President Bush addresses nation, says nothing..

Purple Haze

Literally Stimulated
Joined
Sep 19, 2000
Posts
19,290
Thank God!

The monkey trainers are learning.

AP
President Bush met with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, Sen. Joe Lieberman and other members of Congress on FridayFriday, June 07, 2002


WASHINGTON — President Bush briefed members of Congress on the creation of an anti-terror Cabinet post Friday morning, and directed the man currently in charge of homeland security to testify on Capitol Hill as to the wisdom of the proposal. 


"I'm going to direct Tom Ridge to testify before Congress about the need for the establishment of this Cabinet agency. I feel strongly that he can represent the interests of the administration on the Hill," Bush said. 

Congressmen thanked the president for proposing to elevate the Office of Homeland Security to Cabinet level. 

"I commend the president for trying to put an analytical capability in a bold, courageous new department," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., "which we need in order to help citizens of this country to be better prepared." 

"It took some pretty bold leadership for him to put this out, and to knock heads together in the Cabinet, and now we've got to do the same thing in Congress," said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. 

Bush's plan, which he detailed in a televised speech Thursday night, would create four major offices in the proposed Department of Homeland Security. 

The offices would oversee borders and transportation, coordinate federal, state and local responses to terror attacks, develop methods to detect weapons of mass destruction and create drugs and treatments to deal with the effects of those weapons. 


AP
President Bush addressed the nation Thursday night to announce his plans to create a new Cabinet department

A new intelligence-analysis office would become the "biggest customer" for FBI and CIA data, assessing threats and making plans to counter them. 

Enormous structural overhauls would take place, the biggest such reworkings since the end of World War II. 

Control of U.S. Customs would be shifted from Treasury to the new department. The Coast Guard, currently under control of Transportation, would also fall under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security, as would a new Transportation Security Administration. 

The oft-criticized Immigration and Naturalization Service, now under the aegis of Justice, would also become part of Homeland Security, and so would the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Secret Service, which is currently under the Treasury. 

In all, nearly 170,000 federal workers would have a new boss — presumably Ridge — if and when the department is created. 

"We've got a lot of work to do to get this department implemented," Bush told the legislators. "There's going to be a lot of turf protection in the Congress. But I'm convinced that, by working together, that we can do what's right for America, and I believe we can get something done." 

Ridge said after the morning meeting that Bush was sending him to Capitol Hill to be the advocate for the reorganization. 

Democratic senators, especially Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd of West Virginia, have been angry for months that Bush has resisted sending Ridge to the Hill. 

The White House has argued that as an adviser to the president, Ridge was not compelled to answer to Congress. 

Ridge said despite his new mission, the president wants to preserve that fundamental principle. 

"The president believes very strongly," Ridge told reporters outside the White House, "that it is important to preserve the prerogative — not only of this administration but of future administrations — to have advisers to the presidents [who] are accountable to the president accessible to the Congress of the United States as they fulfill their constitutional responsibilities that are not subject to testimony, not subject to the call of the chair." 

Asked whether the reorganization would divert badly needed resources from investigating potential terror acts, Ridge replied that it would better to make the changes now than later. 

"If you believe that we have an enduring vulnerability," Ridge said, "we have to accept a notion that [that] may be a permanent condition of the 21st century. That calls, in my mind, for the reorganization now." 

The president also said the government would save money and effort by combining more than 100 different federal agencies into the Department of Homeland Security. 

"You see, when you combine agencies that are scattered throughout the government," Bush said, "there are inherent savings, which means that we're going to be able to have more money on the front line of our homeland security." 

No timeline was given for when Ridge would head up to the Hill. Congress must first approve the new Cabinet office by a two-thirds margin.

Bush has set an ambitious date of January to move the agencies into the new department. All of the members appearing at the White House Friday said they would move with alacrity to pass the legislation.
 
Oh cool. I always wondered what it was like to live in the 50s.
 
The President spoke, you weren't listening! Go back to your Weekly Reader and Crayons!

**Or what would you have done to combat this 360 degree threat? Hmmmmmmm? We're waiting Einstein.....:D
 
Go back to your G.I. Joes and "Backyard Wrestling" tapes you gullible fucktwit.

Keep your username.
 
Well...

He did say that he'd been lying when he said that a cabinet level position wouldn't help anything... I guess now it magically would!
 
The President spoke and said...

America is under threat from 'thousands' of terrorists...

He doesn't think you don't that already?

No, he's got nothing new to say. Questions are being asked about vatious cock-ups over 11 September and investigations are in place or will be put in place in the future,

You've got your mid-terms coming up in a few months, the Trade War with Europe hasn't got off the ground yet and interest in his 'war' against terrorism is on the wane. He's not getting support to invade Iraq; the 'axis of evil' doesn't seem particularly worried; the US economy is on a down turn (after that 5.6% blip a few months ago) and all in all he hasn't got a lot to say...

