Bush admin fails yet again re: border security - Dirty Bomb materials slip thru in test

[conjur]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_go_ot/ports_security

WASHINGTON - Undercover investigators slipped radioactive material ? enough to make two small "dirty bombs" ? across U.S. borders in Texas and Washington state in a test last year of security at American points of entry.

Radiation alarms at the unidentified sites detected the small amounts of cesium-137, a nuclear material used in industrial gauges. But U.S. customs agents permitted the investigators to enter the United States because they were tricked with counterfeit documents.

The Bush administration said Monday that within 45 days it will give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents the tools they need to verify such documents in the future.

The Government Accountability Office's report, the subject of a Senate hearing Tuesday, said detection equipment used by U.S. customs agents to screen people, vehicles and cargo for radioactive substances appeared to work as designed.

But the investigation, carried out simultaneously at both border crossings in December 2005, also identified potential security holes terrorists might be able to exploit to sneak nuclear materials into the United States.

"This operation demonstrated that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is stuck in a pre-9/11 mind-set in a post-9/11 world and must modernize its procedures," Sen. Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record), R-Minn., said Monday in a statement.

The NRC, in charge of overseeing nuclear reactor and nuclear substance safety, challenged that notion.

"Security has been of prime importance for us on the materials front and the power plant front since 9/11," commission spokesman David McIntyre said in an interview.

The head of the
Homeland Security Department's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Vayl Oxford, said the substance could have been used in a radiological weapon with limited effects.

A Senate Homeland Security subcommittee, which Coleman leads, released details of the investigation and two GAO reports on radiation detectors and port security before hearings on the issues this week.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, also found that installation of radiation detectors is taking too long and costing more money than the U.S. expected. It said the Homeland Security Department's goal of installing 3,034 detectors by September 2009 across the United States ? at border crossings, seaports, airports and mail facilities ? was "unlikely" to be met and said the government probably will spend $342 million more than it expects.

Between October 2000 and October 2005, the GAO said, the government spent about $286 million installing radiation monitors inside the United States.

To test security at U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada, GAO investigators represented themselves as employees of a fake company. When stopped, they presented counterfeit shipping papers and NRC documents that allegedly permitted them to receive, acquire, possess and transfer radioactive substances.

Investigators found that customs agents weren't able to check whether a person caught with radioactive materials was permitted to possess the materials under a government-issued license.

"Unless nuclear smugglers in possession of faked license documents raised suspicions in some other way, CBP officers could follow agency guidelines yet unwittingly allow them to enter the country with their illegal nuclear cargo," a report said. It described this problem as "a significant gap" in the nation's safety procedures.

Jayson Ahern, the assistant customs commissioner for field operations, said a system for customs agents to confirm the authenticity of government licenses will be in place within 45 days. Ahern noted the radiation detectors had sounded alarms.

"We're pleased when a test like this is able to demonstrate the efficacy of our technology," Ahern said.

False radiation alarms are common ? sometimes occurring more than 100 times a day ? although the GAO said inspectors generally do a good job distinguishing nuisance alarms from actual ones. False alarms can be caused by ceramics, fertilizers, bananas and even patients who have recently undergone some types of medical procedures.

At one port ? which investigators did not identify ? a director frustrated over false alarms was worried that backed-up trains might block the entrance to a nearby military base until an alarm was checked out. The director's solution: simply turn off the radiation detector.

Gotta laugh at Norm Coleman. What a pathetic joke he is.

Nice to see this administration has failed yet again to keep America secure. Everything Kerry said during his campaign in 2004 re: port security, border security, chemical/nuclear plant security is still true today. But, good thing we're dumping billions per week in Iraq making more and more enemies every day.

 

[Witling]

I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

Same, those who are really determined to smuggle it in, will devise new ways to achieve their goal no matter what administration it is.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

Well he did run on the campaign promise that he was the only one to keep us safe from the terrists, no different from any of his other promises :roll:

Not that I ever bought into his lies.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

9-11 happened on Bushwhacko's watch. So did all the activities, or the lack of them, including appointing the top officials in charge of dealing with exactly this kind of problem.

If it had happened on another President's watch it would be that President's burden, but it didn't, and he owns the success or failure of the efforts to stop it, for the same reasons he owns FEMA's failures during Katrina.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :roll:

 

[bctbct]

There is no excuse that we spend more effort on security in Iraq, then at home. And dont tell me that we will be safer with peace in Iraq.

