The Enemy Within Isreal

Israel confirmed that we are not the only country that allows "enemies" to exist within their government and continue to write and enact policy that is both damaging and dangerous to their nation and the worldwide War on Terror. It is disappointing that the Likud party could not see that placating to the Palastinians and their terror groups would do nothing to relieve the hate and violence against Israel over the long term. The leaders of Hamas and the others subscribe to a ideology that does not concede defeat or enter in to cease-fires. Their "religion" professes that the infidel needs to "slaughtered." Is there any way to co-exist with those that hold that belief.

Ex-hawk Sharon cements role as a centrist
Israeli premier's narrow defeat of party revolt highlights transformation

Kevin Frayer / AP
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon smiles before his narrow win to continue as head of the Likud party.


ANALYSIS
By Tom Aspell
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 3:41 p.m. ET Sept. 27, 2005


Tom Aspell
Correspondent



TEL AVIV — Ariel Sharon’s narrow victory in a battle for leadership of the Likud party highlights the Israeli prime minister’s remarkable transformation from right-wing hawk to centrist.

The former general, who participated in every one of Israel’s wars since the creation of the Jewish State in 1948, received 51 percent of an intra-party ballot held Monday night while former premier Benjamin Netanyahu achieved 47 percent, thus averting early national elections.

The vote was the culmination of a policy which stunned opponents and supporters alike — his plan, realized last month, to remove Israeli settlers from the occupied Gaza Strip and give it to the Palestinians as a way to “disengage” from conflict.

But while his stand is popular with many Israelis, particularly those aligned with the coalition Labor party, it cost Sharon the support of many Likud loyalists who were angered at what they saw as a betrayal of a biblical birthright by the very man that was once their biggest booster.

The future is by no means clear
It's a long way from Sharon’s starting point as Israel's prime minister in February 2001 when he beat Labor's Ehud Barak, in part by accusing him of making too many concessions to the Palestinians.

Not that the future is likely to be plain sailing for Sharon: On Tuesday Likud opponents vowed to continue to fight against his leadership. In addition, an uneasy truce with the Palestinians, brokered before the withdrawal, is now unraveling after militant-launched rocket attacks against Israeli towns outside the Gaza Strip.

With armor and artillery now poised on Gaza's borders and Israel vowing to destroy radical Palestinian groups, the possibility of resuming meaningful peace talks seems remote. However, many Israelis believe that only Sharon is now capable of achieving peace and guaranteeing security for Israel.

Still want to open your home to refugees

Interesting article regarding the make up of some( or maybe most) of the Katrina refugees...

Half Katrina Refugees Have Records
Thursday, September 22, 2005

Then the handcuffs were placed on Murph.

State police did criminal background checks (search) on every refugee and found that more than half had a criminal arrest records — a third for felonies. Murph was the only one with an outstanding arrest warrant, for larceny and other crimes.

Around the nation, state and local authorities are checking refugees' pasts as they are welcomed into homes, schools, houses of worship and housing projects. In some states, half the refugees have rap sheets.

"It's a balancing act," said Kyle Smith, deputy director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (search). "We don't want to treat them like criminals after they have been traumatized, but we want to make sure they are in no danger nor the families they are housed with."

Civil libertarians call the checks thinly veiled race and class discrimination against people who have suffered already. The checks are made on those evacuated or forced to seek help from charities or others — in other words, people who are often black and poor.

"I think it's happening partly because who these people are and where they came from," said Steve Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU. "The mere fact that people have past criminal records in and of itself doesn't say anything about harm to the community."

Some state and local governments screened just those refugees evacuated by the federal government. Others screened anyone placed in private homes — and screened the hosts as well.

In South Carolina, state police checked every evacuee flown there by the government. Of 547 people checked, 301 had criminal records, according to Robert Stewart, state Law Enforcement Division Chief.

While most had been law-abiding for years or had committed minor offenses, the group included those convicted of rape or aggravated assault. Two had warrants, but were not held because the states weren't interested in extraditing them.

"This was all done for everyone's protection," Stewart said. "If you're going to be sheltering people, it would be prudent for people taking them in to know what criminal pasts they might have."

The state police in West Virginia said roughly half of the nearly 350 Katrina victims evacuated by the government to that state had criminal records, and 22 percent have a history of committing a violent crime.

