NYTimes, what do you want Bush to do?

Bush just can't win with the NY Times. Bush was called on the carpet for not being vociferous enough in tracking down the financial transactions of terrorists. The 9/11 Commissions told the Bush Admin. to be vigorous in tracking down the financial transactions of terrorists.

So when the Bush Admin. actually implemented programs to track down the financial transactions of terrorists, the program is revealed to the NYTimes.

So, NYTimes, what is Bush supposed to do? Here are some LAME arguments defending the NYTimes:

1 The argument that "terrorists already knew about SWIFT" is stupid. First, KNOWING about SWIFT and knowing the DETAILS of HOW SWIFT is monitored is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Bush SAID he was going to target financial transactions of terrorists, BUT HE DID NOT SAY HOW HE WOULD DO IT!

100% of banks say they have a security system to thwart robberies. But are they going to DETAIL what the security systems are, how many security guards they have and at what times, the model of the alarm, etc.? OF COURSE NOT.

Same thing with computer security systems. Hackers TRY TO FIND OUT what kind of security systems are in place; that way, they know WHAT TO TARGET and WHAT TO EXPECT.

Similarly, I'm sure the higher eschelons of terrorists knew their financial transactions were tracked. But now they know SPECIFICALLY HOW they are tracked, and can SPECFICALLY attempt to go around those.

2 Keller of the NYTimes argued that "Bush Admin argued against releasing this half-heartedly, and Bush didn't lobby personally". WHAT?!?! Bush has to kiss the ring of Mr. Keller in order for this story not to br printed?!?!? The Bush Admin GAVE THE ARGUMENT WHY the story shouldn't be printed, and the NYTimes DID ANYWAY. If Bush went personally to the NYTimes, I'm sure they would have printed it REGARDLESS. They probably would have smiled when Bush left, knowing they were going to print the story anyway.

3 This is beating up the liberal NYTimes/stirring up Repub base/"Well, other papers did it too!" All these areguments are stupid. First off, the "base" is not a bunch of robots that can't think. I, for one, am pissed off that the NYTimes would reveal this information. The Bush Admin. doesn't need to tell me to be angry, thank you very much. Bush Admin. is RIGHTLY ANGERED by this, and to dismiss it like Bush Admin. is just "acting" is insulting and just shows how dumb the NYTimes really is. In short, this is a CLEAR CASE where the NYTimes erred; they were hungry for another Pulitzer, but this was a serious miscalculation. As for the "other papers did it too", the other papers were WAITING FOR THE NYTIMES to publish first. If the NYTimes didn't publish, I doubt the Wall St. Journal would have. If the LATimes published first, then I'd be directing this post to them. But the NYTimes led the story; after they broke it, it's OLD NEWS.

4 Americans have a "right to know"! Right to know WHAT? All accounts are that this is PERFECTLY LEGAL, it's just a clandestine program to catch terrorists. Bush BRIEFED CONGRESS, and again, WAS WITHIN THE LAW. Does the WORLD (NYTimes is read by foreigners, believe it or not) have a RIGHT to know ALL secret activities of the CIA/NSA/FBI? ABSOLUTELY NOT! How can we conduct any kind of surveillance or clandestine activity with the NYTimes blowing the cover at any time?!?! It seems that ALL secret programs, EVEN IF LEGAL, could potentially be leaked and then reported by the NYTimes. FBI secretly monitoring foreign scientists at nuclear research centers? NYTimes should publish a story about it. NSA setting up listening post in downtown Beijing? NYTimes should publish a story about it. CIA paying villagers in Afghanistan for info about AL Queda? NYTimes should publish a story about it, complete w/pictures of the informants.

5 Congress should have authorized this. What? Congress has to authorize EVERYTHING the CIA/NSA do? No hirings, firings, order printer toner, change lightbulbs, or set ANY KIND OF POLICY in the Treasury Dept/NSA/CIA without the APPROVAL OF CONGRESS? This argument is absurd: this SWIFT monitoring is LEGAL and within the BOUNDARIES set forth BY CONGRESS. Congress does not need to apprve EVERY ACTION of the Executive Branch. And the NSA/CIA/Treaury Dept are part of the Executive Branch. Other than funding and confirming heads of the departments, CIA/NSA/TReaury pretty much set their own agenda. Of course Congress is briefed, AS THEY WERE WITH SWIFT. But to suggest Congress MUST approve this is LUDICROUS: the SWIFT monitoring is LEGAL, and therefore doesn't need ANY EXTRA APPROVAL from Congress!!