I wouldnt hire 30 cops to clean up my town because I dont want to put an alarm in my house.

 

[Witling]

Harvey, it's the kind of rabid drooling that you did in your post that's part of the problem. You don't want to deal with reality, you want perfection. Since it will never be a perfect world there will always be mistakes. Since there will be mistakes, why not save the money. Instead of doing something, let's make it look like doing something. Guys like Harvey won't jump on us any harder if there's a mistake and we can make them feel like we're doing something. A classic example of this is Senator DiFi from my own home state of California. When 9/11 happened she said, "Let's get all of the foreign students out of the country." We also shut down the Mexican border in spite of the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. But, it looks like we're doing something. Carumba Harvey! No administration can make the borders air tight.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

9-11 happened on Bushwhacko's watch. So did all the activities, or the lack of them, including appointing the top officials in charge of dealing with exactly this kind of problem.

If it had happened on another President's watch it would be that President's burden, but it didn't, and he owns the success or failure of the efforts to stop it, for the same reasons he owns FEMA's failures during Katrina.

Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie! :roll:

Don't bring 9/11 into this, you really don't want to. With everything that happened before 9/11, it is a surprise that 9/11 didn't happen much sooner.

So you're bringing Katrina into this? Why must must we insult mother nature?

Stick to one topic. Oh, this was another chance for you to take a shot at him. Too good to let it go. Take any opportunity to take a shot at Bush, even if subjects are not related.

It is a good thing though to do this kind of thing. The people who did this knew exactly how to get past the security. I think we can assume that the real bad guys would know the same. Oh yeah and Bush sucks (had to get that in while I had the chance).

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

Agreed. Fixed defenses are mostly useless, or at least not a very good use of money. The best defense, as the old saying goes, is a good offense. Our best anti-terrorist money is in intelligence and military operations that get the terrorists before they strike, get them no matter what their plans are. All the billions spent on airport security wouldn't do squat against an attack on the New York Subway...but billions spent to track and arrest terrorists would stop them no matter what they had planned.

This isn't a defense of Iraq, btw. Offense is important, but not all offense is created equal. Poorly focused offense has all the weaknesses of defense, without the at least marginal protection defensive spending provides.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

Agreed. Fixed defenses are mostly useless, or at least not a very good use of money. The best defense, as the old saying goes, is a good offense. Our best anti-terrorist money is in intelligence and military operations that get the terrorists before they strike, get them no matter what their plans are. All the billions spent on airport security wouldn't do squat against an attack on the New York Subway...but billions spent to track and arrest terrorists would stop them no matter what they had planned.

This isn't a defense of Iraq, btw. Offense is important, but not all offense is created equal. Poorly focused offense has all the weaknesses of defense, without the at least marginal protection defensive spending provides.

Actually, the saying is the opposite: "The best offense is a good defense."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

I think you're minimizing our potential effectiveness at preventing breaches like this. I agree we can never be 100% effective, but we can do better than our current lame efforts. Putting that aside, doesn't this spotlight the duplicity of the Bush administration? They continually campaign on how Bush is making us safer, how strong and capable they are, and how someone weak like Kerry would lead to another 9/11, yet the fact of the matter is, it's all a show. Bush has taken almost no substantive steps to really secure America, relying instead on theater and deception to appease his base and scare Congress into compliance.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

I think you're minimizing our potential effectiveness at preventing breaches like this. I agree we can never be 100% effective, but we can do better than our current lame efforts. Putting that aside, doesn't this spotlight the duplicity of the Bush administration? They continually campaign on how Bush is making us safer, how strong and capable they are, and how someone weak like Kerry would lead to another 9/11, yet the fact of the matter is, it's all a show. Bush has taken almost no substantive steps to really secure America, relying instead on theater and deception to appease his base and scare Congress into compliance.

The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he believes is right, while Kerry will do what France believe is right or will just tell the particular crowd in front of him what they want to hear and will actually do nothing.

Bush is not an ideal president, but given the choices, it's obvious who would best get the job done.

If and when the next presidency is a Democrat, would you guys be this critical if something like this happens?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

Same, those who are really determined to smuggle it in, will devise new ways to achieve their goal no matter what administration it is.

