The immigration debate is over

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clinton wins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800613.html

[MODU]

In 1999, no one was seriously searching for terrorists within the US.  In 2004, all domestic services were.  Gee . . . a concept missing from the article.  Hmmmmm

[CARLHAYDEN]

In 1999, no one was seriously searching for terrorists within the US.  In 2004, all domestic services were.  Gee . . . a concept missing from the article.  Hmmmmm

Sorry, but JFern is right that Clinton was more inclined to act to enforce laws against illegal immigration than Bush.

See link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50684

[MODU]

In 1999, no one was seriously searching for terrorists within the US.  In 2004, all domestic services were.  Gee . . . a concept missing from the article.  Hmmmmm

Sorry, but JFern is right that Clinton was more inclined to act to enforce laws against illegal immigration than Bush.

See link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50684

I never said he didn't.  I'm just pointing out what was lost in the article . . . that our resources are currently geared to protect the country from attack, and not spending the time creating cases against employers.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 1999, no one was seriously searching for terrorists within the US.  In 2004, all domestic services were.  Gee . . . a concept missing from the article.  Hmmmmm

Sorry, but JFern is right that Clinton was more inclined to act to enforce laws against illegal immigration than Bush.

See link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50684

I never said he didn't.  I'm just pointing out what was lost in the article . . . that our resources are currently geared to protect the country from attack, and not spending the time creating cases against employers.

Nice try at spin.

[MODU]

Nice try at spin.

Is that it?

[John Dibble]

Nice try at spin.

Is that it?

Ditto. Seriously jfern, if you want to refute his point - which may very well be valid and to an extent probably is - then provide evidence to the contrary.

[Nym90]

Of course, when Clinton did try to go after terrorism, Republicans criticized it as an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Clearly the Lewinsky scandal was far more important than the hunt for Bin Laden....

[J. J.]

Of course, when Clinton did try to go after terrorism, Republicans criticized it as an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Clearly the Lewinsky scandal was far more important than the hunt for Bin Laden....

At that point, I believe the only "distraction" was an attack on Iraq (which was justified, IMO).

Of course, there was no Lewinsky scandal between 1993, the first WTC bombing and 1998, when Clinton testified.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice try at spin.

Is that it?

Ditto. Seriously jfern, if you want to refute his point - which may very well be valid and to an extent probably is - then provide evidence to the contrary.

Well, if the Dept. of Homeland Security was really short on resources, don't you think that they wouldn't be using their resources to track Texas legislators who were trying to deny quorum to a mid-decade partisan gerrymader?

And anyways, there's how much more money being spent on these Homeland security things now than in the Clinton adminstration? Of course part of that was due to Republicans watering down Clinton's anti-terror bill.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

[J. J.]

Nice try at spin.

Is that it?

Ditto. Seriously jfern, if you want to refute his point - which may very well be valid and to an extent probably is - then provide evidence to the contrary.

Well, if the Dept. of Homeland Security was really short on resources, don't you think that they wouldn't be using their resources to track Texas legislators who were trying to deny quorum to a mid-decade partisan gerrymader?

And anyways, there's how much more money being spent on these Homeland security things now than in the Clinton adminstration? Of course part of that was due to Republicans watering down Clinton's anti-terror bill.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

You going to have to do a lot better than a donation supported commentary site.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice try at spin.

Is that it?

Ditto. Seriously jfern, if you want to refute his point - which may very well be valid and to an extent probably is - then provide evidence to the contrary.

Well, if the Dept. of Homeland Security was really short on resources, don't you think that they wouldn't be using their resources to track Texas legislators who were trying to deny quorum to a mid-decade partisan gerrymader?

And anyways, there's how much more money being spent on these Homeland security things now than in the Clinton adminstration? Of course part of that was due to Republicans watering down Clinton's anti-terror bill.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

You going to have to do a lot better than a donation supported commentary site.

If you had looked more carefully, you would have seen that it has links to regular media sites.

[J. J.]

Nice try at spin.

Is that it?

Ditto. Seriously jfern, if you want to refute his point - which may very well be valid and to an extent probably is - then provide evidence to the contrary.

Well, if the Dept. of Homeland Security was really short on resources, don't you think that they wouldn't be using their resources to track Texas legislators who were trying to deny quorum to a mid-decade partisan gerrymader?

And anyways, there's how much more money being spent on these Homeland security things now than in the Clinton adminstration? Of course part of that was due to Republicans watering down Clinton's anti-terror bill.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

You going to have to do a lot better than a donation supported commentary site.

If you had looked more carefully, you would have seen that it has links to regular media sites.

Actually, here is what part of one of those links says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm

I actually have seen some of their photos in the Post Office.

Now there were arrests for the 1993 WTC bombing, in Ramsey Yusif, but the masterminds, bin Laden for one, were never seriously tracked or attacked.  The missile strikes were against empty camps.

[J. J.]

I would add that this has very little to do immigration.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I would add that this has very little to do immigration.

Perhaps we can agree that Bush is as committed to stopping illegal immigration as Clinton was to fighting terrorism (i.e. they only make superficial efforts when it is politically necessary to pretend to oppose something they really didn't want to oppose).

[The Duke]

I think the facts speak for themselves.  One President enforced the law, one President decided he wasn't obliged to follow the law.

No, Modu's excuse is not a valid one.  The fact that we are trying to protect the country from terrorism should mean more vigorous pursuit of illegals than in the '90s, not less vigorous pursuit of illegals.  After all, many of the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired Visas.  Porous borders and lax interior enforcement are serious weaknesses in the nation's homeland defenses, weaknesses that are exacerbated by the President's refusal to simply follow existing law.

