Homeland security
Kerry has been whining for a while that we are not doing enough to protect our chemical & nuclear plants and shipping ports. Also, he would like to increase funding for local police departments, fire departments, and first responders. This is a typical liberal solution: throw money at the problem.
President Bush’s solution is far more sophisticated. By not inspecting 95% of the cargo that arrives to our shores, and leaving our chemical & nuclear plants vulnerable, Bush is creating an atmosphere that will give terrorists the false impression that our country is unprotected. When they finally do attack us, their plan will be exposed, and we will be able to retaliate against the people that we suspect collaborated with them.
Kerry also complains about the nuclear stockpiles of former Soviet nations that are unaccounted for, and wants to spend up to $10 billion of American taxpayer’s money to buy those nuclear weapons so that they won’t “fall into the hands of terrorists”.
Rather than spending all this money, Bush prefers to keep these dangerous weapons away from our shores. After all, the main worry is that these nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists which will then smuggle them into the US. Why do half of the work for them by buying them and storing them here ourselves?
Friday, September 24, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think this must be the same approach Bush is taking to assault weapons. Why ban these weapons and deal with the complicated regulations and flack from the NRA? If you allow these weapons to flow freely through the country, it will be easier to catch domestic terrorists because an AK-47 is much easier to detect than anthrax.
I don't think assault weapons, while stupid, are all that big a deal. They are places where we belly-bump against each other. Then they turn into political haymaking.
I say don't get mad, get even.
I've even heard that unchallenged shit that assault weapons aren't REALLY assault weapons, because, well, they don't meet the TRUE definition (whoever made it up) that they have to be fully automatic.
Ummm, 600 shells per minute from a semi automatic weapon? I think "assault weapon" captures the spirit of the thing quite nicely.
There IS no way to protect our ports, any more than there is a way to protect the airplanes... can you imagine taking airline security to every package? By the way, that anthrax shit? Boy, if that shit were ever really real (it wasn't, it was United States manufactured weapons grade, and there just IS no more,I mean, shit, that would be worth a fortune!!)... it would shut down the post office and EVERY port on the planet.
It is also clear that the suitcase size weapon is quite workable. No, it's not safe to carry, but neither is 50 pounds of explosive, expecially if you totally plan to set it off.
The way to protect the ports and the world? Stop the acceptability of terrorism. Although, it just might be too late.
Meantime, the very very simple truth: there just isn't any here. If and when we DO stop them in Iraq, THEN they'll come. And they will be very very well trained.
I think this must be the same approach Bush is taking to assault weapons. Why ban these weapons and deal with the complicated regulations and flack from the NRA? If you allow these weapons to flow freely through the country, it will be easier to catch domestic terrorists because an AK-47 is much easier to detect than anthrax.You obviously have no clue where of you speak. Can you tell me how a pistol grip made a rifle more deadly? Cna you tell me how many drive-by bayonettings you've heard of recently (or ever for that matter). The weapons being banned by the stupid and thankfully expired assault weapons ban were not military weapons, but civilian versions of their military counterparts. In fact the self-same weapons were available after the ban, with the minor cosmetic changes to appease the law as were available before the ban. They functioned exactly like their pre-ban counterparts.
Post a Comment