9/11 Families Ask Bush to Withdraw Myers

[-Cp]

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/09/22/FSA.htm

The members of 9/11 Families for a Secure America are appalled by President Bush's nomination of Julie Myers to head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Ms Myers is completely unqualified to lead the agency that is supposed to keep illegal aliens and the unknown terrorists among them from entering the United States.
With this nomination Mr. Bush continues his record of appointing unqualified individuals to positions of importance in America's immigration bureaucracy.

The purpose of our immigration laws is to prevent dangerous aliens from entering our country. Failure of our government to enforce immigration laws played a large role in permitting 19 Arab terrorists to murder our loved ones on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks should have enlightened Mr. Bush on the need to staff our immigration agency only with people who have demonstrated the ability and willingness to enforce immigration law.

If President Bush is serious about securing our borders and keeping the American people safe from terrorists, 911 Families for a Secure America has the perfect candidate, a person of absolute integrity with three decades of experience in immigration law enforcement. His knowledge is recognized by Members of Congress, who have often invited him to testify before congressional hearings. He has also written many articles on the issues of secure borders and secure identity documents.

Mr. Cutler spent thirty years with ICE's predecessor agency, the INS, retiring as Senior Special Agent. In that capacity he worked with members of other law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Customs and local and state police as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries including Israel, Canada, Great Britain and Japan. He conducted investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations which ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets as well as their arrest and successful prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.

9/11 FSA calls on President Bush to fulfill the promise he made on the ruins of the World Trade Center when he said: "I hear you." Hear us now and appoint someone who is truly competent to lead ICE and help prevent more 9/11 terrorism.

Contact 9/11 Families for a Secure America at their website:

http://www.911fsa.org/info/comments.html

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Ms Myers may be unqualified to head the ICE, but what does she know about Arabian show horses? Hmmm?

 

[ProudDem]

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/09/22/FSA.htm

The members of 9/11 Families for a Secure America are appalled by President Bush's nomination of Julie Myers to head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Ms Myers is completely unqualified to lead the agency that is supposed to keep illegal aliens and the unknown terrorists among them from entering the United States.
With this nomination Mr. Bush continues his record of appointing unqualified individuals to positions of importance in America's immigration bureaucracy.

The purpose of our immigration laws is to prevent dangerous aliens from entering our country. Failure of our government to enforce immigration laws played a large role in permitting 19 Arab terrorists to murder our loved ones on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks should have enlightened Mr. Bush on the need to staff our immigration agency only with people who have demonstrated the ability and willingness to enforce immigration law.

If President Bush is serious about securing our borders and keeping the American people safe from terrorists, 911 Families for a Secure America has the perfect candidate, a person of absolute integrity with three decades of experience in immigration law enforcement. His knowledge is recognized by Members of Congress, who have often invited him to testify before congressional hearings. He has also written many articles on the issues of secure borders and secure identity documents.

Mr. Cutler spent thirty years with ICE's predecessor agency, the INS, retiring as Senior Special Agent. In that capacity he worked with members of other law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA, ATF, U.S. Customs and local and state police as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries including Israel, Canada, Great Britain and Japan. He conducted investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations which ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets as well as their arrest and successful prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.

9/11 FSA calls on President Bush to fulfill the promise he made on the ruins of the World Trade Center when he said: "I hear you." Hear us now and appoint someone who is truly competent to lead ICE and help prevent more 9/11 terrorism.

Contact 9/11 Families for a Secure America at their website:

http://www.911fsa.org/info/comments.html

This woman has been nominated not because of her experience but because of her connections. It's so disappointing to see how little Bush cares about having a well-run agency by someone with experience. Somehow I doubt Bush will remove her name, but I am hoping that the Senate does not confirm her. Thank goodness we had the mishap with FEMA, because I believe that this will cause some republicans to NOT support her.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It's too bad that article gave no examples as to why she would be a bad choice. Why can't I get an arguement with a couple supporting details these days?

 

[archangel]

Not a good move on GW's part...her qualifications were sparse...no long term law enforcement experience...she bounced around from office to office...moving up the Federal levels...a little Daddy influence here...not good!

 

[ProudDem]

It's too bad that article gave no examples as to why she would be a bad choice. Why can't I get an arguement with a couple supporting details these days?

That was surprising because I think her lack of experience speaks for itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901930.html

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That was surprising because I think her lack of experience speaks for itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901930.html

You're right, it does, and this article explains that. The other article just said "we don't support her because she has no experience." It did nothing to prove that. In fact, it really said little about her at all, the second paragraph was flowery language and the rest was there recommendation.

Anyhow, thanks for the link, very informative.

 

[Avatar4321]

That was surprising because I think her lack of experience speaks for itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901930.html

There is a saying that someone who thinks something speaks for itself, really has no clue what they are arguing for.

I too am curious about what it is that makes her a bad choice? I mean President Bush chooses Chief Justice Roberts and people complain because his resume is too perfect, the President chooses Ms. Meyers and people say the opposite. Is there any choice the President can make that isnt going to involve people complaining?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There is a saying that someone who thinks something speaks for itself, really has no clue what they are arguing for.

I too am curious about what it is that makes her a bad choice? I mean President Bush chooses Chief Justice Roberts and people complain because his resume is too perfect, the President chooses Ms. Meyers and people say the opposite. Is there any choice the President can make that isnt going to involve people complaining?

I would respond in kind to you, is there any choice the president makes you won't support? The difference between mindsets is very minor. One supports across the board, one does not.

 

[ProudDem]

There is a saying that someone who thinks something speaks for itself, really has no clue what they are arguing for.

I too am curious about what it is that makes her a bad choice? I mean President Bush chooses Chief Justice Roberts and people complain because his resume is too perfect, the President chooses Ms. Meyers and people say the opposite. Is there any choice the President can make that isnt going to involve people complaining?

People will usually find something wrong with a nominee. I believe that Roberts will pass in the senate with....hmmmm, at least 80 voets. Anyway, back to Myers, why not ask me what it is about her experience that makes me think she is unqualified? Instead, you say I have no "clue" what I am arguing for. Riiiiiiiiight.

This isn't some po-dunk agency. This deals with our national security. You think someone who has been a prosecutor for 2 years and has had multiple jobs over a four-year period--none of them in enforcment--has good qualifications? Her "brief" job as chief of staff to Michael Chertoff when he led the Justice Department's criminal division ain't enough. May she get the thumbs down.

 

[ProudDem]

I would respond in kind to you, is there any choice the president makes you won't support? The difference between mindsets is very minor. One supports across the board, one does not.

Hi Taurus. I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would respond in kind to you, is there any choice the president makes you won't support? The difference between mindsets is very minor. One supports across the board, one does not.

I trust the President. Is there any reason I shouldn't? It is the President's responsiblity to appoint people he thinks is qualified for the position. And until someone provides reasons why such a person is unqualfied, which none of you have yet to do, why the heck should I think the person is unqualified?

And quite honestly, I dont think a resume is necessarily the best way to judge what a person can do. It's a great way to see what they have done. But when you get to the interview stage and can talk to the person face to face, watch them in action, and get to know their character, you are in alot better position to determine whether someone is qualified then by looking at what they did in the past.

I know I've had periods of time where i had lack of experience on my resume, not because I was unqualified, but because I was never given an opportunity to show that I was.

 

[ProudDem]

I trust the President. Is there any reason I shouldn't? It is the President's responsiblity to appoint people he thinks is qualified for the position. And until someone provides reasons why such a person is unqualfied, which none of you have yet to do, why the heck should I think the person is unqualified?

And quite honestly, I dont think a resume is necessarily the best way to judge what a person can do. It's a great way to see what they have done. But when you get to the interview stage and can talk to the person face to face, watch them in action, and get to know their character, you are in alot better position to determine whether someone is qualified then by looking at what they did in the past.

I know I've had periods of time where i had lack of experience on my resume, not because I was unqualified, but because I was never given an opportunity to show that I was.

I agree with you, Avatar. But we're not talking about an insignificant agency. I don't believe that she should be given this opportunity with this job. Let it be a job that doesn't involve national security. Let's not forget that Bush did not want Homeland Security. Yeah, he subsequently agreed to it, but that's because he saw how many people supported it. Anyway, I don't think that 6 years worth of job experience is enough for anyone to run this agency.

Has there been ONE nominee during Bush's presidency with which you have not agreed?

 

[no1tovote4]

We can only hope he will listen and withdrawl such a candidate as this. Shoot, didn't he learn anything from Mr. Brown?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I trust the President. Is there any reason I shouldn't? It is the President's responsiblity to appoint people he thinks is qualified for the position. And until someone provides reasons why such a person is unqualfied, which none of you have yet to do, why the heck should I think the person is unqualified?

And quite honestly, I dont think a resume is necessarily the best way to judge what a person can do. It's a great way to see what they have done. But when you get to the interview stage and can talk to the person face to face, watch them in action, and get to know their character, you are in alot better position to determine whether someone is qualified then by looking at what they did in the past.

I know I've had periods of time where i had lack of experience on my resume, not because I was unqualified, but because I was never given an opportunity to show that I was.

Fair enough, I suppose, but the President already made a mistake appointing Michael Brown to FEMA, which to me would be enough of a reason to not trust his choices based on a personal interview. I suppose if you think Brown was a good choice, then I could understand your continued trust with this nomination.

For me, Brown was a failure, and the President's reputation takes a hit for picking him. Congress' reputation takes an equal hit for confirming him. Because of this though, it just doesn't make sense, to me, to continue appointing people with no real management experience.

Lastly, there are plenty of opportunites to show your qualifications before you get a white house post in charge of our border... but that's just my thought.

On the other hand, I like the John Roberts nomination. The man is clearly very intelligent and not an idealogue, again in my opinion.

We think that the person is unqualified because she has no realy history. I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable putting a giant question mark in that position, not after FEMA.

 

[dilloduck]

Bush has made some good choices and some bad choices--no different than any other president in the history of our country.

 

[ProudDem]

Bush has made some good choices and some bad choices--no different than any other president in the history of our country.

Dillo, I am dying to hear about the "bad choices." Tell me more.....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Haha! I'm dying to hear what the "good" choices were!