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."
The posted article's first two paragraphs refer to the federal House of Representatives, a House committee, and a member of the federal House.
And he made the trip at the time time that Kerry was talking about his making decisions from the safety of Washington, DC.
Silly and foolish notion? Have you bothered to read the link here that shows Bush signed a totalization agreement with MExico back in 2004?
Well, you know more about the law and this sort of thing than I do. I was only going on what I read on Culberson's website since I heard him on Fox this morning. Thanks for the info.
"Country" sheriffs? No snobbery here, right?
That dog a pony show was a joke.
"This is the same foolishness the NAACP uses in suggesting because GWB doesn't meet with them...that he clearly doesn't support minorities, blah, blah, blah."
As you can see from the responses, many believe that because this time it's their issue everything's different.
Obviously the NAACP is not the same as a border sheriff. However, the tactic of "if you don't meet with me, you're against me" is the same.
I'm not speaking for DevSix, but it continues to bug me that the anti-illegal faction uses the same methods as the left.
""all of the Republican House members from Texas""
Quite a slap in the face by Bush. His actions are more and more strange. More and more I'm thinking it's not just a philosophical view, or a class hatred towards the middle and lower economic classes that drive him, but a cold, calculated economic decision to put Amnesty+ through and receive millions of dollars on "the back end" laundered via post-2008 speaking gigs and book deals.
Believe what you want. The trip to Iraq was not planned until Zarqawi was dead. Whatever press crap you read is irrelevant.
Hey, you were the one talking about the Congressional picnic YESTERDAY as a means to show this was bogus:
I don't trust honesty of the article due to a claim in it that the congressmen had to travel to Washington to try to meet with GWB. Makes no sense. The annual congressional picnic was yesterday.
And now you pretend the details don't matter? Like I said, retreat to your next prepared position.
Why do you and so many others around here feel the need to be a**holes?
I guess that one got to the core of what you were up to, eh?
Why do you feel the need to engage in such knee-jerk defenses of Bush when he is so wrong on this issue, including doing a 180-degree spin on your own damn talking point? It is a Constitutionally-defined role of the President to defend this country from invasion. We have foreign troops coming into this country and threatening law enforcement officers. And all we get from Bush and Chertoff is "What, me worry?"
Was it or was it not Bush who said shortly after 9-11 "either you're with us or you're against us"?
Was that the same method the left uses that you were talking about?
As someone else pointed out, Bush has plenty of time to meet with illegals at the diego garcia center but not those American citizens on the front line of our border war to the south.
I did not see anyone laughing.
Certainly not the OBL types. The rest of us saw it for what it was however.
Press crap my arse! I do daily in-depth research on the President's upcoming schedule at the WH website and other sources that carry the info, and have been doing so for years. There is a huge amount of information about this and any president that never makes it into the top stories of the day, and that never makes it onto forums like this.
Not long after his reelection, both GWB and the First Lady were asked questions about whether or not they might go to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The First Lady especially wanted to go to Afghanistan. It took about a year, but she did make the trip eventually. GWB wanted to go back to Iraq after the new government was in place. The final two cabinet members were named just days before the Camp David weekend. The arrangements had been made and plan of action was ready. Had those two final cabinet members not been named, the trip would have been postponed, as it was several times before.
Now I don't give a rat's butt whether or not you believe me. What I do care about is the fact that you and so many others around here insist on believing the worst about this President no matter what. Although you have a right to do so, the willingness to engange in knee-jerk condemnation of him makes me sick.
Maybe they should've sent the letter in Spanish or Tex-Mex.
Not really, FRiend. I've just been trying to follow it closely since Vincente Fox announced the plan to Mexican workers in Chicago a full two weeks before its being announced to American workers back in 2004.
If you want to know what's happening between USA and Mexico, note US politicians' tight lips and listen carefully to their Mexican counterparts. What the Mexican pol's tell you through communications with Mexican nationals in USA is proof of what cowards in DC won't.
So, do you Tex-Mexage?
"The rest of us "
That's not that large a group, however. It seems to be shrinking, too. From the actions of our Congressional leaders, it appears that "the rest of us" aren't having that much impact.
I guess President Bush is winning this one.
You need to understand it has nothing to do with believing you or not, it has to do with knowing for a fact that you're wrong.
I beleive that you believe what you're saying, I just know that it's not true.
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.