Democrats & Liberals Archives

Tough AND Smart

I’m reading through the Democrat’s security agenda, and I like what I see. It’s obvious that the Republican’s tough-talk defense policy isn’t enough. In fact, it’s responsible for the deterioration of our military and its meltdown within months if current troop levels are maintained in Iraq. On the home front, the administration’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina and our porous borders make it obvious that GOP-style “tough” homeland defense is no more effective now than it was on 9/11. America needs to be tough AND smart about the challenges we face this century, and that’s what Democrats offer.

Democrats offer a plan for Real Security to rebuild our military; equip and train our first responders and others on the front lines here at home; provide needed benefits to our troops and veterans; fully man and equip our National Guard; promote alternative fuels and reduce dependence on foreign oil; and restore Americans' confidence in their government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack or natural disaster.

To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack.

Right-wing criticism is predictable: the Democrat's plan isn't detailed enough, or it's just election year rhetoric. But the fact remains -- as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just acknowledged -- President Bush and his Congressional "rubber stamp" Republicans made "thousands" of unnecessary mistakes in their incompetent attempts to secure America. Larry Diamond, Dr. Rice's eyes and ear in Iraq, goes so far as to describe Republican failures as "criminal negligence".

Nevertheless, let's deal with the criticism. For every point in the Democrat's plan, they've introduced detailed legislation. Over and over again, Democrats sought to turn words into deeds to secure our country, but over and over again, they were obstructed and thwarted by the Republican-controlled Congress. Democrats offered detailed legislation to advance every point of their agenda. That's not just rhetoric. If Republicans had had the smarts to pass that legislation, or at least sit down and compromise, it would be law, the President would have to act upon it, and America would be more secure.

Democrats offered details and action for real security -- and were stonewalled by Republicans.

Now, to counter the argument that Republicans are already doing what Democrats propose, let's look at the significant differences between their respective security agendas.

The most glaring difference is the Democrat's focus on bringing Osama bin Laden to justice, "We will eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban." To do that, the plan specifies doubling the size of our Special Forces, increasing our human intelligence capabilities, and ensuring our intelligence is free from political pressure.

The Republican plan is to "stay the course" because spending the resources necessary to go after bin Laden would endanger their efforts to make the wealthy elite's capital gains, stock dividend, and estate tax cuts permanent. They've decided that the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks isn't worth giving up tax cuts for the wealthiest of the American elite: "I don't know where bin Laden is," says President Bush. "I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." So Democrats made bringing bin Laden to justice their priority.

Another chasmic difference is rebuilding the US military to face 21st Century threats. To chase down terrorists, support reform movements, and buttress fledgling democracies around the world, our military needs the proper training, manpower, and equipment. Time and again, Democrats offered legislation to expand the military, train more civil affairs officers to help weak states build infrastructure and democratic institutions, and train more special operations troops to eliminate terrorists wherever we find them.

Republicans, on the other hand, invaded a country that President Bush knew had neither WMD nor ties to our enemy, al Qaeda. They blunted and quagmired our military and their only plan is to "stay the course". Rather than strengthen our military, they're proposing to cut our regular military forces as well as our National Guard numbers. Rather than spend our tax dollars to properly equip and train our troops, they're breaking the bank to deploy undeveloped defense systems targeted at a peacefully emerging China and a fictitious resurgent Soviet Union. Go beyond the Republican tough-talk, and it's like 9/11 never happened.

Another huge difference is energy policy. As long as America is dependent on oil, we are not secure. Oil is a vital strategic and economic resource, and for too long securing regions that supply our oil has led us to support dictators like Saddam Hussein, and tied our hands dealing with Iran, Palestine, Syria and other Middle Eastern issues for fear of another oil embargo by pissed off Muslims.

Democrats submitted scores of bills to significantly reduce our debilitating dependence on foreign oil. For example, the most obvious action is to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards. But every time Democrats submit legislation to make America self-sufficient, Republicans slap it down. Even down at the state level, the Bush administration is impeding efforts to make more efficient use of oil and gas, thus ensuring our dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Despite the tough talk, the GOP is determined to slap a foreign energy tax on the American dream.

There are plenty more differences between the two Party's security plans -- intelligence, border security, nuclear proliferation, etc. Bring up you're top concern and let's talk about it. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not afraid to talk about the issues. Democrats offer a comprehensive, tough and smart security agenda that's clear, specific, and in stark contrast to the incompetence, corruption and bombastic talk offered by Republicans.

Posted by American Pundit at April 2, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #137399


You deny the rhetoric (but believe the lies), but that’s all it is. Historically speaking the dems have done little in any of these areas. The Bin Laden thing is trumped up…You don’t think the armed forces are looking for him? You bet they are…If they could get him, it would sure make Bush look good. (although the Dems would take credit for it, because they thought of it first, yeah right.)

Using an San Fransico article that’s 4 years old to support your argument on energy is very weak. In fact most of your links are very far left organizations.

You can tell what the Dems are for on a given day, but not in a given week or month, but we do know what they are against and that’s Bush.

Posted by: Cliff at April 2, 2006 4:19 AM
Comment #137402

Nice post AP

It is a truly patriotic thing to help break through the perception that Republicans are tough on terror.

All Americans need to be concerned about the way that this administration has not responded well to terrorist threats.
Didn’t the 9/11 commision give them an F on homeland security?

The only response from our government was the Big Brother Act or Patriot Act as it is commonly called.

To see how skilled this adminstration is with security look into the dumbfounded eyes of GW for the 7 minutes after he finds out this country was attacked on 9/11.

No response. 7 minutes of bewilderment in a nuclear age. That is totally negligent and incompetent.

I say tough on terror means STRONG ON SECURITY. Something this country has yet to address

Posted by: darren159 at April 2, 2006 5:09 AM
Comment #137403

Isn’t it amazing… a Democrat may talk about reducing the size of the military to make it fit the needs and he is selling out our country and we are considered anti-military.

A Republican, Rumsfeld, is reducing the military and framing it as making it more responsive, leaner and meaner, and he is considered a hero.

Even though he is responsible for the most inept use of our military that I can remember. War is not defeating the enemy on the field. There was never any doubt about that. War is won by forcing political changes on the defeated enemy… that required a significant strength on the ground to insure the safety and security of the troops, and the Iraqi people we were supposed to be liberating… it mean not leaving pockets of Saddam’s nut cases behind (these concerns were passed up the chain and ignored).

Bypassing of entrenched forces has been done successfully, but that is only because there were large numbers of forces following that could do it. Rumsfeld didn’t understand the most basic elements of a mobile war. (Now, there is one man that really should fall on his sword. I am sure that they all believe his resigning, like an honorable person would do after that performance, would give aid and comfort to the enemy… er, that would be us Democrats in this instance).

Excuse the Democrats if they are a bit… hesitant to do anything with this President. Why should they?

