Bush and the GOP FAIL to Protect America

Let's Count the Ways they fail to meet their obligations

Published on March 10, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

We hear how only the Republicans can protect America from terrorism. It is true there have not been any other attacks in America since 9/11. It is also true that the Bush administration has rallied cooperation among other countries as well as strengthened our own homeland security. However, when you look at the willingness to provide all that is needed, a very different picture emerges. Let's look as some of the security measures that Bush and the GOP has refused to fund:

Provide Radiation detection at the ports. The Democrats supported a 1.5 Billion investment to provide automatic radiation detection on EVERY crane in our ports. The Bush compromise was to include $50 Million in the budget for a $1.5 Billion dollar project.

Provide staffing at the ports that allow for inspection of ONLY 5% of the containers that come into America. What about the other 95%?

Bush included funding for 200 of the 10,000 added Border guards that HE said were required to help secure the Mexican Border. What about the remaining 9,800 guards?

Bush has refused to provide the funding to equip commercial aircraft with anti missile protection similar to what Israel has provided for their commercial aircraft.

Bush has not requested the needed funding to properly staff the Coast Guard which is hopelessly under staffed to protect our shores.

Bush has not increased the size of the active military despite his campaign statements in 2000 that our military was too small to meet its obligations which were far less in 2000 then they are today.

How anyone can assert that Bush and the GOP is the party that can protect us from terrorism in light of the above facts is amazing. We have the money for Iraq. We can grant tax cuts to Big Oil. We can give the wealthiest 5% of Americans tax cuts THEY DO NOT NEED. WE can not find the money to fully protect America!

Comments (Page 1)

bakerstreet

on Mar 10, 2006

Hillary just proposed we spend $90 million and use the CDC to see whether video games are bad for kids. I wonder how many border guards that would pay for? Not that you'll ever acknoledge that Democrats waste as much as Republicans. That would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

COL Gene

on Mar 10, 2006

I would not support that either. However, Bush and the GOP are in control. In the budgets of 2002, 2003, 2004,2005,2006,2007 Bush has NOT provided the Billions needed. Just think how much the $12 Billion in tax cuts to Big Oil that the GOP and Bush included in the Energy Bill would fund. A lot more then $90 Million. You can not push these failures onto anyone but Bush and the GOP. They have the power and are not using it to fully protect us from terrorism! When the next attack takes place, which every expert says will happen; we will see which of these failures will be responsible. Then you can make more excuses for Bush!

DJBandit

on Mar 10, 2006

So first you admit that Bush has done a good job protecting us then you nit-pick to try to find fault anyways? With 98% of you articles being against Bush in one way or ather you would still claim not to be a Bush Basher Col? OK You like to nit-pick, let's nit-pick.

Provide Radiation detection at the ports. The Democrats supported a 1.5 Billion investment to provide automatic radiation detection on EVERY crane in our ports. The Bush compromise was to include $50 Million in the budget for a $1.5 Billion dollar project.

So you complain about the deficit being too high yet we should spend $1.5 Billion on this project? If only you took time to look at yourself in the mirror and realize all the contradicting you do, maybe you would be taken more serious. At least he gave $50 million which is better than ignoring it.

Provide staffing at the ports that allow for inspection of ONLY 5% of the containers that come into America. What about the other 95%?

More for the deficit to grow, man you are on a role here Col. You couldn't have enough people to check 100%, otherwise most carge will be late. Get a clue Col. We don't need more people, we need better technology to be able to inpect things faster with less human error.

Bush included funding for 200 of the 10,000 added Border guards that HE said were required to help secure the Mexican Border. What about the remaining 9,800 guards?

Again, more money for the deficit, that's 3 for 3 Col. Again we don't need more people, we need better technology. They don't only come in over the border, they also make caves that can't be seen from above. We need a fence, better technology and better vehicles.

Bush has refused to provide the funding to equip commercial aircraft with anti missile protection similar to what Israel has provided for their commercial aircraft.

