Do we even need bush's dept. of homeland security?

[Philosoraptor]

bush re-named America, Der Homeland, and he gave us the snappily titled department of homeland security, which spied right up our asses, and made us miserable at the airport.

I am for eliminating EVERYTHING the nazi neo cons left in their wake, including this ridiculous department of spying on we the people. Its a waste of money, and we have better priorities.

[Traveling_Home]

1. I don't think we even need signing statements!!! nt

[FudaFuda]

13. Agree. Too many Bush 'innovations' have been retained. n/t

[Caliman73]

21. Signing statements are not a Bush creation

They have been around, and used by other presidents long before Bush. Although I disagree with signing statements as well because they encroach on the separation of power, we have to be accurate in our criticisms of Bush and his administration. The problem is that Bush used the signing statement to the point of abuse and as a tool to implement policies in a way that was contrary to the way in which the laws were designed. My critique is that Bush used the signing statement as a cowardly way to avoid political battles. He knew that signing statement would not be questioned or possibly could not be challenged. His not an innovator he is an abuser.

[phantom power]

2. I was hoping it would be dismantled...

but govt organizations are typically easier to create than discontinue. Ironically, that is something the GOP never tires of complaining about, unless it's a govt organization related to war or force projection.

[nichomachus]

3. We do need better coordination among the agencies

but this barrel of pork wasn't it.

The problem is that the CIA, which really runs our government, isn't going to coordinate with anything. It's a curious mix of spies and corporations, so it has its own agenda -- and simply kills anyone who gets in its way.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

14. WHY DO I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU?

[begin_within]

4. To protect us from the neocons

[Philosoraptor]

As if...

[peace13]

5. Get rid of the DHS.

It's purpose was to line the pockets of * and his crime friends. Put the money back into the organizations that do the actual work of keeping America safe.

[Ohio Joe]

6. No

I do think we should have a department that co-ordinates information sharing between the various intelligence agencies.

[pleah]

7. Dismantle it now.

What a waste of money. imo

[w4rma]

8. No. We do not need it. (nt)

[G_j]

9. no!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. they never really did inspect everyone going on a train

they only think that planes are important. bush's homeland security was nothing but a front.

[HereSince1628]

11. Now that there is no functional posse commitatus DoD's northern command

can pretty much do what they want. It seems that for budgetary reasons that monster should be eliminated.

Having this sort of redundancy and flexibility seems to have been part of the Cheney administration's desire to preserve protect and defend the mechanisms of their Dicktatorship.

[NeedleCast]

12. It Might Have Been a Good Idea if not Done by BushCo.

As someone who spent seven years working in defense intelligence, I undersand why there was a need for a department like Homeland Security. Back in the late 90's and early 00s you had dozens of defense intelligence services all crawling over each other trying to get a bigger share of the federal purse. Agencies wouldn't work together or give each other information out of selfishnes...not caring if it hurt the defensive effort overall. When talks about creating an umbrella organization started up (not that I had any sort of inside information, I was a low ranking troop in the Army at the time), it seemed like a good idea. A way for a large number of organizations to pool their resources instead of all fighting over a share of the pie.

But like you said, BushCo made a total hash of it and now we just have an extra organization who's "job" appears to be nothing more than big brother. I'm all for getting rid of DHS. I have faith that Obama could do it better and create an organization that actually served a purpose but it needs to start with gutting DHS.

[ensho]

15. NO we do not need it

it or its ugly name 'homeland'

[RedCloud]

16. They engaged in voter suppression.

I am looking at a few cases of folks who have very legitimate cases for being granted citizenship. They are being asked to redo their fingerprints which "expired". They "expired" because the dorks at Homeland (who are overlords of the INS)let them by giving pro-McCain applicants first rights. So those butchers from Iraq et alia were granted immediate citizenship, so they could vote for McCain. The cases I saw (five of five!) were from 2007! And they come from China, Viet-nam, Russia, New Zealand, Ireland. Do you see any potential Mccain votes? These folks and probably thousands others were denied their right to vote while freaking McCainites got instant processing (did not wait more than 1 year)...

[Winterblues]

17. I thought we already had a National Defense Agency

I guess when Condi ran that Agency Bush* decided they were not up to the job so he created a whole new Dept. It alwasy did the job before Condi took it over. Remember Democrats kept America safe for over forty years while they were in Charge. In less than nine months Bush* allowed a major strike against us...

[Kansas Wyatt]

18. Can we just keep the locked cockpit doors in place and dump...

The rest of airline and airport security?

[Greyhound]

19. Another "Hell No!" n/t

[earth mom]

20. The sooner they kick it to the curb the better. The name is also way too Nazi-esque for my taste.

:yoiks:

[Enrique]

22. it's not Bush's DHS

he opposed it until he caved to Congress.

[pnutbutr]

23. Even my very right wing father-in-law

vehemently opposed the creation of DHS saying simply that if you have communications problems between agencies, adding another one isn't going to help.