Peter King is my guess.

These guys are clueless. My respect for the legislative branch is at an all time low.

You've saved yourself a book. No Republican would dare advocate the incredible expense of 100% inspection. More expensive still would be the time factor, delaying mrechandise delivery by at least weeks. It would slow the economy more than $100 oil.

No Republican will. Hillary Rodham Clinton will. Skip the book, I already have a phone book, that's all I need.

OJ,

Will I get a book if my prediction about Miami-based Continental Stevedoring & Terminals buying the contract from Dubai World Ports comes true? Say, around March 3:)

Oh, me, me, teach, I know, I know, Pick me, it'll be none other than Senator John McCain.

Brad:

If they drop their "security" hysteria at that point it'll just prove them idiots.

McCain really hasn't been a critic on their as much as a fence straddler, since he knows any authorotative statements he makes today involving foreign countries will be ones he'll have to deal with as president.

My guess is Bill Frist makes the first move, since he's stuck right now about trying to regain momentum for his presidential bid -- which explains his initial anti-deal statement -- and the reality of actually having to govern and deal with Arab states if he were to be elected, which will result in the qualifier.

Vitters for the port of New Orleans..ah even if there's nothing to destroy. And Trent Lott because if you lay money on the table, he'll grab it.

jim jeffords

No one running for president will propose paying for it or hiring the number of new federal employees it would require.

H,

Au contraire about the Port of New Orleans. As of Feb. 15, the Port has 100% of pre-Katrina business, operating out of only 70% of port space: http://63.243.21.112:8083/prsrel021506.pdf

Lott wants to be Majority Leader again, he won't propose paying for it.

the tax hikes to pay for it...

Why tax hikes? Pay for it out of the $400 billion you'll save by repealing the Medicare drug boodoggle.

boondoggle.

So far, Tancredo has said nothing about this. Very interesting.

joe:

Even Republicans aren't stupid enough to take away a program that 70% of the public supports.

So it will be the public that's to blame the next time Manhattan goes up in smoke. Works for me.

Given that 9/11 sucked $200 billion out of the economy in about 1 day, and we can't really quantify the other economic losses over the following few years, it seem silly for so-called conservatives to argue that "security is too expensive."

Surely, there is a price point beyond which we cannot go, and inspection of every container is probably uncalled for.

OTOH, in hindsight, having a Marshall on every flight (or even every other one) doesn't seem to be as "expensive" as the bleating corporate sheep said it was back the 90s.

The smug and dismissive nature of the "Pro-Port deal" crowd here is unwarranted.

The fact remains that developing a way to dramatically increase the number of inspected containers shouldn't be that hard (or that expensive) for what many of you call the 'most advanced' nation on the earth.

If it's too hard or expensive, then we aren't that advanced (in more ways than mere technology). Paraphrasing the idiot education establishment, if you think inspection is expensive, try 20 dirty bombs going off in our top 20 cities.

For my part, I tend to trust that the adminsitration isn't off its rocker. I also tend to think that we are much closer to OJ's position - that we've turned the corner in the war on terror - than we are too the rabid talk radio crowd - which thinks the containers have already arrived.

What really bothers me is that both sides of issue are so dismissive of the other's views. Ending on an optimistic note, I tend to think that the entire dust-up has already made most of us a little safer, as we are a bit more conscious of the issues.

Brad:

Wait'll a Mexican company bids on it.

Bruno,

And you were expecting something with a higher purpose than dismissiveness? Tsk Tsk.

Though it does bring up a thought I've often had when it comes to Iraq/GWOT: When the subjects are in the media spotlight on a continual basis, we, by definition, are safer. The worst thing that could happen in all this is that everyone in the government, from Dubya on down, says "We have WON THE WAR ON TERROR!"

Conversely, if the anti-Iraq war peace creeps ever really wanted to thwart the United States, they would merely shut up.

Bruno:

Is there a marshall on every flight even after 9-11? The notion that we will or should pay for that level of security isn't serious.

joe:

It's a democracy--it's always our own fault.

But we already spend many times more than is required for all of that. The federal government proposes to spend 2.7 trillion dollars this year. (Say that word again: tarrrillllion. Lovely word. But I digress.) That's plenty for air marshalls and radiation scanners and whatever else we decide we need.

joe:

Yes, we've decided we don't need.

Joe:

I think you're onto something with boodoggle.

"... for what many of you call the 'most advanced' nation on the earth." Bruno, which nation would you pick as the most advanced?

boodoggle: (n) money wasted on a non-threat because of paranoia.

erp:

He'd go with North Korea, which has perfect security.

Of course someone (probably a Democrat) will propose legislation to "fund" port security completely. That's a quick, snappy soundbite.

The follow-on debate about the cost and how it will bring our economy to a grinding halt doesn't fit in a nightly news segment.

It's got nothing to do with the idea, it's how it plays on the news or in the first paragraph of a newspaper story. Pick about any story you want("domestic wiretapping" - no it's not, "Bush lied" - no he didn't) and what most people remember is the first story out of the gate.

Who remembers that he opposed DHS?

OJ,

a Marshall on every flight is probably cheaper than the lines and security procedures we all have to go through now - and possibly more effective.

It would be an interesting study.

Time wasted, TSA drones etc etc v. 1 seat per plane. I don't know the answer, but I'll bet the raw calculations would be interesting. Find a faster way to screen people and luggage, and we might get there.

On the flipside, is there any data as to the number of marshalls now? Randomness has it's attributes.

erp,

The USA, of course. If you recall, I'm the one who keeps on trying to remind folks that it takes more than patting ourselves on the back to stay that way.

Funding bloat while ignoring better solutions is evidence that we may not be at the pinnacle forever.

Going Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush is a pretty good indicator that we are headed for trouble as well.

(That's not a prediction, folks. But the mere possibility should give one pause.)

Bruno:

What lines? Have you flown lately? We're pretty much back to pre-911 security as is. No one was willing to tolerate the inconvenience, nevermind foot the bill for real security.

Bruno:

Note that the elder Bush is the odd man out in that group, a throwback to Nixonism.

The bloat you speak of is only a minuscule portion of the budget and so-called pork-barrel somehow works in that the various elected officials support each others' pet projects and the country moves along.

As an issue, it will appeal to voters who don't think things through, but as a real issue, it's nonsense.

LINCOLN CHAFEE!

this is cantwell's baby, plus she could use the "good press" in her upcoming race.

Naw. The Alaskan Stupid Party is doing all it can to make sure there's an endless supply of "good news" for Cantwell.

The port of Rotterdam already has xray scanners that can take a truck loaded with a standard shipping container. They regulary find illegal immigrants (entering the containers in the hope to be trucked to the UK) or smuggled cigarettes.
Of course, even if all containers are scanned there are sufficient ways around that. But imagine the amount of lobbying money that can be made advocating and implementing this technology.

Mr. Judd;

Peggy Noonan, who has flown recently, agrees with Bruno.

She ought to fly out of Manchester.

since the air marshalls in houston were running cocaine, i don't see how it would be that difficult to pay off a port employee to look the other way -- regardless of who owns the docks.

AOG,

Bruno, who has flown quite recently, agrees with OJ (on most things).

Noonan is "reporting" what sells. I was simply commmenting that there may be cheaper ways of securing planes, particularly in an age where the passengers of any flight would stop a terror attack.

[Flight 93 indicated the end of planes as weapons, as any planeload of self respecting Americans would do what is necessary.]

My view on flyers is that they should shut up and get with the program.

It's the federal pork and pension pigs that get my goat.

toe - as Chevy Chase said...

"cops have the best dope"

Actually the Coast Guard does.