Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Giuliani Pushes Back on Immigration Issue

After taking a battering over the last week from Mitt Romney on the issue of illegal immigration, Rudy Giuliani will announce an "Immigration Advisory Board" today and tout his position during a trip to South Carolina tomorrow.

"The mayor will be talking about looking at illegal immigration through the lens of national security," said spokeswoman Maria Comella. Comella also said Giuliani will be making prominent mention of the recent murders of three college students in Newark, N.J. An illegal immigrant is one of the suspects in custody.

Leading the advisory board is Robert Bonner, who served as the first commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2003 to 2005. He also served in a senior position in the Drug Enforcement Agency in the early 1990s. Bonner is currently a partner with Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

Other members include C. Stewart Verdery Jr., former assistant Secretary for policy and planning at the Homeland Security department from 2003 to 2005; and Michael Petrucelli, a former chief of staff at the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Giuliani is also expected to launch radio ads outlining his plans on immigration this week, although it's not clear how broadly and where the spots will run.

The focus on immigration comes after Romney's charges last week that New York City was a "sanctuary" city for illegal immigrants when Giuliani was mayor. The Giuliani campaign pointed out that the number of illegal immigrants grew in Massachusetts during Romney's gubernatorial tenure and alleged that Romney did nothing to shut down the three "sanctuary" cities in Massachusetts during his time in office.

The back and forth between the two leading campaigns on the issue shows how potentially potent it is -- especially among Republican base voters.

Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) came in a surprising fourth place in last weekend's Ames straw poll, largely due to his strident opposition to illegal immigration. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) watched as his campaign collapsed after his advocacy for a comprehensive immigration reform plan.

Neither Romney nor Giuliani want to follow McCain's example. Expect an even more spirited debate between the two campaigns in the coming weeks as they battle to see who can talk tougher on immigration policy.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 13, 2007; 12:51 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tommy Thompson Is First Victim of Iowa Straw Poll
Next: Wag the Blog: Is Richardson Ready for Primetime?

Comments

Gee...after Bush all the candidates look like geniuses!

But, I could see why Guiliani is attractive to people. He has remade himself as an "average guy" with a father's presence and plays up the "top cop" card over and over again.

The fact that he has stayed on top of the polls despite really doing nothing or saying anything is quite marvelous. It speaks to his staying power (how about that in reference to a guy who at one time claimed to have erectile dysfuction!)!

I mean..Mitt Romney has had to buy everyone and everything including himself off to just be in this race. Yet Guiliani is still on top.

Weird.

Posted by: GR | August 18, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

I've got one for you: James Kopp.

I'll never forget the day that blood -thirsty terrorist scum came to my hometown to wage his holy war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp

Don't beleive me? Check out the name of his terrosist gang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

Surprised?! I'm not..I've seen these collectivist thugs and skinheads in action.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"(immigration) is a HUGE national issue that every working American is concerned about - conservative, liberal, and moderates."

Wow, MikeB you mean it includes more than just the wingnuts, the border state residents and ONE guy in OREGON?

We'll have to let every working American in the other 47 states in on that, so they won't make your statement false.

Posted by: One if by Land, Two if by Mike! | August 15, 2007 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I would add that anyone trying to force any religon on another is not a christian, regardsless of their claims. Jesus didn't do that did he. People flocked to him and he went to people, but he never forced his word on anybody, did he. The money changers, to a point. that was hurt, not anger.

Anyone that is forced to be any religon will not understand and or rebel and become far worse. This is america. This is land of the free. I had a freind from salt lake, he was a punk. He was on one. He told me many people in utah are like him. Rebeling against the mormons. So in many senses, if you force a reliogn on someone the results will be far worse than not when he/she rebels.

Not sure if this is the plan of if mormons really think they can clone smith and all be the same. Not sure that would ever work. Not sure what the goal would be. Would we be free? would we understand the true teachings of said religon?

Forcing a religon on anybody is a moot point. God doesn't want slaves. He want's those who are one with God. God is love. God is guilt. God is Hope.

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 15, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I apologize for assuming that you were a Republican. You used a code word which Republican partisans normally use.

First, I got into this not to defend Jane as you immediately said I was doing. You asked where were the Christian Fundamentalists who wanted to execute homosexuals. I provided an example. It was that simple; nothing more, nothing less. But you imputed beliefs and motives and went off from there.

Christian Fundamentalists are quite capable of a democratic revolution. It's not a secret that their leaders have been working at it for years. That's their right. If anybody doesn't like it, they should oppose them by working the process to prevent it.

Her premise that the Fundamentalists are more likely to succeed actually has been proven. They have taken over local school boards, they took over the Kansas State School Board, they have had a significant influence in the current Administration in many ways and have gotten people placed in positions of power in it, and they have significant influence in a number of legislatures and courts. They would destroy this country as we know it, by dictating their beliefs to the rest of us. In effect creating a theocracy. They are not as impotent as the Communists; they are not impotent at all.

Jane may have over used hyperbole, but her basic premise is valid. Christian Fundamentalists have been successful in numerous instances in pushing their religious beliefs into matters of state. Jane is hardly absurd here.

That our Fundamentalists are peaceful does not make them any less of a threat, if their goal is a takeover and creation of a theocracy. They already have had success. So it's not that they're more likely to have success than the Islamic Terrorists, they have. And they are not always peaceful. Many publicly state that the killing of abortionists is acceptable, in that it will prevent more killings. Agree with it or not, that's not exactly peaceful.

If by danger you simply mean killing people, then the Islamics are another matter. They don't want to take over this country, they want to destroy it, make it non-existant.

Jane may have overdone it in the use of language, but she didn't use false premises.

Countering Christian Fundamentalists, if you don't agree with them, requires different tactics than countering Islamic Fundamentalists. The first is domestic and requires political action; the second is national security and requires government diplomacy and military action at times.

Jane is correct, both are threats to our system as we know it; but different in nature. The Christian Fundalmentalists are more likely to succeed, and have, simply because ther goals are different and their methods more likely to succeed. We will all unite against the direct physical threat of the Islamics, as we did after 09/11. When the government goes directly against that threat and not off on Crusades not connected to that.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

"I almost fainted by the comment from rufus, finally so close to getting something right, until I read the last little paragraph."

Something right? there are no "right" statements. Only opinions. You gop'ers will get that someday. You people are not GOd's. You are men/women. You do not have all the answers or the questions. Only God does.

It's not my faukt you can only hear what you agree with pink. Do the research. Tell me where I'm wrong, if you can.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Anon--
Here is the logic behind my argument.

Jane says, a Christian fundamentalist coup is more likely to occur in this country than a takeover by militant muslims. To me, this is akin to saying that earth is more likely to be taken over by Vulcans than Klingons. Her premise is flawed (impossibility), so I ask myself, what is the point to saying Christian fundamentalists are a bigger threat to the US than muslim terrorists. If her "more likely" scenario is absolutely impossible, why bring it up? I think the answer to this is because she honestly believes (like Rufus-and maybe you apparently since you refuse to actually comment on issues)that Christian fundamentalists (who as far as I've seen only operate peacefully through the democratic process) are a greater threat to the US than muslim terrorists. I find this absurd, and believe it illustrates why in war time dems will have a tough time winning the White House.

Speaking of false assumptions, I'm not a republican. Although, I think it's quite telling that you assumed that I am. You assumed that a democrat would never criticize what another democrat says, that a good democrat would just go along and try to cover up for lunacy that come from other democrats (of which there is plenty, particularly when it comes to national security issues). That is party-hackery. You never debated me on the actual issues being discussed. Instead, you called me a dufus, claimed I hacked into the WaPo security system, and said I was logic-deficient. Are you going to answer my question about a Christian fundamentalist coup or just continue to sling insults?

Posted by: Dave | August 15, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

You said that something was just a boogeyman, I provided an example that showed it's not. You make an assumption as to where I live (which I don't) and extrapolate you beliefs to fit that.

You don't acknowledge incorrect statements that you made when they are pointed out, etc.

Your positions are little more than those of a partisan hack. It's always Republican against Democrat, not what's best for this country. What's Good for the Republcans is Good for the U.S.A! may as well be your mantra, because you'll not only ignore good ideas from anywhere else, you'll go to lengths to refute them. No matter how illogical or unsupportable your positions are.

Was it an insult? No it was a caution to roo not to get caught up in a debate with you because you'll ignore logic and facts and go along with only that which is acceptable Republican Dogma.

Your approach is that of Grover Norquist. With Rove gone, maybe Norquist will finally fit into that narrow niche where he belongs and we can have logical discussions in this country. When you try to insert your "party line" positions into them, they should be pointed out for what they are, and you should be called on all of the illogic in your statements.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Anon and Roo,
I have no problem following Jane's logic. It's the premise that's behind it to which I am objecting. The idea that there will be a Christian fundamentalist coup or democratic takeover where homosexuals and adulterers are executed is ludicrous. When she juxtaposes this absurdity with real issues (see muslim terrorists murdering americans), it illustrates why no matter how much repubs bungle the war in Iraq, Americans will always trust them more then dems on national security issues. Dems are so paranoid about things that could never happen that they miss the boat on things that can and do. Anon, I didn't insult you, so I'm not sure why you feel compelled to insult me. When you provide facts to bolster an argument, that is called defending an argument. Do you think that there is the possibility of a Christian fundamentalist coup in this country? Do you believe this is a bigger threat than the terrorists to the US? If yes, you can get in the boat with Jane and we'll agree to disagree. If you're just blogging to provide tidbits of news pieces that you have seen, you're not adding much to the discussion.

Posted by: Dave | August 14, 2007 11:36 PM | Report abuse

I almost fainted by the comment from rufus, finally so close to getting something right, until I read the last little paragraph.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 8:54 PM | Report abuse

And I can't proofread sometimes. Make that, Dave can't follow a straight line in logic.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

roo, Dave can follow a straight line in logic. He's hopeless. You show him Point A to Point B and he ends up at Point X, and won't admit to it when it's pointed out to him.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Dave--Jane's statement is to be read thus: "it is more likely that there is a dominionist coup than an islamist one which makes it a bigger threat."

Posted by: roo | August 14, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Anyone that would vote for Ghouliani is voting for illegls, employers free for all, amnesty and open borders. Guess what? The papers here in Arizona are getting disgusting. More and more articles about how Hispanic immigrants are spending so much money, how they are having kids 6 to 1(that's for sure), how they are doing so much out here. As a White person being in Arizona for 35 years I feel like they are telling me that I am irrelevant now.

What's the deal with the illegals? According to them illegal is no big deal but any sort of "comprehensive"(laugh, laugh) immigration reform that might affect them negatively is met with total resistance. There is NOTHING they want except for Americans to leave them be as if the word illegal and their lawbreaking is irrelevant. Very disgusting if you ask me.

Posted by: Randy | August 14, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

That's right pink. I heard a republcian talking about what they would need to get into Iraq ,for the oil.

Do you know what they said? "In order to go to war with Iraq WE NEED another Pearl Harbor".

WOW. This right before 9/11? WOW. DO the resrach. If you did you would not support Hillary. She is with the same plan. The yale plan.

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

From most accounts, the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9/11. I can think of one by AQ, Rome?, I think, where intel was gained from most folks in the area, and law enforcement was informed of what was about to happen. Others were at least suspect, in that the "plotters" had very little means to do much of anything. Iraq has created more enemies for the US and our allies, based on most reports I have seen.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

JD -Thanks for the link. I'm starting to think maybe Hitchens is sane after all. His spot-on assessment and realistic, forward-thinking goals for our strategic interests are refreshingly objective...we could use more of these!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 14, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The is, dave. Who has done more damage to this country the last 5 years? The "christian" right ( I say that becasue they merly claim to be chrsitians while using the title as a claim to court real christian voters)? Or the muslim right?

