BUSH OPPOSED ALL EFFORTS TO SECURE BORDER

[runstowin]

Some excerpts from the article:

By Michael Cutler
January 10, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The news article in the Washington Times written by veteran journalist Jerry Seper who has been accurately covering the immigration "beat" for many years.

Virtually from his very first day in office, President George W. Bush made it clear that he opposed any effort to secure our nation's borders. He dangled promises of guest worker amnesty programs that encouraged the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation.

The outrage is that for years the administration refused to hire an adequate number of special agents for ICE and an adequate number of Border Patrol agents. As I have noted in previous commentaries, on March 10, 2005 I was invited to testify before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims at a hearing entitled:

"INTERIOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES"

You can read the transcript of that hearing in its entirety.

The significance of that hearing was that while the Congress had appropriated sufficient funds to hire and train 800 new special agents for ICE, the administration cut that number to just 143 new special agent hires. Similarly, while Congress had provided funding to hire 2,000 new Border Patrol agents that year and proposed that an additional 2,000 new Border Patrol agents be hired for each of the next 4 years, for a total of an additional 10,000 Border Patrol agents, the President and his administration slashed the number of new Border Patrol agents to be hired that year to just 210!

Had the President heeded the advice of the Congress, there would have been no mad dash to hire and train 6,000 agents whose screening and training program had been compromised out of the necessity of meeting the quotas belatedly imposed by the inept Bush administration.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cutler/michael144.htm

[TAB]

And yet people wonder why I hate him and his policys...

[GlockMeister]

Just remember, that article and the words chosen to write it, is more then likely from a very far left liberal newspaper/media source that do what they can to mislead and make a Republican President look bad, or worse.

I'm not thrilled with everything he's done. But there has never been another attack on US soil since 9/11. I'd also note, he didn't sign any gun bans into law either. Does any of this take away from the bad he's done or the mistakes he's made, no of course not. But it's not all his fault.

Before believe what a left leaning newspaper says, look into it. You just might find he opposed only the ideas of how it should be done, not the actual closing of our borders? Granted, I could be wrong, but after how the media was this past election, I believe little they say anymore and if it is something I really need to know the truth about, I research it for myself. As the border issue just isn't a Bush President problem, meaning there were others before him that could have also done this or something about our borders, to me, it isn't something I'll get all worked up about.

I'm more concerned with the up and coming inauguration and just what he'll do once he's in.

His and Biden's Urban Agenda concerns me more then this does. Especially since they removed it from their website. Someone that knows someone retrieved it. Because it is no longer there as it once was. This is what it once said for those who might care. And to see what it says now, just go to the site...

Scroll down to Crime and Law Enforcement for a true look at what their plans are. As i said, this is what it said before they removed it because once gun owners saw it, they called him on it and how it differed from what he said while he campaigned...

    http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/  <<<Now to me, that's what we need to be concerned about!

[TAB]

he said he would sign another AWB if it made it too his desk...

[ericire12]

I am glad to see him go...... and scared as hell to see what is going to be taking his place.

[Sponsor]

[runstowin]

Just remember, that article and the words chosen to write it, is more then likely from a very far left liberal newspaper/media source that do what they can to mislead and make a Republican President look bad, or worse.

The source of the article is easy to find, I provided the link at the bottom of my post.
It came from News With Views ( a right wing religious site), they reprinted an article from the Washington Times, the conservative alternative to the Washington Post.