Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Those two Border Patrol Agents...

Posted By: Truthseeker on 2009-01-19
In Reply to: Bush let those 2 border agents - NM

...were rogues who fired 15 shots at the back of an unarmed man who had his arms up in surrender and then tried to cover it up. Of course, one of them fired 14 shots and missed them all, so that might be one reason he tried to cover it up. They tried to gather up all the spent shell casings and tried to recruit a third agent to go back and get any shells they missed. They never reported the shooting. They repeatedly changed their stories once they were found out. They lied about it in court, claiming that the victim had a gun. Their convictions were held up on appeal.

With unfounded speculation, rumors, misstatements of fact, and various unproven assertions cherry-picked from the case the defense presented at trial, Lou Dobbs and Jerome Corsi (of Swift Boat fame), turned these two losers into heroes of the right wing.

They deserved the sentence they received. Bush didn't pardon them--he revoked their sentences, but their conviction still stands.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

President Bush has pardoned the Border Patrol Agents!
Yes!
Bush let those 2 border agents

moulder over christmas and thanksgiving in solitary just so he could make a big splash on his last day.  Or did he JUST make up his mind?  I am surprised all the windows in the WH don't have to be opened for a few days just to air out the stink before that fine family moves in.


 


CIA Agents Letter

CIA Agents Letter to US Senate and House



18 July 2005


AN OPEN STATEMENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.


The Honorable Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives


The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives


The Honorable Dr. William Frist, Majority Leader of the Senate


The Honorable Harry Reid, Minority Leader of the Senate



We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.


The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this "talking point":




Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, "And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day."


Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, "Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them."


Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that."


House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, "It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."


These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.


While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation’s security.


We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.


We also believe it is important that Congress speak with one non-partisan voice on this issue. Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs. In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor. We stand in her stead and ask that Republicans and Democrats honor her service to her country and stop the campaign of disparagement and innuendo aimed at discrediting Mrs. Wilson and her husband.


Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence, which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends. They serve because they love this country and are committed to protecting it from threats from abroad and to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government’s protection of their covert status.


For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help protect their ability to live their cover.


Sincerely yours,


 


_____________________________________


Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst, CIA



JOINED BY:


Mr. Brent Cavan, former Analyst, CIA


Mr. Vince Cannistraro, former Case Officer, CIA


Mr. Michael Grimaldi, former Analyst, CIA


Mr. Mel Goodman, former senior Analyst, CIA


Col. W. Patrick Lang (US Army retired), former Director, Defense Humint Services, DIA


Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA


Mr. James Marcinkowski, former Case Officer, CIA


Mr. Ray McGovern, former senior Analyst and PDB Briefer, CIA


Mr. Jim Smith, former Case Officer, CIA


Mr. William C. Wagner, former Case Officer, CIA


Agents of Change


by: Susan G. Kerbel, Ph.D., t r u t h o u t | Perspective




Obama

Supporters of Barack Obama holding torches and signs in Szabadsag "Freedom" Square, Budapest, Hungary. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)




    Exploring the psychology of social change reveals warning signs and opportunities for progressives as Obama takes power.

    Now that progressives have attained their goal of electing Barack Obama president and established the presence of a political mandate for change and, putatively, progressive ideas, what can we expect will happen next? What do we now need to learn to maximize our momentum in the wake of this exceptional, momentous reaffirmation of the democratic tradition in America?

    Now that we have won the political argument, the next step is to work on creating the cultural and socioeconomic changes that must follow if we are to build a truly progressive society.

    Consider the upcoming changes for the progressive movement from the vantage point of the psychological dynamics that any human organism undergoes when faced with the changes in identity that accompany any life transition. There are forces that seek change, and those that fear and resist it.

    This is what I expect will happen next, and indeed, seems to have begun to happen already:

    Now that Obama has been sworn in, progressives will go through a momentary backlash of self-doubt. Is this really happening? Can we trust that this is real? Are we able to do this? Are we ready?

    This self-doubt typically can play out in a variety of ways. For example, the old guard Democrats of the DLC may try to take credit for Obama's sweeping victory by positioning themselves in the new administration in a way that seems to undercut all the energy and commitment of "new" and younger progressives who were swept into civic engagement by Obama's campaign. The media, in turn, tries to play this as business as usual among the Democrats and emphasizes disillusionment and disappointment among the previously hopeful new participants in the political process. The message is that the youthful energy, inclusiveness, and new ideas of the Obama campaign have turned out to be an illusion.

