FINALLY! Bipartisan Agreement

[Mephisto]

Bush Staff Wanted Bomb-Detect Cash Moved
By John Solomon
The Associated Press

Friday 11 August 2006

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

emphasis mine

For the whole article . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081206Y.shtml

 

[Apollyon]

Truthout really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to damn the admin with in this story. I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about. However, I wonder if a Federal building had been hit, and if liquid explosives weren't the topic de jour, would they whine that the admin wanted to divert 6 million to the FPS but a bi-partisan commission prevented the funds from being transfered? Doubtful. That wouldn't be Truthout's particular flavor of kool-aid.

As someone else in here once observed though, any website that has "truth, progress, or think" in their name generally doesn't subscribe to any of those notions.

 

[varwoche]

Corrected for accuracy...

Truthout Associated Press really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to damn the admin with in this story. I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about. However, I wonder if a Federal building had been hit, and if liquid explosives weren't the topic de jour, would they whine that the admin wanted to divert 6 million to the FPS but a bi-partisan commission prevented the funds from being transfered? Doubtful. That wouldn't be Truthout's Associated Press' particular flavor of kool-aid.

 

[Apollyon]

Corrected for accuracy...

Oh. Great. Thanks for pointing that out.

I shall start linking to Free Republic to provide URLs to press stories. After all, we all know Free Republic has no particular agenda behind presenting stories with a particular viewpoint. They certainly would never scrape the bottom of the barrel just to enhance the flavor of their own kool-aid, would they?

 

[varwoche]

Oh. Great. Thanks for pointing that out.

I shall start linking to Free Republic to provide URLs to press stories. After all, we all know Free Republic has no particular agenda behind presenting stories with a particular viewpoint. They certainly would never scrape the bottom of the barrel just to enhance the flavor of their own kool-aid, would they?

You were aware it was an AP story and yet you still reemed Truthout? Or are you simply adjusting your rant after the fact?

 

[Apollyon]

You were aware it was an AP story and yet you still reemed Truthout? Or are you simply adjusting your rant after the fact?

I never claimed that Truthout wrote the story in the first place. But nice try running blocking for them.

Are you saying that Truthout doesn't make their agenda and political slant very clear?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Good one Apollyon. Let's make sure we don't discus the OP subject ....

Charlie (silence the messenger) Monoxide

 

[varwoche]

I never claimed that Truthout wrote the story in the first place.

Then I suggest you be more precise with your words in order not to create misconceptions.

Are you saying that Truthout doesn't make their agenda and political slant very clear?

To the limited extent that I'm familiar w/them, I'm not saying that or even vaguely suggesting it.

 

[Apollyon]

Then I suggest you be more precise with your words in order not to create misconceptions.

I would suggest you request clarification instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

To the limited extent that I'm familiar w/them, I'm not saying that or even vaguely suggesting it.

Then maybe you should find out? Knowing that information just might help you understand why I wrote my original response to the OP.

 

[Tony]

Bush Staff Wanted Bomb-Detect Cash Moved
By John Solomon
The Associated Press

Friday 11 August 2006

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

emphasis mine

For the whole article . . .

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081206Y.shtml

Your america hating is sickening!!!

 

[Apollyon]

Good one Apollyon. Let's make sure we don't discus the OP subject ....

Charlie (silence the messenger) Monoxide

Help yourself, Charlie.

 

[varwoche]

I would suggest you request clarification instead of shooting first and asking questions later.

This is basically what I did. No matter, let's try again (underlines added)...

I guess if you dig deep enough you can always find something miniscule to beef about. However, I wonder if a Federal building had been hit, and if liquid explosives weren't the topic de jour, would they whine that the admin wanted to divert 6 million to the FPS...

Who exactly beefed and whined and could you quote some of the beefing and whining?

 

[Apollyon]

This is basically what I did.

I see.

I was not aware that "corrected for accuracy" was actually a question.

No matter, let's try again (underlines added)... Who exactly beefed and whined and could you quote some of the beefing and whining?

Sure.

