I have said from the very beginning of this blog that President Bush and his administration put corporate opportunity ahead of the security of this nation. No one believed me and called me a "liberal kook."
Well now it seems as plain as day that finally he has gone too far and people on the right and left are wondering what the hell he is doing. Newspapers, talk radio and all the major news networks are all scratching their heads and wondering what asylum would make President Bush most comfortable for the remainder of his presidency. To me, this is old news.
Time and again, I have shown the financial links between the Saudis (aka home to 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers) and the Bush family and how this is detrimental to our homeland security. Here again, we have another example of President Bush and pals' Middle Eastern business interests taking a front seat to the safety of our nation.
People have always asked me which of Bush's "pals" are making all this money. Well look no further than our own Treasury Secretary, John Snow (left). His office chairs the The Committee on Foreign Investment which reviewed this transaction and did not object. Why in the world did they not object to a country, which has harbored and assisted terrorism in the past, administering six of our nation's ports?
Because John Snow (left) happens to be good old buddies with DPW. He just happened to sell his old company, SXW Freight, to them for a hefty profit. Why not help them help themselves to our nation's ports, eh? Maybe, just maybe, some more greenbacks are headed his way....And yet, according to him, apparently I am a racist for questioning this deal and I must hate Muslims. But the fact is that it wouldn't matter what country it was if they had the same questionable history as the UAE. Let's take a look at the UAE (United Arab Emirates), shall we?
Two of the 9-11 hijackers had passports from the UAE. One of them had money funneled through the national bank there. The UAE was also an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, the father of the Islamic Bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
And, to top it all off, here is what the 9-11 commission report had to say on pgs. 137-138:"Early in 1999...Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf State. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates....On March 7, 1999 (Richard) Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin......The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem.
From 1999 through early 2001, the United States , and President Clinton personally, pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little before 9-11"
Well that's just great! Here's an idea! Let's put this country in charge of our ports, OK? Are you fucking kidding me? Has the President lost his mind?
He actually thinks that's it's all "hunky dory." He says that lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," he said. "I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One.Well, Mr President, it doesn't matter that they are from an Arab country. They could be Finnish for all I care but if they provided financial and logistical support to terrorists than they should NOT be put in charge of our ports. These people are known associates of bin Laden. What is the matter with you?
We all know that we are really, really weak on our nation's ports. The 9-11 Commission cited example after example of the poor security at many of these ports, especially New York. My God, can you imagine a country, that has turned a blind eye to Muslim extremism, being in charge of the port of New York City? And Newark? Let's just put a big sign on the Statue of Liberty with an arrow that says, "Please place Nuclear Weapon Here!"
Thank goodness, though, that this deal has the thumb up of Michael Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff told ABC's "This Week." I, for one, feel sooooo much better that the man who handled the Hurricane Katrina crisis so well has put his seal of approval on the deal.
And speaking of approval, isn't it odd that the normal 45 day waiting period for such a transaction was waived and the presidential panel greenlighted all matters related to the sale? Not so odd, apparently, because under a secretive agreement with the administration, DPW promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at the six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.And how about this one? In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil.
The U.S. government also chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
Excuse Me?
Folks, I am really at a loss on this one. I didn't think it was possible for Bush Co. to be this moronic. Not to mention how idiotic this is politically for him. He has just taken the one area of his presidency, National Security, that he has always polled strong on (Lord knows why) and flushed it down the toilet. He has made the Democrats look to the right of him which essentially hands them a huge mallet they can hit the Republicans over the head with for the next 2 years. Can anyone say President Hillary Clinton?
I am so shocked by this that the only thing that will make me MORE surprised is if DPW will actually assume control of these ports on Thursday of this week. Because of the outrage from the entire country on this issue, DPW has offered to delay assuming official control of each port.
DP World said it would not delay, however, its acquisition of Britain's P&O company, which now manages the ports. And that becomes official on Thursday so what does all this mean?
Hell, if I know. Maybe you can help me out.
26 comments:
Even wackier - the ports in question are not owned by an American company. Huh? It's a British company that owns them now - if memory serves. At least they're friendly country - right now. Perhaps we should re-examine which businesses should be allowed to be foreign owned. Big shipping ports? I think not.
