Did Bush lie about troops on the border with Mexico because will not be acting to end illegal immigration?

Question

"The idea that the Guard is overstretched is correct," retired Army Gen. George Joulwan said in an interview. But he said its use in a supporting role can be justified, given the seriousness of the border problem. A supporting role is not what Bush presented to the American people back in May. Do you support this weak action? What about all the terrorists they said will come up through Mexico?

Answer 1

You know, there's like 280 million people in our country that can legally call themselves 'citizens'. I'm just flat sure that, somewhere in there, there's also like, some fence-builders, hunters, somebody that can like, fly an airplane, stuff like that, people that'd have skills that would be useful for the border patrol. Now, get em to join the border patrol, and set good policies like 'enforcement first' etc. Main thing is policy, I think,
bad policy=bad results. And, as long as they keep trying to sell
'hard working' etc., they're kind of missing the point. Americans are 'hard working' too, and if there's companies that just can't flat make it without hiring illegals, then something needs to be changed in how they operate. Calculators aren't THAT expensive, there's ways to do business lawfully in our country to get things done, there's a lot of companies and corporations out there that have figured this stuff out, and they make money to boot, so let's see some good changes in our general business models that'll keep people open for business AND making money AND staying on the right side of the law. Mexico can build factories, schools, roads, etc., get their own people employed at good jobs, but they have to WANT to do it, and as long as 'el norte' is 'el easy out', it won't happen. I'm all for helping Mexico, I think if we did some enlightened assistance, that'd probably help cure a lot of problems. But first, nail down illegal immigration.

Answer 2

I think Congress, then the President, should all be ousted for failing to defend our borders. In that order.

I say that because ousting Congress will give the President one last chance to invoke his emergency powers as Eisenhower did with 'Operation VVetback'. If we remove the President first, Congress can keep on bumbling about the issue for years and probably will.

The job of the National Guard is to defend our nation first. There should be NG troops all along the southern borders with orders to capture all incoming, shoot any who offer armed resistance (mainly drug smugglers and terrorists).

Answer 3

I'm actually surprised so many people didn't see that bush was going to do nothing about illegal immigration.The whole troops on the border was just something he came up with to pacify all the anti illegals.Afterall isn't he married to a latina woman?Do you honestly think she won't have any type of influence of him and his decisions?And him owning a ranch also should have been another red flag.Do you think him or his family ever hired any illegal ranch hands?yeah it was all a rouse.

Answer 4

No he sent troops to the border but they are not doing anything. They are not armed and the ones with guns don't have ammo. The border patrol is actually having to work overtime now to protect the guard who are not armed.

Answer 5

Good point. We need to bring the troops home and redeploy them to the borders.

Answer 6

You are lying. GW DID NOT say anything to lead anyone but a fool to the conclusion as to how the national guard was to be used. More -ull -hit from you libertards.

Answer 7

I don't believe anything Bush says. I cannot wait until November to oust all these do nothing politicians from both parties.

Answer 8

He lied his *** off. he's just coasting his last year out in office then its someone Else's problem. Until it comes back to bite him on the *** while he's having to learn spanish .

Answer 9

How can the national guard do their job when they have been deployed to fight a foreign war?

Answer 10

i agree with the first answer