In Massachusetts, where about 200 evacuees were flown to a military base on Cape Cod, criminal background checks turned up six sex offenders and one man wanted for rape in Louisiana. Two of the sex offenders have since left the state, said Katie Ford, a spokeswoman for the state public safety office. The rape suspect was being held on $250,000 bail.

In Tennessee, police checked every federal evacuee flown to Knoxville and found outstanding warrants for two people in Louisiana — but Louisiana did not want to extradite them.

In Texas, with more than 300,000 refugees, local officials have run 20,000 criminal background checks on evacuees, as well as the relief workers helping them and people who have opened up their homes.

Most of the checks have found little for police to be concerned about. Philadelphia police found no criminals as of the middle of last week, even though the local ACLU branch objected to the checks themselves.

Several states with thousands of refugees aren't checking criminal backgrounds at all. Missouri has no formal effort to check its 6,000 refugees. Neither has California, which reported about 3,800 refugees earlier this month, or Maryland, Minnesota and Michigan, which together took in several thousand evacuees.

In Middletown, a community just north of Newport, several evacuees shrugged at the prospect of background checks and said they understood the state's desire to learn more about them.

"I would like to know if there's any skeletons in the closet with my neighbors or the community," said one refugee, 38-year-old Carmen Williams.

Mexican Troops operating in the US

Does this make anyone else uncomfortable. Mexican troops on US Soil...

Mexican Troops Aid Katrina Efforts
Thursday, September 08, 2005


LAREDO, Texas — A Mexican army convoy began crossing into the United States on Thursday to bring aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina (search).

Carrying water treatment plants and mobile kitchens that can feed 7,000 people daily, the convoy bound for San Antonio is the first Mexican military unit to operate on U.S. soil since 1846.

The first of 45 vehicles in the convoy crossed the international bridge at Laredo at about 8:15 a.m. Military engineers, doctors and nurses are among the 200 people headed to San Antonio.

Mexico has sent disaster relief aid missions to other Latin American nations, but not to the United States.

In 1846, Mexican troops briefly advanced just north of the Rio Grande (search) in Texas, which had then recently joined the United States. Mexico, however, did not then recognize the Rio Grande as the U.S. border.

The two countries quickly became mired in the Mexican-American War (search), which led to the loss of half of Mexico's territory in 1848.

California Border Police

If you are tired of relying on the federal government to get it's act together to help stem the tide of illegal immigration, this is a chance for California to help itself. If you are reading this blog, I am sure I do not need to preach to you about how illegal immigration is sucking the state's coffers dry, or the security threat from Al qaeda and the Salvadoran gang MS-13, drug running, organized crime, and sex slave trade that originates south of the border. Please visit this webpage and support the initiative.

www.californiaborderpolice.com

Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco's Fault?

The last week or two I have become frustrated with the fact that Bush has had to shoulder the bulk of the blame for Katrina. There are too many reasons why the Katrina aftermath was more the local politico's fault than Bush's. From all accounts Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were out of their league and ill prepared to deal with a disaster this size and scope. The city of New Orlean had been chastised prior to Katrina for having a woefully low Citizen to Police Officer ratio. Gov. Blanco should have sought help long before she did and/or should have been relieved of duty. There have been accounts of Mayor Nagin interferring with US Coast Guard Admiral on scene regarding the order of the rescue operation...ulitmately delaying the whole operation. The article below highlights some of my opinion regarding mischaractization of Bush and the Federal Government in the midst of this crisis by the media/press.

The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed


It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.


Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.

I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:

More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.

The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.

Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.

Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:

"We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.

"The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.

"You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

"No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

"You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states.

Exhibit A on the bill of indictment of federal sluggishness is that it took four days before most people were evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

The levee broke Tuesday morning. Buses had to be rounded up and driven from Houston to New Orleans across debris-strewn roads. The first ones arrived Wednesday evening. That seems pretty fast to me.

A better question -- which few journalists ask -- is why weren't the roughly 2,000 municipal and school buses in New Orleans utilized to take people out of the city before Katrina struck?

72 Hours of Preparedness

Finally a good editorial from the Sacramento Bee. The article points out the necessity of all to prepare for a disaster. New Orleans has demonstrated that in the midst of a disaster it may be several days before we receive aid. Are you prepared?