Now I'm the first to admit that I don't know the first thing about an issue such as this. The actual implication of foreign ownership of port management means only so much to me as what I can glean from the different news sources. "Outrage" over alleged business favors and improprieties means nothing to me in a scenario such as this when, realistically, this isn't any different than business as usual around the world.
Based on what I've heard, read, and researched, I would add these comments, questions, and observations:
1) I think it's interesting that Senators (Domenici, Landrieu, Hagel,....) who supported legistlation in 2001 (S.472) that would have eliminated a ban on foreign ownership of nuclear power plants (established by the Atomic Energy Act in '54) are coming forward today questioning the deal to allow foreign ownership of port management. Ah, the convenience of obscurity.
2) In this era of "let's prevent somebody from parking a nuke in one of our ports", woulnd't the logical step be to completely eliminate any and all foreign ownership of port management? Let's eliminate the question of whether Brtis are more trustworthy than Arabs and.
3) Having said #2, are either Brits or Arabs any less trustworthy than Americans when it comes to something like this? Wouldn't we be at just as much risk from an American interest sympathetic to a radical cause as we would a foreign interest? Arguably, we'd be at a greater risk, since we're likely to grant an American interest more leeway and less oversight.
4) Perhaps, then, the real issue should be a focus on improved oversight and not on whose books manifests are written?
Like I said, I don't know much about the issue. I'm just trying to avoid approaching the discussion with my undies in a bunch like Harpy Clinton is wont to do.
I'll take the last part first. I think we can all agree that last week pretty much everyone in Congress had their undies in a bunch.
The most vocal, Peter King, Republican congressmen from New York who has said that he will do everything in his power to block this deal, was all over the talk shows last week screaming bloody murder....so the Hillary comment is really not the whole truth.
All foreign ownership of ports should be eliminated. No question about it. If a group of Americans were smart, they would form their own Port Company now and start buying. They could become a publically traded company and make a ton of money based on the outrage of people across this country. Think of all those investors...!
I too am left with what the press feeds me, and on the surface it seems dubious indeed. However, I am left wondering about other aspects of the deal not publically released. As usual, I am not ready to throw tomatos yet.
Currently, I would imagine that homeland security has been tasked with the inspection and search of cargo upon arrival to US ports. This cargo can and does origionate from thousands? of ports around the world. From the middle east, maybe hundreds? Is it possible that by working through UAE, we are better able to control delivery and inspection from the source as well? That is, all goods originating from the middle east would have to be funnelled through UAE and pass inspection there first, then monitored and tracked between UAE and US ports.
This also gives us the ability to position trained personell in the Middle East with deeper access to commerce intelligence that could include weapons, nuke stuff, whatever. Want to ship to the US? Gotta go through UAE.
I'm also thinking our ability to carry out searches could be more aggressive and effective than current US laws allow. Maybe it's a way to be more invasive with records, tracking and goods transfer.
Now, could the UAE be used to transfer bad stuff to our soil? Well now, that's the obvious concern. Are we worse off with this arrangement? Are we really safe now? Granted, according to some experts, UAE has been tied, to some degree, in middle east extremism. That the UAE has, or had ties with Bin Ladin seven years ago, or that we were urging them to press US will on the Taliban, or that money and hijackers passed through them seem like old news at this point. If anything, if the UAE are chummy with their extremist neighbors, then I say good; "Keep your friends close, and keep your enimies closer." Arab loyalty is a bit of an oxymoron; they can tell us stuff as well; and the bad guys are aware of this. Regardless, it seems to me, a ship steaming past the Statue of Liberty could pop a nuke and destroy the same amount of New York as a ship at dock being inspected.
Again, the fallicy here is to comment from the base opinion that Bush is an idiot. Why would the administration want to advertise a plan to place extensive oversight of shipping at the source, on middle east soil? Wouldn't this compromise the UAE? Yea, on the surface, again, we are getting just enough information to react to. But, in the interest of national security, the rest is on a need to know basis - I'm fine with that if that's the case. You can certainly attempt boil it all down to rich cronies sitting in luxury bomb shelters, but, that line of reasoning is getting a bit tired. It might be that, it's so stupid, that it's brilliant.
You mean I'm dealing in half-truths? That's unheard of on this blog.
So if Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, as American as you or I, steps forward with the $$$ to take ownership of this, you're all for it, right? Frankly, that prospect doesn't put me any more at ease than ownership by a company based in the UAE. I don't care if Sally Smith from Ottumwa, IA becomes owner....the primary concern, it would seem to me, should be regulation and oversight of what's going on.