I say the gop has done more damage to this great country than a terrorist with a AK could ever do. When we change who we are as a nation the terrorists win. Who enabled that? You fear blinds you from that which is front of your face.

To us the GOP are the terrorsits. They are the one's doing major damge to this great coutnry. Their refusal to change makes many beleive they were involved as do their long oil/saudi ties. Wake-up dave. Stop watching republcian propoganda like fox and rush. They are lying to you. They are being paid by the same people that are gutting this great counrty (oil, drug, defense contractors.)

Because you know nothing those in the know are a problem. Willfull ignorance will not save you.

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Jane,
Help me out here.
You wrote,
" I have no doubt that terrorists can, and will inflict substantial damage on us if we don't protect ourselves...I have no doubt that terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan are planning attacks on us right now...ALL fundamentalists are driven by a totalarian vision. Fundamentalist Christians in this country want to force everone else to be fundamentalist Christians and replace the Consituition with the Bible-- and that involves executing homosexuals and adulterers. Frankly I see that as a threat too--and probably a bigger threat, because far more likely."

You then claim that you never said that fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than terrorist Muslims, that you just said they are both dangerous. A "bigger threat" that is "far more likely" says to me more dangerous, but you accuse me of twisting your words. Forgive me for not shaking in my boots from your dominionist fear mongering. They are as politically impotent as the communist party members in the US. Maybe they get together and say crazy things, but they have little to no effect on policy. The muslim terrorists kill US citizens at home and abroad and thereby have a huge impact on US policy. If fundamentalist Christians are a "bigger threat" and "more likely" to hurt us, do you think we should put more focus on defending the US from them than the terrorists?

Posted by: Dave | August 14, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I see. Kind of a 'wag the dog' thing.

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I agree with bsimon and would note that releasing previously classified information, like the existence of thwarted plots, is a practice as old as government itself. OF COURSE GWB and company were motivated, at least in part, by politics when they released that info. But I don't think that means anyone, including Jane, are alleging that the government made up the plots against us. I don't know anyone, liberal or otherwise, who denies that we're still beign targeted on a daily basis.

Posted by: Colin | August 14, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"Are you suggesting on this blog site that the US Government was behind those plots to murder Americans, with the idea that they can now miraculously stop the plots, give Americans confidence, get them to vote GOP, etc? Kind of like a firefighter who commits arson, then is amazingly the first guy on the scene to put it out?"

She may not be, but I am. Most americans think bush was at least compiant with 9/11. And the rest are slaves to Fox/rush/hannity. We will get justice whether you gop'ers like it or not.

Sided with external influences (china, saudi arabia) at teh expense of the country used to be calling treason

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I just read the Hitchens opinion, JD, and I think he makes one good point. I agree that part of a redirected mission in Iraq should include helping the locals against AQ. I do not agree that his "counterfactuals" [what ifs?] are persuasive.

Having said that, I have not changed my opinion as to where the good work has been done, nor have I changed my view as to where more work must be done. Passing the 9-11 Commission recommendations into law is a start.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 14, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

JD asks Jane
"Are you suggesting on this blog site that the US Government was behind those plots to murder Americans, with the idea that they can now miraculously stop the plots, give Americans confidence, get them to vote GOP, etc?"

I think Jane is suggesting that the announcements of these plots is timed for maximum political advantage. Jane may also be suggesting that some of these plots have been exaggerated for political reasons. The evidence supports such allegations. I am unaware of any credible evidence that the government is 'behind' these plots.

Posted by: bsimon | August 14, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, hold your horses Jane...you said:

{snip}

"Realize too, they all 'happened' at politically sensitive times.

Do you not believe that governments are capable of politicization of events and propaganda?

{snip}

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 11:28 AM

Are you suggesting on this blog site that the US Government was behind those plots to murder Americans, with the idea that they can now miraculously stop the plots, give Americans confidence, get them to vote GOP, etc? Kind of like a firefighter who commits arson, then is amazingly the first guy on the scene to put it out?

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Why does no one ever mention the fact that Guliani's law firm represents companies that are pushing for the SPP and the North American Union?

He is a phony and his past policies on Illegal Immigration prove it. He can say anything, but actions prove otherwise!

Posted by: LadyM | August 14, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

don't fret Jane. I learned these fascists don't believe half the things that come out of their mouths, or in this case fingers.

They are lying fascsits that like to argue. You can blame them but don't hate them. Listen to what they listen to and you would be angry to, for differant reason obviously.

I had hoped once Fox andd Rush were labeled for what they were (as they are now), the gop would rip these people up themselves. Who likes being lied to daily for the profit of an external source? I guess the gop does.

It's not compleatly their fault, although they are not blamless. How will histroy recod the last 15 years and rupublican rule? Think abou tthe big picture. Don't let these fascsits propogating lies, for their own twisted pleasure. They are a joke. They are sad.

You are on point. Don't worry about the trolls that are trying to divide and conquer the conversation. They don't want to get at the heart of issues. If WE do they lose everytime. Lie spin discredit misdirection. That is their game. Like the gi joes: "Knowing is half the battle" :)

KNow what they know and what they are trying to do. They are a joke if you know wher they are getting their information. They are a joke :)

Don't let them dim your light. It's so bright right now. Don't let the lyign fascsits who don't even believe themselves get to you. They are fascsits. FAscsits aren't here to try and build a better future for your children and mine. Quite the opposite.

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

JD -- none of the 'plots' you mention have turned out to have ANY connection to bin-Ladin--they were all loonies and victims of 'sting' operations -- it seems that most of them were funded by our own tax dollars. Read the follow ups, not the original report and find out that there's no case against them. Realize too, they all 'happened' at politically sensitive times.

Do you not believe that governments are capable of politicization of events and propaganda? Please don't be naive. And you say the 'methods used to discover them can't be revealed.' I don't understand folks who on the one hand say they want 'small government' and on the other hand want to give govrnment the power to spy on every aspect of their personal lives and use that information anyway it wants.

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The 'libs' [are you zouk?] who post here are quite aware that there is an al-queda -- they just know that they are in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they alwayys were. Not Iraq.

You bet it's a threat. But as far as the 'bushies' doing something about it--not so much.

If you want to know their real agenda-- read the Project for a New American Century, written in 1996 by Dick Chney, Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons. It was decided long before 9/11 to attack Iraq, but that wasn't about 'terrorism' -- it was about redistribution of the world's oil supply.

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

JD: Are you enjoying playing Devil's Advocate? You have proposed withdrawing the American forces to the Kurdish north yourself. I am guessing that you just want the libs who post to recognize that there is an AQ and it is a threat and the Bushies have done something about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

JD writes
"I believe that the admin deserves SOME credit, maybe not all, but some, for the fact that we haven't really been hit since 9/11 in this country. How many of us would have predicted that on 9/12?"


Every day is September 10th.

Posted by: bsimon | August 14, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I read the piece. Yawn. He offers no proof of anything -- just he is usual chickenhawkery. Like so many others, he says, we MUST stay there-- we must fight to 'victory'. But will he be fighting, for the end-all battle to save civilization? No.

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Jane, read that piece, you might disabuse yourself of some misconceptions you seem to harbor about Al Quaida.

For the record, I'm pretty sure that they have *tried* to hit us many times; the Seattle plot, the LA plot, one in NYC, the shoe bomber, and I'm guessing others that we don't know about and/or are classified because the methods we used to discover them cannot be revealed.

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

JD, was Hitchens drunk when he wrote it? Seriosly, the man has a real creditibility problem. He's a serious alcoholic--ever seen hm in person? And he tends to make things up. OUr own CIA doesn't think al-queda in Iraq, nor does Bush or anyone else. Why would I beleiive him?

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

M in A, serendipity, Slate happens to have an interesting piece by Hitchens today on how Al Quaida in Iraq is actually the real Al Quaida. And no, we didn't 'create them' by invading Iraq.

Rather than copy the entire article into this entry, a la Che or the Rufii, here's the link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/nav/tap2/

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Ouch, Jane! Could it be that the terrorists objectives are the same as the ultra-conservatives in this country, spend the U.S. government into oblivion?

Both seem to be succeeding.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

JD, what was the length of time between the first bombing of the WTC and the second? 8 years, right? You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we have not been hit does not prove anything whatsoever, except that we have not been hit -- because you don't have enough data. You don't have the essential piece of information -- which is whether they have even tried to hit us again. They may feel that they have succeeded in what they wnated to do -- terrorize us into giving up our freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Consitution -- and borrow and spend oursselves into such a deep hole we will never get out of it.

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

JD, logically the only thing which "no attacks" proves is that there have ben no attacks.

I don't dispute that all the background work which has been done to prevent additional attacks has probably been successful.

But logically, all that can be proven is that there have been "no attacks." Not why.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

'Jane, the conservatives and war-boosters feel that the war in Iraq and Afg have kept Al Quaida busy, that those areas have become the hot front on the war on terror. OBL and his #2 have said as much in statements. They also feel that if we bring the troops home, that the terrorists will follow and the front will move to the American homeland.'

As Colin pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the 'front would move to the American homeland.' Who do you think is being engaged in Iraq? Most of the fighters are people who want us out of their country -- period. The Sunni insurgents are ex-Baathists. The Shia are members of various factions, like the Badr Brigade, who were opprssed by Saddam and the Sunni minority, want to run their own country. And kill the Sunnis. A very small number [it is estimated by our intelligence services as about 5% ]-- are al-queda in Iraq-- a new group modeled after bin Ladin's, but still mostly Iraqi Sunnis.

What would motivate any of them to come here?

Now we have a totally unrelated group, al-queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are the folks who attacked us, these are the folks that have been completely unmolested for the last several years since we pulled back and diverted our forces to Iraq, these are the folks who are planning to attack us again, and have already done so in Spain and Mexico.

Why should they fight in Iraq? It's a waste of their time. They want to make a big splash -- that's what they do. They are the ones that will come here-- and don't forget, most of the original 19 were from Saudi Arabia-- and absolutely nothing has been done about that, has it? Except that we continue to buy more and more of their oil and make them richer.

Posted by: Jane | August 14, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

JD - You know as well as anyone who posts here that the credit for thwarting terrorist attacks here is with the increased security at ports, and airports,and the increased awareness of law enforcement and probably intelligence. You were the one who pointed out the specific hardening of the ports to me. And yes, the Administration should get credit for it.

The Iraq occupation seems logically unrelated to me.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 14, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Hi Colin, I wasn't defending that line of reasoning, only pointing out that at least there's some logic to it, and even more convincing, some proof (the fact that we haven't been hit).

The thing I hate about this board is that people (mostly they are liberals, but one or two conservatives too) just scream and yell figuring that raising the volume will convince people of the argument. You know the list of the offenders, I don't need to read it to you.

I believe that the admin deserves SOME credit, maybe not all, but some, for the fact that we haven't really been hit since 9/11 in this country. How many of us would have predicted that on 9/12? And which liberals here will show intellectual honesty and admit that?

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Mark, in our discusions we look at this mostly as a national issue. Certainly the Federal government has responsibilities for immigration and border protection.

But most of the impacts are as local as they are national, and maybe more so. Maybe this is a legitimate State's Rights issue, but I think that horse is out of the barn. The organized anti-illegals have been working this as a national issue for decades now.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

anonymous at 8:43A, the Austin Independent School District reached the PODR for itself and its taxpayers in 2005-2006. That was the point where the increase in non-English speakers in the District could not be met by the budget for educating them. It represented a change in scale, rather than in degree.

I do not know when the San Diego, El Paso,
Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque and San Antonio School Districts or hospital districts reached the point of being overwhelmed, but it was before Austin.

