Obama to deploy 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border
posted at 3:35 pm on May 25, 2010 by Allahpundit
Why does the president hate the “undocumented”?
The Obama administration plans to announce Tuesday that it will send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to improve border security, an Arizona congresswoman said.
Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords also said in a statement released Tuesday that President Barack Obama will request $500 million in funding for border security…
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s spokesman said the governor hadn’t been told of the move prior to her office being contacted by The Associated Press and had no immediate comment.
We’ve seen this movie before and it was dismal enough that I’m not real excited about the sequel. As with so many things, it’s a case of The One following Bush’s lead, making a show of border security in hopes of softening opposition to a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress. It almost certainly ain’t happening this year, but half a bil for enforcement at least gives purple-district House Dems a talking point ahead of November.
Like Exurban Jon, I’m amused that Giffords wants people to believe she was the catalyst for this. Surely the credit rightfully belongs to America’s most stalwart border enforcer: Maverick.
President Barack Obama made a rare visit to a Senate Republican lunch Tuesday – and Republicans, including John McCain, took direct aim at the White House on everything from health care to border security.
Inside the lunch meeting, Obama squared off with his old rival McCain over border security, sources said. Lindsey Graham said the exchange was at times “testy,” and sources described Obama’s conversation with McCain as rather direct.
McCain said he told Obama: “We need to secure the borders first. He didn’t agree.”
Well, he agrees enough to deploy a token force down there, albeit one that’s less than half the size requested by McCain and Jon Kyl. Baby steps, maybe?
Via Dave Weigel, here’s a sneak preview of what may well be this weekend’s presidential YouTube message. I just hope The One wears the colonial wig.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2