They don't need to devise a new way. The old ones were never fixed.

This president + the current Congress = a swift kick in the nuts for the U.S.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he believes is right, while Kerry will do what France believe is right or will just tell the particular crowd in front of him what they want to hear and will actually do nothing.

Sorry, that is an empty talking point, absolutely devoid of substance or thought. You discredit yourself by parroting it.

Bush is not an ideal president, but given the choices, it's obvious who would best get the job done.

Yes, NOT-Bush. Get real. Bush's forte is catering to his patrons and cronies, focusing entirely on show instead of substance to the sheeple. The OP is only one of literally hundreds of known examples of just how inept and insincere Bush is. He's all hat and no cattle.

If and when the next presidency is a Democrat, would you guys be this critical if something like this happens?

Absolutely, I think almost all politicians are crooks and/or buffoons. Bush is just the worst of the worst.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

I think you're minimizing our potential effectiveness at preventing breaches like this. I agree we can never be 100% effective, but we can do better than our current lame efforts. Putting that aside, doesn't this spotlight the duplicity of the Bush administration? They continually campaign on how Bush is making us safer, how strong and capable they are, and how someone weak like Kerry would lead to another 9/11, yet the fact of the matter is, it's all a show. Bush has taken almost no substantive steps to really secure America, relying instead on theater and deception to appease his base and scare Congress into compliance.

The difference between Bush and Kerry is that Bush will do what he believes is right, while Kerry will do what France believe is right or will just tell the particular crowd in front of him what they want to hear and will actually do nothing.

Jesus H. Christ. Enough with the Limbaugh bullsh*t!

Bush is not an ideal president, but given the choices, it's obvious who would best get the job done.

Yes, very obvious. A three-legged, flea-infested, blind, arthritic, and deaf dog would provide better security than the poseur in the White House.

If and when the next presidency is a Democrat, would you guys be this critical if something like this happens?

I know I would.

 

[sumyungai]

Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

You'd expect a president... who has dedicated his entire campaign on selling himself on national security to very least make our borders safer and making sure another 9/11 doesnt happen.

The fact that he can't even do that speaks volumes about his competence.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

But that's a red herring, because BushCo hasn't even tried to build a great wall, let alone do other substantive -- though less dramatic -- efforts. They are doing virtually nothing, and you're excusing it by saying nothing can be 100% effective. Are you suggesting we therefore not even try to improve, that we not fix the most glaring holes? If that's the case, then what's the point of the "Bush will do a better job with security than Kerry" talking point, except to intentionally mislead and scare people? It sounds like you're agreeing your earlier comment was empty rhetoric, but for all the wrong reasons.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

But that's a red herring, because BushCo hasn't even tried to build a great wall, let alone do other substantive -- though less dramatic -- efforts. They are doing virtually nothing, and you're excusing it by saying nothing can be 100% effective. Are you suggesting we therefore not even try to improve, that we not fix the most glaring holes? If that's the case, then what's the point of the "Bush will do a better job with security than Kerry" talking point, except to intentionally mislead and scare people? It sounds like you're agreeing your earlier comment was empty rhetoric, but for all the wrong reasons.

I didn't say he was doing nothing or should do nothing. I'm merely saying that if something were to happen, it is to be expected. Just like do you expect any OS to have absolutely no security holes? You patch one hole and another pops up. Do you think MS is not trying to fix security issues? Why are there always new ones? OSX even has security holes for you mac lovers. If a hacker is determined enough then he will find an exploit no matter what OS it is, same with border security.

Edit. And to answer your question why he didn't even try to build a great wall? Well, if you know that it can be easily bypassed, why waste money on it? From what I gather, most complain he spends too much money already. Wouldn't he get more criticism if he built that great wall that costs so much money and will still not make us safe? Where will the criticism end?

I can hear it now, "Look at stupid Bush building that wall thats costing tax payers billions of dollars. Doesn't he know it can easily be bypassed? He's a liar that just wants his buddies to make money building the wall."

Sounds familiar?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

But that's a red herring, because BushCo hasn't even tried to build a great wall, let alone do other substantive -- though less dramatic -- efforts. They are doing virtually nothing, and you're excusing it by saying nothing can be 100% effective. Are you suggesting we therefore not even try to improve, that we not fix the most glaring holes? If that's the case, then what's the point of the "Bush will do a better job with security than Kerry" talking point, except to intentionally mislead and scare people? It sounds like you're agreeing your earlier comment was empty rhetoric, but for all the wrong reasons.

