Media Matters suggests more questions for the White House press corps to ask Tony Snow
In the wake of President Bush's proposal -- made official in a May 15 nationally televised speech -- to deploy as many as 6,000 National Guard members to the Mexican border to help the Border Patrol in preventing illegal immigration, and his plan to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 6,000 by 2008, Congressional Quarterly unearthed a statement from December 2005 by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff rejecting out of hand the notion of deploying the National Guard to the border. Given CQ's reminder of May 15, Media Matters for America adds the following to our list of suggested questions for the White House press corps to ask recently hired White House press secretary Tony Snow:
Has Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff changed his view that "there's a smarter way" to handle illegal immigration than sending the National Guard to the southern border, which he has called "a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem"? Or, in making the proposal for enhanced border security, did President Bush simply ignore the views of his Homeland Security secretary?
As the weblog TPM Muckraker noted in a May 16 entry (crediting Congressional Quarterly's Patrick Yoest), on the December 15, 2005, edition of Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly asked Chertoff "Why don't you put the National Guard on the border to back up the Border Patrol?" to which Chertoff responded:
CHERTOFF: Well, the National Guard is really, first of all, not trained for that mission. I mean, the fact of the matter is the border is a special place. There are special challenges that are faced there.
[...]
CHERTOFF: But to really deploy across the border, you'd have to deploy an enormous number of people. You'd have to supply them at the border, and you'd have to give them the kind of training to deal with people who are crossing the border. You don't necessarily want to put --
O'REILLY: You don't think you can do that? I think the Guard could do that.
CHERTOFF: I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem.
O'REILLY: But it's something.
CHERTOFF: I think there's a smarter way to do it. Well, it -- unless you would be prepared to leave those people in the National Guard day and night for month after month after month, you would eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way.
Has the President explained how his plan to add 6,000 Border Patrol agents squares with his 2005 budget cuts that scrapped plans for nearly 10,000 additional agents?
As American Prospect executive editor Michael Tomasky noted in a May 16 entry on the Prospect's weblog, TAPPED, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on February 9, 2005, that Bush's proposed 2006 budget stripped funding for a portion of the National Intelligence Reform Act -- which Bush had signed into law less than two months earlier -- calling for an additional 10,000 Border Patrol agents. According to the Chronicle, the 2006 budget proposed funding for only 210 new agents.
From the February 9 Chronicle:
The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.
Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.
But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.
The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.
Most of the media are so afriad of being accused of biased that they don't even bother pointing out this stuff. Then when a mere website or blogger can find stuff like this all the time, the media are too embarrassed to follow up on it, lest it give lowly online people credit as real news reporters.
ABC has sat on their own exclusive about the wiretaps on reporters for 2 days now; maybe they'll show it tonight
the MSM is afraid of responsible bloggers
This should be front page news! It shows that the spy scandals, the "data-mining", without judicial oversight, is a ruse to root out whistleblowing leaks. This administration has gone over the cliff! Their intent is political damage control, not security from terrorism. Talk about security fraud! People who keep swallowing the bs this admin. doles out daily are dupes.
But let's keep talking about the horrors of illegal immigration, let's focus on the powerless rather than the powerful, yea, un-huh. Common thread : both concern law breakers.
"The facts may change, but my opinion never does." - Stephen Colbert
To me, that exemplifies the current media.
Well ok, but how about if David Brock, founder of MMFA, answer a few questions too? After all didn't he change his views?
Mr. Brock how do you feel about smearing Anita Hill? Yes we know you apologized, but is saying "I'm sorry" going to undo the damage of tarnishing her reputation? How does it feel to know you are at least partly responsible for Clarence Thomas being confirmed?
Mr. Brock wasn't it your article in The American Spectator that spurred on "Troopergate"? Isn't it true that this article is the first mention of Paula Jones? How does it feel to be at least partially responsible for bringing down President Bill Clinton?
Mr. Brock, isn't it just a bit hypocritical of you of all people, to question others about their "change of view"?
Brock admitted his mistakes.
Taz, you really need to post more! I like your style.
What'd you both think about Zell Miller's speech during the presidential race?
I'm an Independent so I'm an equal opportunity basher.
But what's your point?
