Bush denies superstate rumours

Washington Times ^ | August 22, 2007 | Jon Ward

[ckilmer]

Bush denies superstate rumours

August 22, 2007

By Jon Ward - MONTEBELLO, Quebec — President Bush and the leaders of Canada and Mexico yesterday ridiculed the notion that their countries are conspiring to create a regional supergovernment similar to the European Union.

"I'm amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place," said Mr. Bush, responding to concerns raised by conservative and liberal groups and some U.S. lawmakers.

"It's quite comical actually, to realize the difference between reality and what some people on TV are talking about."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper joked that a superhighway rumored to be in the works linking the three countries could also be "interplanetary."

The two leaders and Mexican President Felipe Calderon spoke at a press conference here in a countryside resort, halfway between Ottawa and Montreal, to cap two days of meetings.

Mr. Bush said it is important for the U.S. to work with Canada and Mexico on facilitating trade while securing their borders, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a series of negotiations started in 2005.

Mr. Bush said the charges of a plot to form a North American Union were "political scare tactics."

"You lay out a conspiracy and then force some people to try to prove it doesn't exist. That's just the way some people operate," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Harper said the trade talks were far more mundane than many realize, citing a morning meeting with business leaders at which one CEO complained that "the rules for jelly bean contents are different in Canada and the United States."

[1rudeboy]

Do you want examples? How many?

[1rudeboy]

Almost all of that deficit is US products now being produced in Mexico that were once produced in the US.

Actually, most of that deficit is oil. Nice try.

[OpusatFR]

“Do you want examples? How many?”

Your statements implied you know him personally.

I’m just curious to know because I know a lot of powerful people and I would never mention their names, characters, or activities online, or to tell the truth, even in a casual telephone conversation, definitely not email, and carefully in letters and only then as a passing, “I saw so and so at such and such,” “They look marvelous” type things.

You seem to dislike him and I think you could give backing to your statement because I don’t know him so I would have no personal preference for or against.

[Will88]

I don’t think it’s a matter of believing you or not. We just interpret what he said differently, which we both know was deliberate obfuscation.

I’ve read a couple of other recaps of the debates, and some direct quotes (didn’t find word-for-word transcripts) and he never clearly ties his temporary worker program to illegals already in the US. But he was playing his Clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of amnesty is” game throughout.

That’s deliberately deceit, or lying to me, especially with what he supported (amnesty for almost all) after re-election. Especially so when Kerry was proposing very specific amnesty programs which fell well sort of what W finally supported, but W clearly opposed Kerry’s plan during the debates.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your table presents totals, and totals tell nothing about how many of a thing were added and subtracted to arrive at the change from one year to the next.

I'll patiently await your table showing these things.

I don’t have to present a table.

LOL!

Anyone vaguely familiar with US/Mexico trade knows a few million jobs have gone south,

So you should easily be able to show me.

[ckilmer]

Disagreement is fine... disrespect is not... especially when it uses du/kos terms such as “shrub” to reference President Bush! BTW, NO ONE worked any harder to defeat Amnesty than I did. I am anti-illegal invader, but I do not enjoy reading dim inspired propaganda language on FR.
/////////////
I don’t use the “shrub” reference myself and imho the use of the word is sophomoric. But I will own that the violence of my anger at the bush administration over their border policy has shocked me. I don’t think that my feelings on the matter are atypical of most republicans.

The bush administration has been profoundly disrespectful to americans in general and republicans in particular on border issues. The damage that has been done to the body politic will likely be intergenerational.

These days I pray that after George the bush family never becomes involved in politics again.

[1rudeboy]

Never met the guy personally. If I did, I’d buy him a few beers to confirm or deny my suspicion. He might be posting on this thread under a new moniker, for all I know.

[padre35]

Nonsense, did you catch that?

The Executive Branch is making cross border deals with foreign countries that alter US Administrative Law, the Congress has oversight over such cross border activities.

Whether or not the Executive Branch feels the need to submit such actions for review by the Congress is moot, the Congress can take the reins themselves and investigate or legislate as needs be.

[ckilmer]

[A]dd it up.

Yes, it is lazy to argue “incrementalism” while ignoring whether an agreement to address, for example, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy between the three nations is a bad or good thing.

(but illegals murdering americans is sophistry)

[OpusatFR]

“No mystery at all, I’ve told everyone who asks. Corsi is a demagogue who is in the business of selling books. He laughs all the way to the bank about the people who fall for his BS.”