I didn't say he was doing nothing or should do nothing. I'm merely saying that if something were to happen, it is to be expected. Just like do you expect any OS to have absolutely no security holes? You patch one hole and another pops up. Do you think MS is not trying to fix security issues? Why are there always new ones? OSX even has security holes for you mac lovers. If a hacker is determined enough then he will find an exploit no matter what OS it is, same with border security.

Edit. And to answer your question why he didn't even try to build a great wall? Well, if you know that it can be easily bypassed, why waste money on it? From what I gather, most complain he spends too much money already. Wouldn't he get more criticism if he built that great wall that costs so much money and will still not make us safe? Where will the criticism end?

With all due respect, you're evading the issue. I don't expect BushCO to erect a "great wall"; that was your example. The problem is they've done virtually nothing of substance. A great wall would not be cost effective. A half-trillion dollar invasion of a country with no connection to 9/11 would not be cost effective. Adding more comprehensive screening at our ports and borders would be cost effective.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

But that's a red herring, because BushCo hasn't even tried to build a great wall, let alone do other substantive -- though less dramatic -- efforts. They are doing virtually nothing, and you're excusing it by saying nothing can be 100% effective. Are you suggesting we therefore not even try to improve, that we not fix the most glaring holes? If that's the case, then what's the point of the "Bush will do a better job with security than Kerry" talking point, except to intentionally mislead and scare people? It sounds like you're agreeing your earlier comment was empty rhetoric, but for all the wrong reasons.

I didn't say he was doing nothing or should do nothing. I'm merely saying that if something were to happen, it is to be expected. Just like do you expect any OS to have absolutely no security holes? You patch one hole and another pops up. Do you think MS is not trying to fix security issues? Why are there always new ones? OSX even has security holes for you mac lovers. If a hacker is determined enough then he will find an exploit no matter what OS it is, same with border security.

Edit. And to answer your question why he didn't even try to build a great wall? Well, if you know that it can be easily bypassed, why waste money on it? From what I gather, most complain he spends too much money already. Wouldn't he get more criticism if he built that great wall that costs so much money and will still not make us safe? Where will the criticism end?

With all due respect, you're evading the issue. I don't expect BushCO to erect a "great wall"; that was your example. The problem is they've done virtually nothing of substance. A great wall would not be cost effective. A half-trillion dollar invasion of a country with no connection to 9/11 would not be cost effective. Adding more comprehensive screening at our ports and borders would be cost effective.

Yeah, but by spending money on prevention means we'd (Bush would) have fewer excuses to go and bomb the sh!+ out of another country (all in the name of "spreading democracy", of course).

Can't have any of that nonsense when Halliburton's existance and livelihood is at stake.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sumyungai

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: sumyungai
Well, here's to Hilary Clinton for 08.

Seriously though, a lot of these blames flying back and forth at the admin is something beyond any presidency's control. Even if you build a wall like the great wall of China along the US border, they can always make a tunnel, using a low flying aircrafts, boat, submarine, human mules, etc etc to smuggle something in. If smugglers are determined enough, there's no stopping them.

But that's a red herring, because BushCo hasn't even tried to build a great wall, let alone do other substantive -- though less dramatic -- efforts. They are doing virtually nothing, and you're excusing it by saying nothing can be 100% effective. Are you suggesting we therefore not even try to improve, that we not fix the most glaring holes? If that's the case, then what's the point of the "Bush will do a better job with security than Kerry" talking point, except to intentionally mislead and scare people? It sounds like you're agreeing your earlier comment was empty rhetoric, but for all the wrong reasons.

I didn't say he was doing nothing or should do nothing. I'm merely saying that if something were to happen, it is to be expected. Just like do you expect any OS to have absolutely no security holes? You patch one hole and another pops up. Do you think MS is not trying to fix security issues? Why are there always new ones? OSX even has security holes for you mac lovers. If a hacker is determined enough then he will find an exploit no matter what OS it is, same with border security.