Daniel Weintraub: First responders in a major disaster: You and I
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B7


Now that the dust, or the muck, has begun to settle in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this is a good time to consider how Californians might respond to a disaster of similar proportions. The first and most enduring lesson from Katrina may be this: Be prepared to take care of yourself, and your neighbor if possible, for at least three days after any major disaster. Don't expect to get help from anyone, including government. If help comes, great. But don't assume that it will.


The same lesson should apply to disaster preparedness on a broader scale. If California government officials know that the state's infrastructure is vulnerable and needs to be fixed, they can't use the lack of sufficient assistance from the federal government as an excuse to delay. They must act now to prioritize the state's needs and attack them rather than waiting for help and pointing fingers later.

Katrina exposed vast weaknesses on both fronts along the Gulf Coast and especially in New Orleans. City and state officials did not do enough to protect their fellow citizens from disaster or prepare to respond if one hit. Evacuation plans were not followed, buses were left unused in parking lots that later flooded, police could not or would not show up for duty, the American Red Cross, designated by the law as the first responder for evacuees, was blocked from entering the city with food and water, and the governor refused to sign a request turning over control of the National Guard to President Bush.

Given the scope of local and state incompetence, if not corruption, the president should have acted sooner to try to take over the response, even if it meant going public with delicate, behind-the-scenes negotiations and declaring the obvious: Louisiana officials were overmatched and needed to be shoved aside, even if they resisted.

We can only hope that California would do better in a similar predicament. But there is no way to know how any person or agency would react under the kind of pressures experienced in New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast region in recent weeks.

California has had its share of disasters, but nothing in its modern history can compare to the flooding of an entire metropolitan area on top of the typical wind and water damage that comes from a devastating hurricane.

The closest scenario imaginable might be the "Big One," a catastrophic earthquake that levels much of Los Angeles or San Francisco. A Bay Area quake of that magnitude is especially horrifying to consider because of its potential to bust the levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and unleash flooding that would not only take lives but could cripple California's water supply system for months or even years.

Such a quake would probably collapse thousands of buildings, unleash fires that could not be controlled, sever communications and power lines, and overwhelm first responders for days.

California's official state emergency plan is built on the assumption that disaster response is best coordinated at the lowest level of government involved in an emergency. Local authorities, the plan says, will maintain "control and responsibility" within their jurisdictions unless superseded by statute or agreement.

The plan calls for local government to request assistance from the state if needed, but also allows the governor to declare a state of emergency if he determines that the local authority is "inadequate" to cope with the disaster.

While the president, too, can declare an emergency, as Bush did in this case, he lacks the authority to take over for local law enforcement except in the limited case of an "insurrection." It might be a good idea to change that and allow a president to step in and federalize disaster response - including the use of the military to enforce the law -- if he determines that local and state officials are overwhelmed.

As New Orleans demonstrated, the most important function the government can perform is to restore and maintain security. That is the first role of government in good times but especially in bad. Once security is compromised and order crumbles, the worst elements of society are going to plunge into the vacuum and take advantage of it. And if people fear for their lives from their fellow man, in addition to the elements, everything else that needs doing is going to be impaired.

Disaster preparedness and response need not be inconsistent with limited government. If providing for public safety is the first job of any government, then even the smallest agency should be doing everything it can to prepare to maintain the peace, before it does anything else.

Yet no matter how well government prepares or responds, there is still the chance a disaster will strike that simply cannot be managed from above. Each of us has a responsibility to be ready to take care of ourselves and our loved ones. Even San Francisco, a city that prides itself on its sense of community and its extensive public services, has established a Web site titled www.72hours.org to drive home the point that its citizens must plan to fend for themselves in a disaster.

Go there now, and be ready.

Invalidating the Voters

I am sick and tired of our Legislature ignoring the spoken will of the California voters. We voted on this issue with Proposition 22 and 61.2% of the voter said no to gay marriage in California! Obviously our elected officials at the Capitol think we are not intelligent enough to decide this issue; even when we send a resounding message with 60% of the vote they still do not listen. I have had it with our elected officials in Sacramento; not content enough with bankrupting this state financial, now they feel the need to cirumvent us and bankrupt us socially! I call on Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this and respect will of your constituency. Do not invalidate my vote! The text below was posted on SacBee.com!