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! If there is a law against the NYTimes doing this, Bush Admin. MUST PROSECUTE lest the NYTimes repeat this and hamper our anti-terrorism efforts EVEN FURTHER. If there is no law against this, MAKE ONE!

Notice how very quiet Democratic legislators are on this one. They KNOW they were briefed, they KNOW this was legal, and they must KNOW this was EFFECTIVE. But they don't want to anger their liberal base by actually defending something Bush did as effective and legitimate, so they would rather stay silent. They would rather not get on the bad side of the NYTimes, who helps them immensely (except for this story). Thanks a lot for sticking up for America, Democrats. Such courage.

There is no cogent argument defending the NYTimes. They are gunning for Bush, and gunning for another Pulizter in the process. NSA Story was just blood in the water, and they will continue to print stories like these REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES or the effect it has on our anti-terrorism efforts.

So, NYTimes, I'll ask you again: what do you want Bush to do NOW in regards to monitoring financial transactions of terrorists? And is Bush follows your advice, can he assume you will have this secret program on your front page in a year or two?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

NYTimes editors should go to jail

What purpose did the NYTimes story revealing the SPECIFICS of how America is monitoring financial transactions serve?

Did it help ordinary Americans? No.

Will this story get Bush impeached or affect him at all? No.

Is what Bush is doing illegal at all? No.

Does this help terrorists and other criminals by learning the details of how transactions are monitored? Yes.

The only purpose the story served is to help criminal and terrorists know more details of our law enforcement efforts, hurting our ability to monitor illicit transactions.

Thanks, NYTimes.

The Justice Dept. needs to charge editors from the NYTimes with a crime, prosecute, and send them to jail.

Will this send a "chilling effect" across the American Press? YES, that's the point!

No one rational is arguing for the abolition of the 1st Amendment. I LOVE the fact that politicians can get lambasted in the media, Bush included. The NYTimes is liberal, but there are other conservative media outlets to make the case for Bush; let the viewer decide who is right.

But releasing national secrets is not rational political discourse. When the program (like this one) is LEGAL, revealing it doesn't serve any purpose. Bush White House hasn't done anything wrong, so there is nothing to impeach Bush over. Yet the damage done in our fight against terrorists or other criminals is irreperable and long-lasting, and ultimately not knowable.

The Justice Dept. needs to prosecute the NYTimes for the same reason why we prosecute ALL other crimes: to DETER future criminals from committing the same crime.

We definitely want to DETER future media such as the NYTimes or LATimes from releasing national secrets. If we do NOT prosecute, NYTimes will be emboldened to release MORE secrets that are LEGAL but the NYTimes doesn't like.

Again, prosecuting media aimlessly or without merit is abhorrent in a free society; it's part of the backbone of our country that politicans are attacked in the media. Obviously, NYTimes can run stories all day, every day, about Abu Grahib, Bush's mismanagement of the war, Katrina, gas prices, etc. Bush doesn't like it, but too bad. But when national secrets are revealed, the media has crossed the line and the media MUST be punished.

It is up to the Justice Dept. to prosecute the NYTimes and tell the media where the line is, for the good of the country. Without punishment, NYTimes et. al. will CONTINUE to reveal ANY and ALL secrets they come across, REGARDLESS of the effect on America, if they THINK revealing the secret will damage Bush.

Refusal to indict Cynthia McKinney helps GOP

"Police Group Wants McKinney Scuffle Probed"

After a grand jury refused to indict McKinney, and the prosecutor doesn't really care. In fact, he seems RELIEVED she wasn't indicted: "U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein said, "We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter".

What exactly is a "difficult matter"? We know she is a Congressman, but the police officer she assaulted didn't, he was just doing his job. Just because she isn't recognized doesn't give her the right to assault a police officer. Is it OK to assault TSA officials at airports if they want to inspect your bags/pat you down? You can just say "They should KNOW I'm not a terrorist, I have every RIGHT to assualt them!" Patently absurd.

And this case, and the refusal of the grand jury to indict, will help the GOP in November. How? Because it just shows that Democrats are not interested in ethics, preventing corruption, or justice for wrongdoings. Democrats are interested in protecting their own, even if they comitt crimes.

William Jefferson, according to an FBI affadavit, was found with $90,000 of the $100,000 the FBI gave him in a sting operation. The serial numbers MATCHED the FBI $, doesn't get more solid than that. And what do Democrats do? Defend him, politely ask him to step down from his committee post, and when he refuses? They shrug and say "oh well".

