11th was all Clintons fault and not George W. Bushs!!!

Whats annoying is that when he came into the White House he was looking for an excuse to increase defence spending - and wow he found a way to!

Darth Cluich
04-15-2004, 09:30 AM
Whats annoying is that when he came into the White House he was looking for an excuse to increase defence spending - and wow he found a way to!

No, what's annoying is that defense spending was already ridiculously low. That's all the excuse that was needed to boost it.

Edwardo_son_of_haqim
04-15-2004, 11:44 AM
Ridiculously low my ass. Under Clinton the U.S gave the least % of it's GNP to the third world of all developed countrys while giving the most in military aid. The only reason spending was reduced was because with the Soviets out of the picture he didn't need to manufacture a gross amount of nukes.

Darth Cluich
04-15-2004, 12:21 PM
Okay, let's look at some numbers:

DoD Outlays (in US$B)

FY92 (Bush) 286.9
FY95 (Clinton) 259.4
FY96 253.2
FY97 258.3
FY98 256.1
FY99 261.4
FY00 277.5

Even with the increase from FY99-00 (a 5% increase in real dollars), the Clinton Administration never spent as much on Defense as George Bush did in his last year in office.

Either way, we're straying from the topic here...

kat
04-15-2004, 03:14 PM
I can't believe it took you guys a full month to pick this topic up. :P

Darth Cluich
04-15-2004, 03:27 PM
We're slow like that, kat. ;) (And welcome back! :D )

kat
04-15-2004, 03:46 PM
Spanks :D

WhiteCrowUK
04-15-2004, 04:03 PM
I can't believe it took you guys a full month to pick this topic up. :P

Hey we've got until November to talk about this - no use rushing it! :D