A few thoughts...
1. Why are their foreign countries in control of our ports PERIOD...
2. I thought this was a bad idea to have a arab nation running some ports, then I thought...United Arab Emirates is supposedly an ally. If we don't let them have this deal, we are saying we are completely racist and think all Arabs are terrorists.
I have argued many times that radical muslims are our biggest threat. However, how in the hell can the Democrats say this is a bad idea? If they do, they would be more hypocritical than ever before. They would be saying all Arabs can not be trusted. Are they not for tolerance? Are they not the champion of the minority? I guess not. The UAE is not a terrorist organization. When someone then says that 9-11 money came through there, the answer is that money came from the US to fund 9-11, so that argument is not valid.
I'm not sure I like the idea of Arabs running our ports, but I am not going to lie and say I trust a majority of them at all. Liberals, on the other hand, are better than that, aren't they? They love all people (except Republicans). The are not racist, they to not judge ANYONE.
If people like Hilary come out against this, it will show ONCE AGAIN, how Democrats say whatever they think is the most popular position of the day. If Dem's wanted to be consistent, they should be standing behind the President on this, and throwing out the race card against anyone who opposed to Arabs running the ports.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Bush Shrugs Off Objections to Port Deal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
1. The UAE doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist as a country.
2. The UAE is one of only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
I'm sure there are more reasons to not fall in love with the UAE, but I got the ball rolling...
Both Democrats and Republics oppose this. Why do you insist on making it bad that Democrats do but OK that Republics do? Must everything that Democrats and liberals do or say somehow be bad just to satisfy some inner need you have to bash them?
I myself don't know if this is a good thing of a bad thing. I'm waiting for more information. The best thing to come out of this is that Bush may finally learn what a VETO is.
Do you see my point Jim?
It is okay for an England company to run the ports, but not an Arab country.
Liberals always say that we need to work with Arabs, make them like us...
If they are against the Arabs running ports, aren't they supporting racism and Arab's hating us?
It's a legit point
Game, you might want to consider a few points. The ones whose objections count are the Republican on the Hill. Frist, Hastert and many other prominent republicans are not in favor of having the port deal crammed down their throats without oversight.
Its election year and they feel like they have been blindsided by the administration. What we are going to see is tough GOP internal battles.
Congressional republicans have supported Bush at the cost of ceding power, and that doesn't look good to the constituents back home.
This is going to be another Harriet Miers episode.
I didn't say there were Republicans against it...the Right is consistantly for keeping us safe.
The Left has not been. They didn't want us to go to war with Iraq because we would make Arab's mad at us and create more terrorists.
We were not supposed to go bomb them on all their relgious holidays because the Arabs might get mad.
Anytime Bush says or does anything that might upset the Left, they bitch...of course the point is that they have no core set of values, just political opportunism..
Game,
You are making no sense. Your assertions about the "left" are simply absurd.
Republics ARE against the port deal, almost all of them. If they bow to Bush, then they are, of course, flip-floppers. If Bush bows, then HE is a flip-flopper. Same goes for the Democrats.
Personally, I think this is a lot of knee jerk reaction from everybody. From what I've heard so far, I tend to agree with Bush's position on this. I'll repeat that for you. I tend to agree with Bush's position on this.
There are a lot of reasons why SOME on the "left" as well as some on the RIGHT did not want to go to war. The CIA and State Departments said before the war that it was likely that invading Iraq would be counterproductive in terms of the war on terrorism. Seems like just about everything they said, and that the administration ignored, has come true.
As for the bombing on holidays stuff, it's just too silly to respond to.
The Democratic party does indeed have core values. The assertion that they don't is simply a Republic talking point parroted by their blind followers.
What are the core values of the Republic party?
Game --
I don't support the administration on this. Even though the Democratic opposition is completely unprincipled and opportunist, it also happens to be correct.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Jason,
If the Democrats oppose the port deal for the same reasons as the Republics, why are the Dems unprincipled and the Republics righteous?
Another example of gratuitous Democrat bashing.
I suppose a Democrat wearing an American Flag lapel pin is hypocritical, unprincipled, and opportunistic, right?
"the Right is consistantly for keeping us safe"
Actually, the Right is consistantly for whatever multiplies power.
Jim --
"why are the Dems unprincipled and the Republics righteous?"
Review previous Democratic behavior on critical security issues relevant to the current war against Islamic supremacists.
Jason,
The Democrats are stronger on national security than the Republics or the administration. Unfortunately for the country, the Democrats are the minority and can not put their security policies into place. That leaves the nation to rely on an administration which consistently demonstrates its incompetence.
Prove me wrong!
Game, you make no sense on this one.
I think the big thing that is going to come out of this is how much of America has been sold off to other countries and other peoples to operate. It's quite sad....unless you are a corporate globalist.
The big reason the democrats are against this are the ports, east and west coast, are all union run. The rest of their arguments are bogus. Dems can't scream terrorism is an overblown issue then scream what about port security. It's all about union money. So many politicians went out on a limb on this issue before knowing the facts. I'm for the port deal.
Did you all know that communist China, specifically the People's Army of China owns a portion of the Long Beach port?
People need to get over themselves and take a few economics lessons.
"The Democrats are stronger on national security than the Republics or the administration." - Jim
Diet Coke just went flying out of my nose.
Jim --
During the 1930s and 40s, governments in the Middle East formed alliances with fascist governments. We denazified Europe, but never did the same elsewhere. As a result, great works like _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ can still be easily purchased on the streets of Cairo to Tehran.
Why else would they be so obsessed about the Jews? Think about it. People in Iran today even claiming Tom and Jerry cartoons are a Jewish Conspiracy. This is madness.
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1049
We have three choices when dealing with Islamists --
(1) Appease them.
(2) Reform them.
(3) Kill them.
The Bush strategy is a mixture of all three. The administration claims that Islam is a peaceful religion of peace, gives military support to Democrats and reformers in the Middle East, and kills the hardcore terrorist types.
In contrast, the Democratic strategy does not want to help change the Islamic world -- in fact, the Democrats want to pull out of Iraq and let the wackos take over. They also are opposed to killing extreme elements because that just makes the problem worse, Democrats tell me. This leaves the Democrats with only option #1 -- appeasement -- we'll just talk and talk and talk, ahem, I mean do "diplomacy" while the radicals go about their violent business against Muslim Democrats.
That's why their recent umbrage over the ports business is phony and unprincipled.
Jason,
Your history lesson is interesting, but so what?!
Your "In contrast" paragraph is nonsense! What Democrats are YOU talking to?
Democrats are all for promoting democracy throughout the Middle East and Islam, just not at the end of a gun or a cluster bomb. And not by sending over 2000 kids to their death or over $200 billion of our treasure to waste in a trumped up war.
Democrats don't want to pull out of Iraq and let the wackos take over anymore than Republics do. And don't kid yourself. Bush is trying to get troops out of Iraq as fast as possible. Even O'Lielly agrees.
To assert that Democrats don't want to kill the extremists is just bull crap. There is no suggestion by Democrats that we should "appease" the radical Islamists. None. Period.
So to say that Democratic opposition to the port deal is somehow less righteous than Republic opposition is also bull crap.
Jim--
We both agree that many Democrats believe they can defeat Islamofascism with talk. We disagree on the efficacy of this method.
It was wrong of me to generalize all Democrats -- there is a difference between the Dean-Murtha-Sharpton camp and the Clinton-Biden-Lieberman camp. Some are cool with al-Zarqawi running Iraq and Ahmadinejad having nuclear weapons. Others aren't.
Post a Comment