Austin has 88000 in its public schools. Typically, until 2005-06, it had 2-3000 non-English speakers. That has tripled, now. Suddenly. The Los Angeles School District is ten times as big.

I think you must not live in TX, NM, AZ, or CA when you coolly speak of PODR. I will concede, and have trumpeted, that we are dealing with multiple problems under the names "undocumented workers" and "illegal
aliens", but do not try to close your eyes to the fact of these many real problems.

They are so complex, and changing, and hard to solve, that they must be addressed; piecemeal, I contend. But they must be addressed.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 14, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

JD -- the idea of "we fight theme over there or they'll follow us home" is ridiculous precisely because it presumes a finite number of terrorists. Given that we assuredly have killed thousands of terrorists since 9/11 - yet intelligence reports suggest that the enemy is stronger now than it was then - that premise seems objectively absurd.

Quite simply, these people are going to attempt to attack us wherever they feel will do the most damage. At some point, that will almost certainly mean more attempted attacks in the US. At present, I imagine operating in and around Iraq is more fruitful, since it is easy to recruit there. But lets not pretend that simply by engaging in Iraq we're somehow precluding what is, fundamentally, a decentralized animal from attacking in two places at once. That just doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Colin | August 14, 2007 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Truth, your quote was "most experts agree," as if this was some type of toothpaste deal where most dentists agree.

Most experts I've seen have quoted the low range numbers. Most non-experts have quoted the high range numbers. I have no idea how expert Justich and Ng are. They could be just numbers crunchers or actual experts.

The most experts agree comment tended towards hyperbole. The bottom line is that nobody really knows, the best anybody can do is guess. The statistic which nobody is able to come up with is the Point of Diminishing Return where the presence of the illegals is more of a drain on our economy than it is a contribution.

12 million or 20 million doesn't make any difference if we have no idea what the PoDR is.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Anon 8/13 10:16pm... Would you say that Bear Stearns is "anti illegal."

Here is the info on a Bear Stearns study on illegal immigration from a May 2006 article in the Christian Science Monitor:

" 'Deriving estimates of the number of unauthorized, or illegal, immigrants is difficult because the government lacks administrative records of their arrival and departure, and because they tend to be undercounted in the census and other surveys of the population,' wrote the Congressional Budget Office in 2004.

"Citing school enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossings, and housing permits, researchers at Bear Stearns reported 'significant evidence that the census estimates of undocumented immigrants may be capturing as little as half of the total undocumented population.'

"There may be as many as 20 million illegal immigrants in the US today - more than twice the official Census Bureau estimate, according to Bear Stearns researchers Robert Justich and Betty Ng.

"Looking at states where most of the undocumented population lives today, they reported 'very dramatic increases in services required in communities that have become gateways for immigration.' These include public school enrollment, language proficiency programs, and building permits. (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina account for about half the undocumented population.)

"In addition, Bear Stearns found, these new undocumented workers are sending home significant amounts of money, suggesting that their numbers are considerably higher than official estimates. 'Between 1995 and 2003, the official tally of Mexicans has climbed 56 percent, and median weekly wage has increased by 10 percent,' the researchers found. 'Yet total remittances jumped 199 percent over the same period. Even considering the declining costs of money transfers, the growth of remittances remains astounding.'

"One variable involves the relatives that join those coming across the border and form larger family units."

One must assume that since this study was conducted the number of illegals has only risen. Hope this shows why there is solid dispute over the actual number.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2007 8:22 AM | Report abuse

JD - Have you watched any of the "Front Line" studies of Al Qaeda? They may not be the last word, but they sure are interesting.

Most of their 30+ attacks after 9-11 have been planned in Europe and Spain seems to be their #1 target. They planned to blow up the Madrid soccer stadium with 70k in it and were thwarted by Interpol, the Spanish, and the Italian National Police, who bugged their Milan planning center. The Italians used their anti-Mafia teams to fight Al Qaeda.

In that operation, the cops got little or no help from the intelligence services,as I recall, which I thought was significant.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 14, 2007 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Jane, the conservatives and war-boosters feel that the war in Iraq and Afg have kept Al Quaida busy, that those areas have become the hot front on the war on terror. OBL and his #2 have said as much in statements. They also feel that if we bring the troops home, that the terrorists will follow and the front will move to the American homeland.

You ridicule that position, which is fine, but you offer no facts or rational arguments, which is not so good. You seem to suggest that the terror cycle is 7 years. Which also implies that there's little America can do to stop that cycle.

Or if there is something America can do, do you give the current Administration any credit for doing it?

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 7:43 AM | Report abuse

"Rufus, are you a martial arts player? I had a brown belt in aikido, although I haven't practiced in years... what do you know about jeet kune do?"

KJD? That's my boy. Invincable. Why? Pyhsical or Mental? Brue Lee was the man.


"Be like water. Formless"

Not only in his fighting style but also his life. Cheack out the man who helped Bruce Lee. One of the few that BRuce Lee actually really looked up to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Mike B, I am back in Lloydd Dogmeat's District again!-I'm sure he is THRILLED! LOL!

What we MIGHT be able to do with the Children and what we DO do with the Children are two different things!

Look to the INTERNATIONALLY Televised EMBARRASMENT that occurered in Chicago! The Government would seperate the Mother and her Mexican National Dual Citizen, so NOW the Onus is on the Church to prevent such a horrible thing, by insisting the Mother of the Dual National gets to stay too!

Pass and RATify HR:1940, Birthright Citizenship Act, and make it RETROACTIVE TO 2000!

That way we can do the right thing and keep invaders together!-In Mexico!

Posted by: RAT-The | August 14, 2007 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Anon. - August 13, 2007 10:26 PM, lylepink,
Unfortunately for you, facts are not a matter for popuar debate. As I stated, I have no opinion. The facts are, illegal immigrants cost the U.S. Treasury and U.S. citizens billions of dollars *annually*. Some estimates, far more accurately thought out and verified than by anything else I have seen, put that figure at at least 1.5 trillion dollars. That figure includes educational expenses, social services, unrecoverable hospital and other meical expenses, expenses incurrered by ordinary American citizens as a result of fraud and identity theft, criminal system expenses due to other crimes, non-recovered taxes, and much more. Those incurred expenses, whatever they may be, are very real and are something that we incur as a direct result of our current policies towards illegal aliens. Likewise, the debate over the applicability of the 14th Amendment to the children of illegal aliens is also quite real. There are legal scholars preparing to challenge the interpretation that does grant such automatic citizenship. Such a case has never been heard y the Suoreme Court, but if you read the Plyer vs. Doe (forcing the State of Texas to provide public eduction to illegal alien children) decision you will find that several current members of the court voted against that decision and the minority opinion was that these children were n ot afforded equal protection but were present in Texas illegally and could be deported. It is likely that any such challenge to the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment would be successful. Where is the opinion in this? It is merely stating facts, as anyone with a brain and eyes can read. The problem with blithering idiots like you two is that you howl like scalded cats when someone brings up a reality that you cannot deal with. Well, what is, is, in this case. Deal with it and cease calling me names for merely pointing out to you that reality doesn't always obey your wishes. But, then, you two also believe in the Clinton's and, likely, the Tooth Fairy, too.

Posted by: MikeB | August 14, 2007 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Lyle, you? A supporter of Hillary? Noooo....

Can't be.

Get out!

Really?

I had no idea.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 12:06 AM | Report abuse

MikeB: Each and every time I call you on a false comment, you go to the name calling as only a few days ago saying I was a minoriy, female, among other things and would go back and find the post as to whether it was me or an imposter. You continue to do the same things by stating what are bald face lies. Everyone on "The Fix" knows I am a strong supporter of Hillary and have been from the start. Just the other day I compliminated you on something you had posted and gotten off the visa thing you are so obsessed with. At least try to be a little bit honest.

Posted by: lylepink | August 13, 2007 10:37 PM | Report abuse

BTW MikeB - Lylepink shows far more logic in his positions than you.

Engineers would be better off not dabbling in politics. You can't accept that the Body Politic is an unbounded set of ever-changing individuals not subject to the Laws of Science. You'll always be frustrated with politics, if it isn't immigration it will be somethingelse.

Save yourself the ulcers and stick with science. Leave politics to the pros.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Lyle, I read the wikipedia article on Sam Sheppard and it was fascinating in a soap opera sor of way. I had read about the son's lawsuit but I had forgot about it. Everything in between was new to me except the short wrestling career of Dr. Sheppard.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that every time MikeB comes up with immigration stats that they get blown out of the water?

BTW Truth Hunter - The experts I've seen don't "agree that 12 million is a low number." Most of them go along with somewhere around 12 million. The anti-illegal side goes with the "up to 22 million or more" numbers.

The anti-illegals shot down the only actual attempt to do something about it and will do so again, so does it really make any difference?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 10:16 PM | Report abuse

JD--"That said, all those who think the real objective of the war on terror is against bin Laden only, ask yourselves - do you think the GWOT is over when we eventually find/kill him (if he's not dead already)?"

Of course not.

By that time, idiotic U.S. policies have created a whole new generation of terrorists to fight.

Posted by: roo | August 13, 2007 10:14 PM | Report abuse

A.C. - thank you for alerting us to the imminent consolidation of the whole North American continent. just out of curiosity,

what's your view on the JFK assassination? How many gunmen? Mafia? Cuba? Jack Ruby? And what about the grassy knoll?

Think the Egyptians REALLY built the pyramids on their own? Or did they have help from space aliens?

Elvis: alive or dead? Fat or skinny?

The Loch Ness Monster - dinosaur? drunken mistake? Hoax? or GERMAN SUB LOST IN 1943?

Bigfoot or Sasquatch? Or both? Or neither?

Did Mikey really die from eating Pop Rocks and drinking Coke?

Posted by: Weekly World News | August 13, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

AMERICAN CITIZENS...OUR COUNTRY IS IN JEOPARDY AND YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW...CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN PROTEST OF THE FOLLOWING:

If you have been scratching your head trying to figure out why Bush has pushed so hard for amnesty, here's your "smoking gun."

An effort is underway to create a North American "framework" that will all but eliminate hard borders between Mexico,
the U.S. and Canada. This "framework" includes a "trusted travelers" program that allows "citizens of North America" to move freely within the three countries.

No wonder the President is pushing amnesty!

On August 20-21, President Bush will join Mexican President Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Harper for the second
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit.

The SPP is what many believe to be the beginnings of the infrastructure for the North American Union. The SPP's stated goal is to:

"...Consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all."

This tri-lateral agreement already has resulted in regulatory changes and open borders initiatives that clearly undermine
our sovereignty. The SPP is the one touting the "trusted travelers" program to encourage migration of "citizens of
North America." This is NOT good news for the American worker, this effort is about obtaining the cheapest laborforce...legal or illegal.

Posted by: A.C. | August 13, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

lylepink, Your distortion of what I wrote and your (purposeful?) inability to understand it places you squarely within the Hillary Clinton camp of fools, jerks, numbskulls, and general irritants. I'll be patient, however, go back and read what I wrote. You CAN read can't you? ...stupid Clinton whacko's...

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

One source for the cost of illegal immigration comes from the front page of Lou Dobbs' CNN site:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

To quote: "$2,600,000,000,000 -- That is the cost the Heritage Foundation estimates to cover the retirement benefits of 12,000,000 illegal aliens if this amnesty bill becomes law."

Of course, most experts agree that 12 million is a low number, so the costs would actually be much greater. Imagine you can find the entire report on the Heritage Foundation site.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 13, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: That confirms what I, and others have been saying about the $125,000 a year as ridiculous, and the $2,700 figure for a household/family is much more in line, although I think it is on the low side. A friend visiting is aware of the Dr. Shepard case and has also read about it on Wikipedia.

