Friday, June 16, 2006

Bush Snubs Border Enforcement Officials

This is the biggest gripe I have with President Bush. For the second time he's refused to meet with border law enforcement officials from Texas. Rep. Ted Poe had some words for W.
The next terrorist is not going to come in through screening at Kennedy airport. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States
Canada as well.
The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them
Amen, brother. Other than sending 6,000 National Guard troops, President Bush has shown time and time again that he's not all that concerned about the borders of this country. His entire presidency has been about the War On Terror. Why doesn't he get that the borders of this country play a huge part in that?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

Let's empty our prison system of violent offenders and smuggle them into Mexico. Then put machine gun towers along the border.

Duez said...

As much as I disagree with my Rep the Honorable Ted Poe's politics. I really respect what he has done on this issue. He has broken the lock step with the White House and with DeLay (although that was broken for him).

The longer he's in the Congress the better he will get I believe. If I have to have a GOP Congressman representing my district, I am glad it is him.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to have to disagree with Poe on the methods of infiltration though.

It's still fairly easy for a terrorist to enter the country through airports, and it wastes their operative's time to have to force them to acclimatise to two different cultures and languages just to get a job done.

Christopher Lee said...

Yes Za, the airports are still too easy to get through, but you still have a better shot a getting through the open Canadian and Mexican borders. But I think he's a little off in the assimilation part. I don't think they need to do that. They most likely wouldn't have to be there that long.

Anonymous said...

Bush can kiss my Arab ass.

Duez said...

Something not really mentioned here, but I listened to Poe on Houston talk radio and he railed against Bush on the Ports deal. Really strong on that issue as well.

Of course, we all know that turned out terribly, but has gotten no attention in the press. Foreign interests did get the ports after all.

Anonymous said...

well Chris, the problem is that to fight terrorist tactics in an aggressive war, you have to win every single time to prevent them from succeeding in their goals, while the terrorists just have to make sure that they don't lose entirely. It's an entirely one-sided battle in that respect.

And spending at home has been severely decreased in the rush to boost the Defense Department budget - causing large amounts of police layoffs and emergency systems to co-opt nobody who isn't already on duty. And the creation of the Homeland Security Department has also crippled many once-operative counterterrorism projects because 22 entire departments have to reorganise themselves into one, and change the way everything operates.

Because of all this, I still maintain that it's a delay for operations to use the border as a method of entry, when they can easily afford to pay for first class tickets for someone who's completely unknown outside of the organisation.

I know how I'd be running such an operation, and it certainly wouldn't involve illegally entering two nations in one go (or even more ridiculously - entering one legally to enter the other illegally). In any situation you're buying a plane ticket somewhere - might as well be straight there.

Anonymous said...

I haven't found anything to disagree with in Za's last post. I must be turning pinko, eh?

I'm also glad to see that my fellow conservatives here are realizing that Bush is a pseudo-conservative.

Finally, I've realized in recent months that Bush wasn't the best choice in '04, he was just the least shitty one. That man is no Reagan....

Duez said...

It's taken you THAT long to figure it out? You must be as smart as Reagan was.

But, I will give you credit where credit is definitely do. At least you have the guts to realize the error of your ways. Most Republicans are too "proud (dumb)" to do so.

Anonymous said...

"It's taken you THAT long to figure it out?"

No, I've known about Bush's un-conservative streak since his first term. It just became intolerable after his re-election.

"You must be as smart as Reagan was."

I'll take that as a compliment, pisshead.

"At least you have the guts to realize the error of your ways."

There's no error in MY ways. I'm still a conservative. It's the pseudo-conservatives in the administration and Congress that have committed the errors.

Despite the GOP's errors, the Democrats still haven't provided any real alternatives to the Republican Third Way-ers.

Duez said...

Who did you vote for pisshead?

I am guessing W. Which stands for War Presdient and WAY too much spending.


Christopher Lee said...

No, W stands for Whiney ass Liberals who still can't get over the fact that their guy lost even though it's been almost six years.

Anonymous said...

"Who did you vote for pisshead?"

As I've already hinted above, I voted for the least shitty of the two electable candidates, cockgobbler.

".....and WAY too much spending."

You're right about that, but I don't think Kerry's proposed trillion dollar expansion of healthcare entitlements would change the status quo either.

Since the GOP abandoned its conservative principles, the only party left to cut spending, reduce the size of government, and dismantle the welfare state is the Libertarian party. However, the Libertarians are unelectable(and I won't vote for them) because of their dovish, non-interventionist foreign policy platform.

Duez said...

Sucks to be you.

Anonymous said...

No, W stands for Whiney ass Liberals who still can't get over the fact that their guy lost even though it's been almost six years.
Primarily because if the election WAS stolen, then democracy in the US is 100% sham, instead of just mostly a sham.

Did you ever actually look into what the court did to screw around with the recount?

Christopher Lee said...

Point proven.

Anonymous said...

So what you're saying Chris, is that anyone from the countries that are "bringing democracy to the Middle East" who actually care about whether or not democracy is being subverted, are just "whiney ass Liberals", not patriots?

Well in that case, let's ignore the reasons why we have the democratic process and boldly stride forward, mindlessly obeying whoever's in power no matter the outcome! Sieg heil!

Anonymous said...

Umm, I seem to remember that Gore's team tried to throw out absentee ballots from military personnel serving overseas during the recount.

And, Florida hasn't even proven decisively that it's really a blue state.

If the state's voters were so pissed at Bush's "illegitimate" victory in 2000, they wouldn't have re-elected Jeb in '02, put Katherine Harris in the House, or handed Dubya 375,000 more votes than Kerry.

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember that the court prevented Gore's team from beginning a recount by repeatedly altering the terms upon which they were to count them, and then, once able to begin, altered the timeframe in which they were to work, so that way it suddenly had to be concluded in a single day.

But apparently this is irrelevant.

The fact that a large proportion of disadvantaged African-American voters (a typically Democrat supporting demographic) were barred from the polls for having the same last name as convicted criminals, and weren't allowed to be heard afterwards is also probably irrelevant.

The fact that there were extra votes added to the count is probably irrelevant too.

And I imagine the fact that it was also spun as an attempt by Gore to steal the election also has no relevance on the state's opinion of the Democrats.

But hey - democracy just runs itself right? It doesn't need to be checked over to prevent any imbalances. That's what God's for.