• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA nominee withdraws amid 'political agenda'

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This cat broke the law and then lied to Congress about it. It's been time for him to withdraw.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's choice to lead the Transportation Security Administration withdrew his name Wednesday, a blow to an administration trying to explain how a man could attempt to blow up a commercial airliner on Christmas Day.

Erroll Southers said he was pulling out because his nomination had become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda. Obama had tapped Southers, a former FBI agent, to lead the TSA in September but his confirmation has been blocked by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who says he was worried that Southers would allow TSA employees to have collective bargaining rights.


TSA nominee withdraws amid 'political agenda'
 
Wow! Maybe there really are some limits to what even Democrats can get away with. I was beginning to wonder...
 
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's choice to lead the Transportation Security Administration withdrew his name Wednesday, a blow to an administration trying to explain how a man could attempt to blow up a commercial airliner on Christmas Day.

Erroll Southers said he was pulling out because his nomination had become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda. Obama had tapped Southers, a former FBI agent, to lead the TSA in September but his confirmation has been blocked by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who says he was worried that Southers would allow TSA employees to have collective bargaining rights.

In an e-mail to friends and colleagues, Southers said, "It is unfortunate that we are residing in such contentious political times, that exceptional, 'apolitical' candidates have to seriously consider their willingness to participate in public service."

Questions have also been raised about a reprimand that Southers received for running background checks on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend two decades ago. Southers wrote a letter to lawmakers earlier this month acknowledging that he had given inconsistent answers to Congress on that issue.
TSA nominee withdraws amid 'political agenda'

I'm shocked Obama doesn't just appoint a TSA Czar and move on.
 
He ran a background check on his ex-wife's b/f, without a warrant, or probable cause.

You ain't down with that, are you?

That's standard fair with TSA. Not enough oversight, not enough training, and it's mostly just a waste of money. Disband the TSA.
 
That's standard fair with TSA. Not enough oversight, not enough training, and it's mostly just a waste of money. Disband the TSA.

Southers was with the FBI when he did that.
 
Southers was with the FBI when he did that.

Oh, well we don't require them to have warrants these days. The FBI gets to do whatever they want so long as they label it as "terrorism" first.
 
Oh, well we don't require them to have warrants these days. The FBI gets to do whatever they want so long as they label it as "terrorism" first.

He did it 20 years ago. Stop wasting your sarcasm...:rofl
 
He did it 20 years ago. Stop wasting your sarcasm...:rofl

Aww, he ****ed up!

In reality though, there's legitimate concern for appointing the guy. If he violated the restrictions on the government and then lied to Congress (isn't that typically under oath...as in lying to them is perjury?), he shouldn't be in charge of an organization which is iffy at best when adhering to the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Aww, he ****ed up!

In reality though, there's legitimate concern for appointing the guy. If he violated the restrictions on the government and then lied to Congress (isn't that typically under oath...as in lying to them is perjury?), he shouldn't be in charge of an organization which is iffy at best when adhering to the rights and liberties of the individual.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if he was under oath, or not. A lie is a lie is a lie.
 
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if he was under oath, or not. A lie is a lie is a lie.

But perjury is illegal. You can't go after people legally for a lie, and in that context you'd be hard pressed to find any person who hasn't told a lie about something at some point. But being so bold as to commit perjury is another ballgame.
 
He ran a background check on his ex-wife's b/f, without a warrant, or probable cause.

You ain't down with that, are you?

1- thanks

2- I'll get back to you on that one
 
He ran a background check on his ex-wife's b/f, without a warrant, or probable cause.

You ain't down with that, are you?

So it's ok for the FBI to break the law, unless of course they are a nominee of a democrat. Hypocrisy noted.

He screwed up 20 years ago, he was punished, and that had jack to do with why his nomination was held up. This is just political stupidity at it's finest.
 
Oh, well we don't require them to have warrants these days. The FBI gets to do whatever they want so long as they label it as "terrorism" first.
Untrue of course. If they could do anything they liked, the membership of this forum would be much smaller.
 
Untrue of course. If they could do anything they liked, the membership of this forum would be much smaller.

The NSA probably has search algorithms to do it for them. But these days the FBI pretty much can do as they like. Just say "terrorism" and everything's cool.
 
So it's ok for the FBI to break the law, unless of course they are a nominee of a democrat. Hypocrisy noted.



I'm sorry. Where did I say that it's ok for the FBI to break the law? Thanks in advance for getting back to me on that.

He screwed up 20 years ago, he was punished, and that had jack to do with why his nomination was held up. This is just political stupidity at it's finest.

You're ok with a person who conducted an illegal investigation, then lied to Congress about it, running the TSA? Hypocrisy definitely noted.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. Where did I say that it's ok for the FBI to break the law? Thanks in advance for getting back to me on that.

Right here:

If someone wants to make copies of my phone calls, I don't feel that my rights have been violated.

The FBI has information where I made a call at H-hour on D-day. So what?

You argued right there that the FBI acting illegally was not violating your rights.

You're ok with a person who conducted an illegal investigation, then lied to Congress about it, running the TSA? Hypocrisy definitely noted.

No, that is not what I said. I said he was punished for it, as was proper. I also stated that the reason his nomination was held up had nothing to do with this. Now, do you care to actually talk about what I said, or are you going to make up more crap that I did not say to argue against?
 
You argued right there that the FBI acting illegally was not violating your rights.

No, what I argued is that I didn't think it was that big a deal. Nowhere did I say it wasn't illegal and damn sure never said it was ok for the FBI to break the law.

Nice try, though. Good luck with this night classes.
 
No, what I argued is that I didn't think it was that big a deal. Nowhere did I say it wasn't illegal and damn sure never said it was ok for the FBI to break the law.