So how can the American people believe Dems when Dems level the charge against the GOP as the "Culture of Corruption"? Democrats level this charge, yet their own party is full of crooks that ESCAPE JUSTICE, like Jefferson and McKinney.

DeLay has already resigned, so he won't be an impact in November. He is a FORMER Congressman, not a CURRENT Congressman. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In contrast, McKinney is a SITTING Congressman who thinks she can assault police officers with impunity, and GET AWAY WITH IT, because the Democrats need the Black vote.

By McKinney NOT being indicted, this shows how craven the Democrat Party is, and how hollow their cries of "GOP Culture of Corruption" really are. If McKinney was indicted, pled guilty, and said sorry, Americans would see her as a stand-up person that can realize right from wrong.

It's called ethics, ever heard of it?

No matter...McKinney's lack of indictment will help the GOP in November, by showing to the American people that Democrats think they are above the law, and that they will protect their own, as opposed to the GOP, that comes out AGAINST lawbreakers like Duke Cunningham.

That's a message that sticks with voters.

:)

Plamegate explained

Many on the left think that Libby and Rove, egged on by Cheney, leaked Plame's name to the press as payback for Wilson's true article about Niger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For review, Plame's name was revealed by Robert Novak. Plame is Joe Wilson's wife, who works for the CIA. Wilson wrote an op/ed piece in the NYTimes bashing Bush's claim about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from the country of Niger. Wilson basically said this was untrue and published such in his op/ed. As a result of Novak's column, CIA wanted the "leaker" of Plame's name published, ostensibly because she was non-official covert, and revealing her name compromised security.

OK, now the fun part...

1 Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, was the one that suggested to officials at the CIA her husband be the one to go to Niger.
2 Plame is a known Democratic contributor.
3 Rove and Libby were simply pointing out the TRUTH, that Plame recommended her husband to go to Niger. Neither one of them knew Plame was covert. Neither one of them were the original leaker.
4 Wilson was a former AMBASSADOR, not someone trained as an investigator or in WMD.
5 The CIA did not change their opinion on Iraq/Niger based on Wilson's report.
6 The UK Butler Report STILL MAINTAINS to this day that Iraq DID try to purchase Niger uranium.

So, Plame "recommened" (or at least "suggested") her husband go to Niger to investigate claims of Iraq purchasing uranium in Feb 2002. Wilson spent 8 days in Niger, at which point he made an oral report to the CIA that a uranium purchase was "highly unlikely", although Wilson did concede Iraq went to Niger in 1998 to establish "commerical contacts". The CIA did not regard Wilson's report as definitive. What did Wilson do?

HE PUBLISHED AND OP/ED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES! So, the CIA doesn't regard his report as definitive, so he publishes his opinion in the New York Times as fact! In his op/ed:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. "

"The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. "

Wilson believes that Iraq did not try to buy uranium, and so he basically accused Bush of lying when Bush said that Iraq did try to buy uranium.

However, the UK Butler Report tells a different story. The Butler Report is the UK equivalent of the 9/11 Commission, a link to which you can read here:
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

This report was published in July 2004, WAY after Wilson's op/ed piece, WAY after we invaded Iraq.

This commission was brought about to understand intelligence gaps between what was thought about Iraqi WMD and what turned out to be true.

If you read the actual report, aruond page 135 or so, you'll find a section entitled "6.4 URANIUM FROM AFRICA". Good read. What does it say, page 139?

"503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi
attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of
Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British
Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact
of the forgery does not undermine it."

Remember, this UK Butler Report was published in 2004. 2004 PEOPLE! Way after Bush's speech, after Wilson's trip in 2002 to Niger, Wilson's op/ed in the New York Times, etc.

UK is saying in 2004 that Iraq went to Niger in 1999 to buy uranium, EXACTLY WHAT BUSH SAID and 100% contradicting Joe Wilson.

Now, everyone thinks that the story on Niger is untrue because "those documents were forgeries". Look what the UK Butler Report says: they said Iraq tried to buy uranium BEFORE THOSE FORGED DOCUMENTS WERE EVEN AVAILABLE. Pay attention people: yes, it's true that forged documents were released showing a Iraq/Niger link. HOWEVER, UK had OTHER INTELLIGENCE from SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES indicating that Iraq tried to buy Niger uranium.