Posted by: lylepink | August 13, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Plyler is an enormous issue, as MikeB has noted. It was poorly reasoned, at least in the light of Rodriguez.

RAT, are you in Round Rock? You know that when we deport the parents, we can deport the kids, even if they were born here, right?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

MIKE B-RAT TO THE RESCUE!

First, Mike, In the '80's is where the cage was thrown open! There were always Bridge walkers and Illegals having "Anchor Babies"! The Amendment was in place on the 14Th for decades!

What changed the entire situation, was Ray-Gun's and Conmangress' AMNESTY DISASTER!

We granted Amnesty to a working force, who when rewarded began to use their new Political Clout, to facilitate their goals-INVASION! and Reconquista!

Our stupid idiots at INS have a Policy of Familia Re-unificada. So, for every Illegal that got legalized 4-10 more were moved to the fronts of the lines!

They then created a demand for relatives to work on their construction crews! The Work Visas Flowed! The Workers then began overstaying their legal visas! Then, the Anchor babies became the way they could not only prevent being deported, they got them assistance for their US Citizens!

The worst slap in the face occurred @3 Years ago! Vincente Fox, declared that all the children of Mexicans, were also allowed Mexican Nationality!

This is about the time RAT began going ballistic!

I have watched the slow destruction of the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas, San Diego, Los Angeles, the Orange Curtain, and too many other places over the decades of my life. About 5 Years ago, was when it took on the full scale assualt of an invasion!

Suddenly it was not just a Hispanic Town like San Antonio offering a Day Labor Assembly to help hook-up Un-documenteds with contractors-It was every City and Town!

This is where I BITE GIULIANI! YOU SANCTUARY CITY DECLARING POS! After 9/11 He was BRAGGING about the work being done all over the City by Illegals! That HE encouraged the blatant violations of Federal Law!

YOU planning on Re-Writing the Oath to enforce the Constitution and Laws of this Land Giuliani? Or, pull a Congress, and try to make all the Illegals LEGAL!-There, that fixed everything!

As another Poster beat me to it, klet me paraphrase their input-Do Not EVER Legislate a new Law to fix a mess you made by NOT ENFORCING THE CURRENT ONES!

AND FOLKS!!!!-To stop the ANCHOR BABY CACA-

HR: 1940, Co-Sponsored by John Carter at MY INSISTANCE!-BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ACT!

It's just SITTING ON NANCY PELOSER'S DESK!

Lloydd Dogmeat Doggett, had better vote for it too!

I want all DAY LABOR ASSEMBLIES SHUT DOWN!
Call Industrial Temporary Helps for your LEGAL Day Workers like Businesses have done since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution!-They Screen, insure and usually even Deliver for a very modest mark-up. Payroll them Too!

I want Giuliani, and EVERY OTHER SINGLE Community Rep who EVER declared their community a Sanctuary in violation of our Federal Laws IN JAIL!

National Security BEGINS at the Application for a Job! No Job, no $$$, no ability to survive in a society you do not belong-or at least it gets HARD!

Jerk States like California granting driver's Licenses(A DAMN Photo ID that MOST people assume only Legals can get) to Illegals is again a crime to arrest someone for!

$125,000/Yr/ Illegal-EASY!

What should cost $25,000 in a Normal World gets MULTIPLIED in Socialistic Bureaucracy!

Is anyone even AWARE, Illegals get Medical and DENTAL when encarcerated and awaiting Re-Patriation!
That's right! We fix them up before sending them BACK!

Now, don't you invade again, or we might just have to pay for you to get a US Citizen-and then provide it with education, housing and Medical NOW!

Talk about throwing a door WIDE OPEN!

Worst part, WE ARE STILL DOING IT!

Posted by: RAT-The | August 13, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

What we need to know is does Rudy Giuliani have any intentions to grant legal status to illegal immigrants any time in the future, as well as the intentions of the other candidates for the Republican party?

Growing up in Compton, Ca. we became used to the political grandstanding and the promises that were kept in limited fashion (meaning that enforcement was done for the cameras, but never vigorously or sincerely). We need to know whether their commitments are for the long haul and whether their decisions are politically motivated or a core belief.

Some of us are looking for an ideologue when it comes to this issue of illegal aliens.

Posted by: Dale | August 13, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

From an August 26, 2004, WaPo article:

For its report, the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that advocates tougher immigration policies, used Census Bureau figures to compare the revenue that illegal immigrants contribute through taxes with the cost of government services they use.

Illegal immigrants create a fiscal deficit because they have low incomes, Steven A. Camarota said. (Robert A. Reede - Robert A. Reeder -- The Washington Post)

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household," said Steven A. Camarota, author of the study.

The costs outlined in the report include government services such as Medicaid, medical treatment for the uninsured, food assistance programs, the federal prison and court systems, and federal aid to schools.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

FH

I agree that the overarching policy of trying to spread democracy in the Middle East is a worthy cause. I think the strategy of spreading it by force of arms is flawed. I think we are getting hung up with semantics.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 13, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I apologize to everyone but "Matt" and "Radical" for re-posting this, but they never responded, previously.

Matt in Boston - I have never posted about MA "leadership".
-----------------------------------------
Radical Patriot - Do you favor dismantling the Federal Reserve and adopting the bimetallic standard, whereby the Treasury must possess one dollar in gold or silver for every dollar in circulation?

Do you oppose a central banking system that can alter the money supply as one tool of monetary policy, or do you merely oppose the central banking system the USA has chosen? Why should the currency in circulation be collapsed to, say, $40B?

Why should not copper and platinum back the currency? Why not federal park land?

Or, why not the gross productivity of the United States?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: You are the fool, not me. Any way you try and come up with the $125,000 a year number is totally wrong. What you are trying to do is beyond me, but your obsession with the visa problem gives me a pretty good idea. I very much doubt that not more than a few of the posters here are in that range.

Posted by: lylepink | August 13, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, are you a martial arts player? I had a brown belt in aikido, although I haven't practiced in years... what do you know about jeet kune do?

Posted by: Rotus Brossom | August 13, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

lylepink - That is not where those numbers come from at all. Those 12 million workers are not being paid $125,000 a year, the cost to society to "host" them and their families is that amount or more, however. Just how much do you think it costs for provide for a taxpaying American? Figure infrastructure, social services, police, fire, etc. and it is a significant portion of what we make per year - a lot more than the taxes we pay. It is higher for the illegal immigrants because a significant percentage of that population pays no taxes, a significant percentage of that population engages in illegal activities such as identity theft the costs for which are thrown back on individuals, banks, insurance companies, and government, and they generally do not have health insurance and do not pay hospitals for the medical care they receive, their children end up in public schools, those same children require ESL and similar tax payer funded special programs, etc. etc. Add it up! It's a lot of money. Don't go trying to play with what I am saying, you look like a fool in doing so.

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

'I could bore you with any number of disastrous looking campaigns, but always what history remembers is the final outcome.'

Try to predict a good result for Iraq, FH. Tht would be worth what we've put into it, in terms of Amrican lives and treasure.

Posted by: Martin | August 13, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

"Where MikeB gets his figures is at best bogus. What he is saying is that the 12 M "Workers" are in effect being paid $125,000 a year "

What differance does it make. Would any of you conclude it is costing us billions. Billions trillions, it's costing us a lot of money. A very large portion of our tax dollars go to defense and illegals. The exact details are unknown, we don't even have a real number of illegals. I say it's way higher than anybody has let on

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"Joe Lewis - Bruce Lee always called me "Joe," and I always called him, "Bruce." Bruce told me he was not a master but rather a student master. He called himself this because he felt he was always still learning. He joked about some who called him "sifu." As far as what some of these uninformed people from foreign websites say about me or Bruce, I wish they would exercise better judgment. You never talk about a person unless you have interviewed him, worked with him, or observed him training. Most people who talk about Bruce and myself have never met either of us, interviewed either of us, or witnessed us training together. My only advice to the uneducated writers, who saturate the JKD world, bring us a little honor to your efforts, and in the future, as professional writers practice, do your homework first. Lastly, proper ethics teaches you not to attack somebody and then invite them to come onto a website to defend themselves. In response to attacks against me not being spiritual: The spiritual aspects of combat never made sense to the rational thinker. However, I studied objectivism and J. Krisnamurti before I ever met Bruce. He encouraged me to integrate these ideologies into my training. Before Krisnamurti died, I attended one of his lectures in Ojai, California. After his talk, he usually accepted visitors in the privacy of his company. I gave his staff a poster and pictures of Bruce Lee to present on Bruce's behalf. I told them that Krisnamurti was one of Bruce's idols. To me, this was an act of profound spiritualism. No other martial artist had done this for Bruce."

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

As the competitions between presidential candidates increase and tense up, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today. Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each and to the general public. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror." And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Posted by: Mstessyrue | August 13, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: I forgot the links | August 13, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: Where MikeB gets his figures is at best bogus. What he is saying is that the 12 M "Workers" are in effect being paid $125,000 a year each, which is false. The best information I can find varies from two to fifteen dollars an hour and this is mostly under the table. The two biggest costs are Health care and money that should be paid in income and SS, where the Employer is to blame. Lawyers and Dr.s are among the highest earners and a whole bunch of them net less than that.

Posted by: lylepink | August 13, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"Go back to Jesus GOP. He will save you. He will tell you how to be better chrsitians, not Ann COulter and Sean Hannity"

If you need a contemporary to follow research my boy.

J Krishnamurti. He will help you break down the barriers in your mind. He will help a christian find the teachings of the Christ. "There is more than one way to the mountaintop."

You cannot force conservatism or christianity on a free people. That is a worthl;ess goal. Instead help individuals grow on a one by one basis. Longer and harder, but it's all you can do. One person at a time

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Which, I might add, is odd for so-called Christians -- because Jesus Christ's entire ministry was devoted to refuting the harsh retribution of the Old Testament and preaching love for our fellow humans, tolerance, and compassion."

So true Jane, and I don't often agree with you. I've heard it said that Christianity's best kept secret is the gospel...perhaps Christian leaders would be better served talking about Christ and leaving judgment for God to worry about.

JimD: I would say you have raised some very fair criticisms, but I believe I covered those when I said this war has been poorly managed. Invoking the litany of poor decisions and mismanagement does nothing to prove the overarching policy as wrong...in fact...I could bore you with any number of disastrous looking campaigns, but always what history remembers is the final outcome.

Posted by: FH | August 13, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

bsimon -Instead of acting like an a*s, why don't you climb off your high horse and go look on the web. There are articles about this all over. One was on CNN recently. THE CBO publsihed something about the cost of illegal immigration only being, I don't know, pick a number, but it was low. Lou Dobbs challenged it and it came to lgith that they wewre only publishing direct federal costs. So some reporter did a more etailed study and came up with something over one trillion dollars. Someone challenged that and the whole thing turned into a long debate on how to calculate the costs. Well, they are expensive, really expensive, expensive enough that we could have universal healthare for every American, a universal retirement system for every American, rebuild all of our infrastructure - roads, bridges, railway systems, dams, the works, and have enough left over to retire the entire federal deficit within five years. Go read and do a bit of studying.

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"Which, I might add, is odd for so-called Christians -- because Jesus Christ's entire ministry was devoted to refuting the harsh retribution of the Old Testament and preaching love for our fellow humans, tolerance, and compassion."

The gop loves to repeat the old testement while reject most of Jesus's teachings. Why, what are the differances?

The old is "what GOd did" and "GOd's Laws". tHE NEWS IS what can YOU do to be a better chrstian. So you have What god did, and his reasons that normal man could never understand( also much of the teachings lost in translation and time). Then you have Jesus's teachings on what we can do, as individuals.

