Ifferd - you posted this in the other thread, and I'm not sure where you're going with it. In case you didn't know, illegal immigration has been a huge problem in every administration, not just under Clinton, Bush - it was just overshadowed during the Cold War.
As you properly pointed out, ya boy Bush loves that cheap labor.
So what's the point? Under the Bush administration, the border is a sieve. So now, the next step in logic is to say, "hey, maybe some of those illegals could be terrorists." The logical end (for me)is "hey, maybe we're not immune to another attack - so we shouldn't feel safe..." and I don't.
When you say that you're seeing G.Dubya's "true liberal colors," I think you are gravely mistaken. You're seeing his true conservative colors. Believe me, supercheap immigrant labor is very high on the agenda of any big-business-backed conservative. You're just seeing your party set their own agenda into motion.
They've looked at the cost/benefit and it's simple:
COST: Sacrifice a bit of national security, and allow a little more overpopulation. Why should they care?They don't - they all live on multi-million dollar estates in the middle of Timbuktu, and can pack up and move to Switzerland tomorrow, if their little hearts so desired.
BENEFIT: Get wildly wealthy, and widen the wealth gap so that the next generation of wealthy conservatives starts off on the right foot, and can continue to oppress and trample the rights ofthe working class.
Ifferd, I'll tell you the truth. You know how I feel about the border issue. If Bush would pay me a visit, I'd gladly smack him right in the mouth and tell him that's fer not securing our borders.
But I do feel that our country is safer. I don't necessarily feel safer myself, because I live in the sticks (although I do live just a short distance from Oak Ridge, so I guess if they decide to attack a nuclear plant I'll be doomed) but if I were in L.A., NYC, etc., yeah I'd feel safer. We have pretty much crippled al Quaida. No, we haven't eliminated them; we might get attacked tomorrow. But it will be a small-scale attack pulled off by a few, instead of a large-scale attack strategized and carried out by the terror org's head honchos. Right now, they don't have the ability to carry out a 9/11-style attack on America. Bold prediction? Maybe. But I don't think they do. They like to boast, such as they did when bin Laden's tape was released last month and the liberal mainstream media were ready to tell us all to find a hole to jump into and pull it in after us. But they're truly crippled.
That ain't propoganda. That's fact. And it is because we have an administration, even with all the faults they have, that has the backbone to take the fight to the terrorists despite what the weak-minded professors at America's liberal universities have to say about it, despite what the weak-knee'd and loose water'd liberals in Congress have to say about it, and (most importantly) despite what the opinion polls or the panty-waisted countries across the seas who yell for our help when they're in distress have to say about it.
There's a very distinct difference in the way this administration handles terrorism and the way the previous administration handled terrorism. Under Clinton, if we weren't aware of bin Laden's hatred for and determination to destroy us prior to 1992, it became painfully obvious with the bombing at the WTC. Those buildings stood that day, and casualties were minimal, because bin Laden wasn't powerful enough to pull off a larger-scale attack. But over the next eight years, he continued to strike American interests at random, all the while strengthening his network. Clinton's response was to launch a few cruise missiles. On at least one occasion that we now know of, we (well, the CIA) were offered bin Laden's head on a silver platter, but Clinton failed to take action. And the next time bin Laden's terrorists visited our mainland, they were powerful enough to take down those buildings, and it is because that administration stood by for two terms and refused to do ANYTHING about the growing threat of terrorism.
So say what you want about the borders. I think it will go down as one of Bush's greatest shortcomings during his presidency. It's shameful. And, ultimately, it might weaken America; Certainly from a security standpoint, it would be relatively easy for someone wishing to do us harm to slip across the border.
But to say that Bush isn't taking necessary steps to make our country safer? My great-grandmother, God rest her soul, had a word she would've used for that: POPPYCOCK! (Besides, as eto pointed out, the Democrats ain't gonna do anything about the borders, either, and that's fact).
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Its put up or shut up time - arguing about the past is a pitiful dodge of the issue at best and a blatant dereliction of duty at worst, which is the current situation.
So talk about the future. What is Hillary going to do in 2008 to fix it?
[Deleted]
