VeggieBoards banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/worried.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":worried:"><br><br><br><br><span style="color:#0000FF;"><b><span style="font-size:large;">Chemical Plants Still Unprotected</span></b></span><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Published: September 25, 2006<br><br><br><br>
Congress still has done nothing to protect Americans from a terrorist attack on chemical plants. Republican leaders want to give the impression that that has changed. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">But voters should not fall for the Republican spin.</span><br><br><br><br>
The federal government is spending extraordinary amounts of money and time protecting air travel from terrorist attacks. But Congress has not yet passed a law to secure the nations chemical plants, even though an attack on just one plant could kill or injure as many as 100,000 people. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">The sticking point has been the chemical industry, a heavy contributor to political campaigns, which does not want to pay the cost of reasonable safety measures.</span><br><br><br><br>
The Senate and the House spent many months carefully developing bipartisan chemical plant security bills. Both measures were far too weak, but they would have finally imposed real safety requirements on the chemical industry. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">The Republican leadership in Congress blocked both bills from moving forward.</span> Instead, whatever gets done about chemical plant security will apparently be decided behind closed doors, and inserted as a rider to a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.<br><br><br><br>
It is outrageous that something as important as chemical plant security is being decided in a back-room deal. It is regrettable that Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the chairwoman of the committee that produced the Senate bill, does not carry enough influence with her own partys leadership to get a strong chemical plant security bill passed. The deal itself, the likely details of which have emerged in recent days, is a near-complete cave-in to industry, and yet <b><span style="color:#0000FF;">more proof that when it comes to a choice between homeland security and the desires of corporate America, the Republican leadership always goes with big business.<br><br></span></b>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,669 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Silver</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/worried.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":worried:"><br><br><br><br><span style="color:#0000FF;"><b><span style="font-size:large;">Chemical Plants Still Unprotected</span></b></span><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Published: September 25, 2006<br><br><br><br>
Congress still has done nothing to protect Americans from a terrorist attack on chemical plants. Republican leaders want to give the impression that that has changed. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">But voters should not fall for the Republican spin.</span><br><br><br><br>
The federal government is spending extraordinary amounts of money and time protecting air travel from terrorist attacks. But Congress has not yet passed a law to secure the nations chemical plants, even though an attack on just one plant could kill or injure as many as 100,000 people. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">The sticking point has been the chemical industry, a heavy contributor to political campaigns, which does not want to pay the cost of reasonable safety measures.</span><br><br><br><br>
The Senate and the House spent many months carefully developing bipartisan chemical plant security bills. Both measures were far too weak, but they would have finally imposed real safety requirements on the chemical industry. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">The Republican leadership in Congress blocked both bills from moving forward.</span> Instead, whatever gets done about chemical plant security will apparently be decided behind closed doors, and inserted as a rider to a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.<br><br><br><br>
It is outrageous that something as important as chemical plant security is being decided in a back-room deal. It is regrettable that Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the chairwoman of the committee that produced the Senate bill, does not carry enough influence with her own partys leadership to get a strong chemical plant security bill passed. The deal itself, the likely details of which have emerged in recent days, is a near-complete cave-in to industry, and yet <b><span style="color:#0000FF;">more proof that when it comes to a choice between homeland security and the desires of corporate America, the Republican leadership always goes with big business.<br><br></span></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
If as you claimed earlier the US gov't was responsible for 9/11 why would you now care whether or not we spent money on securing chemical plants against terrorists which you claim were not responsible for attacking us ........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tame</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Um, if the government was behind 9/11, why waste money on security measures they know we won't need?</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Yes, it's interesting how arrogant and unresponsive the current administration is regarding implementing what the 9/11 Commission recommended.<br><br><br><br>
Makes you wonder what they know that they are not sharing with us.<br><br><br><br>
But what a master plan - first you cause a massive terrorist attack, blame it on your current enemy, then you can say to the the American citizens forevermore, "see? no more attacks. We are protecting you."<br><br><br><br>
"<i><b>You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."</b></i>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
Once again, it blows the mind that some people are convinced the government has such an impressive logistical capacity for these truly epic operations, and yet still botches simple things up.<br><br><br><br>
Edit: What, might I ask, could the government in any way do that would convince you, Silver, that they aren't involved in an epic conspiracy? Is there anything? If they had actually protected chemical plants by now, you'd just take it as evidence of how powerful the conspiracy is. If not, you say what you've already said. If it were proven (and it has been) that it was a plane that hit the pentagon, all that would show is that the government wasn't STUPID enough to use a missile, since using a missile has a completely different damage pattern than an airliner.<br><br><br><br>
I mean this question seriously, because I imagine there isn't anything the govt could do that wouldn't prove there's a conspiracy.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top