Friday, September 29, 2006

The double-bind

The passage of the Detainee Trial Bill by the Senate, 65-34, together with a House vote to authorize warrantless wiretapping 232-191 added to the Senate cloture vote on the Secure Fence Act (71-28) has some commentators, like Jack Balkin, accusing the Democratic Party of spinelessness.  How else to explain the rout? How else to account for the stunning margins?

If the Democrats do not stand up to the President on this bill, if they refuse to filibuster it or even threaten to filibuster it, they do not deserve to win any additional seats in the House or in the Senate. They will have delivered a grievous blow to our system of checks and balances, stained America's reputation around the world, and allowed an obscenity to disfigure the American system of law and justice. Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm.

But I think the real problem is subtly different from that. One commenter at Balkinization came near to identifying the real cause of the Democrat's troubles.

Your complaints highlight the double bind all of our elected officials are in: Either they are denounced as soft and weak by their opponents for not marching lock-step behind the administration's "war" on terror, or they are called soft and weak by everyone else for going along with the majority party.

The reason the Republican Party can impose the double-bind on its political opponents is because the Democratic Party has never really articulated a plausible counter-strategy against the terrorist threat. The party has positions, to be sure. But they mostly consist of reactions to or modifications of the Bush administration's strategy. Calls to "bring home the boys from Iraq by a date certain" or a pledge to "work more closely with our allies to pursue the real terrorists" were perceived for what they were: attempts to present the negation of policy as policy. For example, on the subject of the detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects Democrats focused on the dangers to liberty and the possible inhumanity the bill presented without providing a plausible alternative path to how terrorists could be effectively questioned or put away. This was a psychological nonstarter. Answering that "waterboarding" was cruel to the question how do you get information to protect the public was to miss the point. You can tell a man about to jump from a plane his parachute is defective, but unless you offer another he'll jump with the defective rather than none at all.

A position largely based on negation has no depth. The Supreme Court's Hamdan decision was a stroke of political luck for the Bush administration and a disguised curse for the Democratic Party because it  moved the onus of detainee policy from the White House to the Legislature. It was no longer enough to criticize what the President wanted. The legislators had to specify what they wanted; and that turned out to be a harder problem altogether. One which in the end, the Democratic Party was not prepared to fully answer.

The cost of abdicating the strategy of the War on Terror to one party because its prosecution was unthinkable to the antiwar faction of the other was that it reduced the public choice to that of the brake versus the accelerator. Given that choice the public would inevitably opt to lurch forward,  rather than do nothing at all. This was the double-bind which Balkin's commenter said bound the Democrats. And the ropes were tightened by those on its Left who did not appreciate that many Bush critics were in opposition not because they were anti-war so much as desirous of winning the war; that their doubts were driven not by pacifism as by skepticism as to the means employed. What the Netroots achieved by bludgeoning Hillary into silence and tarring Joe Lieberman was to make the Bush war policy the only game in town.

That allowed the President to survive any number of mistakes which would otherwise have proved politically fatal. Because whatever else President Bush was -- and he made certain everyone knew it -- he was manifestly committed to winning the War on Terror. And with of the yawning absence of a Democratic war strategy, the more tightly he clung to his policies in the face of the brickbats thrown at him, the more committed to victory he seemed.  It's an axiom in politics that you can't beat something with nothing. And its not enough to trip up the point man on the squad. It is necessary to shoulder your way to the front. And because that didn't happen a nation which deserves an intelligent choice on defense policy meant that they too were gripped by the double-bind.


Blogger 49erDweet said...

Absolutely spot on! When the 'crats' chose to carp instead of lead, they also chose to 'lose instead of choose'.

9/29/2006 09:09:00 AM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

It's fascinating to see how paralyzed the left still is by the collapse of communism in 1989. Only now does it become apparent how comprehensively their faith was built on the belief that somebody somewhere was building a system different from our own, powered by better intentions, which would one day prove to be better than ours.

They needed this psychological prop, and it had to be in a remote location, tightly secured from a free flow of information. As long as the place where all the good stuff was supposedly happening was 'over there', with the sordid details hidden from public view, their ideas and policy prescriptions never had to survive critical scrutiny in the domestic arena. Americans were supposed to accept whatever flaws might be found in their proposals, in the interest of 'the cause', the 'greater good', etc.

