OK, so the GOP is upset with the underwear bomber security failure and they continue to try to use it to make political hay. Yet, oddly, they also continue to block the appointment of the new head of the TSA.
HuffPo states
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has placed a hold on the president’s choice to head the TSA over the senator’s concern that the new leader would let TSA screeners join a labor union. This has some Democrats blaming politics for the vacancy.
Curious why the mainstream media has not picked this up yet and pointed out the hypocrisy of the GOP simultaneously blaming the administration while feverishly working to make it fail through obstruction and mistruths.
Discuss
35 Comments . Leave a comment below.I'm sure this is accurate, but linking back to the story would be a good idea.
Are you saying if DeMint let it go through 3 weeks before the security SNAFU and the new TSA head would allow the TSA brainiac workers to unionize, then that would have stopped the underwear bomber?
Are you seriously trying to make this point. Obama's appointment would have prevented the event? Want to take odds on that?
If a Democratic Senator had put the hold on TSA's would-be chief, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
I was upset back when the Dems were holding up SCOTUS votes, but I think these aren't equivalent.
To date the record is:
GOP security managers: 9/11
Democratic security managers: failed underwear bomber
That doesn't seem much of a security record for Republicans to run on.
it's also what you do in response to something happening. The 9/11 event was tragic and completely unexpected. If there was another such event after 9/11 and GWB had not done everything possible then he should be open to the same criticism. It has been almost 9 years since 9/11 and we still have the left and right hands working in the dark. Unforgivable no matter who is in charge... but whomever is in charge is responsible.
Please, let's not open up that can of worms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
It was so unexpected, that Bush went on vacation for the rest of August.
Has candidate Brown said his position on this? I'd be curious to know his opinion. I feel confident I know Atty. General Coakley's opinion on the matter.
block on Obama's TSA nominee could be his Waterloo.
Blocking the nominee because of his competence would be appropriate but blocking him becuase of an ideological beef about whether TSA workers can organize is putting politics before national security.
Without a department head, there's no telling what important security initiatives could have been accomplished by now that are not.
If Republicans are going to play the national security card and politicize everything in order to get re-elected, then they should expect to wear it around their necks when there's blow back.
Remember when Bush Republicans were crying like whinny titty babies about judicial nominees getting an up or down vote? How is this so different? Obama's TSA nominee should get an up or down vote and DeMint should stop making us all less safe because of his petty concern about unionized work forces.
Actually, several of the major papers have had articles about this. Going so far as to make the argument in the terms you state would run counter to their "objectivity" credo, but they have definitely pointed it out and made the contradiction evident.
Here's a recent LA Times article on DeMint's blocking of the confirmation: http://www.latimes.com/busines...
While the politicians carp on about what airline security is, I can't find one person that believes the Christmas incident was anything but a setup. The perpetrator was on a watch list, his father snitched on him, witnesses say he was lead through security in the Netherlands (which, I am told, has electronic strip search) by another man. Witnesses say that while the guy was messing with his 3 ounces of explosive in the plane, another man was filming the event. Did something go wrong or did everything go right?
Yemen is now the center of terrorism in the world we are told. Yada, yada, yada. Now we can justify the wholesale slaughter of people in Yemen.
Today's news, does scare the bejesus out of me. A vessel filled with LNG from anywhere on earth presents a formidable threat when it comes to a high population area such as Everett. No more volatile if it comes from Yemen or any other country, my concern is that its detonation by terrorists, real or imaginary, could cause horrendous casualty. Would such an event be staged to ensure an invasion of Yemen? Do we trust our government to tell us the truth and protect its citizens? What's the track record?
"That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable." Thomas Paine
on the 9/11 truthers?
Today the Detroit News published an article about the arrest of the 2nd man on drug charges. The man that didn't exist before. So they lied before, now they tell the truth...
In my short years on this planet I've heard the government deny many things, only to admit to them when there was too much evidence to deny. The CIA planting viruses in the NYC subway, exposing soldiers to radiation, Love canal, Three Mile Island. Need I go on? I would be naive to believe that a sea-change has happened and the government doesn't do this stuff anymore.
In government agencies the Public Affairs Officers are referred to as the "Agency Liars". I take anything I'm told with a grain of salt.
From the Detroit News article:
So, that relates to this incident how, exactly?
So law enforcement let the bomber people mix with other flights. Sure. That must be the case. I bet the bomber had yellowcake, too.
