Bush removes National Guard from border

President George W. Bush is now punishing Americans for defeating the immigration bill, by removing national Guard troops from the border. Anyone with a brain would hope Bush and Chertoff would be sealing the border to keep terrorists out. But, alas, they've all lost their minds.

National Guard To Withdraw Half Of Its Forces Assisting U.S. Border Patrol (AHN, hat tip Mary Chamberlain)

The National Guard will slash the number of troops stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border in half, according to a new deployment order.

The Pentagon will cut the number of soldiers assisting the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency from 6,000 to 3,000, following a surge put in place by President George Bush last year to help combat illegal immigration and the drug trade.

President Bush initiated "Operation Jump Start" which put a mostly volunteer force along the 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico. The troops helped take care of administrative duties, freeing up Border Protection agents to keep vigil and make arrests.

National Guard Bureau spokesman Army Maj. David Kolarik said that the deployment "was never meant to be a permanent solution."

"It was just an intermediate measure to provide support for border security efforts until they brought the additional resources and personnel in line that they needed," Major Kolarik said.

Also of importance is this news, "Senate hearing to probe Ramos-Compean prosecution
Feinstein examines controversial case of imprisoned U.S. Border Patrol agents"

Others:

Deported Illegal Immigrant and Sex Offender Returns to Butler County, the Virtuous Republican

Iced, the Video Game, GA Crime Watch

Invading the US for Dummies, Tom's Flashbacks

Expose of North American Union shoots up best-seller charts, Freedom Fighter's Radio Show

This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to
learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Comments

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

You might also want to check out the laws concerning outing an undercover agent: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

Intent is a significant aspect of the law. Read it.

In the media, there is some question as to Armitage's intent, but not so with Fitzgerald. Apparently, Fitzgerald had reason to believe Armitage did not intentionally out Plame.

But Fitzgerald did have reason to believe Libby was hiding something of significance in relation to the outing of Plame. Perhaps an intentional conspiracy to out an undercover CIA agent.

Libby told the FBI twice that he first heard about Plame from Tim Russert. Later, he told the grand jury that he first learned about Plame from Cheney (which is the truth). Libby claims it was a lapse of memory, but the jury felt the evidence suggested otherwise.

Even though Libby's attempts to out Plame did not result in an actual public outing of an undercover agent, Fitzgerald had reason to believe Libby (unlike Armitage) knowingly and intentionally attempted to out Plame.

Libby telling Miller about Plame before Novak's article was published is still a crime if he intentionally disclosed the information. Because of Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice, it was difficult for Fitzgerald to determine if there was intent to out an undercover agent. That's why Fitzgerald said there was a cloud of suspicion over the VP's office. By the way, Bush appointed Fitzgerald to his position and he is still highly respected among his peers.

Armitage's outing of Plame was negligence at best. It's a legal term. Look it up. However, Libby's outing might have been more than negligence. He might have been part of a conspiracy to intentionally out Plame. That's the big fish Fitzgerald was going after.

I guess we will never know the complete truth. But it really doesn't matter because it sounds like you have it all figured out. And I'm sure you know more about it than Fitzgerald. CASE CLOSED.

Oh, here's another article you might want to read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

You make it sound as though Fitzgerald was pursuing something other than a crime. I don't hear the administration calling for his resignation for wasting taxpayers money or for being an activist judge. Fox News might be calling for Fitzgerald's resignation, but not the administration. I suspect that is because the administration knows they are getting away with something. Libby is a loyal fall guy.

Did Armitage commit a crime? Sure. But Fitzgerald let the small fish go to catch a larger one. Prosecutors do it all the time. Unfortunately, Libby prevented Fitzgerald from getting at the whole story. Otherwise, why would Libby lie under oath and obstruct justice? If you don't believe Libby committed a crime, then you are truly brainwashed.

"Capitalism is cool, dig it baby!!!!!!!!!"
I have nothing wrong with capitalism, but I do have a problem with extreme capitalism. If you want extreme capitalism, keep voting for Republicans (and Democrats). I suspect you or maybe your children will regret it down the road.