Now that this dodge is no longer available they are stuck as you say in negative mode, because the policy prescriptions they would like to advance, evaluated solely as to whether they are in the interest of Americans, usually (as in this case) can't pass the laugh test.

9/29/2006 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger sfrcook said...


Perhaps the opposition hasn't been able to provide the deserved "intelligent choice" because the current course is the ONLY viable course. Perhaps their hatred of the President precludes them from admitting as much and a bipartisan consensus like that reach during the Cold War is a pipe-dream.

We are all the worse off for it. Makes me almost wish for a Democrat in the White House in 08.

9/29/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I'm wondering if citizens in England, Canada, Germany and France were also forced to VOTE on America's War on Terror vs. a liberal peacenik policy of "do nothing/pre 9-11", whether the moonbats in those countries would also be routed.

Certainly Germany and Canada have voted in more conservative governments, and Australia seems to be percolating along just fine with Howard which would seem to me to indicate a concern by the publics in those countries about uncontrolled immigration and a desire to enforce the current social mores and laws at a minimum.

I can't figure out why England is kicking out Blair though, when from this side of the ocean it would appear that England's Muslim problem is second only to France's and they should be getting meaner rather than softening up. Unless kicking out Blair means that England is tired of playing UN games and *does* want to have some stern and on-going talks with their Muslim population.

9/29/2006 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger Annoy Mouse said...

The Dems are firmly rooted in the belief that Bush was lucky that it was his shift that 911 happened and that his competent handling of events thereafter reflected well on his governance, and therefore was a gimmie. They remain ever so resentful of that windfall.

World War II morphed into the Cold War and the Cold War morphed into the present state of affairs. Who are we to blame really?

9/29/2006 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger Meme chose said...


Good point about how a sense of responsibility would emerge if Europeans had a meaningful security role to play. But they don't, and nor do they believe they can afford it. From our point of view their irresponsibility is the flip side of our possession of absolute military superiority, so it's not all bad.

The UK doesn't have fixed Prime Ministerial terms, as the US does with the 8 year maximum for a President. Blair has been in power for nearly 10 years (and his powers over the state as Prime Minister exceed those of a President in many ways, mitigated only by the fact that the UK is now a decidedly second rate power internationally). All Prime Ministers succumb eventually to the voters becoming ready for a different personality. Blair is no different. If there was a Blair clone on offer, in political terms, he or she would probably win, but there isn't. It's not clear yet what his retirement will mean politically.

9/29/2006 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger John Samford said...

PRESIDENT Bush's choice of fighting terrorism and the tyrants that sponsor it thru democratization of those regimes is the logical choice for Democrats. With that choice he basically put the left in the position it is in now by prempting their 'natural' choice.
Think Linear here and there are three viable choices. Surrender, Make outr enemies our friends or kill them all.
Surrender isn't really a choice killing them all is more of a last resort, one that might in the end do us more harm then them. That leaves naking them our friends.
The theory is that it isn't the people themselves that want the streets to run red with American blood, but the tyrants that run the various nations involved. Where is gets complicated is that those tyrants are 'god touched' to steal and old old phrase. Theocracies are very stable government types. Look at the ones we are fighting. 1400 years old with only superficial change over those centuries.
One of those changes that hasn't quite taken yet is the idea of nation states. Islam sees the world as black and white. Our 'house' and their 'house'. So while the west sees a collection of states ran by tyrants, the Ulma sees one big state administered by Caliphs, each subordinate to the wishs of Allah (as seen by themsleves, of course).
I saw an interesting article about the Idnia police who busted a ring of mullahs that were selling Fatawas.
So not only do you have a pot full of mystery meat, it is seasoned by ignorance and corruption in equal measures.
Well, PRESIDENT Bush never promised us a Rose Garden, nor a walk in the sun.
History will see this as a very strange war. The Muslims can't win, but they can't lose either. The West can lose, but only thru surrender. Games theory is under assault here.

