September 01, 2006
Border
Patrol Two, 9/11 Commission—Whose Side Is Bush On?
By Joe
Guzzardi
The
question that repeats and repeats in my mind:
Why were
Border Patrol agents
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean prosecuted with such
ferocity for doing their jobs that they now face up to 20 years
in prison?
As Ramos
and Compean await their fate,
drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila received immunity. As a
free man living in Mexico, Aldrete-Davila plans to
sue the Border Patrol for $5 million for alleged violations
of his civil rights suffered while transporting 743 pounds of
marijuana across the border.
Briefly,
Ramos and Compean were charged for firing at Aldrete-Davila as
he fled back across the border and not reporting the incident.
Those who
want to learn more should go to the National Border Patrol
Council
website. Once on the site, read the excellent columns by
Debra Saunders in the
San Francisco Chronicle [
The
Border Patrol Inquisition, August 24, 2006] and by
Sara A. Carter of the Ontario (Calif.) Daily Bulletin,[
PDF]
posted there.
For
perspective, a Border Patrol
officer convicted of smuggling illegals while on duty
was sentenced in July to just five years—upped by U.S. District
Judge John Houston; prosecutors asked for only three.
To return
to my question: “Why?”
No matter
which roads you travel to find the answer, they all lead to
President
George W. Bush.
During
his nearly six years in office, Bush has given the Open Borders
crazies carte blanche to do whatever they please without
fear of repercussion.
Bush has
never missed a chance to
insult patriots with his
words and deeds
Ramos and
Compean’s conviction is one more slap in the face to Americans
who love their country and work to defend it.
In Ramos
and Compean’s case, they were on the firing line, literally,
protecting the United States.
Beginning
with the
July 2001 State Dinner given in honor of Mexico’s president
Vicente Fox and his wife
Martha Sahagun de Fox White House State Dinner and
resplendent with
fireworks over the Potomac River, Bush has only babbled
nonsensical platitudes about illegal immigration.
No sooner
had the last pyrotechnic burst soared though summer sky five
years ago than Bush called illegal aliens “citizens.”
(Steve Sailer’s funny/tragic account of Bush’s misspeak is
here.)
Unbelievably, Bush’s immigration policies have gone downhill
since.
As the
9/11 anniversary approaches, let’s review where Bush and the
country stand vis-a-vis immigration.
Most
pro-reform activists assumed that
9/11 would usher in a new, stricter immigration era to, if
for no other reason, combat terrorism.
But
because Bush wants Open Borders, that hasn’t happened. “
Homeland
Security,” as Bush likes to call it, isn’t an issue for
him.
In the
unlikely event that your memories need refreshing on the events
that led up to and immediately following 9/11, I recommend that
over the
Labor Day weekend you rent a new DVD titled
On Native Soil.
By using
surviving family members’ testimony to the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the U.S., (formed over Bush’s
repeated vocal protests) the film recounts all the
Clinton and Bush administrations’ oversights that made 9/11
inevitable.
The video
features VDARE.COM friend
Bruce DeCell of
9/11 Families For A Secure America. Earlier this year,
DeCell received national attention when he used his matricula
consular card to enter the Department of Homeland Security in
Washington D.C. DeCell listed his address as
123 Fraud Blvd and his birthplace as Tijuana.
As
highlighted in the film, two years ago the commission made its
final recommendations. Among them were:
Current
status of these and other recommendations: ignored.
If Bush
had lobbied as hard for the 9/11 security measures as he did for
S. 2611, the Kennedy/Bush Amnesty and Immigration Acceleration
bill, we might be somewhere.
But he
didn’t. So we’re nowhere.
I asked
VDARE.COM contributor
Peter Gadiel, who like DeCell lost a loved one on 9/11, if
he feels that Bush is responsible for the miscarriage of justice
inflicted upon Ramos and Compean.
Gadiel
answered:
“By
failing to respond to the 9/11 attacks, failing to respond
by securing our borders against infiltration by agents of
radical Islamic groups hiding in plain sight among illegal
aliens, Bush has demonstrated
contempt for those killed on September 11. The men and
women of the Border Patrol are among those who, if supported by
their superiors, will thwart more
mass murder committed by terrorist aliens. Bush has proven,
by his prosecution and persecution of Ramos and Compean that he
will stop at nothing to prevent enforcement of any laws that
will stop foreign terrorists from crossing our borders. Clearly,
other interests, commercial and political, control Bush's
policies. American security is of no importance if it conflicts
with Bush’s agenda.”
In
conclusion, Gadiel added:
“When Bush stood on the
ruins of the WTC after 9/11 and said ‘I hear you,’ I believed
him. His record in office establishes beyond contradiction that
he was lying. Bush has failed completely and utterly to protect
the United States from infiltration by foreign terrorists. Were
he on the Mexican and Saudi government’s payroll he could not
have accomplished more to undermine Americans.”
I agree
totally. Bush is at best
venal, foolish and dangerous; at worst, evil.
A few of
you may not agree.
But what
other label would you affix to Bush—who, through his silence,
sanctions immunity for a drug-dealing Mexican national in
exchange for that criminal’s testimony against two sworn
defenders of America?
Joe
Guzzardi [email
him], an instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, has
been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column
is exclusive to VDARE.COM.