"Your evidence that the U.S. spreads war in the name of Capitalism is that the U.S. is a superpower and has global commitments.
That’s trash!"

Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives would disagree with your statement. Again, here is what the neoconservatives and Dick Cheney have to say: "As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"

Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives would also like you to read the following: http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf

Please enjoy.

[Freedom Now]

Tsk Tsk Tsk…

How can it be a crime to reveal what is already public knowledge? Armitage revealed Plame’s identity to two reporters, Robert Novak and Bob Woodward, before Judith Miller ever talked to Libby. No wonder he had to fess up, he was a leaking faucet.

In the first week of the inquiry, Armitage admitted to the authorities that he was Novak’s source. Armitage said Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly and they hushed-up Armitage’s role as the source of the leak because they knew the publicity would end the case without allowing Fitzgerald to frame a Bush Administration official.

Typically, when someone admits to a “crime” they are prosecuted, but not this time.

Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but this has nothing to do with justice. Besides, one of the reporters that Armitage intentionally leaked Plame’s identity to, Robert Novak, completely disputes Armitages’ lie that he didn’t knowingly give out that info.

As far as the New American Century website goes… I’ve read the statement of principles and looked around the website to my satisfaction as I said before. If there is something in particular that you want to discuss just let me know and give me hard evidence instead of sweeping generalizations.

Capitalism is cool, dig it baby!!!!!!!!!

[Thomas F Anderson]

"Richard Armitage was the source of the leak and he even admitted it."

Yes, that is correct. I do not deny that. The prosecutor is not going after him because he did not willingly out an undercover CIA agent; meaning he didn't know she was undercover, he did not act with malice.

But that does not exclude others from willingly, knowingly, and malevolently outing an undercover CIA agent. That's what the prosecutor was trying to get at. It appears as though Armitage acted alone and without malice. The prosecutor couldn't get to the bottom of Libby's motives because he lied and obstructed justice.

To say there was no crime, underlying or secondary, is absolutely false. Where do you get your news? Fox?

"Your evidence that the U.S. spreads war in the name of Capitalism is that the U.S. is a superpower and has global commitments."
Freedom Now, please read the Project for the New American Century. It's Republican, it's neoconservative, and it admits we are a superpower with unusual influence over the world. Here is a direct quote:"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"

Just read the website. It's very enlightening. At the very least read the statement of principles. Dick Cheney signed it, and he helped write it. Please, just read it so we can have a rational discussion. Here it is: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[Freedom Now]

Give me a break. Richard Armitage was the source of the leak and he even admitted it. Robert Novak also admits he was his source.

There either was no crime if the prosecutor is not willing to persecute the perpetrator or this was just a political witch-hunt.

Your evidence that the U.S. spreads war in the name of Capitalism is that the U.S. is a superpower and has global commitments.

That’s trash!

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

Just read the website, and look at who signed the document. Many of the things discussed on the website have been carried out by the Bush administration. That is certainly fact, but if you don't take the time to read it, then all you have to go on is what I say. So read it.

What the Bush administration has done is not necessarily illegal. I haven't said that. But just because something is not illegal, does not mean it isn't bad or unethical. I do believe they have made terrible mistakes. Again, this is not illegal, but it sure is incompetent.

If you can't agree with that, then you must have your head stuck in the sand.

As for actual illegal acts, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. So we may never know the complete truth about Cheney's activities. And Bush promised to get to the bottom of the Plame case. Yeah right. A few days the President said perhaps "someone" at the White House leaked the identity of Plame. And we already know for a FACT that Plame was undercover at the time of the leak, which makes it illegal.

Again, if you deny this, then you must have your head in the sand.

[Stephanie]

Bush will not secure that border. Let's face it.

Check out this country hit song related to our invasion from Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJfS1v-fU0

It's had almost 4 million hits in just a month. Pass it on !!