Since it’s no fun when everyone agrees I’ll play devils advocate here. I have a few questions and observations of my own but don’t fret people – I think some other entity would be better off running the ports. I think Halliburton should run the ports and they could hire Harriet Miers to oversee operations.
Like PL, if you would have asked me early last week who ran our ports I would have probably said the New York Port Authority or even the Dept of Transportation. I really had no idea that a foreign company ran them. Like PL, I can't pretend that I have all the details on this either but since that has yet to hinder me from rendering an opinion. Boo-ya Cramer! Like PL said, the same Dubai company bought CSX's American port business in 2005, and nobody seemed to care then. So, why now? Oh yeah, it’s an election year.
So as things stand right now, we currently do not own any ports and these that they are talking about are owned by the Brits. This company that might take over the ports already runs most of the ports that are shipping shit here right now anyway.
Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money and I’d bet that the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.
Even the biggest Bush-hater shouldn’t think he's dumb enough to hand the ports over to people who are in bed with Al Qaeda. If people who are a touch smarter than him weren't telling him this is fine, he wouldn't be doing it. We are all in agreement here that all politicians are going to avoid doing something that would put their political career in jeopardy or something that would tarnish their precious legacy. You can fault this administration for many of its actions but in one area its success is undeniable: GWB has done what he can do to keep America safe. It is now close to four and a half years since 9/11 and, still, no attacks on U.S. soil.
As a country, should we go down this road of global ethnic profiling?
If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and seems a tad racist. Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of our lax and non-existant port security, (both entry and exits), the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers, and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.
I think the term “turning our ports over to the arabs” is a bit misleading. From what I have read, there is a bid by Dubai Ports World, based in the UAE, to buy the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which currently runs six U.S. ports, because the brits want out of the port business. If this Dubai company doesn’t get the deal some firm from Singapore probably will.
For 4.5 years, Republicans have chanted "trust the president" on national security and Democrats have said President Bush should use more Charmin with regards to his dealings with the Muslim world. Liberals lectured that equating "Muslim" or "Arab" and "terrorist" is not only bigoted but counterproductive, in that it will feed the "root causes" of terrorism. But suddenly, virtually all leading Republicans and Democrats now argue that Bush can't be trusted on national security, that our Arab ally the UAE (who the 9/11 commission report said has been a good ally in the war on terror) should go suck eggs and that racial profiling of foreign firms is just fine.
I’ve noticed many people responding to this by insisting that the UAE is a bad country full of bad Muslims and Arabs. Is Britain a country where everyone likes us? You might have noticed that Britain has their share of jihad nut bags, such as the guys who blew up the Underground and even more who want to behead the Danish cartoonists.
So for now, even though the Bush PR machine has done a terrible job with regards to this issue, I am falling on the side that the sky isn’t falling.
What page does the 9-11 Commission state that the UAE has been a good ally in the War on Terror?
From what I have read, they seem to have sided more often with Al Qaeda. They were one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban for crying out loud.
I don’t know what page it is on, it was a blurb on the screen on some story on MSNBC I was watching last week. I watched Colin Powell on Leno last night and after saying how bad the white house bungled the Cheney shooting incident, he was asked about the ports deal. He said something very similar to this – “If people in Washington DC would just quit yelling at each other and wait for all the facts to come out we could address the concerns of this country much more effectively. The security as well as the daily operations would still be handled by us so nothing changes in those respects. Also, don’t forget that Dubai is our friend”.
Dems will need more than this for Hillary to be propelled into the white house. In 1997, when Hillary was serving as co-president, the Saudi owned shipping company National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA) began service between North America and Italy, Greece and Turkey and they still run 9 ports here in the US to this day. I realize this was before 9/11 though.
The issue I’m currently looking for answers to is...Does the corporate ownership of the company that controls a port terminal have any security implications? In the last few days it’s been proven that the terminal operator isn't responsible for security; the Coast Guard, Customs Department and Department of Homeland Security are. So far, it doesn’t look like this change in corporate ownership will have any impact on the people working in the various port facilities.