So why would the gop reject the new and embrace the old? God Complex. They pretend to be on the same level as God. they pretend to know God's will. Go back to Jesus GOP. He will save you. He will tell you how to be better chrsitians, not Ann COulter and Sean Hannity

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The "dirty little secret" of the Immigration Debate is this: the only solution is the status quo. Right-wingers get off on whining about how those nasty Mexicans are dirty rulebreakers, but there's a reason there are so many illegal workers in the U.S.: we need them, and they need us. Once HRC is elected President, the Wingnuts will have a new axe to grind and this will simmer down until the next time they need a scapegoat.

Posted by: Shansonda Moore | August 13, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I might also add, Dave, that life under a Christian Reconstructionist regime would not be too different from life under an Islamic Caliphate with sharia law. Both derive their 'moral authority' from the same place -- the Old Testament of the Bible.

Which, I might add, is odd for so-called Christians -- because Jesus Christ's entire ministry was devoted to refuting the harsh retribution of the Old Testament and preaching love for our fellow humans, tolerance, and compassion.

Why else would he have saved the adulteress from stoning by saying, 'He who is without sin among you, cast the first stone?'

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Roger Ailes and Rudolph W. Giuliani have been pulling for each other for nearly two decades. "Mr. Ailes was the media consultant to Mr. Giuliani's first mayoral campaign in 1989. Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, officiated at Mr. Ailes's wedding and intervened on his behalf when Mr. Ailes's company, Fox News Channel, was blocked from securing a cable station in the city."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/politics/02FOX.html?ex=1343707200&en=8d48997e96b333a1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

"I heard Rudi on Hannity's radio show aagain -- for about the 20th time [it seems like Fox and rightwing media have decided who their candidate is]--"

It's deeper than that drindl. Research Roger Ailes (Murdoch's media under-boss) and Rudy's ties. Conflict of interests. Are fox viewers watching "news", or paid sponser advertisments POSING as news.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I heard Rudi on Hannity's radio show aagain -- for about the 20th time [it seems like Fox and rightwing media have decided who their candidate is]--and he was explaining how, yes, he really was at Ground Zero all the time, as much as the workers--and Sean said, 'every day, right' and rudi backed off [because this can be checked, should there be any journalist not too lazy to try it] and said, 'not every day, lots of days, some times several times a day,' and the question is, to do WHAT?

He certainly didn't get his manicured hands in the toxic dust the workers were sifting through -- for 8 or 10 hours a day. He came for photo ops.

And yet he's still claiming he was as exposed to the dangers as the workers. Disgusting. Like Mitt R%omney claiming his sons working for his campaign was the same as serving in Iraq.

Fox doesn;t seem to like Mitt much by the way--Chris Wallace nailed him on the dog thing-- and Mitt said the dog 'jumped into the carrier himself.'

I'd really like to see an Irish setter jump into a box on top of the car. Pretty talented. He also said the box was 'airtight' --apparently the dog also didn't require oxygen -- but somehow the poop got it.

What is wrong with these guys?

Posted by: drindl | August 13, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

MikeB writes
"Those costs have been published repeatedly, from a number of sources."


I see. A compelling argument indeed.

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I fel you mikeb. I agree. I think the dem's are only with blanket amnesty because thye feel a high number will be d. I don't know if that's true. I do know %80 of americans are not for blanket amnesty and want a secure border. Why hasn't bush done this in 7 years? His dad? Reagan?

I agree with you mike, like most times. You are the man. But it's not cheap labor. It's slave labor :)

It does hurt the working man in all aspects. MAinly, socail issues, housing market and job market. But who do those issues help. If the social programs are flooded it hurts people thinking it will work in the future. The r's are taxed less. Housing, poor hurt rich land owners help. Labor, the owners get cheap workers. Workers wages are dragged down. Who does that help?

You are the man mikeb.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

rufus - Unfortunately, the right appears to be playing it from both sides - cheap labor for those farmers, construction companies, meat packers, manufacturers, and others that contribute money to them and raw outright racism for the NASCAR crowd. The problem is, a huge part of the Democratic base are blue collar workers, who have been harmed badly by illegal immigration and blanket amnesty isn't an option. Unless the Dem's come up with something, even if only a plan to study this, they are going to pay dearly.

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I am for one world one people at one time. I am for no borders AT ONE time. When we are ready. I'm against strong arming the system and non-americans taking what is ours. I'm not stealing anything from mexico. Why should I permit them stealing from me. We are seperate nations. If you are a MEXICAN who believes that go back to mexico. Americans stay. We can grow as a nation. All those still loyal to mexico need to go home. Go back to the country THEY love. Leave the country I love.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"police, prison,"

those are the big ones. Incareration. We could save billions by sending illegal CRIMINALS out of the country. Not sure who's against that. The right and left seem to agree.

When did illegal immagration become a big issue again? Was it before the 06 elections? The dem's are on the wrong side of this agrument as is bush. With that said this issue was brought back to give the GOP a fighting shot in the next elections. Bush won in 04 because he got the latino vote. Why? They thought he was going to legalize them and their families. He didn't the d's think all these illegals are going to be d's. Not sure if that's true.

The cost outweighs the benifeits. This is a republcian issue though. Regan offered the last blancket amnesty. The bush's and their cronie clinton did nothing. Now they're resurectting this issue now? Why? national securtity? Not likely.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Congress is in recess, the illegal immigration issue is unresolved and the Bush administration is moving again towards evil, while presidential candidate posture and snipe.

On August 10, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez trumpeted what they billed as "a Series of Reforms the Administration Will Pursue to Address Border Security and Immigration Challenges."

Beyond bureaucratic claptrap, the heart of the announcement was a mandate that employers fire workers whose Social Security numbers don't square with a government database. Employers who resist could be fined as much as $10,000 a pop.

Since almost all of the illegal immigrant workers have phony Social Security numbers, this is a nod to the "deport-em-all!" crowd in the dwindling Bush political base. It's also a lousy policy move, with racist overtones.

Firing at the peak of the harvest season those who are the majority labor that puts meat and vegetables on American dinner tables is self-defeating. It's obviously so to just about everyone except those in the Bush administration.

One industry source says 70 percent of farm workers are illegal, another says 50 percent. But either figure should bring any thinking person pause. And that doesn't even touch construction, landscaping and hospitality, also at their peak seasons, and also very dependent on immigrant labor, legal or not.

Instead of demonizing both employees and employers to make cheap political points with the neo-Cons whose only personal interaction with their lawn is to walk on it, we should be treating the "illegal" immigration problem for what it is, a foreign policy and economics problem.

Americans need the labor and Mexicans need the jobs. Roughly half of the illegal immigrants are employed by homeowners and renters, so spare us the shouts that "it all benefits big business!" Also spare us "they're taking away American jobs!" unless you have a handle on 12 million Americans willing to do difficult, dirty and often dangerous work for minimal wages.

The Bush administration should stop playing to the neo-con bleachers and start playing hardball with Mexico. Fifteen-plus percent of Mexico's labor force is in the U.S. and Mexico reaps the benefits, both in social stability and plain old cash, about $20-$25 billion a year. We get the cheap labor that keeps many prices low, but also the bills for health care, education and law enforcement. Not to mention the serious issues of taxes and Social Security. Simply deporting or persecuting for dubious political benefit doesn't address the issues.

If a share of the benefits are heading to Mexico City, so should a share of the bills. We need a plan, not a pogrom.

I wrote a book, "Opening the Borders, Level 4 Press 2007) suggesting one plan that brings relief without opening a path to citizenship. There are certainly others. But what we need to do is think, plan and act at the federal level.

What we must not do is continue down the path of demonizing 12 million people, in the process depriving all of us of our shared humanity. This administration has forgotten that, if it ever knew it at all.

When Chertoff said "It's been tough sometimes because it's required disrupting families, and that's always an unpleasant thing to do, but we have an obligation to enforce the law," it brought chilling echoes.

Einsatzgrupen leader Otto Ohlendorf explained at the Nuremburg war crime trials that executing Jews was "both for the victims and for those who carried out the executions..., psychologically, an immense burden to bear."

He was also fulfilling his obligation to enforce the law.

Posted by: LarryBlasko | August 13, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"We have differences between ourselves, proud. We don't all share the same Borg mind like you folks do."

On point analysis Jane. All the way around. Your not The Jane from Salon.com are you?

Keep up the great work. You can articulate much better than me. I know things but can't get them out. Do your thing girl. Keep the fascists on their toes :)

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - Those costs have been published repeatedly, from a number of sources. Rolled up in those figures are educational costs for the children of illegal immigrants, social services costs, non-recoverable costs for medical care, police, prison, and related charges, non-recovered taxes (most illegal immigrants work under the table and pay no taxes), costs for identity theft and related legal costs passed to Amercian's, etc. I didn't believe it the first time I saw those figures, either, but when you run the numbers and use government population estimates for illegal immigrants, they are depressingly real. And, none of this even begins to address the numbers of U.S. workers who have been displaced by illegal workers nor the depressing effect they have had on wages and benefits for Amercian workers. Most people are, by now, familiar with the $18 per hour wage paid to a meat packer in 1980 vs. the $10 an hour paid today, with most workers being illegals; but the effects are felt all over the spectrum - skilled carpenters paid $20 an hour in 2000 vs. 10 or less per hour today, house painters, concret workers, even non-union factory workers in the R.V. industry.

I must hasten to add, however, that we incurred many of those costs by our own actions. The Plyer vs. Doe decision opened up a can of worms where it was widely interpreted to mean that children born here of illegal immigrants obtained automatic citizenship, when it has never been determined by the Sureme Court, but it still creates an attractive nuisance that brought on the huge numbers of illegal immigrants since 1982. Likewise, NAFTA has destroyed much of Mexico and Central America's agricultural work, and other American companies have literally been preying on the desparately poor people there. Witness last weeks article in the Post where thousands of Mexican teenagers work for WalMart as "box boys" and "porters" for no salary whatsoever; they merely work for tips and in the hope that WalMart might see them as hard working and eventually put them as even part time workers.

This is all pretty awful stuff. No matter what we do, it will harm someone and be morally wrong. I have no idea of how to solve this and I don't think anyone else does either, but it's time we started having a national debate on it based on facts and morality, rather than slogans, racism, humanitarianism and emotion.

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

... and no one in the DLC is a 'liberal'..

'it might not be a coincidence that staying on offense over there has coincided with us not getting hit again."

Stayng in Iraq has kept the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan from hitting us? How does that work, JD--mind control? and if it is a coincidence, that's kind of shaky ground to build very expensive foreign policy on, isn't it?

Read your history. They will strike every 7 or 8 years. I figure we're ripe for an attack right about now.

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin: Your idea about the 14th A and those born here to guests, sounds good to me. I still think the best weapon we have is against the Employer. Most of these workers are found in about 5 or 6 places, and by strict enforcement of a sizeable penalty would have the best chance of reducing them, for it would not be worth taking the chance in the first place.

Posted by: lylepink | August 13, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself. "

WOW. Thank for that.

Like I've said here many times, you are not a chrsitian because you claim to be. You ARE because of your actions.

Jesus would not be for forced christanity. What good does that do? Forcing someone to be christian/muslim/any religon is a moot point. I am a chrsitian but to convert I must help and show others. I cannot force them to submit. They cannot force christianity OR conservatism on a free people. If they could AMerica would not be a free country, would it?

A christian is made. A chrsitian is not born or labeled as such. You are by your actions. And then again, some people have no religon. That is their right also. Jesus would be for choice. He doesn't want mindless slaves. He wants compnions for eternity. You cannot force someone to do that. It is impossible. They must come willingly. Or not

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

'n defending Jane's argument that fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than Muslim terrorists,'

--which I never said, another trick of the rightwingers. Twist people's words and warp their meanings. I said they were both dangerous in different ways. I know concepts are hard for you folks, but try.