So, the forged documents were irrelevant; Iraq DID try to buy Niger uranium, and Wilson was WRONG. After all, Wilson is a DIPLOMAT; he even said so in his op/ed. THIS ONE GUY, Wilson, a former DIPLOMAT with NO WMD experience, NO investigative experience, and NO contacts in Niger apart from the contacts the Niger government WANTS him to have, spent 8 days "drinking sweet mint tea" and talking w/people. But what do you think Niger is going to say? You think they are going to ADMIT to Wilson that Niger sold Iraq uranium? OF COURSE NOT!

The UK INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY believes that Iraq DID IN FACT attempt to buy uranium from Niger, using "SEVERAL DIFFERENT SOURCES". The government of UK maintains this TO THIS DAY. Compare that with Wilson, a former DIPLOMAT, and his 8 day trip interviewing some people he knows and saying the opposite. Yet liberals believe WILSON!

It's ridiculous. Look at some quotes from the UK Butler Report:

"494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made
inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this
case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.
495. During 2002, the UK received further intelligence from additional sources which identified
the purpose of the visit to Niger as having been to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore,
though there was disagreement as to whether a sale had been agreed and uranium
shipped."

Again, there is no evidence the sale WENT THROUGH, that Iraq did in fact OBTAIN the uranium from Niger (although UK does have intel that they DID complete the sale with Congo). What's important is that Bush said Iraq ATTEMPTED to purchase uranium, which to the UK, IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

In conclusion:
1 Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson's wife, was the one that suggested to officials at the CIA her husband be the one to go to Niger.
2 Plame is a known Democratic contributor.
3 Rove and Libby were simply pointing out the TRUTH, that Plame recommended her husband to go to Niger. Neither one of them knew Plame was covert. Neither one of them were the original leaker.
4 Wilson was a former AMBASSADOR, not someone trained as an investigator or in WMD.
5 The CIA did not change their opinion on Iraq/Niger based on Wilson's report.
6 The UK Butler Report STILL MAINTAINS to this day that Iraq DID try to purchase Niger uranium.

Drop the case against Libby, Mr. Fitzgerald

It's clear now that Mr. Fitzgerald has absolutely no case against Mr. Libby. Why is this?

The case against Libby has NOTHING to do w/releasing classified info, revealing Plame's name, treason, etc. Libby is being charged w/perjury and obstruction of justice because Fitz thinks that Libby lied in his testimony to federal prosecutors. Libby could have testified about ANYTHING and Fitz could have indicted him for perjury if he thought he was lying. If Fitz thought Libby had a ham sandwich and Libby testified that he had a turkey sandwich, Fitz could indict him for perjury.

The cruz of Fitz's case, according to the indictment http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf, is that Libby testified that he FIRST heard FROM reporters about Plame, while Fitz maintains that it was the other way around: Libby TOLD REPORTERS about Plame, and Libby already knew about Plame from Cheney et al. The reporters are Tim Russert and Matt Cooper.

There are a couple of problems w/the case right off the bat. First off, Libby doesn't even testify that he FOUND OUT about Plame from the reporters. Here is his testimony from the indictment:

"And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, "

What Libby testified to was NOT that he heard about Plame for the 1st time from reporters, but HE FEIGNED IGNORANCE SO AS NOT TO CONFIRM WHAT HE SAID. This is a big difference! Libby, IN REALITY, testified he lied to Russert by denying he knows about Plame, because Libby "DIDN'T WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT RUSSERT WAS SAYING". Libby DID know about Plame when he talked to Russert and Cooper, but he feigned ignorance to them, and THAT is what he testified to!

Libby is an experienced Washington lawyer, and when he testified to prosecutors, LIBBY ALREADY KNEW that Fitz KNEW about Russert and Cooper. Why would Libby perjure himself WHEN HE KNEW THAT? The answer is that Libby did NOT perjure himself: he testified NOT that he heard about Plame from the reporters, but he PRETENDED to first hear about Plame from the reporters. That's why he says:

"I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him. "

If Fitz' interpretation is accurate and Libby DID testify that he first heard about Plame from reporters, WHY did he want to not confirm the statement? Think about it: if Libby heard about Plame for the first time, why would he concerned about confirming Russert's statements? Libby would just tell Russert "I had no idea about Plame" because HE REALLY DID HAVE NO IDEA about Plame. Now, let's pretend Libby ALREADY KNEW about Plame (which he did). When Russert ASKS about Plame, Libby now has a REASON to NOT CONFIRM Russert's statement.

Again, it does NOT MAKE SENSE for Libby to not confirm a statement if he REALLY IS HEARING it for the 1st time. So...it should be pretty clear that Libby was not lying to prosecutors, he just lying to reporters!!

