Posted on 06/16/2006 10:41:38 AM PDT by Small-L
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."
You wrote: "There is a reason I hold my beliefs - because I believe them to be right. If someone convinces me otherwise, I change them. However, by any sane evaluation of history and politics, Bush is wrong on this issue."
And you call others condescending? Bwahahahahahaha...
Nice try, but no stogie. You got caught spinning.
The only thing spinning around here are the people who search every nook and cranny for some reason to revile President Bush at the drop of a hat.
You sound like a liberal with that moral-relativistic attitude.
Ah, the old cannard. It's either that or Bushbot. I just love how folks with your mindset simply must make everyone who disagrees with you on any given issue THE BAD GUY. Yep. Well I'm proud to be cast as THE BAD GUY in your world.
If Bush were to send
SOLDIERS to the border, that could be
interpretted as an act of aggression by
the Mexican govt.
Who gives a CRAP what Mexico thinks? Obviously they are not our friends!
Best regards,
It is becoming obvious that not all of them are as sincerely interested in solving border security as much as they are in having the issue...and that itself is also a hallmark of the left.
You'll have to do better than to slyly imply you are a WH insider. For one thing, no WH insider would have the time to spend lollygagging around here. No WH insider would be as hostile to this President as you clearly are, and still work for him -- at least no one that wasn't a A #1 hypocrite of the worst kind.
As I said before, we shall see.
"We're going to reach a tipping point eventually that will probably toss the Dems into a junk heap."
Or the GOP. Yes, it's a tossup, but I still expect that whoever is elected will sit smack dab in the center, within a certain range.
We aren't really very good in the USA at making big changes in our elected officials. We, or the majority of us, don't much like extremes, politically.
Look at where we are as we approach the 2006 elections. We're bickering over whether the DEMS or the GOP will have the majority after the election. Myself, I figure it won't make any more difference than it does now. The GOP is nominally in control now. Yet...what have they done?
Even here on FR, the polls are showing that Freepers would vote for a moderate Republican for President, and in a pretty wide majority, over any Democrat. Guess what? That's exactly who we'll have as the GOP candidate.
Same with Congress. There aren't a lot of firebrands on either side in incumbent seats, and not many firebrands on either sude running who stand a chance of election.
You expect changes. I expect more of the same. History is on my side.
So the president can advocate and create unconstitutional policies even though he has taken the oath of office? Open Borders is not in our constitution and silly me, I expect my president to uphold the law regardeless of his personal preferences. Being as he is the CIC.
Do you drive a Saturn? You sure sound like someone who drives a Saturn.
"Who gives a CRAP what Mexico thinks? Obviously they are not our friends!
"
Yes, yes...yet, do you really expect the President, either this one or the next, to send armed troops to the border. Don't be silly. There is too much, economically, at stake for that to happen.
Relativist. I can see why you feel no shame with your spin.
I just love how folks with your mindset simply must make everyone who disagrees with you on any given issue THE BAD GUY.
No, most are just wrong, and I can deal with that. You, however, seen to just like to spew political spin, which is quite easy when you are a relativist.
I don't have to do better than anything Wolfstar nor will I be goaded into telling you how I come by some of the info I do just to satisfy your curiosity or anyone elses. You want to follow the stuff they publish on the website as though it were gospel be my guest. If you are so naive as to believe that they would actually pulbish the presidents each and every move ahead of time for all the world to see on a website that's your problem.
You are right about one thing though, I would never work for this WH.
Every now and then events conspire to shatter the status quo. Right now, the parties seem to be competing as to which one can provide the worst leadership for this country.
Recall that TR only became president because the GOP leadership thought making him Vice President would push him out of the way.
"Open Borders is not in our constitution and silly me, I expect my president to uphold the law regardeless of his personal preferences. Being as he is the CIC.
"
Lots of things are not in our Constitution (it is properly capitalized, by the way). You know what is in the Constitution? The concept of treaties. Nothing in the Constitution says that we may not admit foreigners to work in our country. Nothing in the Constitution says that we may not form alliances with other nations for economic reasons.
I think, perhaps, it is time for you to actually read the document another time. That you do not personally like a proposed action does not mean that it is unconstitutional. You must actually read the document.
What is there is that the federal government is responsible for the borders. It is the federal government, then, that makes laws regarding who may cross those borders, and under what conditions. NAFTA, despite its flaws, is perfectly constitutional.
The Constitution says what the federal government may and may not do, but leaves room for just about everything that is part of the law. Treaties are the first step in opening the borders. If a treaty is properly created and ratified, then it is constitutional by definition.
Go read the Constitution, tertiary01. You seem not to be too familiar with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.