I was checking out the Chicago Tribune and the chief operating officer of the Port of New Orleans, said: "People working on our docks for P&O [the British company that was acquired by DP World] were the same as those working for TTO [Transocean Terminal Operators] and will be the same for the next company. They are all Americans. With respect to security, ownership by a Dubai company is not really a relevant issue. I have been involved in international insurance for nearly 30 yrs. now. Folks I know in shipping, in transportation, in international logistics all know that whichever company controls the port leases makes no difference. Port security is the responsibility of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and the Coast Guard. Labor is ILA (International Longshoreman's Assn). Is security good? Not particularly, but changing the lease holders won't have any effect on security. The holes that are there today will still be there. Moreover, there are plenty of foreign companies on our ports since there is virtually no US shipping anymore.”
Maybe someone with real expertise in port management has offered a contrary view, but I haven't seen it or heard it. It seems increasingly clear to me that this is just one more in a long series of news stories where decibel level far exceeds the actual substance.
I know all the dock workers will still be Americans. No problem here.
My biggest concern is that a company as rich and powerful as DPW owning and operatiing our ports makes it easier for them to say....shuffle a few papers around and before you know it we have a few personnel and weapons in this country that aren't supposed to be here.
The same would be true of ANY foreign government owning terminals on our ports. They should all be run by American companies.
BTW, I just heard that Bush's approval rating is at 32 percent in some polls.
BTW, Harry Truman's approval rating reached 25% in March, 1952. So GWB must be doing something right to compare so favorably to "the buck stops here" HST.
According to FDR's measure:
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.
with how eagerly and shamelessly some of the "leaders" of this country line up to oppose GWB at every turn, I don't think things are as bleak for GWB and the Republicans as you might want them to be.
No, I think the DPW deal needs to go ahead as planned. To arbitrarily choose this situation as one where we need to "Americanize" the process will do more harm than good. This is the perfect opportunity, however, for our government to take the initiative to improve port operations, security, and oversight. That, to me, will be the true measure of leadership coming out of this issue.
I think things are bleak for GW and the Republicans. And it's not just because of the DPW thing. And it's also not entirely their fault.
The Democrats have let opportunity after oportunity slip through their fingers in the last 8 months or so. In some ways, they frustrate me MORE than the Republicans because they could be so good....Obi Wan like to the Darth Vaders that are currently running the Right...but their leadership is filled with losers. They need more Barak Obama and Paul Hackett and less Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy.
The Republicans have gotten their hands too dirty in the last year. The people know it and will make them pay in November. Same thing happened with the Democrats in 1994.
The Republicans are also perceived now as the party that doesn't care about regular people...with all the scandals, Katrina, and now this DPW thing. That is not a good thing.
I know I don't care about regular people, so I fit right in!
I think HMHC has proven to be quite prophetic with a statement he made a couple months ago. The best thing that the Republicans have going for them right now is the fact that the Democrats keep opening their mouths and some of the dumbest stuff comes rolling out. Not a resounding endorsement of the qualities of the Republican party, but it does go a long way toward explaining why the Republicans aren't totally in retreat right now after all the negative press they've gotten. Republicans will undoubtedly lose seats this Fall, but I don't think it's gonna be a slaughter, given the fact that the other side of the equation isn't doing much to win people over.
I predict the House and the Senate going back to the Dems in 2006 with Hillary winning the White House in 2008. I think people are actually that pissed off and I think it's only going to get worse. I say this with the belief that many right leaning people will stay home both in 06 and 08 and that usually means Dem victory.
There seems to be an almost weekly problem now with either the White House or Congress. Speaking of bad approval ratings, Congress is around 20 percent right now! They always are, though.
Anyway, I think it will get worse...much worse for GW and Republicans running for re-election. There are so many rotten things they have been doing in the last five years that sooner or later, I knew, it would all catch up to them.
Of course, when the Dems do take it all back they will begin to do their usual bullshit, not take the bull by the horns (i.e. make this country a better place), and be a bunch of wussies about everything. They really need a leadership change.
Perceived now? When have they ever been perceived as the people that care about regular people? First, nobody has ever defined "regular people" to me. What's the salary cutoff on that definition? How much do I have to make before I'm considered an "irregular" person? Second, I could care less if some politician "cares" about me, I want them to get out of my way more than anything.
I'm sure the dems will win sooner or later, the pendulum swings back and forth all the time anyway. Will it be this year, who knows because all politics is local. I predict that even modest gains by the dems will be hailed as an "absolute slaughter".