[Freedom Now]

Yes Tom... we all know that the U.S. involves itself in extensively in the world’s affairs. What does that prove? Since I don’t have the same preconceptions as you I don’t see how New American Century website is any kind of proof that the Iraqi war is being fought on behalf of capitalism. Your proof is actually limited to this statement, “They talk about global leadership and spreading democracy. But I think it has more to do with spreading capitalism.”

Capitalism is nothing like Communism. It’s not an ideology that people use to create political parties for. Capitalists often don’t even think of themselves as Capitalists. They define themselves as democrats and by their nationality.

Anti-Globalization and anti-Capitalism is nothing but scare mongering. The spread of these lies is modern day McCarthyism.

When you finally offer some facts you ramble on about the fact that Cheney used to work for Halliburton. This is nothing but guilty by former association. Where is the evidence?

The generalized views on war that have described here are no different than my own except maybe in one regard (you weren’t clear on one point). The U.S. victory in the Cold War and successes against Libya and North Korea were due to the fact that we always reserved the option of military force against our opponents. I don’t know if you agree with that or not.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Kevin,

believe me...i do not want another attack on the US...some progressives might, but i don't...i would love it if we could end all war...i am a christian...if that makes me an idealist...so be it...i would rather die opposing war than die supporting war...if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword...

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

I forgot to write a great quote from a great president: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Dwight Eisenhower said this in his Farewell Address in 1961.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

"Just because big business profits from war doesn’t mean that a war is fought primarily for profit." I totally agree. Not all wars are about money profit. There are other types of profit (power, democracy, etc). But I believe there is much truth to the phrase: "Money is the root of all evil."

Evidence? Well, you could start reading The Nation magazine for one. But the best place to look is the neoconservatives website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The homepage has a map that looks like a map of world domination. Of course, they would never say that. They talk about global leadership and spreading democracy. But I think it has more to do with spreading capitalism.

Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton received an open-ended, no-bid contract worth billions in March 2003. One of the contracts was to restore oil capacity following the war. In February 2004, the Pentagon reported that Halliburton had overcharged them by $27 million for meals served to American troops. When Cheney stepped down as CEO in August 2000, he received a $34 million retirement package. You can read more about this at the following link: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html
The website also has a list of legitimate sources to back up their claims.

Yes, I do find war offensive. The only absolute that I believe in is that there are no absolutes. Basically, you can never say never. Sometimes wars are necessary. The bible says there is a time for war and peace. But we are better at waging war than peace. Since WW2, it's been one war after another. Are there other options? Sure, look at what Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr did. Gandhi helped lead a movement that expelled Britain from India without a war. Look at the Cold War. The Soviet Union collapsed without dropping an a-bomb on the US or any other country. Look at Libya and North Korea deciding to give up weapons programs.

If you want to know more about my views on war, including justified and unjustified wars, please visit the following link: http://the-independent13.blogspot.com/2006/09/should-us-attack-iran.html

[Freedom Now]

Tom,

I will rephrase my question because you are avoiding the real issue.

Just because big business profits from war doesn’t mean that a war is fought primarily for profit. In WWII the defense industry made heaps of cash and they had nothing to do with the instigation of the war.

You need evidence to prove such accusations because whether or not a war is just or unjust the defense industry is going to make a lot of money. I heard all the evidence from websites like Counterpunch and Common Dreams. It all boils down to Cheney being a former defense executive and the massive amounts of profit the industry makes in Iraq, etc…

What does that prove? That Cheney was a former defense contractor and the defense industry makes a lot of money.

If you find war offensive and want it to stop it, then that’s fine. What’s your plan to stop totalitarian fascists and terrorist entities from waging war in the future? If you can figure out how to beat the laws of nature I would love to hear about it. I am confident that one day we will either succeed in such an effort or destroy our civilization, but that will be a long time from now.

[Freedom Now]

Kevin,

Just replace NeoCons with Progressives and it makes just as much sense...

[Thomas F Anderson]

Kevin,

Please see previous comments...