    The important thing to remember when this happens is that this is a momentary and expectable development. It will pass. We must not allow the mainstream media to make too much of it, or believe that storyline ourselves. Remember: Obama's victory was a ratification of change, and change - personal, cultural, or otherwise - does not happen in a straight line.

    The most important development I anticipate for progressives, now that Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th president, is that our roles as progressives will have to change. Up until this point, we have been the underdogs, not just for the past very long eight years, but also throughout the entire arc of the advent of modern conservatism, dating back to the election of Ronald Reagan. Although Bill Clinton held office for eight of those years, and represented a reprieve from staunch conservatism in a number of ways, the zeitgeist of the country was far from a progressive one. It has been a very long time that the progressive movement has been pushing Sisyphus' rock uphill. We have been the underdogs for so long that many of the newly engaged foot soldiers of the Obama era have no recollection whatsoever of this country being any other way.

    We've been the underdog for what has seemed like forever - and now, all of a sudden, we're not. We won. We were victorious. But what do we do with the victory? And what pitfalls lurk under the surface in the transition from victor to whatever comes next?

    From Underdog to Change Agent

    First, we are going to have to get used to being victorious, to wielding power. At first blush, that does not seem to present any difficulties, but that would be a naive position to take.

    The progressive movement is about to be called upon to undergo a change in identity. A positive change, to be sure, but a change nonetheless. All changes, even positive ones, create stress for the party that is changing. Witness the fact that positive events such as marriage and getting a promotion register high on ratings of major life stressors, alongside negative events such as divorce and loss of a loved one. Moving to a new place to live is high on the list as well - an event that can be construed as either positive or negative, depending on the point of view of the relocating person.

    The point here is that all change induces stress, regardless of whether we choose to view it as positive or negative, because we must manage shifting external demands just as we are learning about new capabilities in ourselves we may not have been aware of before, or practiced utilizing.

    Progressives are about to experience this firsthand. We are no longer the powerless underdogs fighting rear guard actions against the relentless rule of a regressive, repressive majority. Now we are in charge. And we are going to have to get used to it.

    The second aspect of this change from progressive underdog to majority player and holder of power revolves around how we will wear our new role. This is a more optional change. But I believe we have an unprecedented opportunity to rewrite the script of how victors behave in the American system, as part of the effort to bring not just political but cultural and socioeconomic change to our country.

    If we are to win the cultural argument, and not just the political one - in other words, if we are to build the just, sustainable society that progressives have dreamt of and talked about for so long - then we are going to have to treat our victory differently than we would have under more "normal" circumstances.

    It is patently obvious that Obama's victory was no ordinary victory; it was a sea change on numerous levels. It was the culmination of a lifetime of work for civil rights activists; an overwhelming statement of agreement with values of the progressive movement by a majority of voters; and a reaffirmation that our electoral system, and our democracy, despite voter fraud and the shredding of our Constitution by the Bush administration, can still function.

    On top of this, the magnitude of the problems that our nation and the world face at this moment in history is staggering: war, national and energy security, economic meltdown, and a raft of social ills that have festered for eight or more years without balm. That was no ordinary election, and this is no ordinary post-election. We have a mind-boggling array of issues to attend to. Creating the needed changes in our national infrastructure, commerce, and culture will require some heavy lifting indeed.

    Ask anyone who's ever built a pyramid - some genuine heavy lifting - and they will tell you what's needed is cooperation. We as progressives cannot fix the magnitude of problems in this country on our own, even if we are now putatively the majority.

    So, the invitation that appears before the progressive movement is to shift our identity not from underdog to victor, but from underdog to, eventually, agent of change. If we are to ultimately do the work that has been set before us, we must shift from being adversarial to cultivating cooperation. We have to learn to work with the people who even recently may have strenuously opposed us.

    Doing What Is Needed

    This will not go down easy for a lot of progressives. There are activists who have labored in the trenches for so long that relinquishing an oppositional stance in relation to conservatives may be functionally impossible, at least at first. And there are doubtless progressive political operatives and members of Congress who have their own battle scars that will not fade any time soon.

