Bush has signed the bill to build a fence at the Mexican/US border, but?

It is nothing but propaganda at election time.

If it was anything other than propaganda they would have funded more than 25% of the fence that they just approved and would have continued the fence the entire length of the border as well as staffing the fence with border security guards. They funded the fence with 1.2 billion while they are blowing 2 billion a day in Iraq.

The republicans are leaving majority of the boarder open to allow the slave wage people across to help businesses illegally cut their labor costs.

have not you found out however the Bush does each little thing 0.5 way or greater wisely 0.5 as*ed? He makes use of one hundred forty,000 troops in Iraq while he needed and became informed he needed 3 hundred,000 to win. in the beginning up, he basically sends approximately 0.5 is what's needed to assist shop Katrina victims. And now he's development a fence on the border that may not come on the factor of preserving out unlawful immigrants or terrorists.

Haven't you figured out yet the Bush does everything half way or more accurately half as*ed? He uses 140,000 troops in Iraq when he needed and was told he needed 300,000 to win. In the beginning, he only sends about half is what is needed to help save Katrina victims. And now he's building a fence on the border that won't come close to keeping out illegal immigrants or terrorists.

Because Bush never wanted a fence he wanted a guest worker program, but the real conservatives in congress voted to protect the border, and Bush is not going to buck the conservatives because we are the people who elected him.

Just another part of the "Big Lie" by bush and his propagandists to try to make us vote for inept republicans.

Ask Congress (both sides of the isle) why it took this long. Bush couldn't sign it until it got to his desk.

sir ,a fence will be built,and more fences too,are you going to try to climb over one? good job bush,good timing too...bush is tough sir he is

Better late than never, why didn't Billy do it instead of spending all his time with his zipper down.

POLITICAL VOTE GETTING..

MILK THE POPULACE...

GET TOUGH AT ELECTION TIME....

PUTTING THIS TYPE STUFF OUT FOR PEOPLE TO SEE IS ALSO HELPFUL FOR THE REPUBLICANS::::::::::::::After some of us began to ask which part of the war on terrorism Democrats support, BY ANN COULTER

Larry Kudlow put the question directly to Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company.

" Frank said: "What part of the war on terrorism do I support? I voted for war in Afghanistan."

On "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, aspiring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the war in Iraq

as not "part of the war on terror." The war on terror, she said "is the war in Afghanistan."

So that's it. The one part of the war on terror -- or "so-called war on terror," as New York Times so-called

columnist Bob Herbert calls it -- Democrats even pretend to support is the war in Afghanistan.

Immediately after the attacks of 9/11, Democrats had no choice but to vote in favor of that war --

of any war. (Save one member of Congress -- guess which party? Answer: Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrat, of California.)

If Bush had gone to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 and waited to attack Afghanistan,

Democrats would now be pretending to support the Iraq war while pointlessly carping about Afghanistan.

Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11! The Taliban didn't attack us! What's our exit strategy?

How do you define "victory" in Afghanistan, anyway? It's a quagmire -- aahhhhh!

The beauty of Democrats' pretending to be hawks on Afghanistan is that most people can't remember

what liberals said five minutes after they said it, much less five years later.

In fact, during the brief five weeks it took American forces to take Kabul and send the Taliban scurrying,

liberals were not the flag-waving patriots they would have us believe.

In October 2001, Sen. Joe Biden gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations saying that

America's air war in Afghanistan made the United States look like "this high-tech bully that thinks from

the air we can do whatever we want to do."

Four weeks before U.S. troops completely vanquished the Taliban, Kim Jong Il's pal, New Mexico

Gov. Bill Richardson, said on CNN's "Capital Gang" that the Taliban would not soon be toppled.

He cited his experience with the Taliban, saying: "I think they can hold on for a while. They were very resilient."

Howard Dean joined Michael Moore in arguing that Osama bin Laden was innocent until proved guilty.

Except for a few idiots like Biden, Richardson and Dean, most politicians -- who have to run for election --

duly voted in favor of the war in Afghanistan and let their mouthpieces in the media bash it for them. (Remember:

A lot of them voted for war in Iraq, too.)

Democrats who would not have to face voters -- we call them "reporters" -- were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire"

approximately six minutes after we invaded.

Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post reporter who currently has a book out saying the war in Iraq is not succeeding,

also said the war in Afghanistan was not succeeding.

On Oct. 27, 2001, Ricks said this about Afghanistan -- not Iraq: "Although there is little evidence -- yet -- that the U.S.

approach is succeeding, officials at the Pentagon and the White House said yesterday that they are sticking with their original strategy."

Our boys had taken Kabul before Ricks' article hit the recycling bin.

The media gave us gleeful reports on friendly fire incidents in Afghanistan, incessant body counts, numbers of civilian dead

and polls showing that the rest of world hated us. Christiane Amanpour reported on CNN in February 2002 that "77 percent

of those (Muslims) interviewed said the U.S. war in Afghanistan was morally unjustifiable." The Muslim world hates us --

because of the war Democrats claim to support.

In an Oct. 27, 2001, column titled "How to Lose a War," New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote that the Taliban

"are proving Viet Cong-like in their intractability." He stated categorically that "we're losing that battle for Afghan hearts and minds" --

proving Rich to be as competent a military analyst as any longtime New York Times theater critic could reasonably be expected to be.

Say, when is the Times going to hire generals to review the latest Broadway offerings? I think more people would like to read

Tommy Franks' review of "Rent" than Frank Rich's review of a war.

Times columnist Maureen Dowd, more macho than Rich, asked: "Are we quagmiring ourselves again?" Apparently so.

She cited Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem's denial that we were getting bogged down in Afghanistan as "a sure sign we're getting bogged down."

In October 2001, on ABC News' "World News Tonight," anchor Peter Jennings asked Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan:

"Do you believe that the United States is possibly facing a quagmire in Afghanistan?"

The first time liberals had a kind word for the war in Afghanistan was when they needed to pretend to support some war in order

to attack the war in Iraq with greater vigor. To get them to support the Iraq war, all we have to do is attack Iran.