shadowrelm wrote:
6000 troops? rofl, ifyou had 1 man every 200 yards along the mexican border, then 3 shifts of them so it could be guarded 24/7. you would need around 60,000 troops.
Um? So what? That's about 50% more bodies then we have now...
It's either an insignificantly small number, or it's overwhelming and "militarizing the border". Which is it?
What I'm kinda liking about this decision is that the Dems aren't sure which way to go with it just yet. After all, they've been the ones clammoring for the last 3 years to "use the military to make us safe at home". So they can't denounce it on that angle (well, they *can*, but then they're forced into the situation of basically admitting that the previous 3 years rhetoric was just that: rhetoric). That leaves them with the "it's not enough" angle, which is just plain silly given the sparse numbers of Border Patrol in relation to border already. In the process of making that argument, they'll essentially have to emphasize the problems with border security, which also falls right in line with what Republican's want.
Kind of a bright move for Bush. I'm surprised he came up with it.