if washington dc and ny are such great targets, why haven't they been attacked before?

you joking right? KC?

1920 bombing on wallstreet believed to be done by Bolshevists or anarchists
1975 in NY by FALN
1993 first WTC bombing

so... yeah NY gets bombed.

Yes, the White House is compulsively lying, film at 11.

no. i'm completely serious.

I agree that NYC (in particular) and DC need special security protections, but I am very skeptical about what's going on in DC. I was there just last week: On a beautiful Sunday afternoon, goons with guns were blocking the steps of the Capitol, there were construction barricades everywhere, and signs about how a new "visitor center" is being constructed. I think a lot of it is being designed so that normal people won't be able to visit Capitol Hill, and being written off as "Homeland Security"

It's not just NY and DC. Seattle is also having our anti-terrorism budget slashed. Homeland Security is cutting grants by about 40% this year, from 2.3 billion dollars to 1.7 billion dollars.

And how much homeland security money is Omaha getting? Did you know that they have a beautiful, high tech bio-terror facility? In fucking Nebraska!

Did you all forget about the slog today? Entertain me!

They are also cutting money for Seattle.

Look where it's going - red state districts where normally safe red seats are about to go blue.

I'm increasingly impressed. W really is trying his damndest to get his approval rating down to 0. What other explanation could there be? If a prez were trying to get everyone to hate him, what else could he do that W hasn't done?

Maybe he thinks if your rating reaches 0% it can't go negative so it resets at 100%. I know this would make sense to him.

Come on. You people know nothing about terrorists. W's rationale makes lots of sense. Terrorism is like lightning. It's supernaturally directed. It happened once in NY and once in DC. So what are the odds it'll happen there again? Low, right? The terrorists want to keep up on our toes, on the defensive. It's gonna happen next where we least expect it. Like in Omaha. Or Kalamazoo. Or Terre Haute. So whereever we don't think terrorist will strike is *exactly* where we need to boost anti-terror funding.

On a beautiful Sunday afternoon, goons with guns were blocking the steps of the Capitol, there were construction barricades everywhere, and signs about how a new "visitor center" is being constructed. I think a lot of it is being designed so that normal people won't be able to visit Capitol Hill, and being written off as "Homeland Security"

The visitor's center has been in the pipeline for a LONG time.

Has Homeland Security done shit for anybody?

Name one major project implemented since 9/11 that has actually saved us from anything that normal security procedures has been able to snuff out anyway. Chertoff couldn't even deal with a natural disaster that every fucking U.S. citizen in the country knew about for over a week.

Essentially, this budget muckity muck is just sending one of two messages to certain cities:

* "We're increasing your HS funds because we care about your fine, wonderful city *bats eyelashes* (which might be coincidentally involved in a race this coming November 2006.. *wink wink*)
* "Well, you pretty much figured we can't do shit, so why not just be upfront about the fact that we can't afford to, or just plain don't give a shit about your city. On your own. Be strong! Builds character!"

Perhaps the "losing" cities are better off being cut off and knowing the score, instead of being fed useless Homeland bullshit money which would be giving them a false sense of security.