Seems to me that the "weekly problems" exist in the media and in the move-on.org crowd (who aren't that great in number, they're just really loud). The fact is that 90% of the country viewed the Cheney hunting situation as an accident and nothing more. Also, a majority of the people in this country are on the side of GWB when it comes to the NSA spying deal and I'd be willing to bet that a majority in this country don't care a whole lot if our soldiers rough up some of our enemies that were captured on the battlefield.
The last paragraph perfectly illustrates everything that is currently wrong with this country.
I think if this president were a Democrat they would be impeached and in prison right now. I mean, seriously, Crab, think about it. Bill Clinton lied about having sex with someone and was impeached for cyring out loud.
George Bush and all the people behind him have lied about WMDs in Iraq, illegally disclosed the name of a CIA agent, authorized illegal wiretaps, covered up a drunken Vice President's gun antics, given billions of taxpayer dollars to corporations for...what exactly?, and completely failed in responding to a national disaster with regards to Hurrican Katrina. And that is just a short list.
If President Gore or President Kerry had acted in the same way, they would be on their way out of office. But the fact is that Bush Co. is believed by many people, including yourself, to be a victim of the "media and the move-on.org crowd." What a crock of completely steamy shit!
What that means is that the current administration can pretty much break any law they want to now....with you and others like you crying "political leftist" spin everytime anyone or anything is critical. It's actually hideously ingenous when you think about it.
I actually think that it's pretty sad how reality can be twisted these days in this country. While 90 percent believe that the Cheney Hunting gig was an accident, those same 90 percent believe he is too secretive and the whole truth was not told.
And as far as the wiretaps thing goes, here are the poll answers to the following question
"After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary in order to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of the President doing this?"
ALL adults 51(Approve)
47(Disapprove)
2 (Unsure)
Republicans 83 16 1
Democrats 33 63 4
Independents 42 57 1
So it all looks down the middle as usual...
Whatever your politically leaning is how one now perceives facts. If a Democratic president did these things, I would join in agreeing that he or she should be impeached. As it stands, I guess I am crying "partisan politics" and therefore all of the above mentioned transgressions should be ignored completely.
What a joke.
The subject is irrelevant – you are found to have lied to a grand jury about any subject, you get busted for it. It was about sex because some “trailer park trash” (I’m using the words of James Carville there, obviously talking about one of those “regular people” that the dems claim they care so much about) sued him for harassment. At least for this republican, it was not the sex itself - it was a flat out lying under oath to a grand jury about it and having Betty Currie hide evidence.
Lied about WMD’s? “Not found” does not mean “they were never there”. I won’t bother posting the quotes from Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Albright, and Kerry from the late 90’s where they talked about Saddams WMD’s.
Note that if the NSA program were terminated, as some have demanded, we would be right back where we were before September 11, with phone calls from terrorists into the U.S. going unheard. As you know, we have already discussed the legal issues surrounding the NSA program on this blog. At least five federal appellate decisions stand for the proposition that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. This means that the NSA program is legal.
Drunken? (half truths anyone?) Covered up? (translation – he didn’t call the white house press corp within 4 minutes of the incident, he told some lowly Texas sheriff and some lowly Texas newspaper)
At least we get a return on our investment in corporations. Corporations provide jobs.
We’ve already discussed the complete failure of the local government with regards to Katrina.
I never said Bush is a “victim” of anything. I said the press doesn’t really like him and they, along with moveon.org, will complain about anything GWB does and that they are really loud. To say that those groups don’t do their fair share of “spinning” would be considered a bigger crock.
I’m glad you posted that poll because it ties in to the whole port deal. The dem leadership have been soooo concerned about “security” up to now (you know, railing against the Patriot Act, railing against no fly lists, railing against racial profiling, demanding more Abu Gharab photos be released, demanding pictures of our dead soldiers be put on TV for political gain(that one is from this blog), railing against any kind of border regulation, railing against domestic wiretapping of suspected terrorists, the New York Times telling the world about our NSA program in the first place) that they now want us to believe they are hawks on security when it comes to our ports? Nice try.
Did you know that an airline owned and operated by the government of the UAE flies into and out of JFK airport 2 times a day and has done so for years?
Yeah, but the UAE doesn't own the terminal that it flies in and out of...
It's true, the current Dem leadership are or act weak on defenese. They need to stop doing that if they want to win elections.