9/29/2006 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

Wretchard said:

"The cost of abdicating the strategy of the War on Terror to one party because its prosecution was unthinkable to the antiwar faction of the other was that it reduced the public choice to that of the brake versus the accelerator. Given that choice the public would inevitably opt to lurch forward, rather than do nothing at all."

Wretchard summed up our dilemma very nicely. When the Democratic Party leadership allowed moonbats to take over, they abdicated their right to govern and transformed the US into a one-party state. We desperately need a loyal opposition if we're to survive the War on Terror. Many people don't realize it but this election next month may well be a Historical Branch Point. Here's why:

There is a very high likelyhood that the US will begin a major economic recession in 2007. This will happen for a variety of reasons, e.g. normal business cycles, collapse of the real estate and credit bubbles, a big spike in energy costs due to military action in Iran, lingering after effects of the dot-com implosion, etc. Americans reflexively vote-out the party in power after the economy goes down the toilet. This means that the Democrats will be able to elect anyone they want in 2008. This future event will not be prevented should the Democrats gain control of the House in 2006 and put Pelosi in charge (shudder). In fact the Democrats will see that sequence of events as a ratification of putting moonbats in charge. However, if the Democrats are unsuccessful at gaining control of the House, the Senate and Lieberman is reelected then that would constitute a ferocious bitch slapping of the Democratic Party. They will be forced to ask that very embarrassing question: "Why do we keep losing when Bush is so intensely disliked?". Hopefully the scales will fall from their eyes and they'll realize that they need to jettison their moonbats just like the British Labour Party jettisoned its "looney left" after Margaret Thatcher kept winning. That realization will be the beginning of the Democratic Party rehabilitating itself and once again becomming a loyal opposition.

After losing in 2006 the Democrats would have two years to complete their rehabilitation before becoming the party in power in 2008. Also the Republicans retaining control of Congress for two more years would provide Bush with the opportunity to initiate irreversible actions with regards to Iran and their nuclear weapons program. This last step along with a rehabilitated Democratic Party might be what it takes to avoid the looming clash of civilizations and the unavoidable mega-deaths that would result.

9/29/2006 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger sfrcook said...

You might be on to something Eggplant.
Perhaps what the Democrats need is a humiliation on the scale of the Republican defeat of '64, to break them of their 1930's economic and 1960's social & foreign policy playbook.

9/29/2006 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger enscout said...

All incumbent Democratic Senators up for re-election voted with the Republicans to pass the bill.

That's a shellacking.

9/29/2006 11:54:00 AM  
Blogger wm. tyroler said...

"A position largely based on negation has no depth."

That's the essence of the Democrats' dilemma, in a nutshell.

For an example, see this essay by Paul Soglin. He can bring himself to acknowledge (if only implicitly) that we are at war with "Islamic terrorists"; and he bemoans the idea (again, implicitly) that we may "lose the battle"; but he obdurately denies the existence of "Islamofascism" and bitterly resists the utility of such a descriptor. So, just how would Soglin bring the battle to the Islamic terrorists? He simply doesn't say.

9/29/2006 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger Sonspot said...

I think the base of the Republican party is the knew loyal opposition (think Meirs, Dubai, border fence). Republicans such as McCain and Chaffee are more disliked by the Republican base than the most liberal Dem.

Strange times.

9/29/2006 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Sonspot said...


9/29/2006 12:26:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

Does anyone else find this to be funny?
Zawahri calls Bush a failure over war on terror

26 minutes ago

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri called
President Bush a "lying failure" for saying progress had been made in the war on terror, according to a video posted on the Internet on Friday.

"Bush you are a lying failure and a charlatan. It has been three and-a-half years (since the arrests) ... What happened to us? We have gained more strength and we are more insistent on martyrdom," the Egyptian militant leader said.

9/29/2006 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger Cosmo said...

More sad than funny, Charles, because I hear the same thing from way too many people here at home.

9/29/2006 01:40:00 PM  
Blogger Posse Incitatus said...

The Democrats actually do have a plan: Defeat.

What is interesting is not that some of them voted for the legislation, but that clear majorities of Dems in both houses rejected it.

The Dems are pretty clearly moving into the radical defeatist position.

