Today's Question for the Board Republicans

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 7:37pm

Why do Bush and Homeland Security think New York is NOT worth protecting?



We'll have another question tomorrow for the Board Republicans!

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 7:41pm

"Today's Question for the Board Republicans"

You mean there is actually more than one here?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 7:42pm

As a former one & now inactive independent, I would have to say Chertoff shot himself in the foot. Where old GWB found him is a mystery. While I am not in the hate GWB & everything he stands for club, old Dubya has made monumental boo boos. After reaching a high point after 9/11, it all went downhill after he landed on the carrier. He has done a credible job on the economy but other than that & his actions to go after Al Quda instead of waiting for them to hit again, he has been a total flop. This should put an end to the rumor I support everything he does. I do not. Other than the above, he has been totally forgettable

Since GWB has nothing more to lose at this point, he needs to fire this idiot's sorry ass

[RadneyKay]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 7:43pm

"Why do Bush and Homeland Security think New York is NOT worth protecting?"

Becasue New York elected Hillary to the Senate. If New York is wiped-out, then that is just natural selection: the stupid die.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 7:45pm

No Chertoff is an idiot who has a hard on for new York. This to him is pay back

This guy make the old FEMA director look like a genius

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 07:45 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 7:53pm

Thanks, Roxy. I appreciate the clarification.

Ignore RodneyK--he will be gone soon.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:00pm

It should prove interesting what Dubya & Chertoff have to say. A big misunderstanding won't cut it. Methinks both need to stay as far away from New York as possible

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:02pm

It probably has something to do with tax revenue, and NYC's ability to fund more of its own security than say, Savannah.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:03pm

I don't know about you, Roxy, but I think "Homeland Security" was nothing but a massive machine for putting GRAFT into the pockets of Bush's cronies.

That's why Chertoff got the job--good old-fashioned Bush family cronyism: Hire the incompetents who support you and give them mucho moolah!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:04pm

Our already backbrakingly high taxes are already spoken for by every special interest group you can think of. Carry on

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:07pm

No, CK--here's the dubious Republican reasoning:

==

ABC News

The Blotter

No Icons, No Monuments Worth Protecting

June 01, 2006 12:18 PM

Richard Esposito Reports:

New York has no national monuments or icons, according to the Department of Homeland Security form obtained by ABC News. That was a key factor used to determine that New York City should have its anti-terror funds slashed by 40 percent--from $207.5 million in 2005 to $124.4 million in 2006.

"All I can tell you is if you look at their worksheets, and it says that New York City doesn't have any high visibility national icons ... I mean, I don't have to list the Brooklyn Bridge, the United Nations, Rockefeller Center, the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building and the Stock Exchange," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in response to ABC News' questions.

The formula did not consider as landmarks or icons: The Empire State Building, The United Nations, The Statue of Liberty and others found on several terror target hit lists. It also left off notable landmarks, such as the New York Public Library, Times Square, City Hall and at least three of the nation's most renowned museums: The Guggenheim, The Metropolitan and The Museum of Natural History.

"I think the facts are clear," Bloomberg said. "What they've really done is taken what was supposed to be threat-based and just started to distribute it as normal pork."
No Icons, No Monuments Worth Protecting

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:08pm

Well, if that's the case it's pure bullchit. However I don't see how this relates to contract payola.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:10pm

Sorry to disappoint Joey but there is no way I or anyone can have a rational discussion with you as you do not have an open mind re GWB. You hate the guy pure & simple so what i say would be lost on you. You are entitled to your opinion . Hopefully you are not that naive to beieve that whoever is in power does not reward their politcal cronies. It is call doing business as usual in Washinton

Part of Homeland Security - a name I hate by the way - is screening at airports. It does have a purpose , after you get over the name , after a major overhaul to get rid of political cronyism. Of course, you could say this about the entire Federal Government

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 08:10 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/1/06 at 8:29pm

Hillary and REPUBLICAN Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, who was blindsided by Bush on this, sent Michael Chertoff a few postcards from NY's landmarks:

Is there anyone in the administration who is NOT an idiot?


Dear Secretary Chertoff: Just a quick note from New York's many national monuments and icons. Wish you were here! Hillary and Pete

Updated On: 6/1/06 at 08:29 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 6/13/06 at 8:46pm

ah....that gets sent to craig, NOW.

[peggyandvelma]

Posted: 6/14/06 at 12:22am

I wish I could answer your question, seeing as I'm a rather conservative Republican, but I cannot. I'm just not that educated on politics as you all are.

With that said: PalJoey, I wanted to take a second to say thanks for keeping us in the know about political happenings. Though we can see you are very liberal and hate Pres. Bush, it's good to see someone on the boards being active (and I know that there are plenty of others). I don't agree with everything that you say, but thanks anyway.