    Indeed, it is understandable - and I would encourage it enthusiastically - to enjoy our victory for a good long moment, in order to settle into the mantle of leadership we have worked so long to earn. But we cannot afford to bask in the moment for long.

    My point here is that prior elections have kept Democrats and Republicans in a perpetual pendulum swing where one lords their power over the other after an electoral victory, because the battle is so hard won, and there is the perception, often quite accurate, that our opponents would not be especially gracious to us if the roles were reversed. And indeed, we are not especially generous when it is our turn, because now we want the other guy to know what its like to be on the bottom of the pile for a change.

    The problem with this thinking is that, well, there's not much thinking in it. It's an emotional knee-jerk reaction - and one of the many reasons why citizens have been cynical about politics. There is a playground quality to making your opponent pay after you've won. In that sense, the Democrats (though they haven't won as often) and the Republicans (who have held the upper hand a lot) are very much alike.

    Given that this is no ordinary moment in time, and no ordinary victory at hand, there is an opportunity for progressives to find a way to be the better men and women, to take the high road and work to forge the partnerships we need with those who we know may not agree with us.

    President Obama, no doubt, embodies this kind of graciousness himself. He serves as a model of how to move forward in working with our former opponents - even if his efforts have initially, and ultimately quite foolishly, been repudiated by Congressional Republicans. As our president is so fond of saying, he cannot do it all alone. Individual citizens are going to need to participate in the challenging work ahead of us that is necessary to rebuild our country. The likening of these times to the Great Depression certainly carries with it the implication that, in fact, all citizens will need to be called upon to pass successfully through this transition. In effect, we will all need to be ambassadors for progressive values in our own lives in order to enact en masse the creation of the vital and humane society we have held dear in our minds all this time.

    Indeed, I would argue that, as progressives, it is our moral obligation to do better as victors than historically we, or our opponents, have. If we are to have the integrity of our beliefs, if we are to act in ways that are consistent with what we claim to profess as humanistic and creative thinkers who believe in the democratic experiment, we must strive to do this. Putting aside our differences and declining to vilify those who have vilified us is what we will be called upon to do in order to build the bridges and coalitions we are going to need to build.

    The challenge moving forward is to learn how to engage our opponents in the larger work we must undertake together to repair our nation and society. Defiance, gloating and animosity will not work. There are techniques that progressives can learn in order to do this, which is the subject of another essay entirely. But before we get to that, we must make the transition from enjoying the spoils of victory to transmuting ourselves into agents of positive change, into seeing ourselves as catalysts, or midwives if you will, of the new society and economy we must build.

    Ignoring Feelings at Our Peril

    How on earth are we going to do that?

    Well, first I'll tell you what we are not going to do - or at least what will very likely not work for the majority of progressives if we default into doing this. We are not going to float feel-good platitudes about how we are going to simply "let go" of our feelings of resentment towards neo-cons that have been developing over the past eight years. The conservative junta has trashed much that progressives hold near and dear, and have worked mightily to dismantle the fabric of our nation. They have institutionalized a nastiness and mean-spiritedness in their governing and their media that has shredded the ability of our nation to hold civil discourse on nearly any topic of substance. We can not simply be asked to forget this. When the wolf is standing at the door, you don't invite him in for tea.

    No, instead, I would recommend that we acknowledge openly and vociferously the damage done by the neocons to us - not as a media event to be parsed and misinterpreted by pundits - but as a sort of within-group purge, an opportunity for progressives to speak among ourselves about what we have been through in order to relinquish it and become ready to assume the responsibilities of leadership.

    It is not unlike the shift from Apartheid in South Africa - there was a need for the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to hold open hearings on the injustices of the fallen regime, in order for citizens to let go of the pain of that era and move on to something new (although in our model there is no power to grant amnesty from prosecution for perpetrators).

    The danger is, if we skip this step - if we move directly to pushing the progressive agenda forward without reflecting on how we feel about what toll it has taken to get here - we risk the dark impulses of revenge and unconscious anger tearing apart the coalitions we need to build. The emotional energy around the presidential election, and by extension, the cultural transition we are about to enjoin, is considerable. Do not underestimate the importance of emotion in the political equation. If we do not acknowledge our quite understandable desire to make the Republicans and neo-cons pay for the damage they have done, they will sense this unbidden energy and exploit it as our weakness. They will help us self-destruct on it. We must not let that happen.