Fitz's case relies on the fact of interpreting Libby's statements to be that he heard about Plame FROM reporters. Fitz says that is impossible (Libby is lying) because:
1 Fitz can show that Libby heard about Plame before talking to reporters
2 REPORTERS DID NOT KNOW about Plame before Libby

#1 is true, we have documentation (that Libby knew about BEFORE talking to prosecutors) that Libby did hear from Cheney and other sources in the State Dept. that Wilson's wife "suggested" he go to Niger and Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA.

#2 has proven SUBSEQUENT to Libby's indictment NOT TO BE TRUE. Bob Woodward testified to this:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/16/D8DTLRKG5.html

If you read it, it's clear that:
1 Bob Woodward testified to Fitz AFTER Libby was indicted
2 Woodward knew about Plame's indentity BEFORE Libby talked to reporters
3 Neither Libby nor Rove was Woodwards' source
4 Woodward told Walter Pincus, a reporter at the Post, about Plame
5 Fitz asked Woodward not to release the source that told Woodward
6 Woodward says it's possible that HE told Libby about Plame, but he can't recall

What does this tell you? SOMEONE ELSE besides Rove and Libby is the original "leaker". THIS PERSON is the person Bush was talking about when he said he wanted to "find the leaker". Bush didn't know who it was, but he KNEW it wasn't Libby or Rove.

More importantly, is shows that THE PRESS KNEW ABOUT PLAME BEFORE LIBBY TALKED TO REPORTERS.

This totally undermines Fitz's case, because he can not PROVE that Libby told the reporters about Plame because SOME IN THE PRESS already knew about Plame. Libby's lawyers can just put Woodward on the stand and the jury will know that Woodward knew about Plame, as did Pincus, and ???? who knows who else in the press.

Without a tape recording of Russert's and Cooper's converstaion with Libby, it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby told the reporters about Plame OR that the reporters told Libby about Plame. Libby's lawyers can say it is POSSIBLE that Russert/Cooper were told by Pincus or someone else in the press, which it certainly is.

Given Woodward's testimony, BOTH are plausible. I'll say that again: without a tape recording of Libby's conversations with Russert and Cooper, it is NOT POSSIBLE to PROVE that Libby told the reporters about Plame. Because it is not possible to PROVE this, Fitz has no case.

I don't fault Fitz for this. Libby's statements were interpreted incorrectly by Fitz, but there is some doubt there. However, Woodward did not testify to Fitz until AFTER HE INDICTED Libby.

Fitz had NO IDEA that other reporters knew about Plame UNTIL Woodward testified. Of course, Libby TOLD FITZ THAT in his testimony, but Fitz thought Libby was lying.

Bob Woodward's testimony effectively nullifies Fitz's case against Libby. I'm confident Fitz will do the right thing and drop the case.

Why do Islamic militants attack Somalia?

Islamic militants have been attacking in Somalia for years, and June 05 they captured Mogadishu.

Liberals frequently say that Islamic militants like al Queda attack because:
1 The country supports Israel (such as why they attack America)
2 Militants hate the foreign policy of the country (such as why they attack America, Spain, UK)
3 They are freedom fighters just protecting their homeland

OK, so why are Islamic militants linked to Al-Queda attacking in Somalia? They are attacking the Somali warlords and just defeataed them in the capital. Let's go through our liberal checklist, shall we?
1 Do Somali warlords support Israel? Somehow, I don't think so.
2 Do Somali warlords have any anti-Muslim foreign policy? No, all their actions are in Somalia.
3 Are Islamic militants casting out occupiers? No, both the militants and warlords are native Somalis, they are not fighting an "occupier".

So...why would Islamic militants want to kill in order to take over Somalia? What possible reason would they have?

Truth is, Islamic militants do NOT CARE about politics; they are not leftists bent on Socialist revolution. In fact, they HATE leftists.

Islamic militants NOT CARE about oppressed people: they LOVE oppression. Witness the Taliban and Iran for good examples.

Islamic militants do NOT CARE about Israel, except as a marketing/recruiting tool.

Islamic militants do NOT CARE about foreign policy of countries except as a marketing/recruiting tool (like they do w/US). But ALMOST ALL of the countries Islamic militants attack don't have ANY foreign policy.

Here are SOME of the countries Islamic militants fight in:
Phillipines
Thailand
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Egypt
Pakistan
India
Russia
China
Somalia
Algeria
Sudan
Saudi Arabia


Islamic militants fight for one thing: ISLAM. The name "Islamic militants" should give it away. They fight to spread Islamic theocracy ACROSS THE GLOBE.