California Senate approves bill allowing gay marriage
By STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 1:10 pm PDT Thursday, September 1, 2005
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Handing gay rights advocates a major victory, the California Senate approved legislation Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriages in the nation's most populous state.
The 21-15 vote made the Senate the first legislative chamber in the country to approve a gay marriage bill. It sets the stage for a showdown in the state Assembly, which narrowly rejected a gay marriage bill in June.


"Equality is equality, period," said one of the bill's supporters, Sen. Liz Figueroa, D-Sunol. "When I leave this Legislature, I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I stood up for dignity and rights for all."
But Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-La Mesa, suggested that a "higher power" opposed the legislation.

"This is not the right thing to do," he said. "We should protect traditional marriage and hold all of those values and institutions that have made our society and keep our society together today."

But Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, said a number of churches supported the bill: "I don't think anyone should claim God as being on their side in this debate," she said.

California already confers many of the rights and duties of marriage on gay couples, who can register as domestic partners. Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriages when the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex weddings there in 2003.

Several senators equated the struggle for gay marriage to other civil rights movements. They said arguments against the bill were similar to earlier arguments in support of slavery and opposing interracial marriage.

"This is probably the most profound civil rights movement of our generation, without a doubt," said Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough.

Gay rights advocates called Thursday's California vote historic.

"It will make all California families safer and more secure if it becomes law," said Seth Kilbourn, director of the Human Rights Campaign Marriage Project in New York. "The fact they debated and voted on this relatively quickly today sends a message that there is momentum for this bill."

Senate approval gave the bill's author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, another chance to send the legislation to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Legislature is expected to adjourn next week.

A telephone call seeking comment from the governor's office was not immediately returned Thursday.

After the Assembly rejected his bill in June by four votes, Leno amended the measure's provisions into another one of his bills that had already passed the Assembly and was awaiting action in the Senate. That's the bill the Senate approved Thursday and sent back to the Assembly.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, one of six gay members of the state Legislature, told the chamber that gay couples have the same hopes for their relationships as heterosexual couples.

"Gay and lesbian people fall in love. We settle down. We commit our lives to one another. We raise our children. We protect them. We try to be good citizens," said Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. "This is a bill whose time has come."

The vote came as a state appellate court is considering appeals of a San Francisco judge's ruling overturning California laws banning recognition of gay marriages. At the same time, opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot that would place a ban on gay marriages in the state Constitution.

Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, agreed that gay couples are entitled to certain rights but not the right to marry.

"Can't you see that marriage is a fundamentally different institution?" he said. "Marriage is the institution by which we propagate our species and inculcate our young."

Is a Fatwa on violence and terrorism good enough?

Reuters recently reported that "top US scholars issued a fatwa...against terrorism...and called on Muslims to help authorities fight the scourge of militant violence." Is this "fatwa" a sufficient condemnaton of the violence and global gurilla war that radical Islam is fighting against the West? Futhermore, Why was this idict issued 4 years after 9/11? Why do these same scholars and religious leaders refuse to specifically denounce Osama Bin Laden and associates?

"Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said it was the first time Muslims in North America had issued an anti-terrorism edict, although they had repeatedly condemned such acts of violence." Why should we take any of this rhetoric seriously when they have done nothing but sit on their hands while fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters were killed in the World Trade Center, Pentagon, Spanish trains, and the Underground of London. Where was this condemnation when our Embassy was stormed in Tehran, when the USS Cole was attacked, or when the Marines were killed in Beirut. Frankly, this is too little too late!

This fatwa is meaningless, "because Islam is not based on a world-wide hierarchical structure, the edicts are not globally binding, and only affect the community whose religious leaders have issued the rulings." Last time I checked most of the criminal and butchers responsible for the cowardly acts mentioned above came mostly from the Middle East and more specifically the Whabbist controlled Saudi region! It is interesting to note that within the last few weeks Sheikh Mohammed Omran, of Melbourne, Australia went on record defending the actions of Osama Bin Laden and his network; Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad calls for all of Europe to surrender or be slaghtered by the "sword of Islam," and Abu Hamza, the cleric accused of tutoring Richard Reid before he tried to blow up a Paris-to-Miami jetliner with explosives hidden in his shoe, urged a crowd of 200 outside his former Finsbury Park mosque to embrace death and the "culture of martyrdom." This propaganda can be allowed any longer! We can not as a society, who believe in and support the sanctity of life, allow this rehtoric continue. We need to wake up a realize that the only difference between these barbars and the Nazi's is that they have cloaked their treachery in religion!


