"A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security." =96
Bush, 9/9/02
=A0
While Bush did hold a photo-op to sign legislation promising more
INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, his budget provided no
additional money for this. Additionally, in August of 2004, Bush vetoed
$6.25M for promised pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents. Additionally,
he vetoed ALL $39 million for the Container Security Initiative.
His 2004 Budget slashed total "Border and Transportation Security" by
$284 million.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:56:06 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

"A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security." –
Bush, 9/9/02
*
While Bush did hold a photo-op to sign legislation promising more
INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, his budget provided no
additional money for this. Additionally, in August of 2004, Bush vetoed
$6.25M for promised pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents. Additionally,
he vetoed ALL $39 million for the Container Security Initiative.
His 2004 Budget slashed total "Border and Transportation Security" by
$284 million.


Yet, in order to illustrate the heavy spending by the Bush
administration, it has been claimed by his detractors, that Bush has
not vetoed a single piece of spending legislation. So which is it? Has
Bush indeed refused to veto any spending package, or are the above
claims correct?

In either case, someone has lied on the other side of the fence.

Some solid sources would certainly make the case a bit clearer.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:56:06 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
"A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security." =96
Bush, 9/9/02
=A0
While Bush did hold a photo-op to sign legislation promising more
INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, his budget provided no
additional money for this. Additionally, in August of 2004, Bush vetoed
$6.25M for promised pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents. Additionally,
he vetoed ALL $39 million for the Container Security Initiative. His
2004 Budget slashed total "Border and Transportation Security" by $284
million.

Yet, in order to illustrate the heavy spending

by the Bush administration, it has been

claimed by his detractors, that Bush has not

vetoed a single piece of spending legislation.

So which is it?


Stay with me, Dave, don't go invoking and introducing subjects and
asking me about their origin in order to deflect acknowledging this Bush
lie/flip-flop, whatever term you choose to semantically apply.




Has Bush indeed refused to veto any

spending package, or are the above claims

correct?



Well, Dave, IF you would have read his budget, you would not have to
ask, considering you claimed you keep yourself well informed of his
matters. Again, this illustrates you have not. The facts of this case,
are there, and cut and dry. You can cry about what definition you apply
to "fact" all day. It won't change what took place or the matter that
you are unaware of it and thus, deny it.
(shrug) You can choose to believe either A) what took place, B) that
Bush never claimed he was increasing border patrol, or C) Claim he
DIDN'T veto 39 million for the border patrol. illustratig once again,
you need to read what it is this president is doing, as you clearly
indicate you havent the foggiest.



In either case, someone has lied on the other

side of the fence.


Bush is the only party here. He made the claim in 2002, and he plucked
money from the budget for the border patrol this summer. It's
justifiably understandable you do not concern yourself with the border
issues in Pa., but Dave, this is the unadulterated truth. Truth
sometimes hurt, Dave, especially when you come to realize,,,you were
wrong.


Some solid sources would certainly make the

case a bit clearer.


Yea,,those bills this information was gleened from,,tsk tsk,,,,useless
reading.
Try googling "Container Security Initiative".


Dave

"Sandbagger"

Yes it was vetoed because it was for crap that was totally ineffective for
doing what it was suppose to do. At best it would have added the same level
of security that airports have now, which is next to nothing for someone who
wants to do some real damage.Especially for someone who is willing to
sacrifice their own life to kill others.This was millions for extra security
that wasnt worth a dime..

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
From: (Dave Hall)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:56:06 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
"A secure and efficient border is key to our economic security." -
Bush, 9/9/02

While Bush did hold a photo-op to sign legislation promising more
INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, his budget provided no
additional money for this. Additionally, in August of 2004, Bush vetoed
$6.25M for promised pay upgrades for Border Patrol agents. Additionally,
he vetoed ALL $39 million for the Container Security Initiative. His
2004 Budget slashed total "Border and Transportation Security" by $284
million.

Yet, in order to illustrate the heavy spending

by the Bush administration, it has been

claimed by his detractors, that Bush has not

vetoed a single piece of spending legislation.

So which is it?


Stay with me, Dave, don't go invoking and introducing subjects and
asking me about their origin in order to deflect acknowledging this Bush
lie/flip-flop, whatever term you choose to semantically apply.




Has Bush indeed refused to veto any

spending package, or are the above claims

correct?



Well, Dave, IF you would have read his budget, you would not have to
ask, considering you claimed you keep yourself well informed of his
matters. Again, this illustrates you have not. The facts of this case,
are there, and cut and dry. You can cry about what definition you apply
to "fact" all day. It won't change what took place or the matter that
you are unaware of it and thus, deny it.
(shrug) You can choose to believe either A) what took place, B) that
Bush never claimed he was increasing border patrol, or C) Claim he
DIDN'T veto 39 million for the border patrol. illustratig once again,
you need to read what it is this president is doing, as you clearly
indicate you havent the foggiest.



In either case, someone has lied on the other

side of the fence.


Bush is the only party here. He made the claim in 2002, and he plucked
money from the budget for the border patrol this summer. It's
justifiably understandable you do not concern yourself with the border
issues in Pa., but Dave, this is the unadulterated truth. Truth
sometimes hurt, Dave, especially when you come to realize,,,you were
wrong.


Some solid sources would certainly make the

case a bit clearer.


Yea,,those bills this information was gleened from,,tsk tsk,,,,useless
reading.
Try googling "Container Security Initiative".


Dave

"Sandbagger"

From: (Jimmie)
Yes it was vetoed because it was for crap that was totally ineffective
for doing what it was suppose to do
_
Somehow, this same administration is incapable of recognizing such in
the opposite party. They like to reassign the term "flip-flop" when this
exact scenario is employed by another party.