Not What I Wanted; Not What We Need

President Bush delivered his prime time speech tonight. It was not what I wanted and not what I believe we need at this time. It was a step -- but altogether too tentative and made, in my opinion, only because Bush knows the crosshairs of the National Scope are focused on the bridge of his nose by everyone trying to dethrone not only Bush but all the GOP as well.

With this speech, he further allows the ELECTION crosshairs to be focused BY the Democrats, the DEM (Defeatist, Elitist Media), dissatisfied Republicans and Conservatives on not only himself but the GOP in future elections this year. And that, friends, is not good.

WHY is this such a difficult issue for people to get their minds around?

If we're not serious about OUR security, about securing our OWN borders, then why, I ask, are we even in Iraq? Why is there more security WITHOUT this nation than WITHIN?

Or is President Bush "misunderestimated" once again? He does admit in the speech:

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I'm calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we'll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we'll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

President Bush also wants the National Guard on the border. I've thought about this for some time since his recent announcement.

And I've decided that, unless we're going to shoot coyotes and drug runners (and I am convinced we do NOT have the national resolve to do this) then NG deployment is a smokescreen designed to jerk the electorate off under the table. We would be better served to keep NG troops available for foreign deployments, and instead FURTHER increase the number of USBP officers. THEY are the ones who 1) do the work, 2) know the terrain and 3) that's their job!

Will we use the National Guard when elders want to cross streets?

This speech may only please those illiterates who have not been paying attention to the entire issue at all -- to be blunt.

Both parties don't seem to want to do anything about the issue -- and that appears to be the bottom line at this point. A bottom line like this will only hurt the GOP and certainly not the Democrats. And the DEM will, of course, pile on.

Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports issue, the massive budget and now immigration. These are the issues causing consternation with GOP internals. And splitting us horribly whilst the Dems and the DEM rub their hands with glee.

But on the other hand I can understand why Conservatives draw a line and say: "No more. Here, once again, is where the GOP and me part ways."

It is because Conservatives have an actual position and are loathe to eject that position. Above and beyond Republicans. And Bush Apologists. It is why I read A Jacksonian.

Here is a paragraph in Bush's speech that speaks, as I am wont to say, volumes about his thoughts regarding Mexico:

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Is Mexico truly our friend? Is Fox our friend? Are people providing maps to cross the border our friend? Are drug runners our friend? Is La Mordida our friend? Are armed border incursions conducted by our friends?

I was indifferent regarding a fence. Until today. Now I am a supporter of a fence. And TAX ME for it -- I will GLADLY pay some additional buckage for same. It appears to be working for the Israelis.

I would also ask: if it is such a wondrous thing, why is there NOT a "virtual fence" surrounding the White House? Any answer for that, Mr. President?

This speech reminds me of someone's impacted prostate: dribbling at best.

BZ