*They supported Afghanistan and are called “soft on terrorists.”
*Many supported the President in his war on Iraq based on the information he supplied them.
*Cooperated with this President on the NCLB Act and watched as he consistently underfunded it and proclaim himself and his party as the part of education.
*Previous administration officials were invited to talk to the President and give their input. It was a 40 minute photo op and a chance for the President to say in his SOTU speech that we was reaching out.
*Formulation of our national energy policy was done in secret. They didn’t even want us to know were was being consulted.
*$22 billion give to HMOs in a closed door, Republican only meeting.
*Democrats can’t even get the Republicans to swear in witnesses before congressional committees.

There are many more, but I am trying to limit them to ones that I believe a reasonable person of either party can agree on. It should be enough to answer the question… why don’t we want to work with this President. Oh, and these are not rhetorical.

What was it the President said? “Fool me once… shame on… er, fool me again.”

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 2, 2006 5:15 AM
Comment #137404
You can tell what the Dems are for on a given day, but not in a given… blah, blah, blah

Cliff, do you want to talk about a specific security issue, or just bash Democrats?

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #137410


Meltdown?What meltdown?In the piece you sited it says the opposite.Did you read it?Did you read the summary?

Don’t tell me that you have caught the “out of context” syndrome…have you?

This thing is playing out as predicted…Iraq troops now out number ours there…getting better every single day…controlling more territory on their own…50% today,75% by the summer….American fatalities down again for the 5th straight month…29 in March…..and in a few weeks,tops, a unity government will be formed.

Compare that paragraph to where we were at April 1,2005.

Finally,we have it right there after thousands of mistakes.

However,we have been building an airplane while it was flying there in terms of training forces,ect. which is an unbelievable accomplishment.

Plus,what bothered me the most is the statement that you made that the president knew before going in that WMD’s were not present.

Can you please site specific,non-partisian,definitive proof of that beside just plain malarky and drivel for me to rip up?

You have a smoking gun hidden there in Singapore?If so,I have a Pulitizer prize for you then.

Fact is,this war won’t be another Vietnam.Fact is the president and the military learned the lessons form that war and didn’t blindly send in boots,just to become more targets.

The lesson learned…on fighting an asymetricial enemy…is working.

By the way old friend,I have been waiting for two weeks now on you also siting ONE good thing that has occurred in Iraq that you have written about,and not in passing form either.


By the way,”one” is “one” more than the number of terror attacks that have occurred here since September 11,2001.

The number,after nearly 4 and a half years remains at ZERO.ZIP.NADA.NOTHING.

You got a a better number,old friend?

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at April 2, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #137416

Sicilian Eagle:

Maybe YOU should enlighten us on what YOU consider a good thing in Iraq and we will refute it.

As for attacks in the US, check the dates between the first World Trade Center Bombing and 9/11. Al Queda takes YEARS between attacks. BTW… if an attack does happen TOMORROW, are we to expect you coming and posting that its the Liberals fault instead of Conservatives?

Posted by: Aldous at April 2, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #137426

SE, in his testimony before Congress, Gen. McCaffery talks about “the progressive deterioration of Army and Marine manpower (in particular, the expected meltdown of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve in the coming 36 months).”

Perhaps you should go back and read it again.

As for President Bush knowing inspectors wouldn’t find any WMD in Iraq, that’s from British PM Tony Blair’s meeting with President Bush in January 2003.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

SE, the only good thing that happened in Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein, but I can think of 50 ways to do that without invading and occupying Iraq for decades.

It’s funny, I was just listening to Sen. Hagel on CNN. He says he was against invading Iraq from the start. This being an election year, you’re going to hear a lot of Republicans trying to take the Democratic position on Iraq.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #137431

I love when democrats talk about 9/11 as a Bush/GOP failure but kinda, oh, well, neatly brush aside the multiple terrorist strikes (um, to include the World Trade Center) in the mid and late 90’s. You know those terrorist strikes … some of them not even getting a token response.

I also love when Dems talk about then “dreaded” situation of not enough troops. Maybe you all should’ve thrown Clinton against a wall when he cut the Army divisions from 18 to 10, when he sliced nearly a quarter of our USAF, USN, and USMC tactical squadrons, and depleted our naval vessel inventory. BUT! ALL ‘O THE SUDDEN! Dems are now worried about military “N” strength. Awww, isn’t that cute. Waffley, but still cute.

And of course the Dems can’t discuss details! They’re the party of disallowing military recruiters on public campuses. Their far-left organizations are the supreme anti-military groups in the country. (I kinda think they’re also anti-American since our Constitution, something I would hope reasonable people could respect, actually calls for a common defense.) So they can’t say they want X% more Army divisions. They can’t say they want X% more ships & squadrons & submarines. They can’t say they want X% more human intelligence capability … they would get swamped in their own party’s primary.

So, as dems prepare for the mid-term election we’ll hear more mainstream, centrist ideas like “Keep our military strong or even make it stronger!”, but then, just like on this BLOG, they’ll go back to Primary mode and damning their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan … claiming they’re wasteful and lazy … wondering why we even have a military … claiming that they’re the ones in Iraq doing the terrorizing . . etc. etc. etc. It’s just all too predictable.

Posted by: Steve Chaw at April 2, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #137433

Aldous and AP

Here…chew on these articles for a while.Read even one.

Hre are specific stories.Read them then we can dance!

March 2006
Iraqi Army’s 1st Brigade Arrives in Ramadi
Iraqi Brigade Takes Control of Battlespace
Iraqi Police Class Graduates From Academy
Iraqi Soldiers, Police Graduate From Training
Iraqi Police Graduates Demonstrate Abilities
Iraqi Air Force Stands Up New Air Base
Iraqi Air Force Spreads its Wings
Iraqi Troops Ride Recon Off the Beaten Path

February 2006
Diwaniyah Province Gets 32nd Police Station
Provinces Select Rebuilding Projects
Diyala Province Schools Get a Makeover
Baqubah General Hospital Renovations Complete
Coalition Priority: Restore Essential Services
Police Add More Than 1,000 to Force
Cadets First Graduates of Year-Long Training
Iraqi Navy Protects Oil Platforms
New Water Treatment Plant Opens
U.S. Army Helps Iraqi Businesswomen
Baqubah Hospital Gets Repairs
Center Will Stabilize Electricity
Photos: Rebuilding Diwaniyah, Iraq
Iraqi C-130 Aircrew Makes History
Iraqi Unit Assumes Command of Forward Base

January 2006
Highway Patrol Gets New Facilities
Villagers Dedicate New Irrigation Pump
Iraqi Women Work to Increase Opportunities
Police Graduates Positive Sign for Future
Baquba Maternity Hospital Now Delivers
Al Basheer Celebrates Water Work
Kirkuk Gets Electrical Boost
Zakho Military Academy Rebuilds
Police Open New Station in Tal Afar
New Primary School Will Help Mold Iraq’s Future
Azady Police Station Expands
Ninawa Province Gets Water Wells