Although I think putting corporate opportunity ahead of national security is just as bad.
The press has turned a blind eye to many of the shennanigans that Bush Co has been up to....they don't want to be accused of being liberal and all you know....and so their lack of effectual reporting emboldens the right to do whatever they want.
Your Katrina comment-spin to deflect criticism..
Your Corporate comment-spin to protect business..
Cheney hunting incident-he didn't contact anyone or see anyone because he needed to sober up.
NSA wiretaps-spin to create fearmongering so people will give up more freedom...
WMDs-They knew in advance they weren't there so the pretext for war was a lie. Saddam did have WMDS a while ago...those were the ones WE sold him in the 80s and then we destroyed them in Gulf War I.
Perjury is a federal crime. When Clinton did it, it was bad. When Scooter Libby did it, not so bad.
Yeah, Clinton got in trouble because of his dick. Don't you think that getting in trouble the way Bush is is much worse? How does the Clinton-Lewinksi thing even compare to all of the shit going on now?
Yeah but it's American security at both terminals.
I could say the same thing about your Katrina comment. There were procedures on the books and they were not followed. The superdome was supposed to be used as a last resort - it was used as a first resort. City officials were supposed to use buses to bus the poor out of town. The buses just sat there. I'm deflecting away from GWB while you are deflecting away from the New Orleans local officials. Oh well.
How is saying "corporations provide jobs" spin? Maybe you would be happier living in a country that has no corporations? Dems complain, complain and complain about corporations then when corporations say "fuck you we're moving offshore" after being regulated, sued and taxed to death Dems complain even more. How is any corporation supposed to satisfy you guys?
Please provide a credible news source that says Cheney was "drunk". 1 beer doesn't count. What were you saying earlier about a "comment not being the whole truth"? Looks like the same would apply to you.
No, I posted FACTS about the NSA program being legal that countered your statements. Go ahead, bring up FISA, my guns are loaded on that one too...
Why did Kerry (the man who you said should be president) tell us in 1998 that Saddam had WMD's if they were all destroyed in Gulf war 1? Kerry was the author of legislation that authorized Clinton to use military force against Saddam in 1998. So who is lying here - you or Kerry?
Where did I say what Scooter Libby did was "not so bad"?
I gotta admit Markadelphia that I'm truly coming to admire your position on the GWB administration. Not because I believe any of it is actually true, mind you, but because of the sincerity with which you and so many others stand behind your position.
You hold these truths to be self-evident:
** The press today is afraid of being labeled liberal.
** The federal government is responsible for the failed response in New Orleans.
** GWB and his administration act first out of loyalty to their buddies and themselves, secondly (if at all) out of consideration for the people of this country.
** Dick Cheney was shit-faced when the shooting accident happened.
** GWB and his administration have an agenda that includes the removal of as many personal freedoms as possible.
** The basis for the Iraq War was known to be incorrect.
It doesn't matter how much "evidence" others may put forth to directly refute these contentions....just call it "spin" and move on. I love it. PL used to try to argue against it. Neoconprog has come to admire it for its simplicity and, frankly, effectiveness. When blunted enough, measures of "fact" and "truth" can never hurt you.
One thing I can't reconcile, though. Maybe you can help. Or maybe I should just forget about it and move on(.org). If They knew in advance they weren't there, then why send in a bunch of troops whose well-publicized purpose was to find WMDs? Surely GWB can't be so dumb as to let play out on TV in front of everyone the exposure of the known truth that there never were WMDs?
Forget it. I'm not going to get hung up on details. They only cloud the issues. From now on, I'm thinking I should take stands on what my gut tells me. My gut, and the rabid liberal blogs, that is.
He also thinks that Red River is a better John Wayne movie than Rooster Cogburn. That right there is beyond the limits of good taste.
Good taste? The man won't acknowledge that the Simpsons is the funniest tv show ever. Right there I should have recognized that there were judgment issues...
Let me know when you want to hit the track, Markadelphia.
Crab, neither you or I are constitutional legal scholars. So, in the final analysis, you and I can argue until we are blue in the face about whether or not the wiretaps are legal. In the end, I hope, people far more knowledgeable than you or I will decide.
The sad fact is that I want those people to at least look into this and question the legality of it. You have already sad you don't care and I think that is pretty sad coming from a conservative who should be in Big Government's face. Some conservatives are upset and I admire them for it...