9/29/2006 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Pyrthroes said...

Granted that Democrat policy statements since 9/11 fit social-pathology rather than political-program models, their paralytic Leftism reflects a deeper frustration. To wit: Despite their foolish rhetoric, their inane moral pretensions, Democrats exhibit a pronounced passive-ist tendency.

Absent realistic assessment of prevailing circumstance, requiring context and perspective, instincts hint to them that any action they attempt will crater badly. In the case of Iraq, after three and a half years, Democrat opposition remains mired in slander and vituperation. This after eight years of the first personally corrupt President in U.S. history. (Grant, Harding were misled by associates, but remained honorable men. Clinton with his Riady payoffs and pardons-for-cash [among much else] was a blackmailer, extortionist, and thief.)

If there was a viable Leftist alternative to Bush's stand on Islamofascist terrorism, we do believe the (few) well-intentioned Democrat incumbents would articulate it. But murderous jihadi nihilism cannot be combated with mere words.
Feminized, craven and ineffectual, Democrats have "lost the name of action". Clinton and Howard Dean increasingly resemble Punchinello in a Comedia scripted by their treacherous media enablers.

Who wouldn't be frustrated, if by nature you can't do anything, when something manifestly must be done? Only consolation is, the Boomer Generation peaked in 2004 (36 years past 1968), and henceforth will pollute diminishing proportions of the political stream. By 2040, when these creeps have finally sunk back to the collectivist Statist sewers whence they came, maybe we'll see some decent political dialogue again.

9/29/2006 03:30:00 PM  
Blogger Good Captain said...

The fundamental problem w/ the modern Democratic Party precedes "the Double Bind". It has become rudderless, setting its course not towards anything, but away from the President's course. No matter how unattractive the President's position may or may not be, the populace desires goals or expectations from its leaders. The Dem's today can't state their goals except in reference to the positions of the current President. Opposition does not constitute goals or objectives.

9/29/2006 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

"...the public would inevitably opt to lurch forward, rather than do nothing at all."

The do-nothing-at-all approach was tried in the '90's, it didn't work! 9-11 was a huge testament to the foolishness of do-nothing.

Reflecting on "there's a better solution out of sight if we just get out of the way" concept, isn't that the concept through which 2 million Cambodians lost their lives? The public is aware of that Democrat foreign policy failure, too.

9/29/2006 04:05:00 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Sadly that is probably the best argument the right has in favor of the pro-torture bill - that lots of them voted for it. That's about all you have to defend an action that is fundamentally opposed to our notions of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

9/29/2006 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger stumbley said...


To paraphrase a President that you undoubtedly revere:

"It depends on what your definition of 'torture' is."

I think suicide bombing and beheading fit the definition; waterboarding and loud music, panties on the head do not.

9/29/2006 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Michael ,I along with you deplore the pro-torture bill,especially the attachments.The bamboo under the fingernails ammendment was unprecedented in our history as was the use of dental drills to extract information (along with the molars.)
Mike ,why don't we just find a nice quiet green space and visualize a nicer world.

9/29/2006 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger Robert Schwartz said...

The Democrats dilemma has been playing out for a generation, or more. In the 1940s, the hard left was pushed out of the power structure. This was celebrated by Peter Beinart in his recent book. The Vietnam war and the civil-rights struggles of the 1960s led to the counter-coup by the left and the famous San Francisco convention. Their victory, which Ricard Nixon was too paranoid to accept as a gift, led first to Ronald Reagan's reign and then to the collapse of the democrats decades long grip on the Congress.

The left is now a major factor in the Democrat party. They want the US to loose the war in Iraq, because they believe the United States is the source of all evil in the world. They are the ones who defeated Lieberman. They oppose the bills passed today, because they want to cripple the war effort.

The other factions in the party are becoming weaker. The unions have almost disappeared from the private sector.

The Jewish vote once a solid factor in the north-east, is aging, and being harassed by the left. Lieberman was only the first of many blows. The left will do to the Jews, what they did to white Southerners.

This leaves the left only with racial minorities. My guess is that they will not be a firm foundation for the Democrat party. At some point, blacks will discover that their interests and those of Hispanics are opposed. At that point the Democrats will turn openly anti-immigration or one of those groups will walk out of the party.