Miller is a jerk, and let's not forget the Swift Boat Veterans indulged in behavior similar to Brock's. If they someday say 'I'm sorry', I'm sure all the Democrats will graciously accept their apology and have a group hug-- hahaha, yeah riiiight.
Please don't tell me you're comparing Zell Miller changing horses to David Brock's smearing Anita Hill ( who can forget Brock saying Hill was "a bit nutty and a bit sl*tty.") and being one of the key figures in the Right's obsession with bringing down the Presidency of Bill Clinton. Don't insult our intelligence.
So sorry if you don't like being reminded of this stuff, and Brock should probably be reminded that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
But I have a feeling that view won't be shared by the sanctimonious self-righteous crowd that dominate this board (see Tex's tantrum). Their creed is Left=Good ; Right=Bad.
I'm more inclined these days to think Left=Bad ; Right=Bad
Since I have little use for either side, I'll happily lampoon both when I think they deserve it.
..because you're one of those new fangled Independent cons, amazingly NOOOOOOOObody is a Republican these days except the people in DC. You’ve got good company Taz and there are fine examples being set for what an Independent Con represents. You have the infamous Bill O’rielly and I heard John Gibson say on Bill Maher the other night that he too is a registered Independent. BTW don't forgot all the wingnuts that post here, they're not Republicans anymore either.
From one of the sanctimonious self-righteous crowd
Taz can speak for himself, but if I recall from his prior postings he has (if anything) been a left-leaning independent. I don't believe he was ever in the conservative camp.
I don't think so Bruce. Actually you strike me as a right leaning Independent and you're quite reasonable. I never know which way you'll land on an issue. Are you a Republican?
I vote Republican (so far except for Mondale in 1984 (double whoops)) but am not a registered Republican. Of course, the RNC probably has my info and has registered me without my knowledge. Wouldn't shock me ;-).
Yes you recall correctly, but as I wrote to Lynn the Left crowd here looks down on Independents as much, if not more, than they do Conservatives.
For a group who preaches tolerance, they really have very little.
I've been posting on and off here since the autumn of 2004. From the very start I identified myself as an Independent who voted for Democrats 90% of the time. One of my first posts here was comparing the Bush administration to a Fascist regime. So unlike Brock or others here I wasn't blinded or unblinded by the right or left.
I do find it fascinating that a majority of liberals posting here are more hostile to Independents than to some of the conservatives. Maybe they don't like anyone that can see both sides of an issue without looking at it through partisan eyes?
Brock's so called transformation from Right to Left never impressed me, because I never bought his reason for his enlightenment. I think the guy has a chip on his shoulder and his motivation for this site is revenge on the people who he fell out of favor with. There's really nothing more sanctimonious or self-righteous than a reformed smoker, drinker, or political assassin.
Lynn, I've always enjoyed your posts and never considered you a member of the sanctimonious self-righteous crowd. But since you prefer to categorize yourself that way, I'll acquiesce to your wishes and identify you as such from this day forward.
While I 'd prefer to have your respect, I can live with your scorn.
facts can be so cruel.
Brock has not denied any of those claims since coming clean. You folks seem to be forgetting this. If someone was to say to Brock, "You were involved in this and now you're involved with this. Why?"
"Because what I was involved with before was wrong. I have not denied my involvement with any of it."
With that said, it's not my job to defend Brock. Let the evidence in the article speak for itself instead of reverting to these kinds of arguments.
Where do you rightwingers learn your "LOGIC"? Here, you attempt an equivalency rebuttal, where the circumstances are polar opposites.
Brock has pled GUILTY to being a Rightwing shill, and employing deceptive and untrue practices to try to advance the Rightwing cause.
The Bush Administration, far from ever admitting guilt, is currently fighting indictment on a variety of charges. All the players are still in power (it would be different if Chertoff has admitted he was wrong, published a BOOK with that subject, QUIT his extremely high profile Administration job, and joined the Democrat party. THEN, you might have a POINT that has some equivalence MERIT!)
Do you REALLY think, TAZ, that it's a valid argument that asking the CURRENT Homeland Security Chief about his position on the National Guard on the border, contrasted with the FACT that the President has now said CHERTOFF WAS WRONG, is the same as asking Brock to confirm what he has already ADMITTED?