    The advantage of intentionally addressing the lingering animosity that progressives quite understandably may feel towards the conservatives we are now tasked with working with to rebuild our country, is that making conscious the desire to express anger towards conservatives and seek revenge against them gives us the power to decide what to do with these feelings. These feelings will not ambush us if we take the time as a group to acknowledge them.

    Acknowledging in a collective setting that many progressives feel the same on this score will allow us to set these impulses aside. And in so doing, it will allow us to reclaim a strong, and even fierce, voice that we can use to work with the conservatives in a way that holds them accountable for their transgressions without seeking blame or retribution.

    Accountability and Cooperation

    Note that the endgame of working through our negative feelings towards the conservatives is not to roll over, Neville Chamberlain style, and forget everything that was done to us at the hands of the conservatives. Rather, it is to open a way to gather our strength and determination as we hold the conservatives accountable for the errors of their ways, past and present, as part and parcel of learning to work together in coalitions with them. If we are angry, subconsciously or not, we are not empowered; we are reactive, and letting fear of being overpowered again decide what we are to do. If we have a handle on our darker feelings, we can make conscious choices about them, can set them aside, and can confront wrongs in clear conscience, even as we reach out to our former opponents.

    Once we have moved through this process, we will be ready to assume the mantle of power that we have earned. We will be in a position to choose whether we will act as victors rubbing our former opponents noses in their loss, or as intentional catalysts for change, both building coalitions and requiring accountability and responsibility from ourselves as well as our opponents. Once lingering negative feelings have been aired, we will be ready to try on our new identity.

    Enjoining the progressive community in an intentional discussion of where we have been and what comes next as part of forging our next collective identity also addresses the fact that progressive forces are now the majority in the executive and legislative branches. Without a permanent stalemate, without an enemy to push against, progressives may be unnerved as to how to act. We no longer need to be locked in combat. This is not to say that we are suddenly free of opponents - or that we are free of the need to hold our leaders' feet to the fire and demand they act on their progressive promises - but there is no longer a need to be constantly in a state of battle. This will probably be unnerving to many a progressive. And yet this gives us an opportunity to change the terms of the game, to allow at least some of what we contract with our conservative opponents to be less oppositional and adversarial. There is not nearly as much to push against. We will have to figure out how to remain engaged with moving ahead the issues under these radically different circumstances. A forum such as the one I'm suggesting may help to engage activists who would otherwise not have an easy time finding a place in the next phase of progressivism.

    And so I suggest the creation of a forum for progressives to discuss the impending changes in our identity, our relationship to power, and all that has come before, in an effort to get ready for what comes next. A place to safely relinquish the battle scars, call them what they are, and begin to collectively create our next identity as makers of change. The time, shape, and scope of this is up for debate, although certainly sooner rather than later (say, within the first three to six months of Obama's presidency) would be advisable. But that it should take place is clear. The dynamics of change are in play, and we would do well to attend to them.

    There is a wonderful future to be built. Let's go.

    -------


border guards
I have been meaning to ask this question for awhile now, got sidetracked, anyway, what do you think about the 2 border guards who got prison time, 10 years and 11 years, for shooting and killing a man attempting to cross the border into the United States from Mexico?  I keep hearing **accused drug dealer,** don't know if that means he was carrying drugs at the time or not but that is really neither here nor there. The governors of the border states have sought intervention from the white house but have gotten nothing so these 2 guys went to prison about a month ago now for some real hard time, long time. Any opinions on this.
Do you know what's happening on the Pakistani border?
Wake up. Even Squawkbox Obama admits we need MORE military, not less.

Of course, he's also announced he already plans to bomb Pakistan, which was really retarded and only served to heighten the urgency of the Muslim extremist freaks who are organizing their next attack on the U.S. Way to go, doofus.
At Wounded Knee, two federal agents were shot to death. sm

One was killed while going for his gun after being shot at.  The gun was so high powered, it severed his hand. He was married and a father.  I don't think Wounded Knee is anything to be proud of. 


New Mexico, Arizona Declare Border Emergencies to Fight Crime

What a shame that these two governors had to declare states of emergency simply because we have at president who knows that this problem exists but just doesn’t care enough about preventing another 9/11 to do anything about it.