9/29/2006 08:42:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Michael - Sadly that is probably the best argument the right has in favor of the pro-torture bill - that lots of them voted for it. That's about all you have to defend an action that is fundamentally opposed to our notions of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

Perhaps that is because the majorities you condemn are more realistic than you. Freedom is meaningless without the security to enjoy those liberties. When you lack security, most or all of your freedoms erode or disappear - for many of the 9/11 WTC victims, the lack of security attention meant the sum of all their freedoms and liberties had come down to 2 choices.


Realistic people not hung up on abstractions or ideology recognize in the separate reality war is from peacetime society, that reordering society is sometimes imperative to defend itself and the people's ultimate liberty - right to life and the panopoly of lesser liberties. Unrealistic people pretending an enemy out to take them out doesn't exist, or if it exists, is really all about Islamists seeking to destroy us not by head-chopping, but by taking our "right" to pornography, the 5th, and so on...In their theory, Islam is only motivated to attack America because of the existence of the ACLU and Lefty Progressivism.

Not even the Left believes it. Because bottom line, they see the Islamists as allies in the war to destroy the West and transform it into their vision of Transnational Progressivism...which is a post-Bolshevik ideal.


As for Democrats, a funny thing happened on the way to Red America - which is discovery the Republicans remain the party of the Rich and the Religious Right under it's current incarnation and don't care about the other 90% of the people. That is why solid majorities consistently say Democrats would be better on environment, education, health care, the economy, better to restore America's lost prestige. Even fiscal management and controlling size of government, now, after the Bush II experience.

The Democrats liability is not with classic Democrats - who by and large have the traditional fair share of the wealth philosophy, egalitarianism, mistrust of the powerful. Even the black Democrats, thought to be liberal, have set up their Democratic party apparatus as a classic patronage award and bring home the bacon Democratic machine.

The problem is the Leftists within the Democrats that control the wealth the Democrats depend upon -some 60-70% that Dem leaders in toto are beholden to + academia and media dominance - who add the agendas most Americans find unacceptable. And cause the Democrats to lose elections because most reject Lax on sedition lest they be persecuted next for trying to destroy aspects of Western Civ, lax on the enemy and big on enemy rights because they justly fear being next to be seen as hostile. Big on using the courts and international "norms" to bypass American democracy, and to assault Christianity and other traditional pillars of society. And the leaders of the post-communism, post-mod, multi-culti forces.

9/29/2006 08:48:00 PM  
Blogger bjbarron said...

We are all the worse off for it. Makes me almost wish for a Democrat in the White House in 08.

Even the most rabid RightWingDeathBeast like me could live with a decent Democrat in the WhiteHouse. What I wouldn't like to see is the legislature taken over by the likes of Pelosi, Rangel, Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, and the rest.

It's not just the WOT these people are clueless on. They are also perceived to be the party of collectivist economics, open borders, anti-religion, pro alternative lifestyles, and anti-marriage - none of which are big sellers to the American people.

A prediction - the stupid party keeps the house and senate, and the evil party learns nothing from it yet again.

9/29/2006 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Lorenzo said...

I am very unimpressed with the coercive examination policy (see But you are spot on. Oppositions oppose much more effectively if they oppose from an articulated position. The Democrats are apparently so hopelessly torn they cannot learn from the Republicans. Reagan in 1980, Gingrich in 1994 argued from well-thought out positions. They did not merely oppose, they offered hope. (As Clinton did in 1992.) Bush II at least offers will. The Democrats as a Party are currently only offering rudderless whine without hope. It's not enough.

9/30/2006 04:16:00 AM  
Blogger gumshoe1 said...

"Clinton and Howard Dean increasingly resemble Punchinello in a Comedia scripted by their treacherous media enablers."

hadda look it up:

Pulcinella - wiki

"He usually wears a black mask and long white coat, and has loose and straggly hair. According to Duchartre, his traditional temperment is to be mean, vicious, and crafty: his main mode of defense is to pretend to be too stupid to know what's going on, and his secondary mode is to physically beat people."

9/30/2006 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger rich said...

