Impeach Bush for not protecting our borders!

Col Gene, this is just plain idiocy. Just because Prs. Bush isn't doing things exactly the way you and Mr. Dobbs would like does not mean he has broken any laws that are impeachable.

There has only been one presidential candidate that I can remember who even hinted at what you want, and Pat Buchanan was soundly defeated, mostly because of his stance on securing the borders! ((((Yes, i know that was Pre- 9/11, and that does make a difference))). Securing the borders is one of those things everyone screams for the government to do, but would never put up with actually implementing a plan that would do it.

Lou Dobbs brings may people to his show that document the failure of the administration to act. The President first job is to try and protect our country. The facts are clear. Not only is this not taking place but the very reason President Bush himself has identified as a prime reason he ignores. Why check every person comming through our airports and skip 3 million comming across our borders. It is a lot easier for someone to bring WMD across the border then on a airline. The President took an oath to protecd and defend. Without security, all of our other freedoms go away! How can anyone say Bush is doing that job when we need 10,000 more border guards, thousands more INS Agents and all he is requesting is money for 210? Impeachment would get the President's attention.

Even if I agreed with you, failure to do his job is NOT a crime, therefore NOT grounds for impeachment. Even Prs. Clinton could not have been impeached if he hadn't lied to Congress.

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!

If not keeping oaths were a basis for dismissal, their wouldn't be enough members of Congress left to hold an impeachment. ;~D

How True. But not enforcing the laws may be another issue. That is what the President is charged to do. He does not pass the laws but is charged with making sure they are carried out. He is not doing that with immigration.

I think dubya should DEFINTELY be held resposible for not doing more to protect the borders (mexico especially) but impeachment is a little extreme.

I think history will reflect badly (on top of everything else) on him if another terrorist attack happens and they find the terrorists entered via the southern border.

The canadian border on the other hand is a lot tighter, considering how large it is i think they're doing a much better job up there.

Your clinton impeachment comments remind me of a joke...

"What's the difference between a democrat and a republican?"

Dems like to f**k you one at a time, Repubs like to f**k us all at once!

Sorry to offend!

Controlling the borders and illegal immigration is the biggest beef I have with the President. Border Patrol should probably be reorganized in a military fashion rather than a law-enforcement agency. I also support large scale deportations, strict fines for hiring illegals, and if necessary, an intimidating physical barrier on the southern border.

Well, I'll tell you what....all those soldiers and Marines we have enjoying the champagne and oyster life in Asia and Europe can be brought home to plug the holes in our borders, or sent to Iraq, while we rotate the troops there home for border patrol duty.
We can let the UN forces fill our place in South Korea, the Phillipines, Germany, etc. Our defense budget could stand the reduction in spending it takes to maintain those foreign outposts, anyway. That work for you?

It would be cute for people to call for Bush's impeachment for not enforcing laws that many of said people say are flawed and racist. I think it would be the height of hypocracy for Democrats to condemn Bush for not enforcing what they, themselves claim to be a broken system.

We had 180,000 troops in Iraq and we couldn't keep insurgents out, with less border than the US has. If this had been said about a Democratic president you'd have reacted in the same way, but because it is Bush, anything with a one in a million chance of sticking is fit ammunition.

You called me paranoid on your last blog when I pointed out, again, that you are a biased one-trick pony with apparently no interests other than slamming Bush. Then you write something like this?

I wouldn't be throwing the "Biased, one-trick pony" title around if i were you Baker. From what i can tell (granted i haven't read all your articles, but quite a few of them)it Comes off as a tad hypocritical!

When was the last time YOU wrote anything anti-dubya? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

And i LIKE Rightwinger's idea a lot. Good call, worthy of an INSIGHTFUL!

BakerStreet

What would you like to do about the total lack of enforcement of our laws and protecting our border? You won't think impeachment is wrong if a terrorist creates another 9/11 or worse and has come across our unprotected border. I guess the Bush supporters will put George up for the Nobel peace prize should such an event occur. There is no more basic responsibility of the President then to do everything possible to protect our countrty. The man tell us we need 10,000 more people on the border and then plans to add 210? Get Real!

And i LIKE Rightwinger's idea a lot. Good call, worthy of an INSIGHTFUL!

Thanks, guyinsic. Maybe we could talk them into it, huh?

There is no more basic responsibility of the President then to do everything possible to protect our countrty. The man tell us we need 10,000 more people on the border and then plans to add 210? Get Real!

Hasn't this problem been stewing for some time? I seem to recall hearing some complaining about it in the 90s, too, when your buddy Slick Willy was sitting in the big chair, and what did he do about it? Not much.
Slam Bush all you want, but this, like the complaints about deficiancies the military, are just another part of the hangover we're left with from the Clinton era.

I too like the Rightwinger idea. You should send it to Bush. He is the Commander-in-Chief.

The problem is far greater now and 9/11 had not taken place when Clinton was in office. I too did not believe we would be attacked. However, now that we know different, why is the president , after 9/11, not protectiung our borders? There is no Homeland Security without border security and port security. That is all the responsibility of the President.

