TSA is Bush's another FEMA

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Katrina - 20 Sep 2005 22:28 GMT

Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure. To
compensate for its lack of self-confidence and incompetence, TSA has taken
the fun and pleasure out of air travel. With its indignifying and barbaric
style and procedures, TSA have been enjoying its molestation of
passengers' dignity in the name of "national security", which is based more
on hypes than substance and logical ground.

It's just matter of time that the world will find out the true nature of
TSA. Like FEMA, TSA will be another one of Bush's many failures.

Reply to this Message

Donald Newcomb - 20 Sep 2005 23:34 GMT

> Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
> real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure.

The obvious failure was the low-bid or brother-in-law contractor security
operations that allowed 9-11 to happen. TSA may not be prefect but they are
light-years away from the nincompoops that were doing security screening
before.

Signature

Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Reply to this Message

Frank Clarke - 22 Sep 2005 02:31 GMT

<43309203_1@news1.prserv.net>

>> Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
>> real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>light-years away from the nincompoops that were doing security screening
>before.

Same nincompoops, different uniforms. FAA regs ch.107 (since carved away, alas)
placed pre-911 'security' squarely in the hands of the AIRPORT rather than the
AIRLINES.

It is almost universally true that airports in the US were/are owned/operated by
governments or chartered agencies which do nothing else except run the airport.

Those who were responsible before are the same people who are responsible now,
but a quick little game of three-card-monte has left most people wondering where
the pea went... Hint: it's exactly where it always was.

(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

Reply to this Message

Donald Newcomb - 22 Sep 2005 11:27 GMT

> It is almost universally true that airports in the US were/are owned/operated by
> governments or chartered agencies which do nothing else except run the airport.

However, the governements in question were city or county, which have highly
variable performance. So it just depended on which airport you flew through.
I distinctly recall the embarassment I felt, as an American, after seeing
the professional security operations in overseas airports (e.g. Bahrain) and
then returning to the mess in the US. Those bafoons in Chicago held a
special place in my heart. At least now, there is a single agency in charge
and if there is a problem, you know whom to complain to. I agree that TSA is
not perfect. For one thing, I would like ot see a more professional
appearance. There is also a serious problem when it comes to screening
"special needs" passengers. My brother-in-law has a back that is mostly
metal. He sets off every scanner within 100 yards. He also can't bend or
turn very well. He has just about given up flying because of the problems he
encounters in the security screening process.

Signature

Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Reply to this Message

Jack Campin - bogus address - 22 Sep 2005 16:39 GMT

> I distinctly recall the embarassment I felt, as an American, after seeing
> the professional security operations in overseas airports (e.g. Bahrain) and
> then returning to the mess in the US.

Well if you wanted America to be run on the same lines as that nice
Mr Henderson's Bahrain, thanks to the Patriot Act you got it.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Reply to this Message

Frank Clarke - 23 Sep 2005 02:24 GMT

<43328a90_1@news1.prserv.net>

>... At least now, there is a single agency in charge
>and if there is a problem, you know whom to complain to.

If only complaining were enough... As it is, their typical response to
complaints is (diplomatically) equivalent to "eat sh.t and die".

(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

Reply to this Message

Cyrus Afzali - 23 Sep 2005 15:22 GMT

While I'm no fan of the current regime, it should be noted that
nothing got on the planes that was contraband/illegal, so you can't
really fault the "rent a cops." The obvious failure was the U.S.
intelligence gathering system that had operatives in the Middle East
who couldn't even speak the language. If the CIA and our
intelligence-gathering operations were held to the fire the way other
govt. functions are, we might get something done.

Reply to this Message

Runge - 22 Sep 2005 20:51 GMT

Can't you go elsewhere with your bush

> Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
> real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure. To
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> It's just matter of time that the world will find out the true nature of
> TSA. Like FEMA, TSA will be another one of Bush's many failures.

Reply to this Message

DC - 24 Sep 2005 23:12 GMT

> Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
> real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure. To
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It's just matter of time that the world will find out the true nature
> of TSA. Like FEMA, TSA will be another one of Bush's many failures.

I thought the TSA was what the Democrats wanted with regard to increased
airport security after 9/11. Didn't the President want to use private firms
the theory being that they could be held more accountable for mistakes (not
the operative word "theory"). Then the President wanted to relax the
employment regulations with regard to the TSA so it would be easier to fire
bad employees but the oposition insisted that they be treated as any other
federal employees (un-fireable).

So while the TSA may be aweful, don't blame Bush for this mess. Oh, and
FEMA was around a long time before Bush.

Reply to this Message

Go Fig - 24 Sep 2005 23:18 GMT

> > Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
> > real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure. To
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I thought the TSA was what the Democrats wanted with regard to increased
> airport security after 9/11.

It is.

> Didn't the President want to use private firms
> the theory being that they could be held more accountable for mistakes (not
> the operative word "theory").

He did.

> Then the President wanted to relax the
> employment regulations with regard to the TSA so it would be easier to fire
> bad employees but the oposition insisted that they be treated as any other
> federal employees (un-fireable).

He tried.

> So while the TSA may be aweful, don't blame Bush for this mess. Oh, and
> FEMA was around a long time before Bush.

It sure was.

jay
Sat Sep 24, 2005
mailto:gofig@mac.com

Reply to this Message

john - 25 Sep 2005 00:28 GMT

>> Air travel after Bush's TSA got a hold of the airport gates have been a
>> real pain. TSA, another one of Bush's FEMA, is an obvious failure. To
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>So while the TSA may be aweful, don't blame Bush for this mess. Oh, and
>FEMA was around a long time before Bush.

Oh, yeah, there was FEMA pre Bush, with competent experienced
management, and then there is Bush's FEMA with incompent political
hacks in charge

Reply to this Message

Frank Clarke - 25 Sep 2005 19:47 GMT

<t5obj1tqdr5jmfq8cqnviteipi6gaive8c@4ax.com>

>Oh, yeah, there was FEMA pre Bush, with competent experienced
>management, and then there is Bush's FEMA with incompent political
>hacks in charge

I personally know (a relative by marriage) a reasonably-highly-placed FEMA
official and I suspect the above is supposition without much in the way of
'factual basis'.

(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

Reply to this Message

john - 25 Sep 2005 21:01 GMT

><t5obj1tqdr5jmfq8cqnviteipi6gaive8c@4ax.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>official and I suspect the above is supposition without much in the way of
>'factual basis'.

You want "factual basis"?

How about:

The Chief of Staff is a guy named Patrick Rhode. He planned events for
President Bush’s campaign. Rhode has no emergency management
experience whatsoever.

His first position with the Bush Administration was as special
assistant to the President and deputy director of National Advance
Operations, a position he assumed in January 2001. Previously, Mr.
Rhode served as deputy director of National Advance Operations for the
George W. Bush Presidential Campaign, in Austin, Texas.

The Deputy Chief of Staff is Scott Morris. He was a press flak for
Bush’s presidential campaign. Previously, he worked for the company
that produced Bush’s campaign commercials. He also has no emergency
management experience.

Albough?

Brown?

You want more politcal hacks?

Reply to this Message

Frank Clarke - 28 Sep 2005 23:01 GMT

<clvdj1l289brlg6o4rgh1mjq48cdomhr8v@4ax.com>

>><t5obj1tqdr5jmfq8cqnviteipi6gaive8c@4ax.com>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>How about:

I didn't mean to imply that Bush's FEMA wasn't incompetent; FEMA, even pre-Bush,
was riddled with incompetents.

(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)

Reply to this Message

Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / September 2005

TSA is Bush's another FEMA