According to the New York Times, one of the things President Bush is considering is whether to deploy National Guard units along the border with Mexico. Which would be a fine temporary step until a more permanent means of securing the border (read fence) can be implemented.
The problem with deploying troops to show you're getting tough on the issue is exactly the same as a bunch of showy catch and release INS raids. It's meaningless unless you actually stop the flood, or at least slow it to a trickle. After some sort of legislation is passed, the troops can quietly be withdrawn and we are right back where we started. A permanent way of securing the border must be part of any solution.
So, unless the troops are being deployed as a stopgap until a fence can be built, it will be a meaningless gesture. It will not appease the majority who want that border closed. I sincerely hope the White House realizes that. There are a lot of very angry voters right now. The old smoke and mirrors tricks won't work this time.
Preview of Monday speech? There is text of El Presidente oration at “Our First Mexican President.”
That’s harsh, Dan! (I read it) – let’s hope it’s not that bad!
I hear the music, but I don’t see the band:
Dan’s post is a bit harsh, but I’ve got a bad feeling about this speech. It could well be that Dan isn’t too wide of the mark after all. The MSM spin so far plays up the amnesty side of the issue and glosses over border security with vague suggestions of more National Guard participation.
That song and dance might play well inside the beltway, and in MSM newsrooms, but it doesn’t play in Peoria. The GOP stands at a crossroads, and they can’t have it both ways.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, or lose it to law breakers, terrorists, hysterical Leftists, and pandering politicians.