Friday, June 02, 2006

Bloomberg Thinks Politics Behind Anti-Terror Money Distribution

Remember when the Bush administration used to use terror alerts to manipulate votes before close elections? Mayor Michael Moneybags Bloomberg thinks the administration is using anti-terror money this time around:

Mayor Bloomberg suggested yesterday that the Department of Homeland Security may have doled out anti-terror funds for political reasons.

"We tried to do an analysis of some of the monies and whether or not they were given out for political reasons," the mayor said.

"In fact, in many of the places where they got money but arguably there's no threat, there are close elections, either at the Senate level or the House level," he said.

"Now, whether that was their motive, I have no idea," he added.

Bloomberg said he telephoned Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday to discuss the matter, but City Hall did not release any details of the conversation.

"We're going to do everything we can to make sure that the monies are given out based on real threats and not based on politics, patronage, population, any of those things," he said.

A Bloomberg aide said City Hall's preliminary analysis shows four of the five cities whose aid has been increased by the greatest amounts are linked to competitive congressional races.

For example, Louisville, Ky., received a 41.2% increase in homeland security funding, and four nearby House districts are viewed as too close to call.

Atlanta received a 29.6% increase in homeland security funding, and the 8th Congressional District in Georgia is considered competitive.

Homeland Under Secretary George Foresman on Wednesday denied that politics played a role in the allocations.

"Let me be very clear. Political considerations play no part in the allocation process - none whatsoever," Forseman said.

I have to laugh that all these Republicans who supported Preznit Bush's re-election because he could keep us safe from terrorism now think he's playing politics with the anti-terror money. Representative Peter King all but called the Department of Homeland Security an organized crime family on Hardball last night, the NY Post editorial page is up in arms over the anti-terror money distribution and Mayor Moneybags seems to think the Republican National Committee is calling the shots on who gets the anti-terror money.

Geez, King, Moneybags and the Post hacks weren't all that upset when Bush was playing politics with the terror alerts before the 2004 election. But now that he's playing politics with their money, they're not so enamored about Bush's politicization of the war on terror.

Too fucking bad, boys. You get what you deserved. You wanted this guy knowing that he plays politics with national security. You wanted him knowing that Karl Rove makes policy decisions based on political expediency, not the general welfare of the nation. I may be a New Yorker who is directly affected by these anti-terror funds cuts, but all I have to say"I coulda told you so!"

Next time don't support the guy from the Red State who despises Blue States.

Comments:
The Times also ran an editorial calling the pork pork.

And i'm ashamed to tell you Peter king is my congressman. Guess how many times I voted for him?
 
King's from Suffolk County, right? Iseem to remember that it's illegal to be anything other than Republican in Suffolk County That's about all I remember from time at Stony Brook in the mid to late 80's, but I'm pretty sure it's in the Suffolk County by-laws.
 
Mayor Bloomberg suggested yesterday that the Department of Homeland Security may have doled out anti-terror funds for political reasons.

Why is it considered bold to point out the biggest non-surprise of the year?
 
I think it's because Bloomberg is a "Republican" (at least in name) and is calling the administration on their bullshit. You know how the press fall for "centrists" like Lieberman and Bloomberg when they criticize their own party.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?