Nice try, though. Good luck with this night classes.

The FBI broke the law, which you dismissed as no big deal. Now, something where the guy was already punished for his transgression, and you are up in arms over it. And you have yet to actually justify this, you just try and turn it around and throw out personal insults.

You also have yet to address the point that this is not why his nomination was held up. In fact, you have done nothing except to try(and fail) to score cheap political points with this.
 
No, that is not what I said. I said he was punished for it, as was proper. I also stated that the reason his nomination was held up had nothing to do with this. Now, do you care to actually talk about what I said, or are you going to make up more crap that I did not say to argue against?

Unlike yourself, I'm not fabricating anything. You said:

He screwed up 20 years ago, he was punished, and that had jack to do with why his nomination was held up. This is just political stupidity at it's finest.

Which means, that you don't have a problem with an FBI agent, who violated a citizen's civil rights, then lied about it to Congress, being the head honcho of the TSA.

It's cool, we get the picture. You're all about harping over partisan politics, until your boy tries to appoint an idiot to a directorship. Then, it's ok with you, because he got a week off, with pay.
 
Unlike yourself, I'm not fabricating anything. You said:



Which means, that you don't have a problem with an FBI agent, who violated a citizen's civil rights, then lied about it to Congress, being the head honcho of the TSA.

It's cool, we get the picture. You're all about harping over partisan politics, until your boy tries to appoint an idiot to a directorship. Then, it's ok with you, because he got a week off, with pay.

No, that is not what I said. You have would to be painfully stupid to say that I said that. I was clear in my words, and they meant nothing like that. I am sorry that my pointing out your hypocrisy has left you so desperate, but that is not my problem. Now, would you care to talk about my actual words, or are you going to, once again, make **** up to argue against?
 
1. on the morning of massachusetts the president's nominee had to be nixed cuz he abused his law enforcement powers and lied to congress about it

2. which is exactly where things have stood with mr southers for a month

3. the only thing that's new, changed, different is, well, scott brown

4. TERRORISM as an issue killed coakley

5. brown said over and over again, it doesn't make sense to "spend taxpayer money on attorneys" for terrorists instead of trying to kill them

6. how mutallab could ever have come so close, how legally to handle the jingle bells jihadist, how happened hasan at fort hood---these issues overshadowed even health care in that now famous final debate where brown interrupted moderator gergen to correct the arrogant egghead---this aint the kennedy seat, it's the people's---in true reaganesque fashion

7. terrorism is tripping this president just as much as it mangled the massachusetts AG

8. her numbers plummeted after 2 huge events, only 24 hours apart

9. harry got 60 on christmas eve

10. and mutallab lit the back of a plane on fire on the Day itself

11. time mag published a piece this morning, saying---the pentagon's just released fort hood report, 86 pages long, DOES NOT MENTION ONCE mr hasan's name

12. also unutterable STILL inside our military is the word, "ISLAM"

13. most americans have come by now to see a political correctness AT THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL in the army as most responsible for all those egregious oversights of red light warnings that were so, again, institutionally ignored at hood

14. that PC in the pentagon persists, patently

15. read the report:

Fort Hood Report: No Mention of Islam, Hasan Not Named - TIME

16. the president repeatedly lets his agenda dictate his response to these extempore exigencies

17. he really, deeply, yearningly just wants terrorism to go away

18. he certainly does not want to deal with it

19. he has (had) an extremely ambitious agenda that he obviously loves, health care, social engineering around the question of climate, redistribution, political empowerment of a certain class...

20. fighting terrorism is and never was any part of his heart, it could only ever come up as an unasked for, unwanted obligation

21. his policy concerning international jihad can only be described as OSTRICH

22. he buries his head and hopes it goes away

23. when the enemy refuse to cooperate by disappearing, the president displays this perplexing pattern of always painting the incident in its most optimistic perspective

24. hence, he pronounces mutallab an "isolated extremist"

25. the white house knew at the time the nasty nigerian was trained, armed and sent by al qaeda in yemen

26. it is now equally clear that had our intel done its job after fort hood instead of refusing to look at the alahu akbar killer in his ugly actuality, the fbi would have stumbled unmistakably onto the computer correspondence that led straight from the mad imam, al awlaki, to the christmas crusader

27. but, no, the president just cannot force himself to look at the furious face of our foe who, unfortunately, is no neocon's fantasy

28. thus, the president's "evolution of anger," so much tossed about in the waikiki week after yule, the week martha coakley croaked

29. from everything went like "clockwork" to "criminal suspect" to "systemic failure" to "catastrophic breach" to "considerations of military action against yemen" in one wild, whacked out week

30. why was southers sent south TODAY?

31. embarrassment never averted this administration before

32. terrorism, the unwanted issue, is ripping this poor president to pieces

33. today in the senate, 4 senior officials, including dhs napolitano, were made to look ridiculous by john mccain when they were forced to admit they had NOT BEEN CONSULTED about the movement of mutallab before civil venues

washingtonpost.com

34. and DOJ has so far refused to talk

35. dennis blair, head of HIG (high value interrogation group), told the senators his agency was not prepared for the apprehension of terrorists within our borders, only overseas

36. he later issued a statement saying HIG was not yet "fully operational"

37. this one, like so many others, aint goin away

38. complete incompetence

39. the intent to try terrorist suspects before civil courts destroyed massachusetts' gentle AG

40. just today went down the withdrawal of TSA southers, the whitewashed pentagon report on fort hood, the painfully unprofessional testimony of senior officials before jiltin joe's homeland security

41. the president's posture pertaining to the suddenly compelling issue of terrorism is pathetically, perilously polyanna

42. it's going to pulverize him
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom