I think it is a little more than that as there is no real way it could logically have protected us from anything. None of the attackers came form Iraq. None were supported by Iraqi money. None were even from Afghanistan for that matter and they got no financial support from that country either. It's hard to argue you can beat Tarzan by attacking Jane.
And most those capture, especially in Iraq, had nothing to do with those who attacked us. They were Iraqis using the name. Kind of like saying girl scouts calling themselves the New Orleans Saints and you thinking you beat the world champions when you and your friends beat them in a football game.
And frankly, people knew this going in, and stated so. That's called foresight and not hindsight.
It solves a good part of the problem. The illegal problem will have to be addressed with something else. But saying fixing one thing means nothing is fixed is kind of silly, not to mention false.
The nation has been divided for some time. Bush took us to new levels of division long before Obama, and Bush even worked hard to foster that divide.
There is always a possibility of being wrong. You may be wrong. But that possibility doesn't mean we do noting. Nothing done can't be modified later. So, being wrong is hardly the end of the world. But doing nothing is irresponsible as we know the problem will continue to grow.
How does this POS legislation solve part of the problem when there aren't enough doctors or hospitals to handle the demand now without an additional 30 million on the roles?
How does this POS legislation lower costs of healthcare by increasing the number by 30 million. That is illogical and absolutely wrong.
How many of the people using the ER's are illegal? You say that is a problem that has to be addressed but hasn't been. So what you are going to do is add another 30 million to the healthcare roles but not address the shortage of doctors and hospitals nor the illegal immigrant problem. That makes the problem worse.
Here is what our founders thought of the commerce clause but that liberals ignore
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon the limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
