Thread: National Guard June 30th Border Deadline - ONLY 483

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/30/D8IIT3980.html

"On the deadline to have 2,500 troops along the Mexican border, the National Guard said Friday that only 483 were in position and working with the U.S. Border Patrol as the Bush administration had directed.

But Guard officials said more than 2,000 others were somewhere inside the four southwestern border states, training or helping plan the deployment. He and Bush administration officials argued Friday that the presence of troops in those states spelled success in the first stage of the mission. "

==========================

LMAO...."somewhere" in four border states...but NOT on the border where they were suppose to be by June 30th. I read this article over and over. Bush failed because putting the NG on the border is contradictory to his Open Borders/NAU agenda for amnesty for illegals and their employers. I could not believe the spinning going on to try and cover for the fact that Bush did not meet his deadline as promised and then they finally admitted.....

"Only 483 were physically on the border, he conceded."

Bush failed because putting the NG on the border is contradictory to his Open Borders/NAU agenda for amnesty for illegals and their employers.

Did anyone honestly expect him to fullfill that promise? Its all empty rhetoric with him. He has an agenda and will say or do whatever is necessary to quell the protests and keep his plan on track.

Anything that comes out of his mouth regarding this matter is a lie. I don't even listen to him anymore. Why bother?

Build the fence, now.

Drag your feet and procrastinate because you really don't want to do it. Has GW secheudled another vacation yet?

Dixie

Hi Dixie,

Drag your feet and procrastinate because you really don't want to do it

And the longer you procrastinate, the longer the invasion will go on, and the more illegal aliens can get in!!!!!!

Did Bush ever say he would ensure that there would be 2500 troops physically on the border at any time muchless all the time?

I don't ask that to be a pain. I'm asking because if he didn't then he's done what he said he would do. If he did say it, then we can all be even more mad at him than we already are.

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be much more. It's just often you have to read between the lines, because many times what is not said is as or more important than what is said.

Idydrake

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be much more. It's just often you have to read between the lines, because many times what is not said is as or more important than what is said.

You are SOOO right.