A definitive case of BDS.

Kind of funny coming from someone who claims almost everything that has gone wrong in human history is either the fault of Democrats in congress or environmentalists.

Bush is the president, and as such, should be held at least somewhat accountable for failures in the federal government. Of course, this is the "no responsibility" president. The buck stops anywhere in the known universe, except on his desk...

Not directly perhaps (though I do think the director answers to the President) but a symptom of how Iraq obsession has harmed national security across the board.

A definitive case of BDS.

Not the President's job.

Not directly perhaps (though I do think the director answers to the President) but a symptom of how Iraq obsession has harmed national security across the board.

Bush has had many years to do just that.

Not the President's job.

Look, I don't like the guy, I voted against him (twice), but "it's Bush's fault" isn't actually solution to anything.

Secure the damn buidlings....

Bush has had many years to do just that.

Presumably the criticism is that the current building would allow unauthorized people to access unsecured files, where the new building would prevent unauthorized people from accessing unsecured files.

Since you are a techie, like me, you're probably also thinking it would be cheaper to just secure the files themselves.

You're warm. I'm thinking that if such files are available electronically, they'd be accessable from the old building and hereby present nearly the same security issues as their current location. Secure the damn buidlings....

fact I think all targets of interest to terrorists should be moved back there. If the terrorists come again, let them come to D.C; we can fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, where I live.

Heh. Of course, that's also the main argument the other way. Consolidation makes for an easy target.

Plus, the DC area is ridiculously expensive and the infrastructure doesn't support the congestion well. We'd save a ton of money dispersing to the hinterlands.

Ummm, Forgive me but if the documents in question are stored anywhere electronically, then moving them seems a fruitless gesture. Would they not, in that case, still be accessable in the building they're being moved out of?

Presumably the criticism is that the current building would allow unauthorized people to access unsecured files, where the new building would prevent unauthorized people from accessing unsecured files.

Since you are a techie, like me, you're probably also thinking it would be cheaper to just secure the files themselves.