'This, the highest level of public discourse among Dem party operatives. It sounded more like a couple of girls bickering.'

We have differences between ourselves, proud. We don't all share the same Borg mind like you folks do.

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"so it is laughable to me that liberals attempt to engage on the topic as though they alone posess the answers and ultimate wisdom. Ha! "

Harold FOrd Jr, a liberal? HAHAHAHA. YOu show your lying face old man, for all to see.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"REP. FORD: No, but, but, Markos, but you're blaming--no, no, but you're blaming me for John Breaux. It's not fair."

Whatever Old man. Y0u and I both know Ford is a republcian sbotur gop'er. You know he's taking money from fox. How about some context. Other than pulling random people that support your cause regardless of who it is. Ford is a sbotur. He lost his election for pete's sake. Who is he to be telling others what to do? He lost. He is just taking the helm that nobody else wanted. The republcian sabotur DLC head job. SO what. That guy from Kos handed it to him. Keep propogating old man. I seeeeee you

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Is this enough for you, doubter-- there's lots more, this is widely documented.

'Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called "Christian Reconstructionism." Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism "seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of 'Biblical Law.'" He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate "...labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools." Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:

"Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to] blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality."[10]

Today, Dominionists hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify themselves as religious conservatives said, "They cut and run if I mention the word 'Dominionism.'"[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, "In March 1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus titled, "How to Participate in a Political Party." It read:

"Rule the world for God.
"Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
"Hide your strength.
"Don't flaunt your Christianity.
"Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing."[12]

Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire economics, requiring that people "look to God and not to government for help.'

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Proud & FH -- I woulder sign on to JimD and bsimon's reponses to why our policy in Iraq isn't working. They are both more articulate than me, at least at the end of a work day. Suffice it to say, however, that I have yet to hear an explanation for how our policy in Iraq, even if well-executed, was an intelligent foreign policy decision. Candidly, that Tom Freidman thought it was merely makes me question his judgment on this particular issue. As conservatives USED to be fond of noting, sometimes a little common sense beats the heck out of the opinions of ivy league experts.

Posted by: Colin | August 13, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.

"Most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know -- what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know -- is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."

The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

It's no straw man, buddy boy...

'The most common form of Christian Reconstructionism [of which Tom DeLay is adherent, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them.

All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has even criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." The Reverend Rod Parsley, a champion of theocracy, or what he calls a "christocracy," told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio, "Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not." more

The theocratic right seeks to establish dominion, or control over society in the name of God. D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

Twenty-five years ago dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Dems cannot decide whose voice within their party will dominate on issues like the war in Iraq, so it is laughable to me that liberals attempt to engage on the topic as though they alone posess the answers and ultimate wisdom. Ha!

Witness the spectacle on MTP yesterday, where chairman of the DLC and former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., argued over the base with the outspoken liberal, founder and publisher of the Daily Kos web site Markos Moulitsas, like dogs fighting over a chicken bone.

MR. MOULITSAS: You're, you're taking, you're taking credit for everything that, that, that President Clinton did.

REP. FORD: No, but, but, Markos, but you're blaming--no, no, but you're blaming me for John Breaux. It's not fair.

MR. MOULITSAS: And--right.

REP. FORD: Bill Clinton...

MR. MOULITSAS: And you're taking credit for everything Clinton did and...

REP. FORD: But he was chairman of the DLC, Markos.

MR. MOULITSAS: And ultimately, think about this. You talk about a feeling...

REP. FORD: But you can't have it both ways, sir.

REP. FORD: On guns, on gay marriage. There are a number of issues on cultural issues. Jim Webb the same way. My only point is this. There's no need for us to argue. Those guys won, and we should be proud.

MR. MOULITSAS: Because they were proud Democrats.

REP. FORD: And I'm one, too. There's no need to question my allegiance.

MR. MOULITSAS: So will you go on--will you stop going on Fox News and attacking Harry Reid for abandoning...the troops

REP. FORD: No, but, but..I'm, I'm not...

MR. MOULITSAS: ...betraying the troops?

This, the highest level of public discourse among Dem party operatives. It sounded more like a couple of girls bickering.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 13, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

MikeB writes
"There are at least 12 million illegal *workers* in this country. They tale jobs from Amercian workers and depress wages and benefits for others. The cost to taxpayers to support these illegals is at least 1.5 trillion dollard annually, something we simply cannot afford."

Mike, your numbers work out to a cost per illegal worker of $125,000 each per year. That is a fantastic amount. From where do your numbers come?

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"FYI: This little trick proudtobeGOP is using is a classic example of my quote. "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, and in that way you will know what you are doing.""

Classic GOP trick alright. Like calling democrats fascists all day. After the last 50 years, calling the left fascsits. WOW. These people have balls, I'll give them that. I'm sure there are plenty of people with balls in jail right now. LEt them join their brothers. Just because these gop'ers apear brave in tehe face of adversity doesn't mean they shouldn't be locked up for the crimes they commit, same as everyone else.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"The larger point, though, is still valid: OBL isn't the be-all/end-all of GWOT, and it might not be a coincidence that staying on offense over there has coincided with us not getting hit again."

I agree, bin Laden's capture or proven death is not the only goal in maintaining security for America. However, while it is true that capturing or killing him will not signify victory, likewise, we will not be able to claim victory until he has been captured or killed. Personally, I prefer capture & a public trial.

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I think that "illegal immigration" is like shooting at multiple targets, and they all move. I hope that RG can see it that way, and be wise enough to offer piecemeal solutions, rather than a global strategy that must fail as surely as Kennedy-McCain did.

The new emphasis on enforcement in the work place is one step. Fences in the border twin cities is a step. More recon and more border patrols in the vast rural stretches of the southwest border would be a step.

Amending NAFTA so that guest workers are addressed in all three countries would be a step. NAFTA could provide that children born to "guests" retain their home country citizenship - a treaty would have as much force as the 14th A.

Addressing the huge impact on border city social and police services would be a step.

Each step we take will affect the "mix" -
and as we take steps, we can evaluate results. Attempting a global fix is not only politically suicidal, it is unwise
policy. Or so I think!

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

FH writes "It is fair to call what we have in Iraq a disaster because of the way it has been managed, but I do not think it is fair to call the overall strategy a failure. What bothers me is the idea that a retreat from this war would be anything but a disaster for U.S. foreign policy. A precipitous U.S. withdrawal will absolutely be seen as a victory and an enormous recruiting tool for our adversaries. After all, everyone loves a winner...even radical Islam."

I agree with everything you say except "I do not think it is fair to call the overall strategy a failure". It certainly is a failure on many levels. It is a failure because it failed to account for the sectarian resentments that erupted into violence. It is a failure because it did not provide sufficient troop levels to keep order. It is a failure because policy on the occupation was made on the fly, often by people with few professional qualifications, instead of having a detailed plan in advance as to how to deal with issues like de-Baathification, use of Iraqi army units, etc. The administration was being fed rosy scenarios by a group of Iraqi exiles with ties to the neoconservatives who had not been in Iraq in decades. Instead neoconservative fantasies that our troops would be welcomed as the Parisians welcomed our forces in 1944 became the operative assumptions. The whole Shia-Sunni civil war caught us by surprise. Did our government actually believe the fantasy that one of the neo-cons chief cheerleaders (William Kristol) spouted - "it is a myth that Shia and Sunnis hate each other"?

Ultimately, success of failure in Iraq depends on a political settlement not a military victory. In fact, successful counter-insurgency tactics are largely non-violent. I read an interesting article by an ex-Army officer teaching counter-insurgency tactics in the Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080900667.html

His basic point is that defeating an insurgency depends more on persuading the population to withdraw support from the insurgents than it depends on killing insurgents. What strategy do we have in Iraq to accomplish that? How do we expect to midwife a political settlement that most Sunnis, Shia and Kurds can accept? I see precious few signs of any kind of political strategy.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 13, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

the real tony - Illegal immigration is an enormous problem and mindless slogans don't help much. There are at least 12 million illegal *workers* in this country. They tale jobs from Amercian workers and depress wages and benefits for others. The cost to taxpayers to support these illegals is at least 1.5 trillion dollard annually, something we simply cannot afford. On the other hand, *we* created the problem of these illegals by the fairly recent decision to grant automatic citizenship to their children born here (something that wasn't granted right up until about 1980, and is considered un-Constitutional by numerous scholars....i.e. there is no such automatic grant under the 14th Amendment) and by our permitting U.S. corporations to run wild in Mexico, placing millions of people in desparate straights. I don't have the answers for this mess. No matter what we do, it will harm people. I do know that spouting racist nonsense and spouting stupid slogans like your's are about equally harmful in muddying any sort of rational debate about this.

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: differently. The status quo hasn't worked. Sad, because if it did work, we'd have been infinitely safer as a country (ie, if democracy in Iraq had taken hold, spread to surrounding area, brought freedom to an area that never knew it, it would have undercut the jihadists).

The larger point, though, is still valid: OBL isn't the be-all/end-all of GWOT, and it might not be a coincidence that staying on offense over there has coincided with us not getting hit again.

Posted by: JD | August 13, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

FYI: This little trick proudtobeGOP is using is a classic example of my quote. "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, and in that way you will know what you are doing."

Posted by: lylepink | August 13, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - A suspect can be required to identify herself upon an arrest. Further, a suspect can be, and usually is, fingerprinted subsequent to arrest. Because there is no national hardened ID yet, it would not be possible for a local cop to make a competent check "for legal status".

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"This administration's policy in Iraq has HELPED make us less safe and made is easier for hard core radicals to brain wash people into joining their demented cause. Ignoring that that's the case doesn't actually strike me as sensible foreign policy.

Posted by: Colin | August 13, 2007 02:30 PM"

If I viewed radical Islam as a monolithic entity with Osama Bin Laden as its leader, I may agree with this assessment. This phenomenon has long ago metastasized throughout the Mid-East, and a policy with its central theme in a country that sits on the outskirts of the region seems like a narrow strategy to embark upon. The other problem with this argument is the idea that a large force in Afghanistan would not generate the same increase in the "radicals" ability to recruit. The large Soviet force did just that, but you seem to think that would not be the case with a large U.S. force...why is that?

In short, the idea of turning Iraq into a model of democracy in the Mid-East had many proponents, not the least of whom was Tom Friedman...who knows at least as much as anyone posting on this blog about the region. It is fair to call what we have in Iraq a disaster because of the way it has been managed, but I do not think it is fair to call the overall strategy a failure. What bothers me is the idea that a retreat from this war would be anything but a disaster for U.S. foreign policy. A precipitous U.S. withdrawal will absolutely be seen as a victory and an enormous recruiting tool for our adversaries. After all, everyone loves a winner...even radical Islam.

Posted by: FH | August 13, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

the real tony - No, those real Mexican's were too busy committing half of the crimes in the U.S. Illegal Mexican immigrants are responsible for half of our murders, nearly two-thirds of new gamgs and other criminal organizations, and burn through nearly half of all money spent by government on social services.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"That said, all those who think the real objective of the war on terror is against bin Laden only, ask yourselves - do you think the GWOT is over when we eventually find/kill him (if he's not dead already)? "

And I'll flip the question around on you. You a gop'er defending his parties inability or unwillingness to capture the terrorist behind 9/11. Without Bin LAden would 9/11 have happened? That is the question. If the answer is no, then yes we should persude him to the end of the earth.

In terms of where AQ is today as opposed to before 9/11, that is unknown at this time. If they are stronger who do you point to? If they are stronger is it the dems/libs fault or bush and his administration's policies that have made them stronger? And if it's policies why? Treason or incompetance.

