A post worthy of a graduate of the Lindsay Graham charm skewl.
Posted on 05/14/2006 2:10:36 PM PDT by Norman Arbuthnot
"You could be Bush's speech writer."
Nah. Bush and Arlen Specter have only repeated that line 1,000 times. I don't see any way that talking point is not in tomorrow's speech.
A post worthy of a graduate of the Lindsay Graham charm skewl.
To quote President Bush:
"When we conduct this debate it must be done in a civil way...It must be done in a way that doesn't pit one group of people against another."
President Bush encourages civil debate Pukin. Posting a transcript of a rare interview with President Bush on this topic is certainly within the bounds of civil debate.
Not so to without provocation to call fellow Freepers trolls, and to instruct them to STFU.
You don't know a damn thing about what Bush is going to say. Why not be a man and admit that, instead of your negative speculation?
-----
Go ahead -- lick your wounds and mark my words. You will hear the terms "stronger border enforcement","virtual" this and that, but NO SOLID WALL, NO SOLID FENCE. No closing of the border. You will probably hear that he "does not support amnesty" --- he will probably even propose the use of troops to "enforce" the border -- but the border will remain wide open to those that make it. And we, the American citizen will CONTINUE to pick up the tab of over $100 BILLION per year to pay for Washington's malfeasance upon America.
If you think I am wrong here, then what will he say??? :-)
Ping!
Nice pic of Bush, Cheney and Rove.
Dead on correct!
It's called the legal immigration pathway and so says the law of our land"... the problem we seem to have here is that our elected ones truly beleive they have the right to selectively decide to whom the law shall apply. It would seem somehow an excellent question for the Supreme Court. For if it is ruled so, by the Court, then all men equal under law is dead, and we return to aristocracy, where favorable treatment is metered out to politically correct members of the King's Court
Thanks for posting this. I hadn't remembered the immigration portion of the conversation.
I too am not very hopeful for tomorrow because had it been a priority, it would have been secured 9/12. I predict a minimal number of forces sent to the border while a 'virtual' fence is built. Not nearly a wall or the 10,000 plus that the minutemen say is needed. Yet that is what will be offered 'in exchange' for Bush's reward of no-amnesty, amnesty for the lawbreakers.
Maybe he'll be inclined to change his mind and see things differently when millions of illegals again take to the street and surround the white house next week, unhappy because they were demanding immediate legalization and an open border to 'their' land. Afterall, their organizers have said, they are no longer afraid and have nothing to loose. Perhaps their Revolucion! will be just the wakeup call D.C. needs.
http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm
Not so to without provocation to call fellow Freepers trolls, and to instruct them to STFU
Thanks Plutarch. I could not have said it better myself.
BTW, I did not "search the entire internet for this interview". I just happened to remember that Bush discussed the topic of immigration with O'Reilly a couple of years ago and the interview is germane to the illegal immigration debate IMO.
As I noted in my initial post, I voted for Bush twice and I have been a strong supporter of his, but really think he has failed many of his supporters on this issue and it pains me say that. I truly hope and pray he proposes serious measures that will stop massive illegal immigration before irreparable damage is done to the United States.
Actually, please explain why we can't have both... It makes sense to me to put the National Guard on the border to keep out drug smugglers/ terrorists, but also insist on some sort of "amnesty" for illegals living in the U.S. more than one year and a guest worker program/increased quota for legal immigrants.
As for the moaning and whining about Dubya's immigration position, this has always been his position. The fact that he was tolerant toward the Latino community (unlike the "ugly Nativist" Republican stereotype ala Tom Tancredo) was what made him so appealing as a Republican presidential candidate in 1998/1999.
"You don't know a damn thing about what Bush is going to say."
Oh, face it. We all know that no matter what words President Bush says tomorrow they will all be b*llsh*t. That is to say no matter how many of them are true, no matter how well intentioned they are, no matter how sincere they seem, they will be a sound signifying nothing. He has NO intention of closing/securing the Mexican border or any other border, including the seaports and the international airports. Expect to hear zero words about visa overstayers, at least that part will be non-existant rather than bs. He has EVERY intention of providing the illegals currently here with a faster track to citizenship than any LEGALS currently on line, here or abroad.
Bush has been clear about this from day one. He loves the Mexican people, he really seems to have no problem with the USA becoming an Hispanic nation, he's insulated from any problem with illegal criminals that ordinary people (hey, including other illegal aliens) are forced to deal with.
I feel in my gut that Amnesty (in one bs form or another) is assured. Reagan led the feckless way on this, as usual with a big assist from our fave, Teddy the K. We WILL be fooled again, if we are foolish enough to believe anything Bush says tomorrow or in the days to come.
And I say all this as a big Bush-bot, but a person can't be all things to all people and Bush has been, is, and will continue to be a failure as an illegal immigration reformer.
If I'm wrong on this, the ACTIONS will speak louder than the WORDS.
Nixon: If it is good for me politically, it is good for America.
Ford: What's a foreign policy?
Carter: What's good for the United Nations is good for America.
Reagan: What's good for America is good for the world.
Bush I: What's good for the West is good for the world.
Clinton: What's good for China is good for America.
Bush II: What's good for Mexico is good for America.
Bush II: What's good for Mexico is good for America.
-----
Good summary. Amazingly accurate. :-)
Muleteam1
Dang... FR has become one big Bush bashing site. Reminds me of DU.
I don't remember seeing this criticism in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Bush hasn't changed his policy on immigration...
Welcome newbie.
I don't remember seeing this criticism in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Bush hasn't changed his policy on immigration...
----
It is just that the issue has come to a head. And Bush is on the wrong side of the issue, and he is our President at the same time. This is a very precarious situation with our own President basically shunning the will of the people he is SUPPOSED to work for...and it calls for outrage. As it should be.
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.