“Never met the guy personally. If I did, I’d buy him a few beers to confirm or deny my suspicion...”

Ah.

[ckilmer]

There is nothing to fear but fear paranoia....

///////////
Actually FDR said it better.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

There's a point where we're going to have to give that doom'n'gloom bit a rest, no matter how familiar it's gotten. This IBD editorial might help. My favorite part was the way it started out:

Not sure what you're saying.

[1rudeboy]

The Executive Branch is making cross border deals with foreign countries that alter US Administrative Law, the Congress has oversight over such cross border activities.

That's interesting. Do you know more? I don't know whether you are correct or not, but it seems rather odd that an administrative agency, using its delegated power from Congress to add/remove/change regulations, cannot add/remove/change regulations without Congress' consent.

I mean, if Joe Blow at the FCC steps out of line, then he gets called up on the Hill for a verbal thrashing--that's where "oversight" comes in. (And Congress can legislate a change--in effect, withdrawing its "consent").

[FourtySeven]

Ping to post #134

It's not a matter of vague recollections or obfuscations on your part, my part, or Bush's part. It's a matter of record, clear record, that what Bush proposed in 2004 with regards to immigration is the SAME THING he proposed in 2007.

I'll close with my original argument all along: Bush is many things (some things even bad) but he's no liar. Thus, if he says there are no plans for a "superhighway" or a "North American Union", I BELIEVE him.

Conspiracy theories are not proof to the contrary.

[Will88]

“Actually, most of that deficit is oil. Nice try.”

Hardly, we were buying oil from Mexico before NAFTA, when we had a trade surplus. With high prices, oil is part of the $80 billion deficit, but hardly most, and it changes nothing about the transfer of manufacturing jobs to Mexico.

I notice you’ve abandoned defending your table of total US manufacturing activity, which is what our disagreement was to begin with, and movement of US jobs to Mexico. You’re the first person I’ve encountered who wanted to argue that point.

I’m sure the oil portion of our deficit with Mexico is available, but I didn’t find it with a couple of Googles.

[1rudeboy]

Little slow today, huh? When someone observes that it's easier to chant "the SPP is incrementalism!" than identify specific instances where the SPP is bad, and that he believes it constitutes laziness to do so, then one would expect a non-lazy person to identify an instance where the SPP is bad. I suspect you can't.

Unless you found part of the SPP that I am not familiar with, namely, the part dealing with "illegals murdering [A]mericans."

[1rudeboy]

You meant to direct most of your comment to someone else. In any case, a good portion (I'd still like to say "most," but I'm on my way out the door) of our trade deficit with Mexico is in oil. One cannot point to the trade deficit figure and claim that it represents products we could be manufacturing here. And pointing-out that we imported oil before NAFTA is, well, meaningless.

[Will88]

“Conspiracy theories are not proof to the contrary.”

I haven’t put forth any conspiracy theories. I only said I don’t believe what W says concerning anything related to Mexico, and specifically what SPP is or isn’t. And I don’t.

“It’s not a matter of vague recollections or obfuscations on your part, my part, or Bush’s part. It’s a matter of record, clear record, that what Bush proposed in 2004 with regards to immigration is the SAME THING he proposed in 2007”

Well, you haven’t supplied the written record, only recollections. What I have found is just double talk in response to specifics from Kerry.

[padre35]

All the Executive Branch has to do is issue Executive Orders pertaining to the topic at hand.

Here is an example of what can happen with EO, (note I mentioned can):

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back904.html

Or this:

Executive Order: United States-Mexico Border Health Commission

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288) (the “Act”), and having found that the United States participates in the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission (USMBHC) pursuant to the United-States Mexico Border Health Commission Act, Public Law 103-400 (22 U.S.C. 290n et seq.), I hereby designate the USMBHC as a public international organization for purposes of the International Organizations Immunities Act. I hereby extend to members and employees of the Mexican Section of the USMBHC the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments with regard to the laws regulating entry into and departure from the United States as provided for in section 7(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 288d(a)). No other privileges, exemptions, or immunities of the Act are extended under this order

Or try looking into “Totalization” sometime 1rudeboy.

[uglybiker]

Bush is only taking orders from a group of illegal immigrant aliens who hail from Roswell, NM.

And they all meet here for lunch.