So he goes on prime time TV and tells Americans that they're under threat from 1000s of terrorists.

The boy's cracking, I swear.

He even looked a little desparate last night...

ppman
 
Last edited:
HEY 'HAZE!

You didn't answer my question, or were you having problems staying between the lines in your coloring book?
That clear enough for ya, cumbubble? :D
 
cumbubble !!

What a great new term of address.

Best I have heard since spunkbucket !
 
The guy had the potential to do more than the usual Republicrat, but somebody is realy yanking his chain, and he doesn't know his left from his right. He's doing the same thing Clinton did - always trying to say the right thing instead of doing it, and ends up doing neither. Telling people what you think they want to hear makes you an impotent sack of numbnuts.

Just what we need - another government agency, creating more government jobs for people who vote for big government politicians. It's a no brainer. How many people will vote against someone who wants to take their job away? These guys are building themselves an inpenetrable voting block.

It's a no-brainer. Duhhhhhhhh.
 
So what happened to the Department of Defense? Where is the National Guard? Don't these folks have the duty already?
 
So what happened to the Department of Defense? Where is the National Guard? Don't these folks have the duty already?

Just FYI - The National Guard (as part of the military) has no direct Constitutional jurisdiction on the soil of the United States. When the founding fathers created the United States, they designed the Constitution in such a way to prevent the military from acting arbitrarily against its citizens. There are only special cases where the military has any direct authority on US soil. The CIA is also bound by very similar requirements. As such, it is the FBI's job to act in a Federally investigative manner while within the borders of the US. Unfortunately, when it comes to terrorism they are hardly the sole entity necessary to gather evidence, interrogate suspects, and stop further terrorist attacks.

The inability of the NSA, FBI, and CIA to wade through all the information they had and create a unified picture of the 9/11 attacks before the events has created a pressing overall need to have a single agency dedicated to anti-terrorism. We need one agency responsible for the processing of information and anti-terrorist law enforcement. As President Bush said in his speech, right now no single agency has that authority. Currently, we require a culmination of many different agencies to achieve these aims. In the interest of streamlining this process, the president is recommending that we create a Cabinet position for homeland security with the funding and authority to create these aims.

My biggest questions are:

1) I don't buy the idea that it will only cost roughly $38 billion to maintain this agency. If it is like any other government agency it will quadruple its costs within a few years of its creation. What are the real costs - hidden and direct?

2) What will relieving that much man power do to the agencies that are losing agents?

3) What additional powers will the new agency have? Will they be asking us to surrender additional freedoms?



Admiral
 
It's all Newspeak then? The Dept. of Defense doesn't defend, and the National Guard doesn't guard?
 
So buracracy helped the information that could have prevented 9/11 get lost so that it did happen.

The solution?

MORE buracracy! :rolleyes:
 
sd412 said:
So buracracy helped the information that could have prevented 9/11 get lost so that it did happen.

The solution?

MORE buracracy! :rolleyes:

'-) good point
 
It's all Newspeak then? The Dept. of Defense doesn't defend, and the National Guard doesn't guard?
Yes, and no. The US Military works best when they hold true to their reason for creation. When they are asked to “kill things and break stuff” they usually do very well. The military is best at fighting other armies and destroying large, well-defended installations. You’ll notice that when the military is forced into peacekeeping roles and other missions where there are no clear objectives, the success rates tend to fall. It isn’t that the military can’t meet and achieve other objectives; it is just that they are much better suited for general warfare.

On the subject of terrorists in the US, they tend to be small cells of individuals with isolated information about their goals. Just as you wouldn’t want to use the National Guard to investigate a bank robbery, you wouldn’t use them to capture to investigate and capture terrorists on US soil. They just don’t have the tools or the local authority. This is best left to agencies that are skilled at doing this (Police and FBI for example).

I see the military and the FBI / Local police like two different tools. If you compared them to actual tools, the military might be a giant sledgehammer. You use it to breakup large stones. The FBI might be more like a claw hammer – better for use in driving nails rather than breaking large stones. While both are technically hammers, they both have roles that they are best at.

Realistically, I really don’t relish the idea of the military taking an active role patrolling in US cities. Could you imagine the outcry?

So buracracy helped the information that could have prevented 9/11 get lost so that it did happen.

The solution?

MORE buracracy!
Absolutely right. Bureaucracy did cause a problem assembling the information necessary for stopping 9/11. The main problem was the sharing of information between agencies and overcoming the individual agency power hierarchies. While we are creating yet another agency, this one should streamline the process. The idea is that we’ll have less information passing between agencies because this one will have direct authority. Instead of agencies worrying about stepping on each other’s toes, we’ll have one with final jurisdiction. Bush believes that there will be inherent monetary savings in this arrangement – less duplication of work and more manpower dedicated to doing their job.

BTW, bureaucracy isn’t always a bad thing. Can you imagine having a dictatorship? Not much bureaucracy – but not exactly desirable either.
 
Back
Top