Liberals need to wake up and realize that these "freedom fighters" are not fighting capitalism, or fighting for women's rights or higher wages. They fight and KILL SOLELY to spread Islamic THEOCRACIES wherever they can. That is the ONLY reason why they attack in ALL of those countries.

Senate Immigration Bill is AMNESTY

It's clear that the Senate Bill offers citizenship to illegals w/o going through the normal process of legal immigration. Bill supporters that it isn't amnety because:
Illegals have to pay a fine of $2,000
Illegals in the country more than 5 years get amnesty (from deportation), and then have to wait 6 years before becoming legal citizens

Well, the Senate Bill is full of holes, and really offers citizenship to all illegals.

First off, the fine of $2,000 is due, however, this little gem is in the Senate Bill:
"WAIVER.—The Secretary of Homeland Security may waive any other provision of section 212(a), or a ground of ineligibility under paragraph (4), in the case of individual aliens for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest."

Humanitarian purposes, like being very poor? So they will pay the fine if they can afford it and if not, oh well. So there is no penalty for not paying the fine, making it a meaningless condition.

As for offering special status for illegals here over 5 years, that too is a crock. 100% of illegals are going to say they have been here 5 years, and the benefit of the doubt is given to THE ILLEGAL, to the point where the burdern of proof is on DHS to prove the illegal has not been here 5 years! All an illegal has to say is: "I have been working for cash for 5 years, DHS; you prove otherwise". Since they can't, he is considered to be here 5 years.

Even if illegals were truthful, the length of time is also a crock. The current wait time for legal immigrants from the country of Mexico is 13 YEARS from today; applications are being considered today for people that applied 13 years ago. So to be truly fair to the legal applicants, then instead of illegals getting automatic citizenship after 6 years, they should be considered for citizenship after 13 years. That's how long they would have to wait if they applied legally (13 years); yet they get automatic citizenship after 6 years?

The Senate Bill is amnesty, plain and simple.

Enforcing the border is racist?

Then how do you explain Mexico doing this:

"Among other ironies: Mexican-migrant activists in the United States hotly oppose a congressional bill that would make undocumented immigration in the U.S. a felony – but Mexican law already classifies it as such. The crime is punishable by up to two years in prison, although deportation is more common. "

"The level of brutality Central American migrants face in Mexico was underscored on Monday, when police conducting a raid for undocumented migrants near a rail yard in central Mexico state shot to death a local man, apparently because his dark skin and work clothes made him look like a Central American.
Virginia Sanchez, a housewife who lives near the railroad tracks that carry Central Americans north to the U.S. border, say shootings like the one Monday in her town of Tultitlan are not infrequent.

Neighbor Maria Elena Gonzalez said police sexually abuse female migrants. “The migrants have told us that they detain them just to rape them. They force them to strip, supposedly to search them, but the purpose is to sexually abuse them.”
Guatemalan immigrant Carlos Lopez, 28, who lay hidden in a nearby field waiting for a train heading north to the U.S.border, said Mexican police routinely rob and release migrants. "

Jose Luis Soberanes, president of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission, issued a report in December documenting many of the abuses of migrant rights.
“One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues,” Soberanes said, “is the contradiction in demanding that the North (the United States) respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South.”

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20060418-1004-mexico-mistreatingmigrants.html

All countries enforce their border, it's not even a question. If you want to call Americans racists that want our Southern border enforced , make sure you tell Mexicans that want the Meixcan border enforced the SAME THING.

Haditha

The investigation into Haditha is supposed to end in a few weeks. Until then, THE MARINES ARE NOT GUILTY. They should be presumed innocent like everyone else in America. We don't know if the Marines were fired on, if stray bullets hit some of the civilians accidentally, if they even WERE civilians, or if the civilians were killed by explosion or other gunfire from insurgents. The Marine investigation is set to conclude in a matter of weeks; at that time, we can weigh the evidence and their culpability.

If the investigation does show that the Marines committed murder, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If pictures are not necessary to prove their guilt, they should not be publicly released; their release won't affect their sentence, and will only serve to kill more Americans needlessly.

This is an isloated incident, and should be put in the context of the stress of young soldiers in combat, not a pattern of behavior.

This should in no way have any effect on our presence in Iraq.

After all, if a policeman was guilty of killing a suspect or even an innocent civilian, should the entire police force be disbanned because it causes them stress? We need to weigh the need to stay in Iraq SEPARATELY from this horrible, ISOLATED, atrocity.