If you really want me to post a bunch of legal precedents as to why it could be illegal, fine. But I am trying to look at the broader picture here.
And speaking of the broader picture....Neoconprog, I consider myself to be a patriot because I constantly question my government...whether it is Clinton or Bush. Someone who goes along with everything that comes out of the White House...especially these days....well, I hope you are happy and content eating grass with the rest of the cattle.
My point about facts is that anyone can spin them to look however they want. Take for example this new video that came out today that shows President Bush saying we are ready for Katrina. You see a liberal plot to discredit the President. I see the beginning of collosal failure.
Do I think local officials hold repsonsibility for Katrina? Of course. They share the blame. But why is it always the neoconprogs of the world that focus on that and not George Bush playing a guitar at a party while people were dying. What if John Kerry was playing that guitar instead? Would it be OK to blame the federal government then?
I am perfectly capable of criticizing Democrats. I have several times on this blog. The question is can you do the same for the conservatives?
The answer to your question about Irag is plausible deniability. Bush Co can very easily play the blame game with the CIA and bureacracy. That satisfies people like you who don't need explanations as to why our brave men and women in the armed forces are in Iraq.
I guess I am beginning to believe that the worse it is over there the better it is for Bush Co. Civil War? More needless troop deaths? Who cares? It just gives them a good talking point for the need for American troops to maintain order.
I would still like to know WHY we are there. I mean, I am just going off of what the Bush administration told me. First, it was WMDs. There weren't any there. Then is was fight Al Qaeda there so we don't have to fight them here. OK, but, according to Donald Rumsfeld, bin Laden and Hussein hated each other.
So, why are we there again?
It's funny that you mention the Simpsons...which I like very much btw....I have the first 7 seasons on DVD y'know..
I heard on the radio this morning that only 1 in 5 Americans can name more than one of their rights according to the Bill of Rights. 4 out of 5 Americans can name more than one character on The Simpsons.
Wow. The intelligence level in this country is really at an all time high, isn't it?
Hey, no need to get defensive. I'm on your side. My appreciation of your stance is genuine. I've come to realize the best way to prevent people from advancing agendas that don't align with whatever I deem to be the common good at this point in time is to be sure to dig beneath the surface of their actions to identify, right or wrong, their motives.
Examples from today's news:
Two former staff members have accused John Conyers, Dem. from Michigan, of ethics violations. Now you and I both know that those former staffers are being coerced by some element of the neocons as retaliation for the ethics violations leveled against prominent Republicans. I only hope the Democratic leaders can show some backbone and stand tall against what are obviously politically-motivated allegations.
President Bush signed a deal with India to provide nuclear knowledge and material to India in exchange for India opening up their civilian nuclear program to inspections. Doesn't sound unreasonable, but clearly GWB is using this to setup Iran and North Korea for invasion, further expanding the Bush empire and earning even more money for his military contractor buddies. His "make the world safer" rhetoric is a bunch of BS....it's more like "make me and my buddies richer".
Terrorists detonated bombs in Pakistan that killed a US diplomat a couple days ahead of a visit from GWB. I'm going on record right now as saying that the GWB administration had knowledge of this attack and did nothing to stop it. Why wouldn't they stop it? Two reasons - to perpetuate the notion that the battle against terrorism is on-going. Without a bombing or two that kills an American from time to time, the public loses interest. (The media has stopped really paying attention to daily bombings in Iraq that kill our soldiers, so more dramatic events are needed.) The second reason is that it helps GWB portray himself as a hands-on President, even in the face of imminent danger. (Notice the "...they'll never prevent me from going to Pakistan" statement he released today.) This sort of hands-on approach is sorely needed after the recent string of failures, back to and including hurricane Katrina. Once again, GWB shows that human life is nothing when measured against political gain. What a disgrace.
Glad I was able to get that off my chest. My blood is burning just typing it....
Wow. That's some powerful stuff. I didn't think you felt that way.
And speaking of more people who I didn't think could feel differently....I just heard Laura IngraHam say this morning the following....
More and more people are working for the same amount of money or less than they did five years ago and if the Republicans don't wake up, they are going to pay....
I think that trip to Iraq changed her...so now that mission is done.
Now all we have left to change is Frank Burns reincarnated.....Sean Hannity
PL doesn't feel that way, Neoconprog does!
Post a Comment