The cons panic as the Democrats (in spite of themselves) pull ahead of him on national security.
Even worse, as Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer and others introduce legislation focused on securing the ports – the White House isn’t budging.
Tough choice for the right: pile on your president, while undermining one of the key narratives of the GOP – or side with the president on an amazingly unpopular issue in an election year?
As Keanu would say: what do you do?
[...] DC area who just loves to latch onto anything he believes can hurt President Bush, posted Man Down! today. The cons panic as the Democrats (in spite of themselves) pull ahead of him on [...]
What would I do? I d write a post on this subject, and use the WordPress feature which allows me to set it to appear in later, like sixty days later. Thus, on April 25th, a posting referencing Mr. Willis gleeful attempt to make something out of nothing, will appear on this site, and we ll see then if anything like what our friends on the left think will happen will have happened.
Conservatism on security is basically become a joke at this point,how do you defend a company with the track record of U.A.E.? Oliver if the king told them it is snowing in July in Georgia,they would be standing around wondering where to put the snowman.
Shoot the hostage!
The White House isn’t budging because they believe they are doing the right thing. You might disagree (though, you have yet to articulate a sensible reason) with the White House’s decision to stay out of the foreign contract buisness, but an honest rendering would give Bush credit for having strong character. Something that, again, if you were honest, you would acknowledge has been one of his strongpoints all along.
Dugger
an honest rendering would give Bush credit for having strong character. Something that, again, if you were honest, you would acknowledge has been one of his strongpoints all along
On the contrary. One of Bush’s biggest weaknesses, shared by many of his most ardent supporters, is an inability to distinguish between strong character and foolish pigheadedness. Most Americans can tell the difference, which is why Bush’s numbers continue to drop.
Duggy, being stubborn is not necessarily a virtue. Especially, when one as been almost always wrong as AWOL George has been.
And the fact is many sensible reasons argue against this contract–yet, to date, I’ve not seen *any* argument as to why it’s a good idea other than AWOL George says it is.
Admittedly, my BushHate once again compels me to look up when Bush
says ‘look down’.
He has repeatedly, and recalicitrantly, renewed my trust in
his regurgitating recidivism.
First of all, thanks to our distinguished host, for both updating his starting thread message and for allowing my trackback to appear. Thanks also to Mr Willis for visiting my site.
Second, Jadegold wrote:
And what would they be, other than arguments that Arabs can’t be trusted?
Several of our ports have foreign management companies for cargo handling, far more than just the six that are part of the P & O to DPW sale; the Communist Chinese have a front company managing a major port in California, a transaction that occurred during the term of the previous president, yet neither Senator Schumer nor the then First Lady seemed to object.
These companies manage cargo handling. They are not in charge of security.
Perhaps it is your belief that only American companies could be trusted with the cargo management functions. That good Americans like Jonathan Pollard and Robert Hanssen languish in American prisons, after going through far more stringent security clearance checks than almost anyone else, tells you that Americans, too, can become traitors; the fact that John Walker Lindh left a comfortable middle-class home in California to join al Qaeda in Afghanistan tells us that being a good, white American doesn’t mean that you can’t be an Islamofascist terrorist.
Let’s say that somehow we block the sale, and P & O remains the contractor. Richard Reid, the (unsuccessful) show-bomber, was a British subject. The people who launched the terror attacks in London last fall were British subjects.
There is no perfect system, and, quite frankly, the opposition that I see in this case seems based more on the fact that Arabs are involved than anything else. Most people would call that profiling.
Dugger, stubbornness for its own sake is not an admirable trait. Anyone can be stubborn. It requires character to understand when not to act like a petulant, spoiled child when your decisions are questioned.
Dana;
We’re just profiling Bush.
Whether or not this is a viable transaction, this has become
polticized and over-blown to the exclusion of more important
stories currently happening.
Dana: One doesn’t disagree with JadeGold. You either agree with him, or you will be villified. When I spent 20 minutes “researching” this issue (all that was, at that time, required) I decided it was a perfectly good idea.
Suddenly, someone said to me, “You have to admit that, if this were Clinton’a idea, you would never have gone along with it.”
I don’t know how many people brought up the UAE’s pre – 9/11 behavior as justification for rejecting this deal.
Did Tony Blair (or hell, Queen Elizabeth) ever meet with Bin Laden? Has the British government’s allegiance to us – or ours to them – ever been in serious question? It is an insult to our closest ally to equate them with the UAE’s spotty record in the fight against terrorism.
Some of the participants resides in Britain, before they acted. Reid, the “shoe bomber,” was a British citizen.
Dan Rather met with bin Laden — I guess that eliminates American control of the ports.
And what would they be, other than arguments that Arabs can t be trusted?
To my mind, that’s a fallacious argument used by your bretheren, Dana.
The good arguments are:
1. If ‘9/11 changed everything’ why are we outsourcing the management of our ports to any foreign company–let alone a foreign government?
2. Whoever manages port security will be privy to the security procedures and processes of that port. Again, do we wish for our security planning WRT ports to be available to foreign companies/governments?
3. It appears, once again, this Dubai company has many crony links to this administration.
Dan Rather met with bin Laden
Attend with; “Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk”
And I’ll bet what really gets your goat, JadeGold, is # 3, right? Somebody’s making money, and it ain’t you. That’s what usually raises the average liberal’s blood pressure.