That is so WRONGHEADED on your part on so many levels, it makes us wonder if you have even reached puberty. (actually, I feel your pain. This Administration's contradictions and mistakes are so blatant and widespread, they simply cannot be defended, so you guys are left with lashing out blindly in frustration and rage. With the alternative WISING UP, I guess you gotta go with your only option: defending the indefensible by non-sequitur ad hominem attacks.)
Get off your high horse and go read my reply to mirkwood.
My "high horse" was to simply point out that your argument was wrongheaded and specious.
That you chose NOT to respond with clarity is understandable. The White House does it all the time, directing the hard question to some other person or location, to deflect responsibility.
We get it; you CANNOT respond to my assertions intelligently. Your assertion which suggest the circumstances surrounding Brock and then Chertoff is ridiculous and wholly without merit.
Tex I did respond by telling you to read my post to mirkwood. I'm really sorry you can't follow simple directions. Maybe you have a learning disability?
I know you prefer to receive personal replies that are as lengthy as the novels you write here, but some of us find it silly to keep repeating ourselves with repetitive posts.
Read my post to mirkwood. If that doesn't satisfy you, well---tough.
MMFA wants to ask Snow if Chertoff changed his views. One possible way to answer is to say that Chertoff _did_ change his views, and then explain why his previous views were in error. That would fully satisfy MMFA's demands.
Duh.
Nothing you said, Taz, has anything to do with truth. It would seem you have missed something glaringly obvious, so I will tell you. David Brock has accepted guilt for those mistakes. Far be it from you to compare him to the current administration. When have they taken any form of repentance?
Does that apply to conservatives too? Or only conservatives that become liberals?
You're right, changing tactics and strategy on how to deal with the Illegal Alien Problem and shoring up the border is so much worse than smearing individuals and destroying reputations. Damn, how very stupid of me.
I'm sorry. {no I'm not}
Your comment about Brock is a red herring on this issue, so let me explain the validity of asking the question MMFA posits here:
Chertoff has said that sending the national guard would be a poor way to deal with illegal immigration, as you can see from the quoted exchange. I would like to know what has changed on this point. Has a re-analysis of the situation changed Chertoff's mind or is Bush acting against the advice of one of his senior administration officials? If the assessment has changed, I'd like to know specifically what new information has come to light on the issue.
You see, this is how government should work, left or right. Contradictions aren't just cute little tricks to catch people on. Is Bush ignoring Chertoff because he has valid reason or is it because he's pandering to his base?
What Brock did or did not do is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
The reason this is a good question is that Chertoff is CORRECT, and this idea of the National Guard "SOLVING" the illegal immigration problem is just foolish.
It"s foolish, and it"s now Bush"s official policy.
Of course, the alternative is that our Homeland Security Director has a vision and opinion on border security which is so completely wrongheaded that it calls into question his credentials and ability to have a position of such great responsibility.
Bottom line, we either have an incompetent in the White House, or one directing our Homeland Security. ONE is a bonehead. Which?
Good catch of the administration's obvious self-contradiction, MMFA. 10,000 border patrol agents would be working the borders right now had the Repubs passed the funding for them. Now I 'm not sure how the Nat'l Guard is funded, I think it is a federal and state combo, so it makes me think that this idea is just another convoluted way to pass the buck. So, 2+2=5, and now I'm sure Chertoff won't remember his previous position on using Nat'l Guard for border patrol now that Bush is intent on this plan.
ps. as far some posts above concerning Brock go, I see these same accusations of his past come and go, having nothing to do with the issue at hand. The best hero is the one who finds redemption within.
It's easy to say what you WOULDN'T do, which is deploy the National Guard in Chertoffs opinion (at least that was his opinion last year, who knows what it is now). I never read anywhere where Chertoff explained what he WOULD do, and since the majority of the country wants this administration to do SOMETHING about it, Bush is rolling the dice. Granted, conservatives aren't happy with his position on immigration either so this may not help his "numbers" if that's what he's trying to do.
