Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.


Nightly, Lou Dobbs documents the failure of President Bush to fulfill his most basic responsibility which is to safeguard the United States. 3 ½ years after 9/11, President Bush claims we are short 10,000 border guards and thousands more INS agents to deal with the illegal aliens within our country. At the very same time he is acknowledging the lack of resources to enforce our immigration laws to protect this country, his new budget fails to ask for the money necessary to provide the needed agents. Of the 10,000 border agents President Bush indicates we need, he has requested funding for 210 in his next budget.

Congress indited Bill Clinton for lying under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinsky and ignores the fact that the President HAS NOT AND IS NOT enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. The proof of the president’s failure to safeguard our country are the 3 million illegal aliens that crossed our borders last year. The proof are the 14 million illegal aliens that exist within the interior of our country. Any one of those 14 million illegal aliens could have brought a nuclear weapon or other WMD into this country to kill Americans. Do we have to wait for a mushroom cloud over one of our cities befor the president provides the necessary resources to safeguard the borders of the United States?

It is time for action! Congress should bring a bill of impeachment against George W. Bush for failing to safeguard the United States by not enforcing our immigration laws and his failure to request the resources necessary to protect our borders. If we do not hold the president responsible to fulfill his most basic function, we are neglecting our responsibilities. We have the money for tax cuts to people making hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars each year but do not have the money to safeguard the lives of Americans.

Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Mar 11, 2005
"When ever you can not refute an issue you question the sorce. That is a trick Bush uses."


I'm sorry, what source was that? I think it would be more accurate to say that I differ with accusations that lack a verifiable source...

No, the issue here seems to be that Bush should be impeached. You can't impeach a President for planning something that was scrapped because of political opposition or unforseen circumstances. You can't impeach a President for a lie about which you can't even cite a direct quote...

YOU made the assertion. YOU are saying that Bush OPTED to not to protect the nation when it is in his power to, unhindered by political opponents of unforseen events.

Since YOU are making the accusation that the President has committed an impeachable offense, the burden isn't on me to refute the "issue". We've been offered nothing tangible to refute, only a broad biased opinion on one side of a story, ignoring the reality of Presidential power as it is balanced by the Judicial and Legislative branches of government.
on Mar 11, 2005
President Bush is not responsible for the fact that the border patrol has been on the take for MANY years, long preceding his administration, and that there are US corporations who traffic in illegals, either directly or indirectly. He has been further handicapped by "racial profiling" limitations that state if you stop a Mexican (gasp!) with a knapsack (gasp!) at the border without stopping your fair quota of caucasians, you're discriminating (I'm sure there are MILLIONS of caucasian wetbacks hiding out among us...no doubt they flew in from Canada before crossing the Mexican border, those bastards!)
on Mar 11, 2005
P.S. Col Gene, did Gov. Dean really share people's home addresses with you so you could send unsolicited advertisements for your book?.

"Has anyone else received a letter from a Gene P. Abel, Colonel Retired in Cape Coral, Fl promoting his book "Four More for George W?" Col. Abel addresses his letter "Democracy for America Supporters" and claims Gov. Dean gave him my address. Of course, I know that's total b.s. and I will send the letter to DFA, but I'm curious whether anyone else received one. The only way I can figure this guy could have gotten my address is when we were collecting money for Kimmy. Pretty sick, huh?"


I did as you said and went browsing for reviews of your book. I didn't find much, but I did notice that. I also didn't find your name regarding much of anything that wasn't bashing Bush. About that one-trick pony thing...
on Mar 11, 2005
I am not a lawyer, but failure of a President to keep the oath he took may be just be such a reason. I believe not enforcing the laws of the United States is also a reason for impeachment. If you are correct, then Congress needs to act and pass the funding and if Bush were to veto the money, they should override his veto. Who will be to blame if the next terrorist to attack us has come across our border or shipped the WMD in a shipping container that we are also not handling properly. All these functions are 100% under the control of the President! He is not even asking Congress for the resources to begin doing the job!


And you'd be wrong. Look, you can't have it both ways. You and others like you *scream* for him to trim his spending and then you post crap like this.


Why is he not requesting the resources to fill the need he has identified?


No matter how you slice this, it's NOT an impeachable offense.
on Mar 11, 2005
dmiler

The president took an oath to uphold the laws on the United States. He is not enforcing the immigration laws. I believe that is an impeachable offense. My point, what is more important. The safety of our country or tax cuts to people making hundreds of thousands each year? God forbid we ever need a commission to see who was responsibe should another 9/11 happen. Bush better be able to show it did not happen because of something he could have prevented!

BakerStreet

I just read the review on Midwest Book Review.. www.midwestbook.com/ search wed site for Four More For George W? click in 1. and you will see a list of people. Choose Gary's Bookshelf and you are there.

