Bring It On!

Bush Wants to Yank Bomb Prevention Funding

August 11th, 2006 | by Omnipotent Poobah |

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, Dubya continued his winning ways by trying to divert $6 million planned for developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Atta boy George. Way to fight those “terrists”.

[tag]politics, bush, homeland+security, explosives+detection, crapweasels, omnipotent+poobah, bring+it+on[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 26 Responses to “Bush Wants to Yank Bomb Prevention Funding”

  2. By ken grandlund on Aug 11, 2006 | Reply

    Just another example of how this president is doing ‘everything possible to keep ‘merka safe.’



  3. By Omnipotent Poobah on Aug 11, 2006 | Reply

    He IS an inspiration, isn’t he?

  4. By Liberal Army Wife on Aug 11, 2006 | Reply

    If we want this funded… make sure  haliburton is the chief sponsor!

  5. By Dusty on Aug 11, 2006 | Reply

    God such an inspiration poobie..I mean..we all strive to be lying bags of batshit don’t we? Its the American way!

  6. By manapp99 on Aug 12, 2006 | Reply

    6 million cut from 732 million spent. Probably about the amount wasted in office supply theft by the union governmemt employees. Get real folks, this is just a reminder that everything the government does is overfunded because of waste, fraud and abuse. The 6 million is not likely to make any difference. And some of you idiots want to allow the government to run health care.

  7. By Dusty on Aug 12, 2006 | Reply

    You know Manapp..when you refer to readers as idiots it allows an assessment of you too..such as a pompous bag of hot air..try refraining from needless nouns that show your ignorance and lack of class.

    6 mil might be a drop in the bucket to you, but its not to me. Its still a large amount of cash anyway you slice or dice it. In the big picture, no,its not..but taken in context it is. 

  8. By Sandy on Aug 12, 2006 | Reply

    W had his reason but of course you are too stupid to figure it out or research it.

    Just look at everything he does as a typical lunatic left-wing fringe nut. Keep making yourselves look dumb.


  9. By Dusty on Aug 12, 2006 | Reply

    He had a reason? You fuckwit! His reason is simple..the GWOT is a bunch of hooey..why else would he spew bs about the grand War on Terror and then do the following, besides trying to move the 6 million funding:

    “The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

    The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.”

    Link to the info is in this article.  

    Come on Sandtroll, I am dying to see your logic on these.. 


  10. By Sandy on Aug 12, 2006 | Reply

    They have 732 MILLION DOLLARS to spend. They have a SURPLUS of 200 MILLION. 6 million isn’t going to be missed by anyone. And it’s for a good reason. You just don’t know what it is. Duh…

  11. By Dusty on Aug 12, 2006 | Reply

    We don’t have a surplus..what country are you talking about?

  12. By Parabellum on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    The bombers were not planning to bring explosives onto the planes.  They were planning to carry hydrogen peroxide and acetone onto the planes and MAKE the explosives on board.



  13. By Dusty on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Parabellum..are you even on the right thread? You one is talking about the “bombers” as you call them..its about the government and their spending or lack thereof on security..stay on topic ok? thanks :)
    And, I like how you call them “bombers’ and then say they aren’t..make up your little mind.. 

  14. By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Technically they are alleged bombers. Innocent till proven guilty is still true in the UK, after all.

  15. By Dusty on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    o my god..this thread isn’t about bombers..alleged or otherwise!

    Sorry I am cranky this morning on the left coast. :p 

  16. By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Well, Dusty, it is about the withdrawal of 6 million dollars for bomb prevention. Given recent events, they have to at least be considered somewhat relevant, don’t they?

    But, I shall refrain from mentioning bombers that words again in this thread. And just point out that Sandy does have a point 6 million in a budget of 700 million is not a colossal amount. Now I know it is a colossal amount in absoloute terms, but in the context of the budget it is unlikely to be all that significant. It does send rather an interesting message, though, I admit. 

  17. By Dusty on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Do you consider the $200 million they failed to spend a small amount as well? They are asleep at the security wheel it seems to me Paul.

  18. By manapp99 on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Dusty rags on me for calling those who think the government would be a good administrator of health care idiots, however he promtly calls Sandy a fuckwit and a sand troll then calls parabellum a idiot. OK.  The relationship to this story is that the government is the most inefficient administrator of funds in every sector including homeland security or the military. In those fields the government is the only choice so we have to put up with the ineptness and waste to some degree to achieve the goal of security. In the area of health care we DO have a choice and those that wish to give the national government the power to mess it up are IMO idiots.

