Posted on 12/05/2001 4:24:43 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:31:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Ok, now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, flame on.
Wow, only 2 personal attacks in your first post to me. You're slipping there, Doc.
You need to stand further away from the radiation when you're treating your patients. Didn't they teach you in, medical screwal, that prolonged exposure to radiation will cause dain bramage? Oncologist, heal thyself.
Those Arab detainees had ties to the 'Al Queda' and the Canadians just let them go. Now, they're free to just saunter across our unprotected Northern border any old time they feel like it.
Yes, we will address our own USA border security issues as opposed to joining in your ridiculous and impossible to implement mantra of 'joint security, total continent enveloping, harmonization of immigration regulations'!
You still can't do the math. You still don't realize that we'd be committing to policing a border, at least, 3 times the length with ("partners"?) that have no damn financial resources of their own.
You're the 'borderless, one-world, liberal globalist', if there is one on this thread.
Oh, and Happy Holidays you 'sheepskin' rich, but 'common sense' poor, kook. At least you make an attempt to participate.
Let me get this straight, just because they think some of these murderers entered through Canada they are going to ignore the southern border where millions upon millions of criminal illegal aliens enter from all over the freaking world? Boy I feel safe. Good thinking.
The fact of the matter is they don't have a clue what these peoples movements were in the months before they made fools of our government, law enforcement and brutally murdered our people.
We have hundreds of thousands of expired visa holders in country and we don't have a clue where these people are, who these people are or what the f-k these people are still doing here. And millions more criminal illegal aliens are in country and no one is attempting to find out who these people are, what they are doing here, or even where the hell they are located.
Besides why are we now concerned about where these idiots entered? They have already done their damage. Sadam Hussein could put on a New York Yankees cap and they would grant him a G-damn visa for crying out loud.
Our immigration policies and borders have become a national disgrace, and now a total national security nightmare.
Great way to add to the discussion. Well, 'Yah hey der' to you, too.
Does 'Allah' really let you talk like that? I doubt the Free Republic content monitors will.
Your statement that: “We're concerned, here in the U.S., that a large number of the 19 terrorists, involved in the attacks on 9/11, entered the U.S. from Canada” should have tweaked me that you were an illogical dunderhead, immune to the facts. Methinks your blind hostility towards Canada, had, at its genesis, a Canadian gal dumping you…No?
Liberals like yourself wouldn't recognize logic if it jumped up and bit you in the shorts. Liberals attempt to win arguments through name calling. It never works, but it's all someone of your diminished mental capacity knows.
I hope you have a competant, conservative radiology tech doing your mathematical computations for you. For your patients sake, I mean.
Perhaps that nose-stretcher is even too much for our little Canadian hating friend?
I refer you to JDGreen's post #108 of an article that appeared in the Fall Edition, 2001 of The Social Contract Quarterly, Author: Wayne Lutton, Ph.D..
I haven't heard or read anything from the Att. Gen. refutting these statements, so I'll assume you're the liar until you produce it or post it.
Where do you and Dr. Luv come off insinuating I "hate" Canaduh or Canaduhans from anything I said? I want the USA to militarize both of our borders and take responsibility for our own security. I'm miffed that Canada just lets possible terrorists go, but that doesn't mean I hate them.
There's something else you can help clear up, as well. Are you a victim of socialized medicine in Canada or a perpetrator of it like Dr. Luv?
Ay, gabye der now, ay.
Senior US officials, for at least the last six weeks have repeatedly stated that no terrorists came through Canada. Here is the most recent example for you to ignore - found in about 10 seconds from the Globe and Mail:
Dispelling myth about Canada as terrorist portal
By HUGH WINSOR
Tuesday, December 4, 2001 – Print Edition, Page A10
United States Attorney-General John Ashcroft used the new Canada-U.S. border agreement yesterday to adjust the spin away from U.S. security concerns about its northern neighbour and onto U.S. confidence in its northern business partner. The agreement was announced earlier in the day in Detroit where Canadian interest was on the implications of moving National Guardsmen into border posts. But Mr. Ashcroft told us, in effect, to take a Valium on the National Guard issue -- the part-time soldiers are a temporary expedient to help Canadian and American businesses by relieving overworked customs agents.
Then he went on to dispel what has become an urban myth in the United States -- that several of the Sept. 11 terrorists had entered the United States from Canada.
The U.S. Attorney-General had originally contributed to that myth when, shortly after the attacks on New York and Washington, he talked about the "porous" border.
Yesterday he went out of his way to stress that all of the hijackers had come to the United States directly. In addition, he revealed for the first time that our most infamous terrorist export, Ahmed Ressam, was caught at the Port Angeles ferry terminal because of a tip from Canadian sources.
If the myth that Canada is a security threat to the United States persists, he added, it is a myth that distorts reality. Mr. Ashcroft had obviously been well briefed about Canadian sensitivities and yesterday's message track was that the agreement being signed yesterday would serve Canada as much as the States. And he has a point.
If his comments help to mitigate the perception in his home country that Canada is too soft on potential terrorists, then one of the happiest beneficiaries will be Foreign Minister John Manley.
The portrayal of Canada as terrorist portal is one of the most vexatious problems he faces, he conceded recently. When it was perpetuated by one of Canada's reputed friends, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr. Manley sought her out in Washington.
"Help me," he asked the former first lady, "because we haven't been able to find any evidence and I want to give my guys hell if they are wrong." All she could offer was a lame, "Well, everybody knows they came through Canada."
Mr. Ashcroft and the other U.S. spokespeople all stressed the new border deal is an agreement between two "mature sovereign nations" for their mutual benefit. The Attorney-General even predicted the new measures would mean our border relationship would undergo a "sea change" that will eventually make the transit of goods and people easier "between our two great nations."
Taking Mr. Ashcroft at his word and not wishing to cast doubt on his good intentions, the border agreement could nonetheless lead to an unprecedented integration of Canadian and United States operations.
It promises integrated border enforcement teams, joint units at airports to assess incoming passengers, a common list of countries whose citizens require visas to enter either Canada or the United States, and developing common biometric identifiers.
The latter certainly makes sense. If we are going to install high-tech equipment to do iris scans, record handprints and compare millions of passport photos to images stored in databases, then it is essential our computers can talk to one another.
But the payoff has to be a facilitated border rather than merely a fortified one.
Mr. Ashcroft says he is on side.
Even with the temporary help from the National Guard, the U.S. will have the equivalent of only one officer for every 100 miles of our 5,000-mile border, he said.
That would still qualify us for the Guinness Book of Records as the longest partly defended border.
I won't merely dismiss this article in the 'Globe and Mail' with a grain of salt, but I'll wait until I see Wayne Lutton, Ph.D. print a retraction to his article before I buy into this the way you guys have.
This article makes no specific attempt to refute Lutton's claim that Mohammed Atta and Abdul Alumari crossed into Coburn Gore, Maine early that Tuesday before catching a 6a.m. flight from Portland to Boston.
How about Lutton's claim that a third suspect entered the USA at Jackman, Maine, while others took the ferry from Nova Scotia?
You two believe this Wayne Lutton, Ph.D. is a real liar, don't you?
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.