Replies

You know, day in and day out, I read endless whining on this site about "Bush bashers" and yet, I have to tell you I myself am sick and tired of all the Border Patrol Bashers popping out of the woodwork and popping off their mouths in attacks on our troops. Yes, I consider the Border Patrol to also be our troops, although they are not strictly military. They have had one of the toughest jobs in this nation, LONG before the War on Terror, working day and night in a dangerous and humble job that protects all of us more than we know and certainly far more than some dunderheads are able to appreciate. They have worked under notoriously meager conditions, traditionally undermanned, grossly undersupplied and ridiculously underfunded.

Right after the November 2004 election, President Bush signed a Homeland Security bill --- the result of the 9/11 Commission --- which provided for an increase of 10,000 Border Patrol agents over five years, i.e., at least 2,000 new agents per year. Once that bill was signed into LAW, the administration broke that law and reduced the number of new agents to a few hundred.

So, let me tell you Border Patrol Bashers something: You would be much more welcome at places like ACLU, ANSWER and any of a number of Zapatista organizations. Have a nice evening.

I actually agree with a lot of your post. I am not a border patrol basher in the slightest. In fact, I think it is one of the most difficult jobs in the country.

What I do not believe is that having a heroic job, whether it is a soldier, a border patrol agent, a policeman or a fireman gives you a free pass for not doing the right and lawful thing. And that goes for prosecutors as well.

In this case, I waited until a trial was held. At this point, it looks fair to me. I may change my mind at a later date. I feel the same way about military men who tarnish the reputation of our armed forces, and Americans who put us to shame because they don't do the right thing.

I believe the border is a problem and needs to be cleaned up. I am also strongly aware that perception is a very powerful tool that is used to stir people up in ways that can do more harm than good in actually solving the problem. I believe hearsay and rumor is not a good substitute for facts and analysis.

Therefore, I tend to approach this stuff with caution, don't wholly believe much of what I read from a single source, try not to demonize the President over things he does not control, and let the system do what it was designed to do.

Funny thing is, I always believed that approach was conservative. I have been confused lately...especially by folks who say it doesn't matter if these guys lied or covered up as one did on another thread on this topic. I'm sorry, but character still matters. Even when it is on our team.

I hope that clears things up, La Enchiladita. I really think we're on the same team.

I agree. It astounds me how many of the same people will condemn Compean and Ramos yet excuse the existance of the illegals in our country as "no big deal". Many of them will argue for the "rights" of illegls" and their "due process" and yet stand for this virtual lynching of two guys that were trying to protect them.

Support the troops? None of them do.

As far as Bush's fault in this those same people conveniently forget that the Executive Branch is in charge of the Justice Department. In other words, Bush is their boss. And, he was just as happy to let this go as any of the other quislings on this site.

We aren't the ones who are accusing BP agents of being in league with Drug smugglers, and giving false testimony in exchange for favors, in order to defend two convicted felons.

Whichever side you are on in this case, you can't label yourself "Pro BP Agents", because there were BP agents who testified against the two convicted agents.

And I am fine with being against BP agents who are found by a jury to have committed multiple felonies and judged based on evidence presented to have shot an unarmed man while he fled.

I don't think you do BP agents any favors supporting agents who have broken the law. It's fine to argue that there was a travesty of justice, that they didn't get a fair trial, or that the evidence against them is false.

But if those things were so, nobody here would be arguing to put them in jail. The suggestion that those who oppose you do so because we want BP agents in jail simply because they are BP agents is silly.

There are two ways for your side to "win". One is to show that the evidence supports your position. The other is to call people names and run a phone-bank campaign to try to sway the political process to force the result you desire, regardless of how people feel about the evidence itself.

The first is a noble endeavor, which I support wholeheartedly even though I believe it will fail, because my OPINION is the two agents were guilty.

The second is a subversion of our political and judicial process, and suggests that our criminal justice system should be governed NOT by evidence and procedure, but rather by political popularity and pressure.

My opinion is that the second is NOT a conservative approach to righting wrongs. It is a lazy way out, one that is often used by those who do not have facts on their side, but can sway public opinion.

I am dismayed by the increasing acceptance of the tactic among my conservative allies. It's a shortcut that only works when you've got a political majority, but which does not advance the cause of understanding.

You can usually identify such an argument by the terms used to describe the opponents. IN fact, the use of terms to define opponents is often a good indication of straying from a discussion of the merits.