From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=akXph_LySDzs&refer=latin_america#


New Mexico, Arizona Declare Border Emergencies to Fight Crime


Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) -- New Mexico and Arizona governors declared states of emergency for their borders with Mexico, pledging to increase funding to stop the rise in drug smuggling and violence by illegal immigrants.


New Mexico's Bill Richardson and Arizona's Janet Napolitano blamed a lack of money from the federal government that has left the borders and their residents unprotected by U.S. patrols.


``Governor Richardson was asked to take this action by local law enforcement and ranch families.'' Billy Sparks, Richardson's chief of staff, said in a phone interview today.


The declarations were made Friday by Richardson, 47, and yesterday by Napolitano, 47. Richardson, who has been named a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said in a press release there has been ``total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government.''


The escalation in violence during the past month, including gunshots fired at Columbus, New Mexico, police chief Clare May, the attempted kidnapping of three girls and the deaths of 100 cattle along New Mexico's 180-mile border with Mexico prompted Richardson to declare the emergency, Sparks said.


The declaration makes $750,000 of state funding available in affected counties. Richardson pledged to make an additional $1 million available. The money will be used to increase local law enforcement, open a new homeland security office in the border region and help build a fence to protect livestock near Columbus.


Fences, Neighbors


Unlike some border areas in the U.S., landowners in New Mexico maintain their own fences to keep illegal immigrants off their property. In one case a landowner's entire fence was stolen, Sparks said. The U.S. Border Patrol has 109 workers for 200 miles from El Paso, Texas, across New Mexico to Arizona, said Sparks. That is expected to increase by 75 in October.


Napolitano's order makes $1.5 million available to fight crime along the border, according to her press release.


``I intend to take every action feasible to stem the tide of criminal behavior on the Arizona side of the border,'' she said.


The number of unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. each year rose to more than 700,000 in 2004 from 140,000 in the 1980s, according to the Arizona declaration.


Questions about the security of the U.S. border with Mexico have risen since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as officials have tried to limit movement into the U.S. of potential terrorists along with the illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. Immigration restrictions have forced more illegal crossings over landowner- built fences in Arizona and New Mexico.


The border emergency declarations were reported earlier today by the New York Times.


Numbers Jump


So far in the fiscal year that began in October, agents in the Yuma, Arizona, sector of the U.S. border patrol have captured 122,344 illegal immigrants, said Michael Gramley, spokesman for the sector. The previous record was 108,000 in 2000. The Yuma sector covers 126 miles of border in Arizona and California.


``We're taking greater strides toward reaching a higher level of border security,'' said Gramley, in a phone interview. ``The border patrol values any assistance that we receive from state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies.''


Federal officials said they have been making progress in increasing border security.


``Extraordinary progress has been made over the last couple of years as far as strengthening our borders,'' said Jarrod Agen, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He declined to comment on the state of emergency in Arizona and New Mexico. ``It's the authority of the governors there.''


Both governors called on authorities in Mexico to increase security on their sides of the border, the press releases said.


Mexico's Response


Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement yesterday that it had agreed after meeting with Napolitano to support her actions and work to reduce crime on its side of the border. The ministry blamed organized crime for the border problems.


``On that side and on this side there's organized crime,'' Mexican President Vicente Fox said in an interview with reporters during a visit to the northern border state of Sonora yesterday. ``On that side and this side there's drug consumption. The question is how do all the drugs that cross over there reach the consumer markets? What's being done on that side?''


Texas Governor Rick Perry, 55 doesn't plan to declare an emergency because he believes protecting the U.S. border is the federal government's responsibility, said Robert Black, Perry's spokesman, in a phone interview. Texas's 1,200-mile border with Mexico is the longest of any U.S. state with a foreign country.


``The governor had said that you can't have homeland security without the federal government,'' said Black. ``The feds can't avoid their responsibility to the states.''

To contact the reporter on this story:
Darrell Preston in Dallas at dpreston@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: August 17, 2005 14:52 EDT


 


Bush won't meet with border officials despite evidence of Middle East infiltration through Mexico


Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM


Bush declines to meet with border officials


Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer


San Bernardino County Sun


President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.


In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.


Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.


The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. 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.


Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.


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, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.


In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.


Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.


The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.


Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.


It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.


The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.


Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.


We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.


Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.


The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.


Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency

Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency



SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK
HERE!

THANK YOU!