Reply #6: Quite the task to edit using HTML..hope this helps :-)

[Whoa_Nelly]

Have used bold to highlight suggested changes and/or missing parts such as $ and commas.

Have used strike outs for unnecessary words, and italics to ask a question, or to suggest other sentence structure.

These are only suggestions. It IS your LTTE, and you should send it as is most comfortable for you :hi:


Your LTTE:
(with editing)

There has been an uproar nationally about the Bush Administration’s policy of which will allow a foreign government to take over US port operations.

I see three parts to this controversy. First, is the basic question of America wanting any foreign government to have a role regarding control of our ports is very important to consider. Second, is the concern in regard to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having distanced itself sufficiently from ties with terrorists, as well as those who support them, to have any control of our ports. Third, this particular issue highlights the consistently poor national security oversight by our current leaders as it relates to maritime security.

UAE has been one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban, who also is known to have harbored Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. After September 11th, the UAE did some things to improve its global image, but clearly any consideration of one of their national companies taking over of US ports should also have included greater congressional oversight, as well as union and public debate. What reason can you think of for that not being the case? Striking this only to ask you, who are you debating or challenging with this question? Is LTTE in response to an already published LTTE? If not, then it's not needed in your LTTE.

Congress has not appropriated the level of funding required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act...for what? Incomplete sentence. Better sentence To date, Congress has not appropriated the necessary level of funding as required by the Maritime Transportation Act of enter date of Act. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, approximately $5.4 billion over a period of ten years is needed to implement these security enhancements. {b]Yet, Bush has only requested $46 million for this over the last year. This amount of funding over the ensuing ten years would leave us about $5 billion short of what is really needed.

By weight of comparison, we spend more on the war in Iraq over one month than we would be funding in terms of improvements to our national security over ten years. I think the American people deserve as much attention as the Iraqis get in a month.
Maybe a stronger ending such as,
I believe the United States and its people deserve credible attention and dutiful care to national security above all else. There is a war on, thanks to Bush, and it is costing us dearly in terms of money and the toll of human life. Yet, there seems to be little care for the people for whom he is being paid to work and represent.



As suggested from above, your edited LTTE:
(with paragraph breaks)

There has been an uproar nationally about the Bush Administration’s policy which will allow a foreign government to take over US port operations.

I see three parts to this controversy. First, the basic question of America wanting any foreign government to have a role regarding control of our ports is very important to consider. Second, is the concern in regard to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having distanced itself sufficiently from ties with terrorists, as well as those who support them, to have any control of our ports. Third, this particular issue highlights the consistently poor national security oversight by our current leaders as it relates to maritime security.

UAE has been one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban, who also is known to have harbored Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. After September 11th, the UAE did some things to improve its global image, but clearly any consideration of one of their national companies taking over of US ports should also include greater congressional oversight, as well as union and public debate.

Congress has not appropriated the necessary level of funding as required by the Maritime Transportation Act of (enter date of Act). According to the U.S. Coast Guard, approximately $5.4 billion over a period of ten years is needed to implement these security enhancements. Yet, Bush has only requested $46 million for this over the last year. This amount of funding over the ensuing ten years would leave us about $5 billion short of what is really needed.

By weight of comparison, we spend more on the war in Iraq over one month than we would be funding in terms of improvements to our national security over ten years.

I believe the United States and its people deserve much more credible attention and dutiful care to national security above all else. There is a war on, thanks to Bush, and it is costing us dearly in terms of money and the toll of human life. Yet, there seems to be little care for the people for whom he is being paid to work and represent.


Hope this is helpful. You've written a great LTTE that makes for a great and important point.