Okay Brian, Let's disect the post dhall we!
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
AviationPlanning.com Article
"This is serious. We need comprehensive, anticipative, and professional security.</font>
Would you agree with the above Brain? If yes then this part of the article is correct!
[/B][/QUOTE]That does not describe the TSA, which, as one airport director put it, is a disorganized and poorly-led "army of occupation." [/B][/QUOTE]
An Airport director in not the type of person I would dismiss out of hand, they had intimate knowledge of wht transpires at their facility. And since they are Government employees, you'd think they would tend to support TSA[/B][/QUOTE]
The TSA is more concerned with spending billions on erecting scarecrows and "meeting Congressional deadlines" than in making airports safe. Congress is a pack of politicians, not security professionals, and their "deadlines" don't translate into better security. They translate into public relations stunts."[/B][/QUOTE]
Did the TSA not expand so quickly that in several well documented cases fail to meet payroll obligation for months in several situations? Their stated reason was to meet an arbitrary deadline imposed by the government. So Brian you can't have it both ways. Also the TSA's mission statement does not mention to my knowledge the word comprehensive. According to their PR folks they are to provide screening and not very much more.[/B][/QUOTE]
Resign now, Loy. You blew your chance to do [/B][/QUOTE]some good - instead you decided to screw the pooch.