How about we just scrap the whole DHS instead? Between the FBI, CIA, SS, DEA, ATF, INS & Customs I'd say we have enough acronymic organizations to keep us going.

Valid point by JB about reducing govt but it probably won't happen. Washington DC mindset is to create a new agency to show that they are serious about something regardless if it works or not.

As for new Homeland Secretary I don't know how effective Lieberman would be. And Graham was so nutty in the presidential race he may have lost credibility to run it.

Lieberman would be an ineffective administrator, which is why his deputy matters. Graham has run FL, he could run an agency.

JB:

Why not put them all under Homeland Security?

I was going to contribute to this conversation but just took a chug of a freshly opened bottle of what I thought was Cherry Coke. It's actually this new "Vanilla Coke" stuff, and let me just state for the record -- why not here? -- that it absolutely sucks. So disgusting I now cannot add anything of value to this thread.

I am still pushing John Reed.

Well for starters, CIA legally can't do anything in the "Homeland"...

But how is that really going to eliminate any of the bureaucracy that this administration, and past ones, have put in place? Just placing a new label on a package doesn't change the contents. Sadly, AWW is probably right, and I don't think we'll see a true reduction in governmental power and scope for a very long time, if ever - which will be a contributing factor to the eventual collapse of the Union, when it happens.

Bob Graham used to be a sane guy and then he ran for President. I don't know what happened to him because he started saying some bizarre things. I remember him when he was my governor in Florida and he was well respected.

JB:

The CIA, theoretically, helps secure the Homeland.

Semolina:

You've learned a very important lesson--never, ever, switch from something you like to something new.

OJ - fair enough, but this does nothing to address the unsettling problem of the government gaining more powers through new police and itelligence agencies.

Also, Semolina didn't purposely switch to Vanilla Coke - which is just as bad as he says it is.

What about Giuliani?

JB:

What "new" powers?

"new powers"

They can check my library records. heh heh

I'll give Pepsi Vanilla "**" out of four.

by the way, what exactly do you Blue Staters have in your public libraries that you're embarrassed to have people know you ckecked out?

OJ:

"My Pet Goat", as read by the President.

And the reason Bush should nominate a Democrat is . . . . ????

To lure them.

Just as long as he finds somebody who understands that (1) airport security has some goal slightly more important than harassment of citizens, and (2) DHS officers (especially but not only TSA personnel) who have contact with the public and arrest powers should be held to reasonable standards of professionalism.

Well, I don't know. I must have hit the TSA on my lucky day(s), but I just did a round-trip to L.A. for Thanksgiving week and had the minimum of hassle at Dulles and LAX (the search was more thorough at Dulles for some reason, I breezed through LAX TSA in about two minutes and even Dulles only took about 10 minutes). Flying on non-peak days (the 20th and 27th) may have had more than a little to do with it, to be sure.

Echoing Joe...

Hmmmm..

Minor pat downs and hassles at the airport versus dead people & exploding planes...

That's a tough one.

Security still isn't tight enough. 9/11 took $100-250 billion out of the economy in one morning, and people are whining about inconveniences at the airport.

I'd send anyone who complains to one year in the Congo or Uganda.

Whining simps!

[Nothing in the preceding message should be contrued as an endorsement of incompetent & bloated bureaucracy]

Maybe I'm just parroting what I hear elsewhere - I'll be quite honest, I don't have the time to read every article and explore every nuance of the powers vested to the DHS, or other agencies. I have to rely on what I hear from MSM, independent media (ie weblogs), and general public perception. That said, it is logical to conclude that the more agencies and people a government has working for it, that the more overall control it has. This just helps to encourage more growth in government, which at this point, I'm pretty much opposed to, regardless of the reasons. If the government couldn't do the job of protecting the country with the resources it already had, a new agency won't save us.

If this sounds like a weak rebuttal, that's because it is - I'm just suspicious of government programs in general, I thought you leaned the same way as well. It's that, more than specific incidents, that make me think the DHS is a load of hooey.

JB:

They could--all that's changed is the organizational chart and the express purposes of existing law enforcement techniques.

BB,

Ain't complaining. Just saying that cops need to demonstrate courtesy and professionalism and travelers need to show respect for the badge, if not for the man wearing it. That's easier for all concerned when the system doesn't do idiotic things (e.g., the nail clippers that you can now fly with again) and when the guy at the top doesn't feel compelled to say Mineta-stupid PC things on national television every day.