[The Dowager Mod]

I think the facts speak for themselves.  One President enforced the law, one President decided he wasn't obliged to follow the law.

No, Modu's excuse is not a valid one.  The fact that we are trying to protect the country from terrorism should mean more vigorous pursuit of illegals than in the '90s, not less vigorous pursuit of illegals.  After all, many of the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired Visas.  Porous borders and lax interior enforcement are serious weaknesses in the nation's homeland defenses, weaknesses that are exacerbated by the President's refusal to simply follow existing law.

Which is which?

[The Duke]

I think the facts speak for themselves.  One President enforced the law, one President decided he wasn't obliged to follow the law.

No, Modu's excuse is not a valid one.  The fact that we are trying to protect the country from terrorism should mean more vigorous pursuit of illegals than in the '90s, not less vigorous pursuit of illegals.  After all, many of the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired Visas.  Porous borders and lax interior enforcement are serious weaknesses in the nation's homeland defenses, weaknesses that are exacerbated by the President's refusal to simply follow existing law.

Which is which?

In this case, Clinton obeyed, Bush ignored.

[Nym90]

Of course, when Clinton did try to go after terrorism, Republicans criticized it as an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Clearly the Lewinsky scandal was far more important than the hunt for Bin Laden....

At that point, I believe the only "distraction" was an attack on Iraq (which was justified, IMO).

Of course, there was no Lewinsky scandal between 1993, the first WTC bombing and 1998, when Clinton testified.

That's true, and as the President, Clinton deserves more blame than anyone else for the failure to place it higher on the priority list; although I think it is worth noting that no one was talking about it at all at the time. It's not like the Republicans were trying to make an issue out of it and Clinton was ignoring it. It really was something that caught everyone by surprise and hadn't been any sort of a campaign issue or national issue.

The President has to bear more responsibility than anyone else for not bringing up a pertinent issue that everyone is ignoring, of course, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a non-issue for everyone at the time.

[J. J.]

Of course, when Clinton did try to go after terrorism, Republicans criticized it as an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Clearly the Lewinsky scandal was far more important than the hunt for Bin Laden....

At that point, I believe the only "distraction" was an attack on Iraq (which was justified, IMO).

Of course, there was no Lewinsky scandal between 1993, the first WTC bombing and 1998, when Clinton testified.

That's true, and as the President, Clinton deserves more blame than anyone else for the failure to place it higher on the priority list; although I think it is worth noting that no one was talking about it at all at the time. It's not like the Republicans were trying to make an issue out of it and Clinton was ignoring it. It really was something that caught everyone by surprise and hadn't been any sort of a campaign issue or national issue.

The President has to bear more responsibility than anyone else for not bringing up a pertinent issue that everyone is ignoring, of course, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a non-issue for everyone at the time.

I'm going to say that Clinton bears much more of the blame for two reasons:

1.  He has absolute access to the intelligence; that something that the candidates and the congressional leadership never had.

2.  I think it was Gladstone who said that a politician was a teacher.  This is something that the president should have brought before the country.  There were a few, notably Rudman and Hart. 

[The Duke]

The press deserves a lot of blame for not talking more about terrorism, too.

[Nym90]

Of course, when Clinton did try to go after terrorism, Republicans criticized it as an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Clearly the Lewinsky scandal was far more important than the hunt for Bin Laden....

At that point, I believe the only "distraction" was an attack on Iraq (which was justified, IMO).

Of course, there was no Lewinsky scandal between 1993, the first WTC bombing and 1998, when Clinton testified.

That's true, and as the President, Clinton deserves more blame than anyone else for the failure to place it higher on the priority list; although I think it is worth noting that no one was talking about it at all at the time. It's not like the Republicans were trying to make an issue out of it and Clinton was ignoring it. It really was something that caught everyone by surprise and hadn't been any sort of a campaign issue or national issue.

The President has to bear more responsibility than anyone else for not bringing up a pertinent issue that everyone is ignoring, of course, but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a non-issue for everyone at the time.

I'm going to say that Clinton bears much more of the blame for two reasons:

1.  He has absolute access to the intelligence; that something that the candidates and the congressional leadership never had.

2.  I think it was Gladstone who said that a politician was a teacher.  This is something that the president should have brought before the country.  There were a few, notably Rudman and Hart. 

I don't disagree with point number 2, but point number 1 is refuted by the 9/11 commission, who concluded that the intelligence necessary to prevent 9/11 was not available to either Clinton or Bush.

[J. J.]

I'm going to say that Clinton bears much more of the blame for two reasons:

1.  He has absolute access to the intelligence; that something that the candidates and the congressional leadership never had.

2.  I think it was Gladstone who said that a politician was a teacher.  This is something that the president should have brought before the country.  There were a few, notably Rudman and Hart. 

I don't disagree with point number 2, but point number 1 is refuted by the 9/11 commission, who concluded that the intelligence necessary to prevent 9/11 was not available to either Clinton or Bush.

I've never said that Clinton could have "prevented" 9/11.  I am saying that he had information from the mid 1990's (at least 1995, if not 1993) that bin Laden wanted to target the US. 

Clinton could have done two things at that point:

1.  Treated bin Laden as a potential military foe, not as criminal to be brought to trial.  Actively pursue him with the intent of killing him if he should attack US targets.  Develope the plans.  Watch him much more closely.

2.  Educate the American public about the potential dangers from bin Laden.

By the time the East African embassies were attacked, both the military/covert responce should have been in place to decapitate or eliminate al Qaeda and the American public should have been fully aware of the need to do it.  Bush had less than nine months to work out those plans; Clinton had 5-7 years.

At no point do I believe that either Clinton or Bush had the ability to identify what was planned for 9/11.