Democrats & Liberals Archives

Rove: Security Focus of Campaigns

Republican master manipulator and finagler Karl Rove defiantly stated that security will be the focus of this year’s Congressional campaigns. I guess he was trying to scare Democrats. Shortly thereafter, his boss, George W. Bush, who was probably not paying attention, demonstrated with his stubborn reaction to the port controversy that though he had spent almost 5 years trying to scare us with “war on terror” talk, security of America was not his primary concern. Of even greater concern to him was global trade. Democrats welcome Rove’s challenge. Unlike Republicans, Democrats place homeland security first.

The Republican instigator made this ridiculous statement:

"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

I'm glad to hear that I am not unpatriotic - thanks a lot. But we "have a pre-9/11 view of the world"? Again he is telling us that Democrats are so far behind in their thinking they cannot be trusted to keep America safe.

And the Republicans with Bush as their head can?

Was it not Bush and the Republicans that dragged us into an unnecessary Iraq War that is now exploding into a civil war and producing terrorists at a rapid rate?

Was it not Bush and the Republicans that reduced our civil rights and secretly wiretapped Americans in order to locate terrorists? Where are they? Where is Osama bin Laden?

Was it not Bush and the Republicans who worried us with "mushroom clouds," "imminent threats," changes in threat color codes, dire warnings about the next attack every chance they got?

Now, suddenly, Bush and the Republicans (not all) are changing their line? Now they tell us there's nothing to worry about. As Bush said:

"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America."

In other words, "Trust me." Trusting him is what led America into the mess we are in today.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff put the matter more candidly:

"We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system."

We finally got a Republican to admit that a "robust global trading system" is close in importance to homeland security! We must balance one against the other. I always knew that Big Business was important to Republicans. But that business competes with security?

When you read something like this, it makes you wonder:

"As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about 'foreign operational direction' of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

"The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."

Do we really trust these guys? Why don't they need to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil? This is unbelievable. And Bush calls this homeland security?

Yes, it's true that many Republicans are against Bush on this. But not really. Frist and Hastert want to have a review and slow things down. Democrats, however, are fighting for change. Democrats are fighting for improved homeland security. Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Robert Menendez are introducing legislation to halt the ports sale.

Who's afraid of Karl Rove? Republicans are the ones with a pre-911 mentality. Democrats have a post-911 mentality. While Republicans are making tradeoffs between business and security, Democrats are fighting for security where it counts - homeland security.

Karl Rove makes me think that Democrats are going to win big this year!

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 23, 2006 6:43 PM
Comments
Comment #128948

How ironic that their platform of fear mongering has turned around to disrupt their business plans. tsk tsk
Perhaps the dems can win in Nov. in spite of themselves.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 23, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #128961

You reap what you sow. I think it’s hysterical that all the fear mongering has come home to roost on this administration.

Posted by: Taylor at February 23, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #128962

Paul Siegel, master manipulator and finagler Karl Rove
I love alliteration, maybe Bushs Brains is bamboozled, big billions in business being broadly behind his brainless unbalanced boss.

I am reading Susan Estrichs, The Case For
Hilary Clinton
. I am starting to think of red state conservative Evan Bayh as our next candidate, but they do not think he can get past Iowa, so he may have to skip it. I certainly do not understand why Indiana and Iowa are so opposite politically.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 23, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #128966

We will lose this one. Xenophobia will win out.

UAE used to recognize the Taliban, I heard. Back then, Clinton sold them $8 billion worth of F-16s, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, other advanced weapons. (BTW - I was not against that. I am just pointing out inconsistency)

I guess actually recognizing is worse than used to recognize.

And of course, Republicans had to stop Clinton from selling U.S. Naval Station in Long Beach to a subsidiary of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Maybe being part of a government is not the same as being owned by one.

I posted an article on the other side among my think tanks that has some details of Port transaction, if anyone wants to check that kind of thing out.

One more thing, a robust world economy is an important consideration. Security can be made to trump anything, but a reasonable person makes reasonable tradeoffs with reasonable risks.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #128972

I wonder where rove digs up the folks that blog on this post. Clinton selling what Naval station?? Where do you come up with repub bull like this one??? When bush has the secret service out sourced to india what will bush say about that!!!” Trust me” probably won’t cut it

Posted by: artjoe at February 23, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #128981

Jack,

Spin it somewhere else. Check this out:

“Just one year after Israel, the United Arab Emirates this week took delivery
of the most advanced F-16 ever produced.
The first batch of US-built 80 F-16 “Block 60” fighters landed at an
official, but quiet ceremony in Abu Dhabi.”
from:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=25097
May 5, 2005

Where the hell does that put your Neo-Con logic?

KansasDem
PS: You might want to start learning the arabic language, I’ll just be busy getting my head cut off.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #128989

“Who’s afraid of Karl Rove?”

I am Paul. Actually not just Rove but the whole damn Dominionist Theocracy that began just before & during the Reagan administration.

If you have a few months read this:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

If anyone really reads it (and the links) they’ll see that our problems began far before the Bush/Rove era.

I first became aware in the 80’s, but it sounds too much like “conspiracy theory” to get anyone on the left to pay attention.

