Gov't worried about media interest in Obama's aunt

Google/AP ^

[nuconvert]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Homeland Security Department still is requiring high-level approval before federal immigration agents can arrest fugitives, a rule quietly imposed by the Bush administration days before the election of Barack Obama, whose aunt has been living in the United States illegally.

[nuconvert]

Interesting title. The word 'gov't' could easily have been replaced with the word 'Bush', but that would have been a positive headline about Pres. Bush, though it would have conveyed exactly what the article is about - Pres. Bush giving an order the week before the election in order to prevent Obama's aunt's legal situation from being used to affect the election.

Let's see what kind of coverage this gets in the msm

[mkjessup]

Ahhh, that former President Jorge, always looking out for his good amigos.

“See y’all at the signing!”

[nuconvert]

The worst I can say is that Pres. Bush is decent to a fault.

[livius]

Bush bent over backwards trying to be “fair” when there was absolutely no reason for it. He and McCain both refused to attack Obama for Obama’s policies or lack thereof, or even to let Obama suffer the consequences of his own actions or words. Unreal. And I say this as somebody who basically liked Bush.

The thing I did not like about him was that he rarely fought back, and in fact seemed to take every occasion to give the game to his opponents lest he be viewed as “unfair.”

[nbhunt]

She is not the only one that is illegal......

any ideas as to who else is illegal.....duh........

[1rudeboy]

I read your comment as, “baaaawwww.”

[mkjessup]

I read your comment as meaningless gibberish.

As usual.

[1rudeboy]

There are a number of valid reasons not to arrest Obama’s aunt before the Election. You don’t see them because your intention was simply to hijack the thread.

[nuconvert]

“She is not the only one that is illegal......
any ideas as to who else is illegal.....duh........}

Did you read the article, duh?
“the directive called for close supervision over any cases that could be high profile”

That doesn’t mean Every case.

[nbhunt]

your right, Bush played fair and you cannot play fair when your dealing with the lefties.

[mkjessup]

There are a number of valid reasons not to arrest Obama’s aunt before the Election.

How about naming some?

You don’t see them because your intention was simply to hijack the thread.

I would never hijack a thread if I knew you were going to be posting to it, I prefer to hijack threads where all the posters have more than double digit IQs, lol

There's your ad hominem that you've been dying for this morning, happy to help, now have a nice day.

[paul51]

different laws for the important people. nothing good about that

[1rudeboy]

Some people can read, compose replies, and submit them at blazing superhuman speed. ;)

[Kimberly GG]

I don’t suppose you view what Bush did as inappropriate, even if disclosure could have created a nightmare for Obama.

[mkjessup]

Then, there are posters like you. LOL

[1rudeboy]

How about naming some?

How about thinking of one yourself? If you get stuck, you can try reading the article for ideas.

[1rudeboy]

I know that if ICE arrested Obama’s aunt five days before the Election, we could’ve flown Justice Roberts out to give Obama the oath right away and not bothered with the Election at all.

[nuconvert]

“different laws for the important people. nothing good about that”

I know what you’re saying, but it seems like the wording of this directive was made vague purposely to deal with Obama’s aunt without having to spell it out, in order to be discreet. It’s more of a procedural thing, not a law.

[nbhunt]

Yes I did read it and if I'm reading it right it is still a crock. With high profile cases they have to have the governments approval to investigate.

Now, am I reading this right? I especially love the following excerpt

'They agreed at the time that the case should proceed in the ordinary course, with neither the president nor his representatives having any involvement; the White House said"

[mkjessup]

How about naming some [reasons]?
How about thinking of one yourself? If you get stuck, you can try reading the article for ideas.

You made the assertion that were plenty of reasons, it behooves you to either state them, or go slink on over to some other thread where you don't have to exercise your grey matter.

Have another cup o' coffee pal, and try again.