4 for 4. Do you know what it would take to put anti-missile protection on every plane the US has? And what about those that do not belong to US that Americans travel on, should they be ignored or obligated as well? How many planes does Israel have compared to the US? You see your ignorance Col, you don't even take any of this into consideration, ironically if Bush did provide the funds you would only complain that it would make the deficit higher.

Bush has not requested the needed funding to properly staff the Coast Guard which is hopelessly under staffed to protect our shores.

Hopelessly understaffed? You're a joke Col. These people complain because of the Ports deal and now they are in horrible shape? Rediculous. I'm sure our Coast Guards are just fine, they just don't like the port deal and are willing to say anything to stop it because that could mean more work for them. Plain and simple. BTW 5 for 5 on adding more money to the deficit that you rub in our faces so often.

Bush has not increased the size of the active military despite his campaign statements in 2000 that our military was too small to meet its obligations which were far less in 2000 then they are today.

Wouldn't that mean that he would have to make it a draft military rather than volunteer? But I thought you were against that? More guys and gals joining the military by force so that they can go to Iraq so that you can complain about the war so more? It is incredible how easily you let you stupidity creap out of your head more often than before.

Everyhing you outlined in this article contradicts everything you argue all the time in your other articles, especially the incredible amount of money you just added to the deficit, which is the one thing you cry about the most. I'm glad you are not running for politics, you would fit in just right with them. The power of confusion over the American people in a great power.

DJBandit

on Mar 10, 2006

They have the power and are not using it to fully protect us from terrorism! When the next attack takes place, which every expert says will happen; we will see which of these failures will be responsible. Then you can make more excuses for Bush!

Everyone knows they will, a group as obsessed as the Alqaeda will find a way no matter how much money Bush spends on security. You actually have this idea that we can be 100% safe but you are crazy.

BTW your doing a great job selling your book on this site, I'm sure it is you real agenda than searching for the truth. I don't blame you, I too would use any means necesary to sell my book.

ShadowWar

on Mar 10, 2006

Ahhh maybe your numbers are fuzzy??

Funding has increased by more than 700% since September 11, 2001.

Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001.

DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005.

Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports, including $16.2 million to Baltimore; $32.7 million to Miami; $27.4 million to New Orleans, $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia.

????

singrdave

on Mar 10, 2006

Bush has refused to provide the funding to equip commercial aircraft with anti missile protection similar to what Israel has provided for their commercial aircraft.

And it should be the airlines' funding, not the US government. What have the airlines done to protect their passengers? Unless you'd like the deficit to grow to underwrite all these pet projects of yours?

Funding has increased by more than 700% since September 11, 2001.
Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001.
DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005.

Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports, including $16.2 million to Baltimore; $32.7 million to Miami; $27.4 million to New Orleans, $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia.

I like the cut of your jib, Shadow. Thanks for doing the legwork that the good COL conveniently leaves out.

Ahhh maybe your numbers are fuzzy??

No, the numbers he quotes are from anti-Bush rant camp websites. COL lazily believes them, because 1. they agree with his basic premise, that Bush is the end of civilization; and 2. he can't be bothered to take time to spell check, how is he gonna do his own research?!

bakerstreet

on Mar 10, 2006

"And it should be the airlines' funding, not the US government. What have the airlines done to protect their passengers? Unless you'd like the deficit to grow to underwrite all these pet projects of yours?

You might also want to look into the whole debate about whether the anti-missile systems WORK AT ALL. From what I understand they aren't all that reliable, especially in terms of the weapons most terrorists use.

Granted, one would expect a Democrat to toss as much money as possible at a problem whether the solution is effective or not.

DJBandit

on Mar 10, 2006

#5 by ShadowWar
Friday, March 10, 2006

The problem is that Col nit-picks and only sees the small things which is enough for him to get emotional. A lot of money was given to border security, but it wasn't all used up to hire more officers, but in his mind the technology bought does not count.

Col is so desperate he's losing his mind. OK I take that back, you can't lose something you dn't have. He must have lost it when he lost his war helmet.