  19. By Dusty on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Sandy is our regular troll and I used para’s own word against him/her..whats your point?

    The government is farming out much of our security and intelligence needs to the tune of 6 Billion bucks you find that acceptable  manapp? 

  20. By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Well, no, 6 million in 700 million is under 1%. 200 million in 700 million is more like 30%. That’s quite a lot not to have spent. I’m not disagreeing that this is a problem, just that 6 million is not as big a problem as its being made out. 200 million, is a big problem.

    And, manapp, I think most people here look at how expensive the current system is and notice that in every other country with a more direct government role it is both cheaper in terms of amount of national income spent and provides more coverage. Doesn’t mean that the government is an efficient operator, it isn’t, but the evidence does seem to suggest that in healthcare more government doesn’t always cause a problem.

  21. By Dusty on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    I think the point is..they are screaming about the GWOT and yet not really doing me that means its all abunch of hooey..if you can leave $200 mil laying in the bank so to speak, but try to move $6 mil that was allocated for something else..the right hand doesnt seem to know what the left is doing…or it doesnt’ care what the other is doing..hard to say with these guys running the show..

  22. By manapp99 on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    Dusty, you can read the previous post by you to garner the point.  Paul, I know this is slightly off point to the discussion, however I would challange your assertion that national health care is working well in other countries. Case in point are the Canadians who come to the states to get surgery without have to be on a waiting list. Also the drain on the economy with any socialized system such as in Europe. Market economics are far more effecient than socialized ones. The relevence to the issue is that waste in any area of the government is not unusual or new. My father was a lifer in the Navy and argued many times the waste in the military. Waste in homeland securty is not the point. The point is getting the job done and the record shows that the USA and Brits are doing just that. There will be waste and money allocated might not get spent but there are few alternatives at this time. This is not a George Bush administration problem, it is governmental operation problem.

  23. By Omnipotent Poobah on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    At the risk of kicking off another circular discussion that misses the point I was trying to make with this post, here’s what I think:

    Whether $6 million is enough money to make a difference isn’t the point. The point is that we can find money to guard bowling alleys, roller rinks, and petting zoos, but we can’t find money to develop technology to detect bombs, guard ports, search airline cargo, or make public transportation safe. Ill-spent money is ill-spent money and wasting time on comparitively unimportant projects is still a waste, something I think DHS is rather good at.

    I’d like to point out that the government, like a corporation, is only as efficient as it’s leaders lead it to be. Because you and I elect those leaders, we are in essence the board of directors for USA Inc.

    If you were invested in a company that racked up the type of performance the curret CEO has, you’d be calling (quite rightfully) for his scalp. That’s what I’m doing. I only wish more of my fellow directors weren’t also behaving like the former directors of Enron, who believe that doing nothing to change a bad situation resulted in the collapse of the company. A collapse that hurt all of us, including everyone who has commented on this post.

    So I’ll put it this way…I think anyone who would buy stock in a “company” run by Bush is a fool.


  24. By Dusty on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    thank you poobie..

  25. By manapp99 on Aug 13, 2006 | Reply

    The government, unlike a corporation does not have to make a profit. This is the root of the issue. Waste, fraud and corruption at all levels of government is the rule rather than the exception. It is ludicrous to think that this administration is any worse at controling how money is spent. The elected officials in Washington number 537. 435 in the house, 100 in the senate and 2 in the White House. Then you have the short term appointees. The main stay in the government is the career worker. Their number is in the millions and come from all political stripe. The mismanagement of funds is not GWB’s fault any more than it was under Clinton. The not having to make a profit part is the crux of the problem. Using arguments such as the one you have put forward about the 6 million dollars is just another round of baseless Bush Bashing. Didn’t you see the same from the Clinton haters in the 90’s? Go after the staffers who “really” spend the money if you want. but it will do no good. They are union and cannot be fired. The corruption in entrenched.

  1. 2 Trackback(s)

  2. Aug 17, 2006: Bring it On! » Blog Archive » We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us
  3. Jun 25, 2007: estate pittsburg real tx

Post a Comment