"In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States
Arguably, Bush has the doing the "wrong thing" down pat. Of course, the reason that a wrong decision is better that no decision is that you at least learn from the wrong decision. However, you also have to be willing to admit mistakes in order to learn from them. I find Bush lacking in that capacity.
but of all the things he did or said I don't think I jump in front of this one. Let's take an example that showswhy not:
An attack on American soil happens. America attacks a country protecting at least one, maybe more, of the masterminds behind the attack. Which is supported by its allies and eventually brings a more "moderate" (and that is not saying much) government to power. That is the right, and probably the best thing to do. Immediately after they despite lack of support from allies, contrary intellgence that this country had nothing to do with the attack, and was really not an immediate threat attack another country with no real rebuilding or exit plan. Well that is wrong and probably the worst thing to do. Why? North Korea and Iran. You have now stretched out you resources and lost credibility in the international community. Plus now as the leader of the "axis of evil", which I guess in now the "teetertotter of evil" since losing Iraq, I have learned something some powerful allies and real WMD's makes your threats worthless. See North Korea and watch Iraq follow its lead.
In this case making the first decision then the second is a blunder that is hard to top. Where as making the first decision then stopping to actually think is the most responsible. Teddy was a real action guy but that is not always a good thing. And if you think Iraq and its patchwork policy has left this administration and by extension the USA in the dumper, I shutter to think of the subtle problems raised by immigration and how hammer-handed they'll eventually be screwed up.
The problem with Iraq (one problem of many but THE problem) was that the decision to go in eliminated other options so it was a real leap into an entirely different scenario.
At least with this decision with the NG, it doesn't appear to be anything that can't be reversed if it isn't working out the way they are expecting it to.
I thought we tried all of the "other" options...
The option about getting your facts straight is the first one that comes to mind.
We know he had the weapons. What bickering with the UN did was to give them time to get them the hell out of Iraq.
The war may have been a good or a bad idea. But at least our leader did something instead of pussyfooting around the issue.
You have a talking point, not a fact.
#1 Build that damn fence and keep them out; #2 When they turn up, load them in a truck and smuggle them back; #3 Get more of the Minutemen down there and give them authority; #4 Call illegal aliens in this country "felons" like Mexico does with people in their country illegal; #4 Provide any illegal immigrant who is caught crossing the border with an extra bodily oriface of ballistic origin. OK, this might be better handled by our military with trained snipers.
THEN LET THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BE WARNED! Give them fair warning what will happen when they are caught. This is key. Let them know that they face incredible punishments for crossing the borders. THEN WE MUST MAKE LEGAL IMMIGRATION LESS OF A CHORE. Yes, this country is a melting pot. Nobody is against legal immigration. Help them to come into this country legally.
THEN WE MUST MAKE LEGAL IMMIGRATION LESS OF A CHORE.
You should learn to keep the extra voices inside your head quiet. They are making you seem less than rational.
You know, Taz, that can be a real trend of Republicans. Some are far too quick to call themselves 'independent'.
I believe your criticism of Mr Brock in relation to this MMFA item is off-base for a few of reasons:
First, the decision to send Guard troops to the border is not necessarily just as simple as a "flip-flop." The MMFA item asks fair questions as to how the decision squares with other views expressed by Bush et al. I believe the implication is that a decision that is contradictory with other actions and views once again suggests a lack of planning while reverting to quick solutions to stop the bleeding in the polls.
(As an aside, I'll note that the first question was partially addressed by a clarification that the Guard troops were a temporary measure. However, without a clear long-term plan, how long is "temporary?" This has a familiar ring to it.)
Second, I believe Mr Brock has addressed the issues you mention. The questions in this item haven't been fully addressed. Believe Mr Brock or not - and I can full understand why you would not - is there really anything else to explore with those issues? Seeing that his transformation appeared to start before his was ostracized, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I also subscribe to the phrase "trust, but verify."
Lastly, is criticizing every item on MMFA because of Mr Brock's views a little like criticizing the writing of liberal journalist because it happens to contradict the views of his conservative editor? I don't know who S.S.M. is, but I assume those initials aren't David Brock's. Don't throw out the good work of MMFA staff just because you may not trust the motives of Mr Brock.
... he has been on what one could call a 12-step program to rid himself of the toxic vemon of the right for awhile now.
At some point you have to accept the man's mea culpa, especially as he has shown a serious attempt to help set things "right" -- no pun intended. I just don't see where this issue is related to this discussion. Can people be wrong and change their mind -- yes, but the question is motive for doing that (seeing that you were wrong vs. towing the line).