I too like the Rightwinger idea. You should send it to Bush. He is the Commander-in-Chief.

Wow...I'm honored.
I...don't think the Dems would let it happen, though, do you? Too much invested in the whole....foreign opinion thing. Wouldn't want them to think badly of us, now would we?

I don't believe the president needs the support of congress to redeploy our military. You forget, I am a Moderate Republican.

As to your comment about the lack of military manpower, the problem began with Bush 41 when Dick Cheney prepared the blue print to draw down the military (Peace Dividend). Clinton continued and increased the reductions started by Bush 41. When Geoprge W. ran in 2000, he campaigned on the fact the Army was too small. He took office, increased the demands on the military and did nothing during his first term to solve the problem he identified in 2000! Sounds like our lack of military power falls on Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43.

The problem is far greater now and 9/11 had not taken place when Clinton was in office. I too did not believe we would be attacked. However, now that we know different, why is the president , after 9/11, not protectiung our borders? There is no Homeland Security without border security and port security. That is all the responsibility of the President.

I agree with and see your point. Granted, I'm no one's expert on the budget, so my perceptions may be a little naieve, but perhaps there's "too many pigs for the tits"?
The military takes a huge chunk of the federal budget now, and rightly so. The "army we went to war with" was the one left over Clinton's 8 years of budget slashing and redistribution of funds. We have to redirect a lot of spending toward defense and intelligence, now, to improve our defense forces.
If that can be done, there's a lot to be said for the idea that, if we can keep the enemy over there, or stay ahead of them with improved intelligence, the urgent and pressing need for more border guards would be lessened.

"I wouldn't be throwing the "Biased, one-trick pony" title around if i were you Baker. From what i can tell (granted i haven't read all your articles, but quite a few of them)it Comes off as a tad hypocritical! When was the last time YOU wrote anything anti-dubya? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?"

I tend to agree with Bush, and in the areas I don't, I normally don't have any better ideas. Col. Gene doesn't need ideas, since just differing with Bush is the point.

Feel free to compare my blog with Col. Gene's in terms of diverse subject matter. It's blind optimism to see Col. Gene as anything but an anti-Bush bot.

"What would you like to do about the total lack of enforcement of our laws and protecting our border? "

Anything that could be done to really protect the border would be stonewalled by Democrats as being too costly or infringing on the rights of those who cross it legitimately. Feel free to look back at recent efforts to "secure" the border. ANything that endangers the lives of those ILLEGITIMATELY crossing the border is considered inhumane. Hell, there are people in D.C. that want us to put up water-stations for the people sneaking in...

"You won't think impeachment is wrong if a terrorist creates another 9/11 or worse and has come across our unprotected border."

I would? Odd, I have actually been to both borders, Col. Gene. It's insane to think that you could put up some sort of impenetrable wall between these two nations. Even if you could, you still have thousands of miles of coastline that drug smugglers penetrate daily.

If you think the border can be secured, give me a historical precedent of a nation that couldn't have been entered by a guy with a pack full of explosives. Given that the most isolationist nations in the world have people defecting to and from them all the time, I tend to think you can't.

You are plenty smart enough to know this. I don't laugh off your posts because I think you aren't intelligent, on the contrary. I see you post stuff that I KNOW you yourself could knock full of holes if you were asked to swap sides for the purpose of objective debate.

With the use of technology and manpower a great deal to counter terrorists comming over the border especially if they are bringing things other then themselves into our country, is possible. Today we take pictures of the border but do not have the man power to act. You all ignore my point. Bush has identified the need for 10,000 more border personnel. Why is he not requesting the resources to fill the need he has identified?

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

Perhaps he will at some point in the not-too-ditant future....he did make the effort to pointit out, after all. It may be on the agenda. Who knows?

"Identified the need" isn't specific enough. Please cite the text of where he promised to have created 10,000 border personel positions by now.

We aren't ignoring your point, you just don't seem to have a solid one. You are either saying that he should be impeached because he lied, or because he should be doing something else to make the border less porous and is making a criminal decision not to.

You don't give us the claims he made in context, so we can't judge the "lie".

You don't propose anything that would have a reasonable expectation of clearing congress that would do anything about it, so you can't really show purposeful malpheasance. If the answer is so patently obvious, speak up and idea, THAT HAS CREDIBLE CHANCES OF PASSING CONGRESS.

You ignore the fact that you are calling for the impeachment of a President with no proof. If you want serious debate, make a serious case.

Given his budget for 2006 it won't happen before 2007. I hope the terrorists will wait!

Given that we have like 9,850 border patrol on the southern border, and less than 1,000 on the northern, I find it difficult to believe that Bush promised to basically double the size of the border patrol instantly. If he did, it was an empty promise that he couldn't keep, since such budgetary matters are checked by Congressional approval.

I think if you are going to make a case for impeachment, it might help to know what he promised.