Edit. And to answer your question why he didn't even try to build a great wall? Well, if you know that it can be easily bypassed, why waste money on it? From what I gather, most complain he spends too much money already. Wouldn't he get more criticism if he built that great wall that costs so much money and will still not make us safe? Where will the criticism end?

With all due respect, you're evading the issue. I don't expect BushCO to erect a "great wall"; that was your example. The problem is they've done virtually nothing of substance. A great wall would not be cost effective. A half-trillion dollar invasion of a country with no connection to 9/11 would not be cost effective. Adding more comprehensive screening at our ports and borders would be cost effective.

And I totally agree that he needs to do whats cost effective. And I agree our ports need more work and he shouldn't have outsourced it to the Saudi's. Like I said, he's not an ideal president, if I had a choice, I'd pick McCain. But given our present state and the limits of our current technology and resources, if someone wanted to smuggle radioactive material across the border, McCain or any presidency can not stop it.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: sumyungai

I didn't say he was doing nothing or should do nothing. I'm merely saying that if something were to happen, it is to be expected. Just like do you expect any OS to have absolutely no security holes? You patch one hole and another pops up. Do you think MS is not trying to fix security issues? Why are there always new ones? OSX even has security holes for you mac lovers. If a hacker is determined enough then he will find an exploit no matter what OS it is, same with border security.

Edit. And to answer your question why he didn't even try to build a great wall? Well, if you know that it can be easily bypassed, why waste money on it? From what I gather, most complain he spends too much money already. Wouldn't he get more criticism if he built that great wall that costs so much money and will still not make us safe? Where will the criticism end?

I can hear it now, "Look at stupid Bush building that wall thats costing tax payers billions of dollars. Doesn't he know it can easily be bypassed? He's a liar that just wants his buddies to make money building the wall."

Sounds familiar?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But he is due critizism because:

1) He claimed that he was the one to keep the US safe from the terrists, but we have yet to actually beef up border security and crap like this happens.

2) He claimed he was the one to trust when it comes to responding to attacks, yet when Katrina hit all of the shortcomings of the FEMA under Homeland Security came to light.

It has been nothing but lip service based on a campaign of fear and lies, while all the resources have been pumped into Iraq, and nothing to very little has been done domestically. For this the current admin deserves to be critizised, damn if they ran a company like this they would have been fired by now or the company would have gone under.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Witling
I am no Bush administration fan. Quite the opposite. But I really don't think you can blame this on any particular aministration. It's in the nature of smuggling and covert activities that they will succeed against fixed defenses. If a Democratic or Libertarian or whatever administration comes into power it will still be possible to smuggle dirty bombs into the U.S.

true, but the OP likes to blame Bush for everything. as you will see it is a running theme for him in here, and it's gotten old.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: sumyungai

I didn't say he was doing nothing or should do nothing. I'm merely saying that if something were to happen, it is to be expected. Just like do you expect any OS to have absolutely no security holes? You patch one hole and another pops up. Do you think MS is not trying to fix security issues? Why are there always new ones? OSX even has security holes for you mac lovers. If a hacker is determined enough then he will find an exploit no matter what OS it is, same with border security.

Edit. And to answer your question why he didn't even try to build a great wall? Well, if you know that it can be easily bypassed, why waste money on it? From what I gather, most complain he spends too much money already. Wouldn't he get more criticism if he built that great wall that costs so much money and will still not make us safe? Where will the criticism end?

I can hear it now, "Look at stupid Bush building that wall thats costing tax payers billions of dollars. Doesn't he know it can easily be bypassed? He's a liar that just wants his buddies to make money building the wall."

Sounds familiar?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But he is due critizism because:

1) He claimed that he was the one to keep the US safe from the terrists, but we have yet to actually beef up border security and crap like this happens.

2) He claimed he was the one to trust when it comes to responding to attacks, yet when Katrina hit all of the shortcomings of the FEMA under Homeland Security came to light.

It has been nothing but lip service based on a campaign of fear and lies, while all the resources have been pumped into Iraq, and nothing to very little has been done domestically. For this the current admin deserves to be critizised, damn if they ran a company like this they would have been fired by now or the company would have gone under.

Is there a link somewhere that says we have not beefed up border securities at all?

I think there's a whole thread blaming Bush for Katrina somewhere. At the end he did take full responsibilty for the whole situation. In my opinion, the fault lies with the local government, but thats a totally new thread in of itself.