Posted on 07/02/2007 10:19:27 PM PDT by CHEE
From the Desk of Congressman Conaway Reply
Thank you for contacting me in regards to the North American Partnership. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
In March of 2005, President Bush along with the former Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin and Mexican President, Vicente Fox, reached broad agreements that would enhance security in North America. The goals of the agreement are to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamlined risk-based border processes. Part of the agreement will develop a consistent traveler security screening process at foreign ports and develop a cargo security strategy that ensures compatible screening methods at the first point of entry in North America.
I believe in the importance of cultivating and maintaining good relations within the world community; however, I will never support the United States ceding decision making over our national security decisions to bureaucrats or any other country. The sovereignty of the United States should always be considered when agreements are made with other countries. I do support the goals of the partnership and believe that streamlining and standardizing the security process in Mexico and Canada will better defend the homeland. The North American partnership is not binding and is goal based, protecting US sovereignty.
I've attached a more comprehensive review of Mexico-US trade relations .. Again, thank you for contacting me. Your opinion is important to me, so please write, email or call me with any future concerns you may have. For more information on my work in Congress or to send me an electronic message, visit the 11th District's Web site, http://conaway.house.gov.
Mike If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to email me through my website at www.house.gov/conaway. This email address goes to an empty email box and cannot be responded to.
“I believe in the importance of cultivating and maintaining good relations within the world community; however, I will never support the United States ceding decision making over our national security decisions to bureaucrats or any other country. The sovereignty of the United States should always be considered when agreements are made with other countries. I do support the goals of the partnership and believe that streamlining and standardizing the security process in Mexico and Canada will better defend the homeland. The North American partnership is not binding and is goal based, protecting US sovereignty.”
B U L L $ I T
Don’t know if you know it, but Mike Conaway was George W. Bush’s accountant back in his oil business days.
He was elected on the strength of that relationship. The district was pretty much gerrymandered for his personal benefit.
“I will never support the United States ceding decision making over our national security decisions to bureaucrats or any other country.”
What’s wrong with that statement? Why an expletive response?
it seems the right way to view our country.
Read it again.
He needs a blindfold, one last cigarette...
You respond to a CYA letter with vague and semi-reasonable statements with a one-word expletive. Explain yourself.
"working groups led by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] should now be driven by a single agenda: the SPP.”
If you don't know about the SPP you should. If you do you wouldn't question the disdain with which folks view the pols' spinning and lying on a NAU.
“If you don’t know about the SPP you should. If you do you wouldn’t question the disdain with which folks view the pols’ spinning and lying on a NAU.”
Thank you, I give up : )
“Thank you, I give up : )”
You haven’t even tried!
I know all about the SPP and NAU, having attended multi-hour presentations from opponents of both and read up extensively on them. I also know that some people have extrapolated multiple paranoid claims onto these concepts, so rather than throwing acronyms around, it is useful to know what exactly is the fear here.
If nobody here can explain why the specific statements the Congressman made are not reasonable in a cogent way, we have to conclude they are reasonable.
-----------------------------------
Then your willingness to accept any politician's statements on either with zero skepticism is even more troubling but your insistance that opposition to the plan is fraught with paranoia is informative.
I don’t lack skepticism.
But what you seem to lack is an ability to explain yours.
bump
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.