These are the questions you gop'ers need to think about before coming in here defending bush or bashing libs

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"That said, all those who think the real objective of the war on terror is against bin Laden only, ask yourselves - do you think the GWOT is over when we eventually find/kill him (if he's not dead already)? "

And I'll flip the question around on you. You a gop'er defending his parties inability or unwillingness to capture the terrorist behind 9/11. Without Bin LAden would 9/11 have happened? That is the question. If the answer is no, then yes we should persude him to the end of the earth.

In terms of where AQ is today as opposed to before 9/11, that is unknown at this time. If they are stronger who do you point to? If they are stronger is it the dems/libs fault or bush and his administration's policies that have made them stronger? And if it's policies why? Treason or incompetance.

These are the questions you gop'ers need to think about before coming in here defending bush or bashing libs

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"bsimon... when you say, "The United States - the world's only superpower - has been fighting one band of extremists for 6 years and remains unable to find them, and capture or kill them" I think you might have mispoken.

I'm pretty sure the military has killed lots and lots of Al Quaida fighters, both in Iraq and Afghanastan. I'm sure we could find more in Pakistan, if invading wouldn't bring down Mussharaf's reign put nukes in the hands of the Pakistani version of the Taliban."

JD, perhaps I didn't make my point well. But, you help make it when you say "I'm pretty sure the military has killed lots and lots of Al Quaida fighters." I'm pretty sure you're right - I'm pretty sure we've captured or killed thousands of jihadists - not only al Qaida, but Taliban, Iraqi insurgents and other 'generic' jihadists. Yet, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate on the subject, al Qaida is as strong or stronger than they were in 2001 - and that's with respect to their ability to attack the US homeland. So, after 6 years of efforts, the people who attacked are as strong as they were when they last succeeded. Is that a sign of success, or might it just possibly be a sign that we should be doing something differently?

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"Without Fox "News" spewing propoganda would we be in Iraq right now?"

But we should silence all liberal outlets, silence rosie and churchill, or anybody not parroting gop talking points, right. So give conservatives EVERY voice in media (tv, radio, internet,), and silence any and all liberal voices. That's the way it works in your twisted GOP heads, right?

Even after the last 7 years? You goper's are nuts. ANd your following nuts like the walrus to the clam frenzy. Good thing independant thinkers know the GOP for what it is now. YOur party will be eliminated from the polticial shpere in less than a year. Good luck with irrelevance.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Always come back around to the Koz to the dittoheads. Right, the Koz is the problem. Not Fox. Not the republicans. Bl;ame blame blame.

You people love to talk about the Kos. Let me ask this and your silence will tell all independant thinkers who come here what you and your fascist gop movement is about.

Without Fox "News" spewing propoganda would we be in Iraq right now?

Now go ahead bashing the Kos and liberals again.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Catholic voters are rallying around Mr. Tancrudo, like the Irish did around Kennedy. They don't realize Mr. Tancrudo is a Presbyterian.

Posted by: Rev. Sean Dougherty | August 13, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

proudtobe, I don't think you'll make much headway by arguing facts to people whose basis for making decisions is emotion?

bsimon, usually I respect and sometimes agree with your posts, but when you say, "The United States - the world's only superpower - has been fighting one band of extremists for 6 years and remains unable to find them, and capture or kill them" I think you might have mispoken.

I'm pretty sure the military has killed lots and lots of Al Quaida fighters, both in Iraq and Afghanastan. I'm sure we could find more in Pakistan, if invading wouldn't bring down Mussharaf's reign put nukes in the hands of the Pakistani version of the Taliban.

That said, all those who think the real objective of the war on terror is against bin Laden only, ask yourselves - do you think the GWOT is over when we eventually find/kill him (if he's not dead already)?

And I post this as someone who thinks it's time to get out of Iraq, btw, so save your insults and chickenhawk comments for Kos or NYTimes.

Posted by: JD | August 13, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"We can this country due to fear and hate and Bush and the terrosrists win."

We Change. That is

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Karl Rove may be leaving the White House, but Democrats on Capitol Hill still want to see him testify on at least one issue - the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys - and possibly more.

Rove was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month to testify on what he knew about the prosecutor purge, and when he knew it. "

Finally. Bush and his cronies think his lawlessness only applies if they are in power. Tsst Tsst Tsst. Laws are laws for a reason. Certain laws, regardless of if your in power or not, must be followed out to a conclusion. Murder, treason are some of them ,I think this people NEED to answer for. If not our democracy has been weakened. If we can get this great country back to PRE-9/11, after the attempted gop destruction, we will be in good shape and can insure the terrorist don't win.

We can this country due to fear and hate and Bush and the terrosrists win.

Posted by: rufus | August 13, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Has everyone in the GOP just lost their minds?

There were NO MEXICANS involved with 9/11.

They were too busy WORKING.

You're making it WAY TOO EASY for the Democratics!

Posted by: the real tony | August 13, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Dave, in fairness to Jane (though I don't pretend to speak for her, and the post looks like it was removed), I think she was pointing more to the fervor of fundamentalists generally, not necessarily that we should be in fear of Christians who hate gay people blowing us up. I think the point is that the conservative Christian base *has* taken a significant role in government (some say "hijack" but that term seems explosive in this forum) and is using government to push their fundamentalist Christian world view on those who do not agree with them --THAT is why so many liberals are afraid of them, especially because we supposedly live in a country with freedom of religion. I do not want to live in a country ruled by Christian fundamentalists anymore than I want to live in a country ruled by Muslim fundamentalists. I consider myself a liberal Christian (yes, we do exist) who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro prison reform (something more than warehousing, please), and ... yes ... pro God, whatever that might mean to each individual. I do not want my government telling me to follow God's law because the government does not interpret God's law for me. I believe that I do that for myself. I do not agree with our president's religion and I am disgusted that so much is done in the name of Christianity to divide people and breed hate for anyone with a different set of beliefs. The fact that our government uses fundamentalist Christianity in this way indeed terorrizes the living hell out of me.

Posted by: dc voter | August 13, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Anon---
I love it. In defending Jane's argument that fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than Muslim terrorists, you give an anecdotal story of what some lady said at a library protest and a "group looking on approvingly." Those fundamentalist Christians sound like rough customers. And I thought the video footage of beheading innocents by the terrorists was bad. That group looking on approvingly sounds horrific. Why do we have troops in Afghanistan? We should send them to S. Carolina, the real threat to democracy.

Posted by: Dave | August 13, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich urges President Bush to call a special session of Congress to pass emergency legislation requiring anyone arrested for a felony to be checked for legal status."

I'd like to hear a constitutional law expert address this. Would the cops have to have probable cause prior to performing an immigration check? Or would it be a normal part of establishing identity?

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Gingrich Calls For Immigration Checks of Alleged Felons

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich urges President Bush to call a special session of Congress to pass emergency legislation requiring anyone arrested for a felony to be checked for legal status.

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/gingrich-calls-for-immigration-checks.html

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

loudon - I don't claim to know more than God, but those freaks at Westboro are not Christians. Anybody who would picket at funerals of soldiers with signs that say God hates fags is not a Christian. Do not listen to them- even the devil can quote scripture, as their leader, Shirley, so often illustrates.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 13, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun,

I've seen video footage of this group protesting. I'm having trouble seeing how they are a greater threat to the US than Muslim terrorists as Jane claims. They don't fly jets into skyscrapers or strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in trains. They yell, are obnoxious, and are viewed in this country intellecutally as one step down from the mentally ill guy at Lafayette who cusses all day and night. I've got a lot of fun links to marxist revolutionary websites, but I don't live in fear of a communist boogeyman that is going to kill capitalists. I'm by no means defending fundamentalist Christians, but I'm curious why so many people on the left seem to live in fear of them.

Posted by: Dave | August 13, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

proudoftheGOP writes
"I still believe we have to remain on offense and not retreat to our Clintonesque way of handling terrorists, wherever they are."

The real question is what is the right way to confront terrorism. There is a compelling argument being made that raising the conflict to the level of a 'war' actually helps the terrorists' cause. The United States - the world's only superpower - has been fighting one band of extremists for 6 years and remains unable to find them, and capture or kill them. For 6 years, this group has been the focus of not only our foreign policy, but our military as well, and we've been unable to stop them. Now the entire world knows who Osama bin Laden is - and that he's been able to evade the world's most advanced military & intelligence services. I don't know about you, proudtobeGOP, but it seems to me like its time for a new approach. I can't wait for this administration of incometent buffoons to finally move into retirement & let a new team take over - hopefully it will be a team willing to take a fresh look at what it takes to bring the people who attacked us to justice.

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"From the beginning of civilization to today, no war was ever won by defense."

I can make a pretty good argument that World War I is a striking example to the contrary. The offensives mounted by both sides failed to gain much ground and, in the end, Germany was bled dry by the trenches and starved of food and material by the Allied blockade - an essentially defensive operation. The innovations of machine guns, artillery improvements and poison gas made offensives extremely difficult. Although Allied offensives began to make gains in the last few months of the war, the German resistance had simply crumbled.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 13, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

It will be very interesting to see how patriotic proud is when a Democrat becomes president in January 2009.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 13, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

hey Dave: www.westborobaptistchurch.org

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 13, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Where are these fundamentalist Christians that want to execute homosexuals and adulterers?

Dave, a few years ago one of the Northern Virginia libraries announced that it was going to carry one of the local gay papers. A group of fundamentalists protested. In an interview on the evening news one of the protesters actually said that she thought that the gays should be killed. The group around her looking on approvingly.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"proud looks at the world through Rove-colored glasses."

good one, anon. funny stuff. Be it known that I'm not a Bushapologist, but I still believe we have to remain on offense and not retreat to our Clintonesque way of handling terrorists, wherever they are.

Of course, one suicide bombing or IED is one too many, but every society is violent in its own way. The 58 killed by IEDs and suicide bombers in Khost, Afghanistan could be compared with the 2006 murders in some American cities with around Khost's one-million population: There were 29 murders in San Jose, 108 in Indianapolis, and 373 in Detroit.

Check the headlines:

Major attacks decline in Iraq http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-12-lede13_N.htm

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 13, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Jane--
Where are these fundamentalist Christians that want to execute homosexuals and adulterers? Why don't the homosexual and adulterer lynchings make the news? Why don't we hear about fundamentalist Christian suicide bombers running amok at gay rodeos? Why are you creating a fundamentalist Christian boogeyman?

Posted by: Dave | August 13, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

proud is right though, Islamic radicals have been attacking the West for decades. Most of that time it just smoldered though with attacks on U.S. Embassies or libraries. In 1992 it erupted with the first attack on the WTC. In 2001 it exploded.

What proud just won't admit is that there was no logical reason to shift from Afghanistan to Iraq. The ongoing war wasn't there. Iraq is just all rationalizing - and at such a heavy cost.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani = joke

Posted by: xyz | August 13, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"I was in favor of that -- I was actually IN NYC on 9/11."

Regardless if you were in NYC, Kansas, Alaska or Hawaii, I think your response would be equally sound.

Not to nitpick, but I have a pet peeve about people using proximity to those attacks as a credential for discussing an appropriate response. I think it's safe to say that 9/11 was a shocking and horrible event for ALL Americans. And I should know, because I was in DC on 9/11!!! :)

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

proud looks at the world through Rove-colored glasses.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

9/11 was a wake-up call to go to Afghanistan and crush the murderers who attacked us -- bin Ladin and al-queda. I was in favor of that -- I was actually IN NYC on 9/11.

But it's 6 years later and bin-Laden is still alive and plotting and we are in as much or more danger than ever -- because dick cheney had some oil business in Iraq. Those are the facts.

Posted by: drindl | August 13, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"From the beginning of civilization to today, no war was ever won by defense."