As a reminder the August 6, 2001, GB's presidential daily briefing was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
Full transcript here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...
I did not state that having a current TSA head would have stopped the underwear bomber. But, it is clear that we need the position filled. Now!
Remember Obama said he wouldn't be "rucshed" into a hasty decision regarding the Afghanistan policy (and people here supported him). Well, maybe Sen DeMint was right in not "rushing" a decision about the TSA...
UPDATE...
Hmm... now what? Let me guess the response from BMGers... "It was a long time ago so of course he forgot" "Hey, compared to Geitner's tax problems, this is small change..."
DeMint is not vindicated by the article: DeMint was holding up the nomination because he feared the nominee might allow the TSA to unionize, not for the issues raised in the article.
Can a Senator oppose a person for reasons like not wanted TSA to be unionized. I mean, I know it makes good headlines to say DeMint is doing this and endangering lives (which he obviously ISN'T). TSA does not have a Head right now and I can think of a hundred valid reasons for not hiring any particular nominee. Maybe, just maybe, there is legitimate concerns of the TSA being unionized and that causing a hinderance in what is needed to protect us. Can they strike and shutdown airports? Can they refuse to do something which an airport deems necessary without having to get the OK from the union Steward? Could our military exist in a battlefield if they were "unionized"?
Think in an unbiased non-partisan manner for a moment and ask if there is any basis for this objection. I happen to agree with him and don;t give a rat's ass if DeMint is Rep or a Dem. I happen to believe this because Im anti-union and think unions destroy everything they touch (from first hand experience). Think of running your business (before you sold it) and living by union rules!
Two things:
1) A nominee should never be held up by a single Senator. If DeMint doesn't believe this nominee is appropriate he is free to speak against him on the floor and try to pursuade his colleagues behind the scenes.
2) A nominee should be judges on his own merits alone and not be held hostage to another policy debate. If Congress wants to pass a law regarding the unionization of the TSA they are free to do so, but that question should be kept separate.
As for the merits they should follow the same rules as any other agency. I am of the opinion that if certain people are considered too important to be allowed to strike, they need to be treated as if they are too important to be allowed to strike.
Like police officers and firemen?
The air traffic controllers weren't allowed to under Reagan -- it violated their contract. Why would TSA be different?
It depends entirely on what "something" is, of course. That's no different from current conditions I might add.
The TSA isn't military. They're law enforcement, just like police and fire. Hence, irrelevant.
Well I'm glad I didn't have to fish for the real reason why you (and DeMint IMO) are against the nomination. It's not about what's best for the TSA, and it's certainly not about specific legitimate concerns with unions and the TSA (unless you've got something you didn't mention). It's about a hatred of unions, despite their legal right to organize.
...should be the same government-wide regardless of what that policy is. It should not be ad hoc.
I hope these guys are making high five-figures, but the government could always just say this is how much we're offering; whether or not you apply based on that is up to you. Of course, I suppose you could say that with air travel shut down, you've just guaranteed no plane-based attacks!:)
HIGH five-figures... like $80-90,000 per year? Seriously???
My security is worth at least that much to me. You want them to be professional and stick around (and not be tempted into looking the other way due to a bribe). Certainly they are a lot more important to society than the millions-a-year professional athletes.
...60s-70sK is fine for rank and file with 80s-90sK for supervisors. Plenty of police officers make in this range.
Their personal risk of injury or death on the job is much lower. The amount of training required is much lower. The breadth of responsibility is much lower.
I'm not arguing that luggage screener ought be a minimum wage job -- but to compare the job of a screener with a police officer seems a stretch to me.
And really... a bribe? It's one thing to take a bribe to give someone a job or a liquor license or a building permit or to let them off for a crime like drug sales or prostitution. It's quite another to take a bribe to allow someone to blow up a freaking airplane.
Pay competitive salaries, sure... but let's not overstate. Frankly, a single poorly performing bus driver puts my life at risk far more than a single poorly performing TSA employee.
This essay from 2003 offers a different perspective. It suggests that we need to reconsider how we think about intelligence gathering before we can fix the system we have. Certainly we can do better. But it is not as simple as just getting more information.
http://www.gladwell.com/2003/2...
Witnesses reported this guy was escorted onto the plane by a James Bond type character. Zero mention of this via mainstream channels yet it is all over the New World Order anti-globalist internet as a deliberate false flag news bandwidth occupying precursor for the war on Yemen.
Don't say I didn't bring it up.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 18 Jun 5:44 PM