The democrats are simply not a party of integrity.

Democrats have abandoned the religious, and lied about it.

Democrats have abandoned national defense and have lied about it.

Democrats have abandoned minorities for the teachers unions, and lied about it.

When even the Main Stream Media can't cover up things, such as votes, the democrats have to vote with the republicans or lose.

And every time democrats cut and run from one of their issues, and vote with the republicans, democrats get angrier and angrier.

I can't figure out if this should be part of Dante's Purgatorio or Inferno, but the democrats sure are in a world of hurt.

9/30/2006 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

Greetings all!

Some wonderful comments. Obviously the commenters on this blog are seasoned observers of the American political scene. These comments are precious. It is amazing that the Dems have such a political blind spot that they can't even read this and understand. It is being handed to them on a silver platter and if one of them were to read this they would probably not even know what I'm talking about.

Base human nature is ... what??? Insane, stupid, evil?? All three at once in ascending intensity. This is not good for America. No one should take pleasure at their collapsing like the World Trade Center towers. This is Greek tragedy stuff like the woman who cooks her own children and eats them.

At the root of their dilemma it seems that they have set God aside hard. Now they only lust for power to fill that void of unbelief.

It is so comforting to see that other people have witnessed the same events I have seen these last fifty years or so and have come to the same or complimentary conclusions about it. And you write it out as a witness. What can a person do against the truth? After all the shouting the truth is still there.

Napoleon's honor guard preferred to die rather than surrender and they were accomodated.

I hope as the Far Left Dems go down they don't take America with them.

9/30/2006 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

bjbarron said...

"A prediction - the stupid party keeps the house and senate, and the evil party learns nothing from it yet again."

I'm hoping your prediction is true.

Sparks fly said...

"Napoleon's honor guard preferred to die rather than surrender and they were accomodated. I hope as the Far Left Dems go down they don't take America with them."

My hope is the Far Left Dems (moonbats) will be expelled from positions of power after failing next month to win the Senate and House. My concern is the Democrats will dismiss their failure as due to rigged elections, the media, etc. and not due to having too many moonbats in leadership positions. This would represent a "thermal runaway" condition where the Democrats only perceived solution for their problems is through becoming more radical. I'm convinced there will be a change of government in 2008 due to an economic recession. If the new government is dominated by moonbats then the nation will be poised for disaster. That disaster would be triggered by another 9/11 event followed by moonbats in leadership positions running around in circles chanting "We deserved it because America is evil.".

10/01/2006 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger Dave H said...

John Samford, your point that theocracies are very stable is well talen as far as it goes. The theocracies of western history at least did not have the burden of a religion cunningly devised by a murderous pedophile.

I do not think democracy is possible in an Islamic country, where the "law" that they want to rule under is unchanged over 14 centuries. Only blind hatred of their powerless position prevents the kool aid drinkers of the left from seeing that Islam is the archtype of everything they hate. They scream to high heaven about a granite monument containing the ten commandments located in the Alabama Statehouse, they really should try living under Sharia.

I have tried to arouse interest in this idea in this blog many times, I'm tired of it. Someone emailed me a link to which makes the case in an Article titled Silence of the Sheep. I don't think the link I tried to post works, for some reason that is beyond me. The site is run by one Brigitte Gabrielle and the article is by Yashiko Sagamori. Some of you may know these names.

No doubt to the great relief of one and all I intend no more comments on these lines, I have a feeling Wretchard is uncomfortable with them. Anyone interested can go to that site, they are far mor eloquent than I am.

10/02/2006 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger Dave H said...

Well I can see one reason why the "link" did not work, probably should be .com.

10/02/2006 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger Dave H said...

C4, you need to watch out, you put forth a whole post without a single irrational comment, if you do not reform and return to your old ways we will think you have been converted to the ranks of the right wing (just kidding).

Congratulations on a thoughtful post.

10/02/2006 09:08:00 AM  
Blogger exguru said...

It's amazing to me that any Senators voted against the fence. Also that they managed to fight it off for as long as they did. No solution is possible to the immigrant chaos without control of the borders first. Res ipsa loquitur.

10/02/2006 09:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger