Protecting the pages or the ports
In all the contraversy surrounding one sick man and his dealings with a handful of pages, another piece of Congressional news happened to slip below the collective radar.
In committee, provisions which would have required criminal background checks for port workers disappeared from a port security bill. Based on this revised bill, there will be no statutory requirement to see if whoever is unloading the containers has been a smuggler, drug dealer, or murderer.
If either party were really concerned about “protecting our children” or “national security” this wouldn’t have happened. One man and his dealings with a few kids is sad; the consequences of failure in the ports could be disasterous for millions.
Why don’t we get our priorities straight instead of using e actions of an indefensible man to jockey for political advantage or trying to prevent perceived political disadvantage from having that man in your party.
That should be common sense.
In committee, provisions which would have required criminal background checks for port workers disappeared from a port security bill. Based on this revised bill, there will be no statutory requirement to see if whoever is unloading the containers has been a smuggler, drug dealer, or murderer.
If either party were really concerned about “protecting our children” or “national security” this wouldn’t have happened. One man and his dealings with a few kids is sad; the consequences of failure in the ports could be disasterous for millions.
Why don’t we get our priorities straight instead of using e actions of an indefensible man to jockey for political advantage or trying to prevent perceived political disadvantage from having that man in your party.
That should be common sense.
Labels: Congress, democrats, Mark Foley, port security, republicans
posted by Average guy | 6:47 AM
|
1 Comments