December 2005
Tal Afar Sees Progress With Water Network
Rebuilding Includes Environmental Cleanup
Program Teaches Job Skills to Young Iraqis
Corps of Engineers Improves Iraqi Roads
Electrical Work Benefits Baghdad Residents
Western Iraq Reconstruction Moves Forward
Canal Projects Deliver Water, Self-sufficiency
Ukrainians Give Military Gear to Iraqi Army
Iraqis Assume Control of Borders
Iraqi Air Force Marks Major Milestone
Workers Renovate 28 Rail Stations

November 2005
Baquba Rebuilds Its Future
New Water Plant Opens in al Husain
Iraqi Work Recognized for Quality
Iraqi Army Takes Delivery of Tanks, Vehicles
Project Improves Drinking Water
New Road Improves Life in Baghdad District
Contract Effort Aids Electrical Work
Rice Inaugurates First PRT in Iraq
Intel Station Rehab Boosts Security
Water, Sewers Benefit Homes
Station Supports Police, Residents

October 2005
Engineers Train, Bring Skills Home
Iraqi Police Officers Graduate
Project to Provide Potable Water, Hydrants
Iraq-Iran Border Crossing Complete
New Substation Improves Service for 20,000
Iraqis Open New Helo Pad in Tikrit
Mosul Police Stations Rebuild
Sulayminyah School Projects Nearly Complete
Iraqi Security Forces Reach Milestone
Iraqi Army Opens New Clinic at Training Base
‘Jewel of Baghdad’ Sparkles Again
Iraqi Police Get Cars, Equipment
Mosul Substation Expansion to Benefit Millions
U.S. Builds Water Treatment Plant in Dibis

September 2005
FOB Lima Transfers to Iraqis
Border Fort Nears Completion
Military Academy Renovated
Polish Troops Support School
Colleges, Schools Get Computers
Polish Soldiers Renovate Facility
Ramadi to Get Treatment Plant
Police Graduate From Courses
Dam Repairs Benefit Tigris Basins
Sadr City Crews Expand Medical Facilities
Construction Continues on Iraqi Border Forts
Police Graduate 175 From Courses
Iraqi Highway Patrol Headquarters Opens
Sadr City Sees Huge Investment
Sadr City to Get $106M Electrical Network
Ceremony Transfers Control of Base to Iraqi Army

August 2005
Sweetwater Canal Work to Benefit Basra Area
Iraqi Tankers Turn Trash into Treasure | Photos
Iraqi Water Systems to Be Rehabilitated
Najaf Maternity Hospital Rebuilds
Literacy Program Bolsters Police
Najaf Road Work Benefits Agriculture, Schools
Health Charter Signed
Najaf Projects Supply Potable Water
43 More Schools to be Renovated
Army Assumes Authority in Diyala
Project Focus: Electricity System

July 2005
New Sadr City Water Treatment Plant Opens
Iraqi Police Graduate Training
New Police Express Determination
Photos: Iraqi Soldiers Take Lead
Agencies Help Establish IG System
Iraqi Police Rescue Hostage
Hospital Opening Furthers Iraqi Progress
150 New Health Care Clinics Planned for Iraq
Recruits, Junior Leaders Graduate
Oil Terminal Turnover Begins
Sewing Center Helps Rebuild Iraqi Economy
Iraqi Police Train for ‘Hardest Job in the World’
Photos: Rebuilding Erbil
Reconstruction Effort Underway

June 2005
Discipline, Teamwork Vital Part of Training
Police Graduate 86 from Training
Navy Qualifies Patrol Boat Officers
Police Graduate 221 From Advanced Courses
U.S., Iraqi Soldiers Reverse Effects of War
Iraqis Prepare for Oil Platform Security Duties
Water Project on Schedule
Coalition Transfers Base to Iraqi Army
Academy Trains Future Leaders
Iraqi Brigade Uncases Colors
Zafaraniya Residents Get Water Project Update
Iraqi Army Unit Assumes Control of Base
Photos: Rebuilding Iraq
Photos: Iraqi Highway Patrol Gets Vehicles
Photos: Building the Nasiriyah Fire Station

May 2005
Sadr City Sewer Rehab Nears Completion
1,000th Reconstruction Project Completed
Project Pumps Fresh Water to Zafaraniya
Al-Hartha Police Station Opens
Agriculture Ministry Back in Business
Iraqi Army Expands Ops Area
Iraqi Army Opens Headquarters
Two Kirkuk Rail Stations Rebuilt
Services Improve for East Baghdad Residents
Reconstruction Efforts Progress in Iraq
Training Key to Reconstruction
Al-Oubaidy District Improvements Continue
USACE Welcomes Engineer Interns

April 2005
Renovations on Fallujah School Complete
Australians Teach Logistics

Maybe AP can pick just one of these stories to write one posttive article!

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at April 2, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #137437

AP, but will the Democrats put up a defensible barrier at our borders. All other measures will cost enormously and fail the job at hand, making more problems than the one intended to be solved. I don’t see the Democrats backing the border barrier, and nothing else makes sense without it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 2, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #137438

“I also love when Dems talk about then “dreaded” situation of not enough troops. Maybe you all should’ve thrown Clinton against a wall when he cut the Army divisions from 18 to 10”

Here is an analysis Rumsfled’s force reduction plans… of Deny this source if you wish and their conclusions.,13190,Defensewatch_110503_Brigade,00.html

Wow, see… throw enough mud against the wall and see if it sticks. I am sure that you know all these reputable Liberal Democrats saying we don’t need the military? Or, did you just sneak that one in? Same with a lot of your other stuff.

Again with the linking of two different things. See, we never should have gone to bed with the Republicans! They have tainted us and called us whores, even though they were the horny little nerds shelling out the money!

Tying our disagreement with Iraq to Afghanistan is either poorly thought out… or an obvious attempt to blurr the issues. The Democrats DID support Afghanistan! Because we too believe in finding the terrorists and dealing with them. See, even when we “pull together” we get the stench of their cooperation.

Scilian Eagle,

As for your items of interest suggested… would you please cite your sources so we can quickly narrow down those we wish to give credibility too before we bother? It saves so much time.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 2, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #137440

Darren 7160

Sure.I have been checking that site for months just to get another flavor of anything potentially positive coming out of Iraq.

Each of the articles are short and easy to go thru.

Do me a favor:Spend 10 minutes on the site and hit one or two articles per month for a little background.

This is the yang to AP’s constant yin.

My cousin just returned and his unit,while there rebuilt half dozen schools and an electricity generation plant in six months.He was stationed near Ramadi…is married with 2 little kids…and would go back in a heartbeat he says.He said that he felt that he made a worthwhile contribution there as did most of his unit.

Juxtapose that last sentence for a monment and ask how many Vietnam vets said that when they returned.

