Posted on 08/03/2006 5:03:22 AM PDT by IrishMike
The Senate did an abrupt about-face yesterday, voting overwhelmingly to begin paying for 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, just three weeks after voting against the same spending. The amendment's sponsor said senators were so embarrassed by that July 13 vote that most felt they had to reverse course and vote for it this time -- especially after so many were on record in May voting to build the fence in the first place. The amendment, which provides nearly $2 billion for the project, passed 94-3, with 66 senators switching from "no" to "yes" votes since last month. "I think people wanted to get right," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican. "People heard from their constituents after they voted to authorize the fence in May and then voted against funding it a couple of weeks ago." The fence has become one of the flash points as Congress and President Bush try to craft a new immigration enforcement policy this year piece by piece. Mr. Bush travels to Texas today to review operations at the border, including the success of his plan to deploy the National Guard to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. This week, the president reached his goal of assigning 6,000 Guard troops to the border states by Aug. 1. Still, of the 6,340 troops assigned as of yesterday, only 2,675 troops, or 42 percent, were "forward deployed." The rest are at joint task force headquarters, in training or in transit. But the Guard's presence has led to a 25 percent drop in apprehensions at the border compared with the same time last year, suggesting the troops are having success in preventing illegal aliens from trying to cross.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
BUMP
Thought they could play the ole', I voted for it before I voted against it" B$, but we called them on it. They can't play their little games anymore without the base knowing about it. That they would do it in the first place says much about the character of the people we send to Washington.
Dept Homeland (in)Security to contract with the 'Minutemen' to take care of that problem.
(sarc:)
Thanks for the link.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
From Polipundit:
National Guard Border Numbers Are A Carnival Shell Game, It’s That Bad
Today is the “deadline” for “troops to the border” and I am extremely sad to write that sending the National Guard to the “Southern Border” is turning out to be an embarrassing failure. As a member of the Reserve Components, I am ashamed at what I am seeing.
President Bush was first failed by the advisors that originally proposed the plan. Now he is being failed on the execution of the plan.
Unfortunately, the National Guard has a long and troubled history on “strength accounting” which must be considered whenever politically sensitive numbers such as these, are reported. For historical background, you may read the original USA Today reporting HERE. Because of the National Guards history, Congress should demand that the General Accounting Office perform an audit of all “strength reporting” pertaining to “Operation Jump Start.”
The bottom line is that we are being treated to a “carnival shell game” and in order to find the proverbial “ball under the shell” we first need to go back to the Presidents Address to the Nation on May 15, 2006 to determine the deployment standard:
“By the end of 2008, we’ll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000.”
“One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So, in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads, and providing training.”
Yesterday, Col. Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau said that “2,000 to 3,000 were on the border, most searching for illegal activity” and the the balance of “6,199 troops were somewhere in the four southwestern border states, with many still in training.”
As a fellow Reserve Commissioned Officer I would ask COL Allen, what is this spread of 2,000 to 3,000? You either know where your soldiers are or you don’t. Where are these missing 1,000 soldiers. Where is this place called “somewhere?” How much time will soldiers have to do their job if “they are still in training” when the deployment is in two to three week cycles?
Second, most Americans, including myself, took the President at his word and “assumed” that 6,000 troops to the southern border meant that 6,000 troops would be reasonably close to the border. We did not expect that they could be hundreds of miles from the border. However, it looks like the President’s Plan was not the National Guards plan:
“The Guard never intended to have 6,000 troops “with their toes on the border,”
Third, we must remember that these troops are sacraficing their two week Annual Training period, when they would normally practice their combat skills as a unit. So, just what are these troops doing instead of training for the War on Terror:
“California has assigned more than 1,200 troops, Guard spokesman Maj. Dan Markert said Monday. About half will be at the border looking for illegal activity; the other half will be in support roles ranging from plumbers to office workers.”
What kind of “bang for our buck” are we getting for these 6,000 soldiers that will be rotating in and out of the border states every two to three weeks?
“The number that we’d identified originally when we started planning this operation that would – the numbers of badges back to the border, if you will, was 581.”
Yep, all these hoops for 581 “badges back to the border.” We are paying the wages and travel costs (every two weeks) of 10 soldiers to put a single “badge back on the border.” More importantly, these soldiers are performing duties that will be of no use to them in preparing to serve on deployment in the Global War on Terror.
I have many friends in the Army National Guard, both in the Border States and at National Guard Bureau. In recent weeks, I have seen the raw numbers that were used to make yesterdays press statements. I was very disturbed when I read that a National Guard Spokesman said,
“Some are assigned to military bases to receive incoming troops.” Those in the National Guard and/or Reserve Components should clearly understand why counting “those soldiers” is extremely troubling.
The National Guard is not doing itself any good nor are they helping President Bush with this “creative accounting.”
If this charade does not stop soon, the eventual Congressional Hearings will be devistating to the Administration, the National Guard and Republican Members of Congress. Yesterday’s “creative accounting” will be considered minor.
-- Oak Leaf
Okay, where's that pic of the RINO doing the elephant?
They do play games, you know. "Fooled you" is their favorite!
Educated aliens from Northern Europe or Asian need not apply.
Why the cheers?
When has BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING solved a problem?
Please post here 1 or 2 years or 10 years from now when you can show that this money was wisely and effectively spent to accomplish anything useful.
It is pure symbolism... expensive symbolism.
More like people wanted to get re-elected
From NRO. Truly unbelievable:
Homeland Insecurity [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Also on the AP wire:
Undercover investigators entered the United States using fake documents repeatedly this year _ including some cases in which Homeland Security Department agents didn't ask for identification.
At nine border crossings on the Mexico and Canadian borders, agents "never questioned the authenticity of the counterfeit documents," according to Government Accountability Office testimony to be released Wednesday.
"This vulnerability potentially allows terrorists or others involved in criminal activity to pass freely into the United States from Canada or Mexico with little or no chance of being detected," concluded the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, in testimony obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.
bump for later
But there's much more than 2000 miles of border. For example there's 3,145 miles of border with a neighboring "hostile state" to the North (or East, depending on how you are looking at the thing).
The evil French have a couple of islands in the St. Lawrence estuary (Miquilon and St. Pierre) aimed like a dagger at the industrial heart of the Midwest.
We could go on and on with this.
Excellent link. Sessions makes some fantastic points in his article.
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.