The issue is not that Bush scrapped his plan. it is that he is not enforcing the laws of the United States! He is not meeting the needs of homeland security. That is also true by not inspecting cargo containers.
on Mar 11, 2005
Me- Let's see the lie.


Col. Gene- I found a story by Michael Hedges, Houston Chrinicle of Feb 9, 2005 that confirms the 10,000 guards and the fact Bush scrapped his own plan"


Me- You can't impeach a President for planning something that was scrapped...


Col Gene- The issue is not that Bush scrapped his plan. it is that he is not enforcing the laws of the United States!


*boggle* Okay, so it isn't about funding, and it isn't about telling lies. Confusing, but I can live with that. Now...

Please show me the laws that Bush is opting not to enforce, and please give me your proof as to when and where Bush had the opportunity to enforce them, and purposely chose not to. The budget is overseen by Congress, and laws restricting the ability for Immigration to function well are also created by Congress.

I am interested to see your proof that Bush made a conscious decision not to enforce immigration laws when it was within his power to do so.
Thanks.
on Mar 11, 2005
double post
on Mar 11, 2005
The fact 14 million people are in this country without permission is a fact. The fact that people come across the border every day is a fact. Any of these people could be a terrorist. In fact Bush wants to make them all legal by act of Congress so he will no longer be in violation of the laws for all those who came in on his first term.

This is about Bush not me. The President is not insuring that the resources are available to protect this country. Hell, he is not even requesting the needed resources even after he indicated we need 10,000 more guards. It is the same thing about the size of the army he identified in 2000, where are the added troops ti fix what he said was a problem?

Face it, Bush is NOT DOING THE MOST BASIC PARTS OF HIS JOB!
on Mar 11, 2005
Can we impeach Bush for this?



US Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 8 (g): "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

*smirk*
on Mar 11, 2005
myrrander...

Gotta peg you with an "insightful" on one of the most overlooked hypocrisies of the GOP
on Mar 11, 2005
" The fact 14 million people are in this country without permission is a fact. The fact that people come across the border every day is a fact. Any of these people could be a terrorist. In fact Bush wants to make them all legal by act of Congress so he will no longer be in violation of the laws for all those who came in on his first term."


Both sides of the arguement believe that the immigration system is broken, and people in both political parties both support and oppose amnesty.

The number of illegal aliens in the US doesn't prove that Bush purposely chose not to enforce immigration laws, any more than the number of murders in Los Angeles proves that the LAPD doesn't enforce murder laws.

"This is about Bush not me. "


Wrong. You made an accusation toward a sitting President, stating he had committed an impeachable offense. I think it is very much about you to prove that offense, or at least be able to specifically describe the act.
on Mar 11, 2005
Col Gene

I didn't even want them to impeach Clinton, and he actually broke the law. As far as I can see, Bush hasn't broken any laws. "High crimes and misdameanors" is not what you're describing.




thanks gid hehe
on Mar 11, 2005
I didn't even want them to impeach Clinton, and he actually broke the law. As far as I can see, Bush hasn't broken any laws. "High crimes and misdameanors" is not what you're describing.


I agree. I don't believe this would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors."

I think Clinton was a big phony and total against my stance on a great number of social issues, and pathetic when it came to military action. But I don't even agree with the sentiment that the Monica Lewinsky issue consituted perjury. Maybe if we probed even further into his relationship with the Chinese...
on Mar 11, 2005
BakerStreet -

You are a very patient man. COL Gene has Rather's disease, for which there is no cure. He wants to believe, so doesn't let common sense or facts get in the way. When challenged, victims of Rather's disease manifest a corticolingual disconnect, either changing the subject or claiming that the truth of the allegations doesn't really matter, only the "issues raised" in the allegations matter. Tossing out allegations, justified or not, and challenging the alleged perp, or the perp's supporters, to prove them untrue is the new left wing sport. I read a lot of Gene's stuff, which can be interesting, but he deflects almost all requests for specifics and comes back with more banal generalities, often citing unsubstantiated allegations regarding other issues, completely unrelated to the issue at hand, as if that were proof somehow.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Mar 11, 2005
Daiwa : From what I know of Col. Gene, i.e. what i have read online, he seems to be a able, well educated person, who has lived a commendable life. He's certainly not the average Bush hater.

On the other hand, I am a lot more patient when I know where people come from, i.e their opinions about other things. When, say, Gideon, says something wacky, I can temper it with what I know about him as a blogger.

When someone's blog is just a long list of anti-Bush tirades, it doesn't give us that third dimension. I think Col Gene would find a lot more fertile ground for his ideas if he didn't come off as being so two-dimensional.
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5