If they were in fact shoveling you know what against the tide(as they did in Vietnam),I don’t think the returning vets of today would be so optimistic and satisfied that they have in fact made a difference.

At least the vast majority fell that way,anyway.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 2, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #137444

I do want to see wonderful things come out of this war. As I have mentioned before… though not agreeing with the justification, execution or policies of the war… I am a liberal who believes that it is a moral imperative to stay and fix what we broke.

Anyone reading my posts on the illegal immigration topics will be well aware that I believe it is immoral to cause unjustified death and destruction through direct action or seemingly neutral justifications for inaction. That statement should be read very carefully before someone decides to take exception with it. I do have a cheapo gun for one purpose… to protect me and mine. I was in the service and believed in the use of our military force when required. What I am saying is that I would never accept the deaths of the Iraqi people or the service people in uniform just so it can “prove” President Bush wrong.

Even police and service people that kill in self defense are changed by it. Here on the home front we talk about patriotism, national pride and political partisanship… we talk about numbers of dead or possible casualties without the real emotional impact these lives being taken has on those involved.

So many watch our men and women marching off to war. We get into a feeding frenzy where we lose all perspective… such as the “freedom” fries issue because France did not agree with us. They made their position based upon what was vital to their interests… fighting terrorism, yes. Fighting Iraq, no.

We go into a bloodlust, emotion overwhelms rational thought… and now many American’s are waking up with an emotional hangover and they are not happy with what happend the night before. They don’t want to have to face cleaning up the mess of their drunken actions. I, however, believe that it is the only moral thing to do… since it was optional in the sense that we were not attacked and we posited a large part of the justification as freeing the Iraqi people from this tyrant.

Sure, the Germans and the French are probaly responsible for the majority of the problems of WMD and possbily other things… including bypassing the sanctions.

I personally believe that with the arrival of the neo-cons who came into our administration and their detailed think tank reports of why Saddam needed to be removed they also failed to think about how he would be removed and the aftermath.

Part of the V.P. Cheney’s energy task force conclusions was that eventually, someday, sanctions would have to be lifted. Either through complaince by Saddam or his eventual replacement. They would not last forever.

What was unthinkable for the neo-cons, V.P. Cheney and the oil companies he had consulting was the possibility that once Iraq was able to freely determine who they would sell oil to… it would be the French and the Germans… not the Americans. After Gulf War I, 10 years of sanctions and everything else… losing our influence over that oil was intolerable. That was the reason for finding any justification of war with Iraq.

How do I know? Rumors here, a person speaking out there… connecting the dots. Plausable deniability… going to the Supreme court to block congressional access to the workings and people involved in our national energy policy, the refusal to swear in oil company executives appearing before congressional hearings.

One of the problems with operating our society and our government in secrecy is that it loses all credibility. No one can trust them anymore because the people aren’t trusted… we have to ask, why can’t we be trusted… and the only conclusion I can come up with is that they are doing something they don’t want the rest of us to know about.

As to the good news. I really do wish that they would report more of it on the MSM… possibly a 1/2 hour to 1 hour show weekly or something. One without political pundits… one without any reference to Democrat or Republican. Absolutely zero.. none! Just a serious reporting of the schools that opened, the hospitals back in service, the neighborhoods working together to rebuild homes and strained relationships.

Have any suggestions as to who would host it?

Do you think any station would do it? It isn’t so much political as demographics and the people the stations wish to sell their advertizing to. Good old American free market at work.

Do you think that American’s would watch it? Other than the ones looking for talking points on weblogs? Maybe for the first episode or two.

It is like COPS the show. I hate it because American’s seem to eat up watching people at their very worst… to me it is tragic that people are living this way… othes see it as entertainment.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 2, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #137445


Good news makes lousy tv…not enough blood,gore or scandal…how much good news do you see or hear even coming out of our country?

Right now about 75% of Iraq is peaceful..people going on with daily life and thankful to be able to practice their religion peacefully and openly.

Women have rights as well..even in the parliment there and in government positions.

Most importantly,the seeds of democracy..albeit a Muslim one…have been sown…and once democracy is spilled,it spreads.

I grieve(as you do) for every loss of life…but I think that every death,every casualty has been for the greater good…both there and here.

In a few months,once a government is in place,somebody should get credit for that,I think.

My vote goes to all of us…even the dems.I think the president heard the voices and softened his position a bit..but overall his steadfast…bordering on obstinence…was the right move

Posted by: sicilian eagle at April 2, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #137450

s eagle,,,,,
“Right now about 75% of Iraq is peaceful..people going on with daily life and thankful to be able to practice their religion peacefully and openly.”… guess is you’re talking about places other than where the temples and mosques were bombed ?!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 2, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #137454

“Right now about 75% of Iraq is peaceful…”


Sure, because only 25% is left standing / or has oil on it.

Posted by: tree hugger at April 2, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #137463


Optimistic? Are you kidding? When I came back from Vietnam in 1968, we were even cautioned against wearing our uniforms in public, thanks to some young morons who couldn’t separate the warrior from the war. They are still out there today, just older, and the message hasn’t changed. The difference is now they are teaching their anti-war, anti-military message in the classrooms of our colleges and universities, creating a whole new generation of young morons.

The mood toward our military men and women is already becoming more angry and I’m afraid that someday my nephew (a Marine) will get the same caution I got.

And than you have borderline pyschopaths like Ted Rall fanning the flames.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 2, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #137470

slowthinker….I don’t agree with you at all about us holding any animosities against the military. I think it’s pretty clear who the disagreements and anger are being directed at, and it sure isn’t these kids. I’m sorry you were treated badly when you came home, just as I’m sorry for the thousands of others suffering the same treatment….it’s completely indefensable the way you were all chastised for having served our country!! I was a kid then, too…I sent friends off who never came back…but even then I was able to separate the warrior from the war. I just can’t help but wonder how Dubya sleeps at night !!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 2, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #137475



I often paint with a very wide brush, which means I paint things I actually wanted to leave unpainted. After more than 35 years of therapy, you’d think I would have gotten past the bitterness, but apparently I haven’t. Thanks for pointing that out to me, even if that wasn’t your intention. But I still believe that if this war in Iraq drags on too long, those young warriors fighting and dying over there are going to end up pariahs in their own country. I guess that’s why I’ll be voting Democrat in ‘06. I’m going to vote my heart and not my head.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 2, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #137477

Sorry, I meant ‘08. I’m really thinking slow tonight. I think I’ll say goodnight and go watch “Shark Tales” with my granddaughter.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 2, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #137485

slowthinker….tell you what… won’t find anyone who supports you guys more than I do…It was an absolute outrage what you came home to. In some ways we are veterans of that war, too. We loved you…sent you off…lost some of you there…and some of the ones that came home are still lost to us. Check out Big and Rich’s 8th. of November sometime…and check out this site ,too. and Thanks !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at April 2, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #137487
Each of the articles are short…

No doubt. :)

Seriously, I do a little dance every time an Iraqi school gets a shiny new coat of paint… and then I get a little pissed off every time it’s blown up or some of the kids are kidnapped on the way there.

I have to laugh when you say “75% of Iraq is peaceful”. SE, 75% of Iraq is unpopulated desert — happy news for the camels. The non-peaceful 25% includes all the major population centers around Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.

Good news in Iraq would be disarming the religious militias, rewriting the Constitution to remove religious control of the judicial branch, creating a unity government, privatizing the Saddam-era socialist economy, eliminating the terrorist training camps and sealing the borders, and securing the entire country — including the 25% that holds 90% of the Iraqi population.

Clinton… cut the Army divisions from 18 to 10

Steve, I didn’t realize Clinton was still President.

It’s been six years since Bush took office, Steve. He’s fighting a good fight in Afhghanistan and started another war in Iraq. He’s looking at military confrontations with Iran and North Korea, as well as with Syria, and at stabilization and counterterrorism operations in Liberia, Haiti, Sudan, and the Philippines. If he and his rubber-stamp Republicans are to continue on this course AND SUCCEED, it’s time to start enlisting more kids.

Instead, President Bush is cutting our forces just as we enter an era of manpower-intensive stabilization operations. Democrats think that’s a bad idea. The Democrat’s plan is to increase the authorized number of troops and double the number of Special Forces troops.

A good start to increasing enlistments is treating those who have already served better. Cutting medical and family benefits for our veterans doesn’t encourage new recruits. Democrats think we have owe a lot to those who serve our country, and better benefits are a good start. Check out the new GI Bill of Rights.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #137492


The mighty Eagle thanks you for your service to your country.

Back in 68-69 I was a punk college kid protesting the war because it was a great way to meet girls.I was an idiot.

Everything changed in 1969 for me when my new roomate,a Vietnam vet returning to college ,taught me about life and sacrifice.

I was ashamed back then for my behavior previously,and swore never to blindly follow the crowd again.

That was 35 years ago.Since then,I have done my best to always honor our nation’s true heros…our military people.

That is why I blog here and on other sites actually.Watchblog is my favorite though because of the writer of this post,AP.I find his logic intelligent,although ill conceived,and I try my best to straighten him out on occasion.He has a condition,however caused by drinking that Singapore water that causes him every so often to stray from the reservation.Even so,I am still fond of the guy.

Again,thanks for your service to you country

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 2, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #137493


So now you have a thing against camels living free?I knew it….now the real AP is exposed for all to see …a camel hater…geez…..(:

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 2, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #137497

I had a camel piss on my foot once in Australia. They must be destroyed.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 2, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #137500

>>I also love when Dems talk about then “dreaded” situation of not enough troops. Maybe you all should’ve thrown Clinton against a wall when he cut the Army divisions from 18 to 10, BUT! ALL ‘O THE SUDDEN! Dems are now worried about military “N” strength. Awww, isn’t that cute. Waffley, but still cute.


Let’s see…the cold war had just ended, Bush the First had begun a program of drawing down the military, mostly because we no longer needed quite such a massive force. The idea was to develop a rapid response military to confront smaller forms of trouble before they became big ones. We didn’t need many of the big item war machines like naval ships and B1Bombers (and still don’t), so cuts were expected. The only real complaints about it came from states that lost large federal contracts and base reductions.

In other words…no one expected the idiocy of the current administration…not even the current administration expected it.

But, if it makes you feel better to blame Clinton for all our ills, his shoulders are broad…he can take it.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 2, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #137514


You said to bring up issues that concerned us and we’d talk about it. You vaguely mentioned border enforcement in your list of Democratic priorities. Are you suggesting the Democrats, if they take power, will actually put some real muscle into defending our borders? If they would make that promise unequivocally, I would be forced to vote Dem in November just to see them squirm out of it the way Dubya is right now. All the Democrats ever mention on this issue is the poor, downtrodden, angelic illegal immigrants and how our nation would instantly disintegrate without them. Would the Dems seriously jeopardize all those potential votes for the sake of a little national security? I’d have to see it to believe it. Tell me their plan. I can’t wait to hear this one.

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #137519
Would the Dems seriously jeopardize all those potential votes for the sake of a little national security?

We can have both, Duano. We need a unified approach to illegal immigration. Securing the borders and cracking down on employers is only one part, the other part is dealing with the 12 million illegals already here. That’s a lot of people, and most of them are working. You can’t just get rid of ‘em all — even if it was possible to track ‘em all down.

A process for working here legally, paying taxes to support my retirement, and then going home would get these people out of the woodworks. In conjunction with border security to keep new illegals out, this is the only realistic solution available.

I’ve written about Democratic action on this issue before. The Democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona have already declared states of emergency, and are putting as many police as they can afford along their borders. Unfortunately, financial help from Republicans in Congress and military aid from President Bush is nonexistent.

In California, the Democratic state legislature tried to get a state of emergency declared, but Republican Governor Schwarzenegger doesn’t believe there’s a problem. “The current situation in California does not rise to this level,” he says.

Democrats co-wrote and support the immigration reform bill that just came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If House Republicans can get their heads out of their butts, we can start fixing the problem and securing our borders.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #137530

I admit to being disappointed at the lack of a wall in the Dem proposal. Still, I never really expected them to have one.

We need a wall. Only Republicans can build it. We must all contact our Representatives and force Congress to build a wall.

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #137536

Heh. A 2,000 mile long wall from San Ysidro, Ca. to Brownsville Tx. Equivalent to a straight line from Washington DC to Phoenix, Az. With guard posts every 500 feet…

I’m surprised the illegal immigrants aren’t lobbying Congress to start construction. Guess who’d be digging the ditches and pouring the concrete. Mucho trabajo, amigos! :)

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 4:12 AM
Comment #137539


That’s a very good idea!!! We will use the illegals already in lock up to build the wall. After it is finished, we can throw them all to the other side!!!

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 4:18 AM
Comment #137546

We all know the Senate bill is a watered down, toothless, sad excuse for real immigration reform. What the liberal media failed to mention was that the felony amendment in the House bill was written and inserted by DEMOCRATS in order to try to poison the bill into being rejected by the Senate. Tancredo voted against the felony amendment, but the Dems got enough Reps to sign on to keep it in the bill. The Democrats will never try to restrict all those potential votes from entering the voting scene, no matter how much it destroys the middle class of this country. Sadly, it looks like the Republicans would rather have the cheap labor, as well. The Senate’s only solution is to write an amnesty bill and keep chanting “It’s not amnesty, It’s not amnesty”

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #137547

How can you be sure Democrats wanted to poison the Felony Amendment? The way I see it, Democrats are the real teeth behind Tancredo’s wussy Bill. Everyone knows Republicans love money more than God or Country. Odds are the GOP in Congress wanted to pass a weak Bill but our Democrats caught them at it.

Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2006 5:03 AM
Comment #137552


Nice try. You didn’t notice all the Dems are deriding the house bill as “xenophobic”, “racist”, and “inhumane”? Your junior diety from New York even evoked Jesus into the conversation and called for compassion. The Dems put the felony provision in the bill for the purpose of giving supporters of illegal immigration ammunition with which to shoot it down. You know how these things work in D.C., Al, it’s just like you insisting on a wall just to make the whole thing look stupid. I saw through that the first time you posted about a wall. You implement your party’s tactics to perfection. I think a wall is too expensive and unnecessary. The National Guard would be a lot easier and less expensive.

Posted by: Duano at April 3, 2006 6:16 AM
Comment #137555

Oh My Dear,
How dare a liberal Senator invoke the name of Christ! Doesn’t she know that the God’s Own Party has exclusive rights to His name? By the way… trying to deny Christ’s message because Senator Clinton mentioned it is really kind of sad… but oh well. This is a war.

We have had:
War on Poverty
War on Crime
War on Drugs
War on Terrorism
War on this and a war on that.

I wonder why, if we are such a peace loving people we always have to have a war on something? Can’t we have, “A reasonable discussion about this important ___________ (fill in the blank)?

We want the quick… the “feel good” answers. We don’t want to deal with the issues causing drug addiction… we want to declare war on it!

Now it becomes factional… a “They aren’t as tough about _________ as we are because they ________. You can’t even talk about seeing if prevention or treatment is cheaper and more successful because you are now labeled as soft on drugs.

I do take exception to the Afghanistan war being classified as the President’s war. It might be semantics, but it does cloud the fact that the Democrats were right there too in supporting that war… the other way implies that we are “soft on terrorists” which is not the case… we just believe in choosing our targets based upon their being terrorists or a state actively supporting or controlled by them.

We needed some evidence that was reasonable and we didn’t see that.

We need to remember that distinction as elections roll around and our participation gets distorted…

I have to say, I am rather pleased that no one denied my list of examples of previous attempts to work with this President and the damage it has caused.

Listen to friends and acquaintances… listen for the key words and phrases like “soft on terrorists”, “tax and spend Democrats” and have them explain exactly what they mean…

If they talk about how the Democrats are not unified admit it! We are proud of our independence… “Tell us what you think, not what we should think and then let’s discuss it.”

Show them some of the results of a unified, no questions allowed party… Secret national energy policy task forces, closed door partisan meetings giving away $22 billion dollars to the HMOs. An inability to have witnesses before congressional hearings sworn in. We were told the the Attorney General didn’t need to because of his integrity and who knows, possibly his need to withhold national security information. Okay… I guess that is why the oil execs also weren’t sworn in?

Distorted or unreliable intelligence justifying a war. Unquestioning assumptions concerning the aftermath of the war. Why? Because no one was allowed to voice a dissenting opinion… they weren’t good team players… weren’t “with the program.” Or some other such stuff.

Morality and integrity? How is it moral or a sign of integrity to abandon the people we “liberated” as soon as it wasn’t all fun and games… it was no longer cool images of rolling tanks and laser guided missiles… The ones who are moral are the ones who opposed it on insufficient evidence and questionable assumptions… they were right and stuck by their moral decisions… the ones supporting the war at first and now calling for withdrawal are the immoral ones… the “flippity-floppity” ones.

I agree that it is silly to parade out President Clinton again and again… resist being pulled into comparisons of oral sex versus the actions of this President… stick to the issues if possible…

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 3, 2006 7:04 AM
Comment #137572

AP, you have little understanding apparently of current available technology. The fence is not to be a chain link with guard posts spaced at yelling distance from each other. You are thinking 19th century, my friend.

We are talking Smart Fence, here. 3 to be specific, two outer fences to prevent animals from penetrating and wired for intrusion detection sandwiching a high tension fence with current running through it. Dan’s idea of a patrol road in between them is necessary also. This would require rapid response helicopter teams, approximately 2 or 3 per border state, to respond to intrusion detectors within 10 minutes at any location along the fence. One helicopter per response team, with a back up for each state, and 10 member response teams made up of Army Reserve and Border Patrol, times 3 shifts. That is 60 to 90 personnel per border state, depending on two or three rapid response teams.

This plan calls for a large initial capital investment with a very small maintenance and operational budget in perpetuity. It’s the fence that will keep on giving protection for generations to come, and the yearly operational cost will be far, far less than what we spend today in manhours, detention centers, etc.

C’Mon, AP, join the 21st century!

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #137574
the felony amendment in the House bill was written and inserted by DEMOCRATS in order to try to poison the bill into being rejected by the Senate

LOL! I love the internet. Nice conspiracy theory, Duano, but I have it on better authority that illegal extraterrestrial aliens actually beamed that clause into the bill for their own nefarious purposes.

Seriously, is this one of those things like Sen. Hagel now claiming he thought invading Iraq was a bad idea from the start? Are House Republicans desperately trying to distance themselves from their wacko amendment? It definitely is an election year, isn’t it. :)

Did I mention that the GAO came down hard on Republicans for spending our hard-earned tax dollars to deploy defense systems that don’t even exist yet? In the software business, they call that scam “vaporware”.

Cracks me up. Traditionally, you’d wait until your missile defense system actually worked before spending the money to deploy it. It doesn’t surprise me that these fiscally irresponsible Republicans don’t know the basics.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #137577

David… Yikes! You’re serious, aren’t you.

a very small maintenance and operational budget in perpetuity.

I’m curious what makes you think 2,000 miles of electronic intrusion detection and high tension fence with current running through it will be cheap to maintain? 2,000 miles, David! Where will the electricity come from to electrify 2,000 miles of fence? Don’t forget to add in redundancy for when the grid goes down. And I’m not sure how 2 or 3 response teams per state are going to check out every one of thousands of false alarms along 2,000 MILES OF FENCE.

David, China spent centuries building a wall and it didn’t work. The French had a wall as well. If the border was 20 miles long — like Israel, or something — I’d say go for it. But it’s 2,000 miles of fence!

And BTW, sensors alone won’t be enough. You’ll need CCTV covering every square inch of 2,000 MILES OF FENCE. You can’t send a helicopter out to check every time a tumbleweed hits the fence. That’s almost as unrealistic as building and maintaining 2,000 miles of high-tech fence in some of the harshest country in America.

I’ll make you a deal, David. I’ll join the 21st Century if you’ll come back to planet Earth.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #137581

AP, if the naysayers had their way, there would be no footprints on the moon. If they had their way, there would be no modern medicine, (invisible bugs, bah, humbug!) If you have your way, our door will be open to terrorist attacks in perpetuity!

But, you played your hand, we see what you have. No imagination, no desire to solve problems, no answers that will meet our need. You offer leaving the front gate and door open to any who would harm us or illegally drain our social resources.