False. I found one example in about two minutes of research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars

Posted by: Venicemenace | August 13, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

okay, turns out there is one thing i hate MORE than liberals being called against america, and that's the idea the 9.11 and iraq are linked in any way shape or form. the only link between the two now is that our actions in iraq have bred more hate and motivation to create more terrorists a la 9.11. even bush admitted at one point that the two had nothing to do with each other (albeit reluctantly). repeating something, proud, does not make it true. indeed 9.11 was a wake up call, but it was not a wake up call to invade iraq.

Posted by: dc voter | August 13, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

On September 20, 2006 Karzai told the United Nations General Assembly that Afghanistan has become the "worst victim" of terrorism.

Karzai said terrorism is "rebounding" in his country, with militants infiltrating the borders to wage attacks on civilians. He stated, "This does not have its seeds alone in Afghanistan. Military action in the country will, therefore, not deliver the shared goal of eliminating terrorism."

He has repeatedly demanded that NATO and U.S.-led coalition forces take more care when conducting military operations in residential areas to avoid civilian casualties, which undermine his government's already weak standing in parts of the country.

In a video broadcast on September 24 Karzai said that if the money spent on the Iraq War went to Afghanistan, his country would "be in heaven in less than one year".[8]

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"From the beginning of civilization to today, no war was ever won by defense."

War is peace!

Freedom is slavery!

Ignorance is strength!

Posted by: T.C. from MD | August 13, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. DO YOU REALLY NOT KNOW THAT? ARE YOU REALLY THAT SIMPLE-MINDED?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

the most anti-american poster on this board is proudtobeGOP.

The rest of us are proud to be Americans. This person is proudest of her choice of political party. How sick is that?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 13, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"This administration's policy in Iraq has HELPED make us less safe"

The fact remains that 9/11 brought an ongoing war to our front yard. It was a wake up call to some that this was indeed a war and as history has shown time and time again, you cannot win a war by defending yourself. From the beginning of civilization to today, no war was ever won by defense. So after 9/11 we had to go on the offensive.

And don't believe the naysayers. Afghanistan is doing as well as anyone has a right to expect.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010464

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 13, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey proud, you really need some reading glasses. Typical rightwingnut strawmen from you.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 13, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

'They, along with atheists and the majority of faculty members at US universtities, believe that the U.S. and Israel combined are the greatest threats to the world. '

You sure are one-dimensional, 'proud.' That's not an attack, it's simply an observation. You parrot all the silliest stuff on Hate Radio. You hate teachers--but then, so do most authoritarians.

Why are you putting words in my mouth and attributing to me things i have neither said nor feel--to create some straw man for you to punch at? I said ALL fundamentalists of every relgion want to force their views on others. I said that is a danger to our Consitution, which I love dearly and seek to protect.

What is more American than that? You, on the other hand, are so terrified of some fantastical invasion by hordes of muslims that you are willing to allow the Consitution to be shredded.

Who's the bigger patriot, my friend?

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP:

Talk about a complete lack of substance or facts! I never noticed that my college campus was filled with 'atheists' or 'anti-Americans.' But I guess any group can have their title turned into an insult if they disagree with your world view.

What 'myth' of 'root causes' are you referring to? Would you deny that World War II was set up by harsh mistakes of postwar European allies? Whats myth in all this is the unseen 'evil' forces that klaxons such as yourself claim causes bad people to do bad things. Wheres the personal responsibility in that?

I'm an independent, so this whole liberal/conservative dichotomy is useless to me. It is self-evident to me that policy should be driven by philosophy, but I've come to realize that hope is distant when two sides feel they have everything to lose with every acquiescence.

Posted by: T.C. from MD | August 13, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani's campaign says
"The mayor will be talking about looking at illegal immigration through the lens of national security,"

I wonder what the mayor will come up with. Is he pro-wall or ambivalent? Will a wall stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico keep out the next 19 lunatics who want to hijack an airplane? Would it have kept out the last 19, had we had such a wall? I wonder if the people that made my lunch today are legal or not; if they'e not, I wonder what their national security risk is. Should I be x-raying my lunch?

Posted by: bsimon | August 13, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Colin, thanks for your last comment. Proud writes as if Jane is a flaming anti-Israel mea culpa campus liberal, which she is not, but Jane writes as if proud is a christian ayatollah, which proud is not. They are talking past each other. I have to work. You make them play nice.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 13, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

i am so tired of liberals being accused of thinking of america as the enemy. that is nothing but inflamed rhetoric, empty of any meaning, designed to offend offend offend. nothing in any statements by Loudon or Jane suggests they hate america, are against america, or somehow want to see americans suffer. i stopped reading this blog for a while and Proud just reminded me why.

Posted by: dc voter | August 13, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- Does your comment mean that you disagree with the "liberals" on the baker-hamilton comission, who agree that Iraq has served as a fantastic recruiting tool for terrorists?

Look, OF COURSE radical islam exists as a threat irrespective of US policy and OF COURSE the terrorists who have attacked us in the past and will continue to try and hurt us in the future are ultimately responsible for their actions. But your worldview seems to embrace willful blindness as a strategy for confronting with this very real threat. This administration's policy in Iraq has HELPED make us less safe and made is easier for hard core radicals to brain wash people into joining their demented cause. Ignoring that that's the case doesn't actually strike me as sensible foreign policy.

Posted by: Colin | August 13, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What we see here is the typical liberal response from loudon and Jane...personal attacks, complete lack of substance or facts, coupled with a view that America is the enemy. They, along with atheists and the majority of faculty members at US universtities, believe that the U.S. and Israel combined are the greatest threats to the world. There is simply no arguing with their world view. The liberal myth of "root causes," helps to keep the bandwagon for "change" rolling.

And the bold world view of liberalism furnishes them with brash assurance of a fool or a child.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

It looks like the battle for New Hampshire is on. Romney vs. Guiliani. I think once the 9/11 folks begin going around the nation talking about how bad of a job Guilini has done, Romney will dip into his support and Guiliani will falter. Bob Perry will be more than happy to fund these folks bashing Guiliani, he's a Romney supporter and Texas Billionare. His last effort was successful...Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Romney has it going on. Can Huckabee surprise in Iowa, McCain in SC or F. Thompson or McCain in SC (Romney has the support of DeMint and Graham offers his support to McCain)? We will see how this develops, but I believe Guiliani will not survive the test of time.

Posted by: reason | August 13, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

matthew - "...immigration is a huge right wing issue..." It is a HUGE national issue that every working American is concerned about - conservative, liberal, and moderates. There are plenty of liberals, concerned about the negative impact illegals have on wages and benefits for ordinary working Amercians, that are all for rounding up every illegal here now and shipping them home. Denigrating this as a "right wing" issue is intellectually dishonest and a rather lousy attempt to portray this as something only country bunpkins and bubbas are concerned about;. It is the same bankrupt tactic used by the anti-gun crowd, by the 'pro-wire tapping in the name of national security' bunch, etc. Lame attempt. Try again.

Posted by: MikeB | August 13, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Also, 'proud' -- I can tell you right now that my Jewish friends and relatives are really unhappy that the Pentagon is allowing the 'Left Behind' video game [set in NY City, whichjust happens to be largely Jewish] wherein players kill anyone who won't' convert' --to be distributed to troops in Iraq by a far right relgious group who talk about a new Crusade in the Middle East.

This is the real insanity-- this is what's really frightening.

Fundamentalist Christians have a great deal of power at the Pentagon-- and that in itself should scare anyone who wants to survive.

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

'militant Islam is internally driven by a totalitarian vision that is completely independent from what the West does, then they would realize the gravity of the threat.'

And so you know what motivates terrorists, do you 'proud' -- and what would that be? Could you explan this to us?

And do you really think this country is so weak that we could be overrun by scary people and a caliphate set up?

I have no doubt that terrorists can, and will inflict ssubstantial damage on us if we don't protect ourselves [ports, borders, chemical and nuclear plants, none of which is being addressed]. I have no doubt that terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan are planning attacks on us right now--another thing which we are doing nothing about.

ALL fundamentalists are driven by a totalarian vision. Fundamentalist Christians in this country want to force everone else to be fundamentalist Christians and replace the Consituition with the Bible-- and that involves executing homosexuals and adulterers. Frankly I see that as a threat too--and probably a bigger threat, because far more likely.

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Rudy needs to be mindful of immigration as a huge right wing issue. Just look at what happened to McCain...

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matthew | August 13, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

proud: where do you think the militant Muslims will invade the US? Will they storm the beaches of Florida, perhaps? Maybe an airborne assault on Chicago, establish a Great Lakes beachhead before advancing on St. Louis? Or maybe they'll take Mexico before their lightning strike on Texas?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 13, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the left-wing political movement in the United States --the dailykos/hollywood/Michael Moore/Olberamn/Maher/Oprah-listener-- has absolutely no idea of what motivates Muslim terrorists. If liberals would stop refusing to see that militant Islam is internally driven by a totalitarian vision that is completely independent from what the West does, then they would realize the gravity of the threat.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse


Brian Mooney of The Boston Globe tracks Giuliani's shifts on social issues -- starting with gay rights, where he has backed away from his support for civil unions and now "favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners." "More than any candidate in the Republican presidential field, rival Mitt Romney has been tagged with the flip-flopper label," Mooney writes. "But Giuliani, with late shifts on civil unions and federal campaign finance laws, is a political makeover in progress."

Posted by: the chimera | August 13, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

the wingers love to hate and fear. guiliani's their man.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Wow over a year away and Giuliani is already a big joke. Security! Security! Terror! Terror! He's going to wear everyone out a year too soon.`

Posted by: Chris Fox | August 13, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the right-wing political movement in the United States -- the Pajamas Media/right-wing-blogosphere/Fox News/Michelle Malkin/Rush-Limbaugh-listener strain -- actually believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us. And then we will have to be Muslims and "our women" will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have -- not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.
And their key political beliefs -- from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home -- are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the "base," a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion -- a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed.
They actually think this is going to happen ("read Zawahiri's speeches about the Plan for Caliphate!!") and believe that we must do everything in our power -- without limits -- to stop it. And there are a lot of them who think this. In recommending this essay, the most-read right-wing blogger today described it as: "ROGER SIMON has thoughts on gay marriage and the War on Terror." There are many ways to describe what Roger Simon wrote, but "thoughts" would not really be one of them.
It is so astonishing that they think this that it is actually easy to forget, and it is thus worth taking note of every and then. Maybe the next time journalists and Beltway pundits want to throw words around such as "extreme" and "fringe" and "unserious," they may want to consider whether this qualifies.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Guliani will talk about education "through the lens of national security" if he has to. National security is all he has. Before 9/11/01 he was a failing mayor who did not get the firefighters the equipment recommended after the '93 WTC bombing, and defended his police's excessive brutality. He has nothing else other than terrorism, and if not for terrorism he would be just another mayor.. Would you let your local mayor run for president?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 13, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse


"The mayor will be talking about looking at illegal immigration through the lens of national security," said spokeswoman Maria Comella. Comella also said Giuliani will be making prominent mention of the recent murders of three college students in Newark, N.J. An illegal immigrant is one of the suspects in custody.'

Yes, he will be talking about everything through the 'lens of national security' because that's his 'brand'. It has nothing to do with reality, but clearly a lot of people in this country are real suckers for demogogues -- and rudi is the biggest one of all.

But I guess Rudi WON'T be talking about how easy it is for illegal immigrants -- and psychotics and convicted felons and terrorists -- to get weapons in this country, will he? And of course he was strongly gun-control while mayor -- but now? Not so much.

Another Republican flipflopper.

Posted by: Jane | August 13, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html

Posted by: supporting the troops | August 13, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company