DJBandit

on Mar 10, 2006

Granted, one would expect a Democrat to toss as much money as possible at a problem whether the solution is effective or not.

Unless the solution is from the Rep, then they will toss garbage.

COL Gene

on Mar 10, 2006

It is hard to know where to start with the BS Above,

First, the areas I sighted are NOT small and do represent a MAJOR risks to our security. Nuclear is the worst WMD and we MUST be sure 100 % of the containers ARE free from a nuclear weapon. Just ONE would be a disaster that would make 9/11 look like a party. As to the funding, the tax cuts to the oil companies that are showing record profits would fund the radiation detectors, the anti missile protection for commercial aircraft and provide much of the new equipment the Coast Guard needs. The choice is more profit to an industry that is generating higher profits BEFORE THE $12 Billion Bush and the GOP gave then at the end of 2005 OR obtaining the equipment we need to protect our ports and aircraft. That is a no brainer. So why did Bush give the money we needed to protect America to the oil companies?

Saying the Airlines should pay the billions needed for antimissile protection given the fact that MOST of them have filed for bankruptcy is just ridiculous. Where in the HELL would they get the money?

As for the ongoing funding for Border guards, the Coast Guard and our military- the same question. What is more important the security of our country OR more money in the net worth of the wealthy that have far more then they need. That is just what Gates and Buffet meant when they told Bush not to cut taxes for the wealthy because they DID NOT DEED IT and WE HAD FAR MORE IMPORTANT NEEDS( like our SECURITY.)

Until Bush and Congress have provided for these glaring gaps in our security, THEY HAVE NOT DONE THE JOB!!!!!!!!

bakerstreet

on Mar 10, 2006

"Saying the Airlines should pay the billions needed for antimissile protection given the fact that MOST of them have filed for bankruptcy is just ridiculous. Where in the HELL would they get the money?"

No, assuming the government should update planes for a private industry is ridiculous, espcially since the billions are going to go to countermeasures that don't stop all missiles.

COL Gene

on Mar 10, 2006

Tell that to the people after the first plane is shot down. Again giving tax cuts to oil companies and the wealthy or protecting our country.

bakerstreet

on Mar 10, 2006

How many Israeli planes have been saved by anti-missile systems, Col? How many Israeli planes even have them? At a million dollars a pop, don't you think it is a bit annoying that they only stop heat seaking missiles, and not laser or radar guided or unguided?

Why don't you tell that to people after we spend billions outfitting planes at taxpayer's cost, and then a plane gets shot down the next day WITH these systems abord. I wonder how people will react when they find out how little protection chucking a few flares out the ass-end really is. I find it funny that the attacks the provoked the Israelis to used these systems MISSED even without the countermeasures.

Copying and pasting isn't good enough on some of these issues. You should at least read up a bit on them yourself before you do. There are plenty of people who oppose the defense systems, and the only people that are really banging a drum about them are the ones that want to make blind stabs at Bush, as you do.

COL Gene

on Mar 10, 2006

The use of $12 Billion for EITHER tax Cuts to the oil companies or to purchase the equipment needed to insure we do not have a nuclear bomb brought into this country or have a Civilian Airliner brought down is an easy choice for anyone except Bush and his supporters. I do not understand how we can deny food for the poor, needed equipment and manpower to protect our country but we can find money to give those with all they need even more. There is no money to rebuild the homes in New Orleans but money for a war that has not made us safer. We can propose to eliminate the tax on estates which will cut $40 Billion EVERY year from the money needed for defense, education, security etc. That cut in the estate tax will help less then 1% of the population! The choices the current people that control the government are making are JUST wrong choices. They make choices that benefit the FEW and ignore the MANY!

bakerstreet

on Mar 10, 2006

Few people make me really sick, Col, but I have to say that when you do what you just did. Ignore, repeat, ignore, repeat. If God himself came down and told you exactly why you were wrong, you'd just type "I can't see why you don't understand" then paste your original premis behind it. I've spoken to white supremacist revisionist historians that I felt I had more chance of communicating with.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!