Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Immigration speech: Smoke and mirrors
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Given President Bush's speech last night, that seems to be the emerging consensus among right bloggers. A "welcome to the fight, but are you really serious?" And of course, as Steve Bainbridge asks: “Why is border security on the front burner only now? Securing both land borders, as well as the coasts and ports, should have been Job 1 after 9/11.”

That's been my thought as well. Bainbridge goes on to speculate: “If we hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, of course, the Guard would have a lot more resources available to serve on the border.”

Well, not really. Look we have 440,000 troops and airman in the National Guard according to the Atlanta Journal Consitution. At present, about 36,000 are in Iraq, a little over 8,000 in Afghanistan and 7,000 are deployed elsewhere. So it is a mission the Guard can handle.

It's the plan of use, not the numbers, which concern me. The total plan calls for 156,000 troops over the year proposed. That's 6,000 every two weeks. You tell me, is two weeks enought time to learn the job and be effective, even in a support role? The answer is no. This is the first of the smoke and mirrors being advanced by the administration. Two weeks does not give anyone the time, nor does it give the effort the continuity necessary to be effective. By the time a rotation figures out who the players are, how to effectively do their mission and what is necessary to support the effort, they're gone and a new rotation is reinventing the wheel.

Then there's the political side of the fence. As Dick Durbin said: "[Bush] has the power to call up the National Guard to patrol the border. But does he have the power to lead his own Republican forces in Congress in support of real immigration reform?"

That is the salient question, isn't it? And to this point, Bush has shown little leadership on the issue of border security and immigration reform. One of the more striking things about his speech last night was the fact that it was almost a complete about-face from previous statements on the issue. It is that, primarily, which has people like me doubting the sincerity of the effort.

For instance, the administration promises 6,000 additional border patrol personnel in a year. That's after approving the budget for this year in which only 210 additional border patrol personnel were funded. Will the real George Bush please stand up.

While, on the whole, he said the right things as far as I was concerned, the devil is in the details and the execution. And, as I point out concerning the National Guard, that aspect of the details isn't too promising if, as a temporary measure, we expect the use of the Guard to be effective and helpful.

I'm still in the "show me" stage with the administration on this one, and to be honest, given the Guard piece, I'm not optomistic.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Bush punted on this one.

His legacy is assured: Tax cuts, Afghanistan, Iraq, Economic Boom. Why spoil it with a nasty, indeterminate, and unnecessary row over immigration.

The ’06 elections have to be on his mind, too. I think he said all the right things to lend the impression his party is doing something, while not upsetting the apple cart too badly for the GOP’s candidates in America’s Southwestern states.
Written By: grass
URL: http://
I’ve read a lot of comments from lots of pundits, bloggers, family members, friends, and journos.

Nobody is happy entirely, on either side.

I can’t for the life of me figure out if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, for what it’s worth, I’ll still back his play. It’s a far better deal than what we’ll get if the left ever gets back into power
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Securing both land borders, as well as the coasts and ports, should have been Job 1 after 9/11.
I disagree. After 9/11 the administration’s Job 1 was "prevent major terrorist attacks in the US." The strategy used was not "secure everything everywhere" which is practically impossible. We have too much coastline and too much border. Instead our strategy was "take the fight to the enemy." Put them on the defensive instead of giving them the free rein they had for years previously. Go to them. Fight them where they live not where we live. Attack the top of the heirarchy and use them to gather intelligence on what the rest of the organization is doing. Make them fight our armed and armored soldiers instead of our relatively defenseless civilians. And for the most part it has worked.
Written By: Jeff the Baptist
Hey, they stopped Dubai from "controlling" the ports. So there should never be any terror threats from the ports now, if you listen to Chuck Schumer...
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I am absolutely certain Bush will do as he says and secure our borders. Right after he vetos McCain-Feingold. In today’s(Tues) paper some of the details and consequences of the Senate bill are mentioned. Truly amazing, even discounting for the usual exageration and error. After hearing/reading some of the responses to Bush’s speech, I am reminded of 1992. If my job depended on a Republican administration or majority, I would polish up my resume, just to be on the safe side.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Instapundit linked to this Podhoretz blurb at the Corner:
David Frum, the smartest man I know, got it wrong. CNN has a poll just up, and the results are staggeringly in the president’s favor. 79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the speech, and those who support the president’s policies rose in number from 42 to 67 percent.
That’s amazing.

Written By: Peter Jackson

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks