12.17.2005
|
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
First the good. The House has decided to actually do something about the flood of illegal immigration. As always, the mainstream media, personified by the Washington Post (motto: "We're not as lefty as the New York Times, but we're getting there..."), has this headline on their story: "House Votes to Toughen Laws on Immigration; One Setback for Bush: No Guest-Worker Plan."
Wouldn't be a complete MSM story without spinning it as a defeat for George Bush. But it's mostly good news:
The bad is the Senate. Who rejected the Patriot Act, as written (story here). The usual suspects opposed the Act, all, of course, with the claim that (from the story) "renewal would do too little to protect civil liberties." The essence of the Patriot Act is to combine existing statutes and to ease the sharing of information among the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The exact sort of thing that the 9/11 Commission criticized the administration for not doing. And we know who will be braying about not following the hallowed recommendations of those worthies, don't we.
The ugly? Why, the New York Times, for holding on to that "domestic spying" report for a while. About a year. Until it could best be used, not to improve our national security or civil liberties. Rather, until it could be best used to sytmie the efforts of the Bush administration to protect their sorry asses.
We are at war. We are not in a "police action." Our enemies will not be defeated by normal law enforcement. These are harsh times, and it it long past time for our citizens to realize this.
Wouldn't be a complete MSM story without spinning it as a defeat for George Bush. But it's mostly good news:
The House last night passed tough immigration legislation to build vast border fences, force employers to verify the legality of their workers and tighten security on the nation's frontier, but it rebuffed President Bush's entreaties to include avenues for foreign workers to gain legal employment.Recognizing that we've got quite a problem, Mr. Bush attempted to do a Clintonian triangulation: appear tough on illegal immigration, while subtly encouraging them to stay. Nice try, Dubya. Go, House.
The bad is the Senate. Who rejected the Patriot Act, as written (story here). The usual suspects opposed the Act, all, of course, with the claim that (from the story) "renewal would do too little to protect civil liberties." The essence of the Patriot Act is to combine existing statutes and to ease the sharing of information among the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The exact sort of thing that the 9/11 Commission criticized the administration for not doing. And we know who will be braying about not following the hallowed recommendations of those worthies, don't we.
The ugly? Why, the New York Times, for holding on to that "domestic spying" report for a while. About a year. Until it could best be used, not to improve our national security or civil liberties. Rather, until it could be best used to sytmie the efforts of the Bush administration to protect their sorry asses.
We are at war. We are not in a "police action." Our enemies will not be defeated by normal law enforcement. These are harsh times, and it it long past time for our citizens to realize this.
posted by Jack Rich at 1:23 PM
I was born, grew up, and went to school in the Bronx, New York -- on the wrong side of the
tracks. Got the chance to go to college, so instead of joining the NYPD (the obvious career choice at
that time and place), I became an engineer. Spent
some years designing things that go boom (or things that take things that go boom to their destinations...), principally for our military.
Also took an interesting career turn and for some years was in charge of counter-terrorism for my agency...so I learned something about guns. And when to use them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home