Replies

I'm afraid I concur with MM.

Bush has deliberately drug his feet on securing our borders. With a Senate-defined amnesty program looming during an election year, he announces a temporary measure of some undefined size (but 10k wouldn't be sufficient to secure the borders)? Way too little and he's way late to the party.

With the background of the border patrol management appeasing the Mexican government to the point of disclosing citizen led efforts to pick up the the slack of the federal government (sorry, it's a FED responsibility to secure borders, NOT the states'), he hastens to reassure the President of Mexico (first!), that what he's about to tell the public will only be temporary measure?! This screams of "eye-wash." Sturm und drang, to absolutely no long term effect.

"I'm afraid I concur with MM."

I would submit you don't quite understand the president's position, or the main point of irritation for me in Malkin's article.

The president is not king, he cannot snap his fingers and make it all go away. No president has been able to do that. I also don't think any president has stationed troops on the border to deal with illegal border crossing interdiction. The man does more than anyone else thus far, and still he gets the rod. It's wrong to do this, and it does *zip* to help the situation.

Specifically, Malkin sees ratings numbers and slavers to hit him again, before the man has even given his speech! Criticize what a person says, not what is "reported" he is going to say!

Suddenly, it's so very permissible to believe the MSM hacks first?

FWIW, if this is as it sounds, it is an improvement. Free up the BP to do more of what we want them to do, and train up a civilian cadre to take over the NG duties in the near future. In the meantime, we get an armed military presence on the border, which is something welcome. I don't think any of us should rush to beat a dead horse, especially to the point of killing it ourselves to get the party started.