[kevin]

""Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Neocons might want another attack to happen? Just a thought...""

Why yes, just like FDR wanted The Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, LBJ wanted JFK dead, and Geo Washington wanted the Boston massacre. It all makes sense now doesn't it?

[Thomas F Anderson]

Stormwarning,

I don't believe the Neocons planned 9/11 (they are not that evil), but I do believe they have tried to take advantage of it at the expense of US soldiers. If that's BS, so be it.

"disconnected thoughts and disingenuous conclusions" Please give examples and I'll be happy to clarify.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Stormwarning]

Actually, I never said that Iraq and WTC were connected. But you were talking about conmspiracies and there are way too many people who believe that the Bush gov't planned and executed that attack (otherwise known as the neo-cons). So stop with the BS.

Wanna argue fairly? Come to my blog. Otherwise, stop connecting disconnected thoughts and drawing disingenuous conclusions.

Storm, "benefiting from the military industrial complex."

[Thomas F Anderson]

Freedom Now,

Was WW2 unjust? No. The dropping of two atomic bombs? Yes, that was unjust.

But there are unjust wars.

[Freedom Now]

Ha haaa haaaaaa...

It looks like Tom put more words in your mouth Storm.

Anyways, big business profitted from WWII. Was that war unjust?

[Thomas F Anderson]

Stormwarning,

Of course 9/11 happened. But what does that have to do with Iraq? If you believe Iraq and 9/11 are connected, then you do believe in conspiracies.

I believe invading Afghanistan was totally legitimate. It put us in a perfect position to contain Iran and Pakistan. Iraq was already contained until Bush Jr. opened a can of worms.

[tom the gringo]

Ahh gooooodddd, is vil make my panz of invasion zo much easier, ya ya.

[Stormwarning]

I don't like having words put into my mouth! - "believe what I like?" Of course Watergate happened. Now lets roll the tapes (ha-ha!) forward to today's situations.

You contend that the War is contrived, or at least the continuation of the war is...

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon happened, right?

[Thomas F Anderson]

Stormwarning,

If you don't believe in conspiracies, then I guess Watergate didn't happen? Believe what you like.

[Stormwarning]

Who profits from war? For one, I do.

But that's not the real point, now is it? Because you're still looking for a government conspiracy.

[Jack]

Bush seems to be trying very hard to alienate everyone who might have supported him.

[Thomas F Anderson]

So now my question is: Who profits from war?

We are naive to think that there are not elements of our society that want more war. Is EVERYONE or EVERY GROUP in the US that has power or influence beyond reproach? We are silly to think that everyone in government or with significant influence over the government is looking out for our best interests. It's always been about the money. Look at K Street people.

[Stormwarning]

I've just gotten out of one meeting and going to another:

1) removing the Guard from the Border is stupid (and could be actionable - although I'd have to read a bit and check with people i know about why)

2) the concept of anyone wanting another attack is plain stupid.

[Freedom Now]

Have you ever thought that the Democrats want another attack to happen?

(See how silly Tom's ranting is?)

[Debbie]

Thomas F. Anderson, I've heard this argument before, that Bush brings out the terror scare when he wants to shift the discussion from another topic. But do I think he or anyone in the US really WANTS another attack to happen? No I don't. Has Bush ended up to be much less that we thought he would be, yes. Has he failed to secure the borders so terrorists can't get across, yes. But another attack? No.

Steve, I have to agree with you. I voted for him twice, but he's not the same man he used to be, or at least not the man I thought he was.

[Steve Harkonnens]

I never thought I'd ever say this, but Bush is the biggest impediment which festers more danger to our nation than any other leader in US history.

Simply said, his action by pulling the guard from our southern border makes him guilty of dereliction of a specific duty - that the federal government is responsible for the safety of its citizens.

[Thomas F Anderson]

Let me reiterate: Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Neocons might want another attack to happen? Just a thought...

The terrorist events in the UK and the US reactions to such events is troubling. We are almost doing the opposite of what our common sense tells us. Suspicious at the very least.