Your comments are a perfect example of why the Democrats lost power, no vision, no plan, just more of the same. And Democrats are still cry NAY to high heaven. They do that very well now that they have so much experience with it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #137585

Please, David. Don’t try to defend a crackpot idea by attacking me… I mean, by attacking my comments.

Democrats co-wrote and support the immigration reform bill that just came out of the Senate. That’s the Democrat’s idea. Is there a specific part of the bill that you disagree with? Other that that it doesn’t mention building a wacky, ineffective fence all around America.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #137592

Yeah, without the fence, we’ll just be pouring tax payer dollars down the drain, because without the fence, illegal immigrants will continue to flow into this country and the door will still be wide open to our enemies.

Other than that, no problem with the Democrat’s bill. Democrats rival Republicans in their ability to spend tax payer money without effective results.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #137596

Here’s an interesting poll:

Overall, 56 percent of Americans favor offering illegal immigrants a shot at some kind of legal status; roughly two-thirds of those ages 18-34 like the idea and an equal share of those with a college education agree, the AP-Ipsos survey found.

While Democrats were more likely to support temporary worker status, with 62 percent favoring the idea, even among Republicans there was majority support, by a narrower 52 percent, according to the poll.

But you now what was more interesting — “Americans were skeptical that erecting a fence along the border with Mexico would reduce the number of illegal immigrants — two-thirds doubted it would work.”

BTW, did I mention that after five years of Republican tough talk about security, it’s still a piece of cake to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the US? Scary, but true.

The Democrat’s security agenda specifies securing all loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or dirty bombs within the next four years. This isn’t rocket science, these nuclear materials can’t be made in your bathtub. We absolutely can and must lock down loose nuclear material. Tough AND smart.

And I’m still blown away that there’s no integrated terrorist watch list after five years. How long does it take to make a list? How come Republicans in Congress aren’t lighting a fire under the Bush administration to get that done? I guess partisan politics dictates that they can’t criticise their party leader. So much for checks and balances.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #137600

AP & David,

Now, we’re beginning to sound like Democrats, before we were just sounding like reverse Republicans…let’s fight it out…fence or no fence?

I personally think a fence is necessary, but unattainable, unaffordable and unsellable, but we DID put men on the moon…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 3, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #137601

Hey David, speaking of “flowing” into this country, how are you gong to stop these guys from just getting into a boat and going around the fence? Are we going to mine all our coastlines? 12,383 miles of US coastline to bypass your 2,000 miles of ineffective, money pit fence.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #137605

the truth will set you free

Posted by: john counts at April 3, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #137607

I guess everyone is missing the real news…

April 2 (Bloomberg) — Senator Lindsey Graham said his fellow Republicans will be committing “political suicide” if they push through Congress immigration legislation that focuses only on building walls along the U.S.-Mexico border and deporting illegal immigrants.

“This is the defining moment for the Republican Party,” Graham, of South Carolina, said on the “Fox News Sunday” program. With Hispanics the fastest-growing group in the U.S., Republicans “will lose our majority” if Congress passes harsh penalties for illegal immigrants and fails to create a way of addressing the estimated 11 million undocumented workers already in the U.S., he said.

Finally, a person is dealing with reality. I don’t necessarily like the idea that it is to protect a political parties numbers… but that is what the Democrats are accused of… so I guess it is a wash.

We can wish away all that we want to… but the fact remains… political, economic reasons prevail.

According to the latest version of the Immigration Amnesty bill, they want in-state tuition for illegal immigrants… I wouldn’t go that far and would be willing to go with full tuition and no financial aid, after all citizens and legal residents had an opportunity to register.

I guess it is ask for the moon and settle in the middle after “giving up” so much distance between the moon and the meeting point.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 3, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #137613

sicilianeagle the stories you cited are the kind of good news stories that the media will never admit these things are going on would be admitting that george bush is telling the truth.this would be unheard of as this is not about winning in iraq its about handing the u.s.a. and george bush a loss.

Posted by: jcmasterblaster at April 3, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #137629

AP, once again lack of imagination and knowledge are revealed. Radar is highly effective over water, as opposed to land where every mule deer and jack rabbit can give false positives. And we have tracking equipment for sea going vessels like you wouldn’t believe. If they’re coming by boat, we will know it. Review history of Coast Guard and traffic from Cuba for example.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #137633

Darren, this is not news. I have been writing Lindsay Graham’s thoughts on this subject before he even had them over at PoliWatch.Org My comments on Mar. 28.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #137654


How long was that tunnel? How long had it been in place? How many more are there? Could a fence be built right across the top of a tunnel? How much would the tunnel diggers make from desperate border jumpers? How much of a cut would you get? Bling, Bling…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 3, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #137658

Sorry, Marysdude, but, your questions and comments make no sense to me. Do they bear on anything I have said in this column? If so, please elaborate so this dim bulb can respond.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #137669

AP &David

Can it be?the two titans of Watchblog crossing swords and nary a republician save me in the fray?

How can this be?

The plan makes sense.We need a fence.We need tunnel protection too.

While 2000 miles is a long stretch,much of it is not crossable,plus a whole industry will open up and refine the technology down the line.

Simply put,something has to be done.There are 12 million illgals here with no end in side.We need to stop the flow.

The bigger issue is the 12 million already here.It will take them 11 years to get citizenship.They have to pay a fine,pass a literacy test and stay out of trouble.If they have a criminal record they don’t qualify and they get the boot.

While some say this is amnesty,I will hold my nose and go along with the president.and …(gulp) Kennedy on this one.

Let’s talk Iran now.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at April 3, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #137707

I wasn’t aware of the site… I added it to my favorites and will take a look.

I would have been happy with things a bit differently.. I believe that tuition should be full rates, no government secured loans of grants. Each citizen and legal immigrant getting first shot at all admissions and registration.

I would have been content without citizenship for anyone entering illegally. A Resident Alien card renewed yearly or something if they could prove they had been here for a certain number of years… but not necessairly citizenship.

I would rather see a yearly or something registration fee for the Resident Alien Card where the proceeds went to maintaining the cost of border security. Use that money instead of general revenue…

As much as I hate to admit it… and hold my nose… I will have to go with the President on this one.

I know that some people are really emotional on this, pro and con. I am accused of being too emotional on this.

But, I believe that the President, the Senators and the ones actually making the decisions know that it isn’t black and white… that there are moral issues, economic issues as well as the political issue of alienating a large block (and growing) of voters that could easily go to the other party. I remember when President Bush was running the first time a lot was made of his speaking Spanish and how they hoped this would draw in the Latino votes.

As far as Iran? They have way too much time on their hands… they need cable tv.

Posted by: Darren7160 at April 3, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #137720

Heh. You guys must look pretty funny walking around holding your noses. :)

Personally, I think the Senate deal is a good, realistic compromise.

jcmasterblaster, this is the same “liberal” media that latched onto every crackpot accusation against Clinton that came out of Scaife’s Arkansas Project. Nice try pretending to be persecuted, but nobody’s buying it. The media is a watchdog; they’re doing their jobs.