God Bless our Troops and Godspeed!

Secretary of State Testifies Regarding Our Borders

This is an article from Yahoo News and it illustrates the serious nature of this issue.

"By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

MEXICO CITY - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) said Thursday that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are doing everything they can to get into the United States through Mexico and Canada.

Rice, on her first trip to Mexico since taking over at the State Department, in late January, echoed concerns raised by government officials in congressional testimony last month about the motives of the terrorist network blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Indeed we have from time to time had reports about al-Qaida trying to use our southern border but also trying to use our northern border," Rice told reporters. "There is no secret that al-Qaida will try to get into this country and into other countries by any means they possibly can.

"That's how they managed to do it before and they will do everything that they can to cross the borders," she said.

Recent intelligence from current investigations, detentions and other sources suggests that al-Qaida has considered using the Southwest border to infiltrate the United States, according to testimony from a top Homeland Security Department official last month before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"Several al-Qaida leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico, and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons," James Loy, deputy secretary at the time, said in his testimony.

Rice made the one-day trip to Mexico to meet with President Vicente Fox (news - web sites) and Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez. Emerging from her meeting with Derbez, Rice announced that the two countries had settled a decades-old, cross-water debt.

Mexico will transfer enough water to the United States to cover a debt that Texas has claimed that Mexico has owed under a 1944 treaty. That water-sharing pact requires Mexico to send the United States an average of 350,000 acre-feet of water annually from six Rio Grande tributaries. The United States in return must send Mexico 1.5 million acre feet from the Colorado River.

"I'm delighted that we have been able to reach this understanding," Rice said.

Rice also was announcing a $10 million grant to support the expansion of a Mexican program that provides citizens with banking services and small business loans.

Rice said progress has been made in securing the border since Sept. 11, 2001. But she also said the United States is obligated to alert its citizens of concerns.

"We and the Mexicans have a robust dialogue about border security, and I believe we're going to continue to have that," she said. "This is not a matter of pointing fingers. This is a matter of really trying to get the best possible coordination and work that we can so that there's safety for citizens in both countries, on both sides of the border."

She said Washington does not support vigilante groups that are recruiting volunteers to patrol the border for undocumented Mexican crossers.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s former national security adviser faced a diplomatic test in her first visit to Mexico. She discussed with Derbez immigration, border issues, free trade and economic growth.

Recently, Mexican politicians have accused the Bush administration of interfering with Mexico's internal affairs. They have denounced U.S. officials' comments about human rights abuses, drug trafficking and possible election related instability.

Mexico was angered by a recent U.S. travel warning for Americans going to Mexico's northern border. Yet both Rice and Derbez praised relations in a news conference.

Mexican officials called the atmosphere one of friendship and cooperation. Rice spoke of "a close neighbor and friend" and said the neighbors "shared a partnership of prosperity."

A few months and a few concerns

It has been a few month since I wrote about my excitement that President Bush was reelected. I have to tell you that since that day, I have become frustrated with President Bush and his administration. My frustration stems from seemingly careless way that the War on Terror is being waged. I agree that this war is the "war" of my generation and must be fought. This is a fight against those that would destroy this nation and any other nation that embraces freedom and liberty. Without due diligence in this matter our country will lose this fight for it's life. Our enemy will stop at nothing short of reducing our biggest cities to rumble, economy to ruin, and destroy our way of life, but what is bothering me is the enormous effort that is being put into fighting abroad and ignoring the threats that exist right here in our own country. I speak of our borders. This administration seems content to go across the street and fight the bully head on in their front yard while we leave the back door of our country not only unlocked but wide open. What good is fighting a war on terror on battlefield if our enemy can learn some Spanish and crawl over the border in Nogales. If Bush recognizes the seriousness of this fight against terror and Islamofascism so much that he is willing to risk American GI's to defeat it, then why is he content to leave our borders unsecure?