The beef: The "Bush admin" (Nice generalization. Notice they don't specifically mention who was actually responsible. Surely just an oversight.) supposedly wanted to divert 6 million dollars from a 763 million dollar budget. (You have to look the budget figure up yourself since the article apparently doesn't deem the information relevant enough to mention.) Reportedly this money was dedicated to explosives detection technology. (The article leaves ti up to the reader to fill in the gap as to whether this was for detecting liquid explosives, plastic, or whatever.)

The whine: Since the Islamic fascists (Oops, I meant "British terror suspects," as per AP's nomenclature.) had a plan to attack us with liquid explosives, let's gin up some article on how the Bush admin is supposedly failing the people by way of a department within a department within the Department of Homeland Security. Let's pretend we should have a system in place right now to detect liquid explosives and fearmonger a bit.

The real problem that the article gives the briefest mention of: The DHS has been testing explosives detection equipment for some years now and has not found a system yet that performs satisfactorily and consistently for detecting liquid explosives. That's why we have none in place as of yet.

AP note for future story: Hopefully this story will force the admin into rushing equipment in place to placate those we've fooled with this story so we can subsequently report how the admin blew 6 million dollars buying equipment that doesn't work worth a crap.

 

[corplinx]

While terrorists are busy hatching a plot to harm innocent white american children, the bush administration was busy gutting the very program racing to stop them.

Man, that AP writer should go to work for Reuters in Lebanon. He's got the right stuff for that job.

 

[varwoche]

Apollyon, you are going on about non-specific beefing and whining from unspecified beefers and whiners.

Specifically, can you please quote the beef/whine, and link precisely to the beefers/whiners? I hope you can understand my confusion seeing as the page Mephisto linked to contains ONLY the AP article with zero beefing/whining/commentary from Truthout.

 

[Apollyon]

Apollyon, you are going on about non-specific beefing and whining from unspecified beefers and whiners.

Specifically, can you please quote the beef/whine, and link precisely to the beefers/whiners? I hope you can understand my confusion seeing as the page Mephisto linked to contains ONLY the AP article with zero beefing/whining/commentary from Truthout.

Sure. I'll provide that information to you right after you prove to me that the people who run Truthout disagree with the content of the article and had no particular motivation for carrying it on their website. Also prove that they don't have a history of being anti-Bush. It may take some time and research as you're admittedly unfamiliar with them.

Why, I bet even Mephisto disagrees with the article and merely posted this thread to show what a dupe Truthout is to be had by a veiled hatchet-job article by the AP. Could you check on that as well and get back to me?

Thanks.

 

[Mephisto]

Are you saying that Truthout doesn't make their agenda and political slant very clear?

At least their motto isn't (laughingly), "Fair & Balanced."

 

[Mephisto]

Why, I bet even Mephisto disagrees with the article and merely posted this thread to show what a dupe Truthout is to be had by a veiled hatchet-job article by the AP. Could you check on that as well and get back to me?

Thanks.

No, you're wrong, Apollyon - I agree with the article and noted first that it was written by the Associated Press before I provided the link. Some people here have a knee jerk reaction to anything Truthout says, and I thought it was pretty funny that you did too, in spite of the fact that they're only quoting the Associated Press - but of course, the media is liberal (with the exception of Faux News).

(edited to add) I thought it interesting that the first major bipartisan agreement came from the inadequacies of Homeland Security.

 

[Apollyon]

At least their motto isn't (laughingly), "Fair & Balanced."

If that were their motto, it certainly would be a laugh. Apparently though, getting the "truth out" precludes one from being fair and balanced.

 

[Apollyon]

No, you're wrong, Apollyon - I agree with the article and noted first that it was written by the Associated Press before I provided the link. Some people here have a knee jerk reaction to anything Truthout says, and I thought it was pretty funny that you did too, in spite of the fact that they're only quoting the Associated Press - but of course, the media is liberal (with the exception of Faux News).

(edited to add) I thought it interesting that the first major bipartisan agreement came from the inadequacies of Homeland Security.

Yes, we know. The AP is only unfair when Fox News uses them. Only Fox News is skewed and biased.

And I thought the first bi-partisan agreement under Bush was voting in favor of the Iraq War Resolution? iirc, most of the Democrats were on-board with that too.