As for good news: Good news in Iraq would be disarming the religious militias, rewriting the Constitution to remove religious control of the judicial branch, creating a unity government, privatizing the Saddam-era socialist economy, eliminating the terrorist training camps and sealing the borders, and securing the entire country — including the 25% that holds 90% of the Iraqi population.

I can cut and paste that all day. Wake me when there’s some meaningful good news coming out of Iraq.

…In fact, why don’t you guys post some of that good news over in the Red column? I guess all the editors over there are in league with the so-called “liberal” media. I haven’t seen any good news from Iraq of any kind over there since Jack pointed out that the marshes are marshy once more and the bald crested egrets or something have an ecosystem for the first time since Saddam ruined their nesting grounds in the ’90s. Hurray for us!

SE, I think our Iran efforts are on the right course now that President Bush adopted the Democratic plan for dealing with them. Iran may not disarm, but we’ll have legitimate partners and broad international support for forcing them to disarm — unlike Iraq. Which had no nukes or nuke programs, anyhow.

Anyhow, it’s good to see President Bush getting smart on something — even if he did have to borrow a Democratic idea. We don’t mind. It’s good for America. Congrats to Dr. Rice for seeing the problem and fixing it:

You know, I do think that in — when I first went to Europe, I found that somehow we’d gotten into a position where it was the United States that was the problem in the Iranian situation, and so you actually had a strange situation in which the Iranians — in which the Europeans were trying to broker between the United States and Iran. That was not a good place to be.

And so through that trip and then the President’s trip to Europe and then my return trip to Europe, we worked hard to come to a common position so that we could leave Iran effectively no way out except to go through the EU-3 talks.

Amazing how much she sounds like that “America hater” John Kerry, isn’t it. Blaming America first. How dare she! :)

Posted by: American Pundit at April 3, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #137750


Perhaps my attemps at humor were not as well thought out as they should have been, but I was envisioning a great wall being built along an expanse of desert wherein tunnels had already been dug, and while the fence was being completed, toll gates were being set up to charge the desparate folks willing to do just about anything to get across the border.

Funny…no. Realistic…perhaps. Worth thinking about…yeah.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 3, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #137772

I am so happy to hear the good news that the Ukraine is providing uniforms to the Iraqi army. I mean really happy. In fact I think it is hilarious that anyone would even think that it is a news story.

Someone who writes a sentence stating that the vast majority of Americans agree on anything obviously has no perception of reality.

Marysdude, you hit the nail on the head with the tunnel under the wall. People proposing the wall have no memory of history at all. Why not make the wall into a 700 mile linear prison for all the bad people? They could work in the prison at pennies per hour making products that we could export to China in return for the products of their prisons.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 4, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #137773


Conspiracy theory? Extraterrestrials? I love the internet, too because it’s really easy to find LINKS to back up what you read in USA Today that people like you dismiss as conspiracy theory. The House voted to strip the felony provision from the bill. Eight Dems voted to remove it, and the rest voted to keep it in there. Of course, many of the people who are deriding the felony provision actually voted to keep it in the bill. Just look up the congressional record. You should know how politics works in D.C. There’s a lot of reverse psychology.

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #137802

Duano is exactly right. While Dem’s are trying to put on an Hispanic friendly face, they voted 190+ to keep the felony language in the bill. You see, they didn’t want the Republicans exiting victorious as the Hispanic’s party of choice by allowing the Republicans to take credit for cutting the felony language. With Republicans in the majority, Democrats will try to spin the felony language as Republican sponsored, which it was, but kept in only by strong arming Sensenbrenner who saw the trap Democrats were laying for Republicans by first debating against the felony language, and after Sensenbrenner proposed to amend it to a misdemeanor, threatening to call Republicans weak on criminal behavior and soft on illegal immigration.

This is precisely what I have been railing about. Democrats in Congress don’t have a principle to follow on this illegal immigration, it is for them, all about the power plays and how to spin it to their advantage. They flip flopped on the felony language for no other reason than political advantage.

This is why real solutions to real problems are not achieved, just played and toyed with for political oneupmanship. This felony language in the bill and amendments was a perfect example.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #137806

SicEagle said: “The bigger issue is the 12 million already here.It will take them 11 years to get citizenship.They have to pay a fine,pass a literacy test and stay out of trouble.If they have a criminal record they don’t qualify and they get the boot.”

In theory that sounds right. But in reality this is what will happen. If they don’t have the fine, fail the literacy test, or get in trouble, THEY WILL NOT offer themselves up to authorities to be shipped out. Instead, they will go underground some criminally so, some not, but underground to work for cash undercutting market wages, just like so many are doing now. Some will move into muscle positions, some will move to drug dealing, some will move into illegal gambling and numbers, and many will just move to below minimum wage jobs and off the books.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #137814


Did you ‘get’ the tunnel thingie? Or would you like a further breakdown…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 4, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #138034

Marysdude, I must apologize for being dense if I don’t get it. If there is humor there, I missed it, but, my wife and daughter say I miss it all the time.

I can respond to your comment literally however. Tunnels would be exposed by installing the fence. In addition, seismic sensors could also be installed to detect tunneling for not a huge cost. That technology is readily available and affordable today.

So I don’t see tunnel rats profiting from the border barrier. Exceptions, sure. But, some enormous number cross each day, the flow would halt to a trickle and that would be driven to sea, where radar and visibility factors work very much in our favor.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #138148

Duano, you gave me a right wing blog, the transcript of a right wing podcast, and a rollcall vote that says nothing but “Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin Amendment”.

Are you sure it wasn’t the “Gonzalez of Texas Amendment”, or the “Sullivan of Oklahoma Amendment”?

In any case, it wasn’t Democrats who were dumb enough to put the provision in the bill in the first place. If it forces House Republicans to back the Senate version, then good for us.

David, you have way more faith in marine radar than I do. I’ve sailed at night using it, and it’s not very effective at detecting small craft. I don’t know what military equipment looks like, but it’s typically a generation behind commercial equipment. I always run two radar reflectors up the mast when I sail in and out of San Diego at night to keep those kids on the Navy cruisers from running over me — that’s assuming they’re looking at the plots in the first place.

Anyhow, I’m with the two thirds of Americans who think a wall is a crackpot idea.

Posted by: American Pundit at April 5, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #138302

By sea…by tunnel…by ultra light…para-sail…climb…cut…sneak…

Reality must set in eventually. We are taking our frustrations out on desperate people, and letting cheap-assed employers go scott free. There are less of them, they are easier to catch, and many charges to file against each one. If we stop the flow of money, the wall won’t be necessary, because the poor wretches will have nothing to gain by getting their backs wet.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 5, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #371329


Posted by: chat at September 25, 2013 12:17 PM
Post a comment