Please, just read and make up your own mind if I’m nuts or not.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #129000

Kansas - how long does it take to make a deal for new fighters.

My “neocon logic” and elementry skills on Google puts me to 1999. You must have found that too, but I guess liberal logic doesn’t allow for more than one possibilty. Did you really think I wouldn’t look?

BTW - I SUPPORT the Clinton decision. It was the right move. I am consistent in the defense of my country.

http://www.clw.org/archive/cat/atn1199.html#Strategy

The following chronology provides selected highlights related to the pending sale of F-16s to the UAE:

1994: UAE begins process of acquiring an advanced fighter jet.

December, 1995: President Clinton reportedly calls the UAE’s head of state Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Nuhayyan, urging him to buy American warplanes.

September, 1996: The UAE announces that Lockheed Martin’s F-16 and the French-built Rafale were the final two aircraft being considered for purchase.

November 18, 1997: U.S. government announces its support of Lockheed’s bid to supply the UAE with jet fighters.

November, 22 1997: The UAE states that offset arrangements will be a mandatory component of the deal.

May 12, 1998: Vice President Gore and UAE official announce in a White House ceremony the UAEs decision to buy 80 F-16s in a deal valued at $8 billion.

September 16, 1998: U.S. offers UAE F-16 armament valued at $2 billion (later estimated to be worth $1.5 billion). Among the weapons included, to be sold through the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales program, will be an array of missiles such as the state-of-the-art AMRAAM, Sidewinder, HARM, Harpoon and Maverick. Laser-guided bombs, ammunition for Vulcan cannons, and cluster bombs are also included in the deal.

December 7, 1998: UAE officials travel to U.S. reportedly to negotiate the inclusion of software source codes in the F-16 deal.

March 14, 1999: UAE official says that due to disagreements over source codes and other technological issues, its options for a new fighter jet remain open.

Summer 1999: The U.S. government’s interagency review process decides the specific Electronic Warfare and radar technologies available for export to the UAE.

October 4, 1999: The Air Force reveals that rather than source codes, the UAE will receive “object codes” which will allow them to add “threat codes” to the friend or foe designator included in the F-16.

October 18, 1999: U.S. Commerce Secretary William Daley, during a tour of Middle East, said the long-delayed UAE F-16 deal would be soon finalized. The agreement is expected to be announced during the Dubai Air Show which begins on November 13.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #129007

Jack,

Thank you for this:
“BTW - I SUPPORT the Clinton decision. It was the right move. I am consistent in the defense of my country.”

You notice how easy it was to find records from the Clinton administration? It’s an open book.

Are these people wrong:
UAE Was Source of Two Hijackers, al Qaeda Financing
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060222/dcw043.html?.v=39

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #129010

Yes it was.

The U.S. produced and financed the Oklahoma City bombers. Britian produced the subway bombers.

So vet the company, but don’t make a decision based only on nationality.

Especially since UAE has been cooperating of late.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #129016

Jack, Did all this not happen before 9/11/2001?

Posted by: Peter at February 23, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #129021

“The U.S. produced and financed the Oklahoma City bombers. Britian produced the subway bombers.”

Damn right. Terry Nichols lived within 25 miles of me (Herington, Kansas). My second ex-wife is now married into that family. I know extremism first hand. Extremist views and radical behavior are only micro-millimeters apart.

I also maintained primary custody of our kids to limit any potential damage and they’re all grown and doing well.

Bush, being the president, might think of us as “his kids” and also try to make sure we all do well. I’m not seeing it!

IMO what I see from the right is more extremism.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #129026

“Jack, Did all this not happen before 9/11/2001?

Posted by: Peter at February 23, 2006 10:59 PM”

Peter,

Trust me on this one, never, ever try to confuse a Neo-Con with the facts. Watch Fox News for six months and you’ll understand.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #129032

KansasDem, it takes nerve to allege that others are confused about the facts right after you yourself blamed “Neocons” for a Clinton-era sale of fighter aircraft.

Not only did you make that basic error, you dressed it up with the same kind of insulting swaggering rhetoric that you’re doing now (“Spin it elsewhere.” & “Where the hell does that put your Neo-Con logic?”

Seriously, visceral unthinking hatred is not an argument. People who live in glass houses…

Posted by: sanger at February 23, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #129039

Regarding the sale of the fighter jets, let’s keep in mind that the sale was Pre-9/11. Things have changed now. We are forced to look at the UAE in a whole new light, as well as the security of our ports, immigration, and just about everything else.
There were sales of lots of weaponry to arab nations prior to 9/11. Remember when we supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan when they were fighting the soviets? We all thought they were freedom fighters and supported the assistance. I remember the 60 Minutes segment on them.
Would we now give weapons to the Taliban fighters? Reaping what we sow is the theme, but we’re looking at the field in which we sow much differently now. Or at least we should be.
The Dubai ports deal is not a logical move, all things considered. The vast majority of US citizens feel that way (if you believe all the polling data).
Even if the UAE is trustworthy today, we have all seen how fortunes can be changed in the middle east, overnight. We should be much more cautious, and Bush should not be pushing for this deal. It never should have been permitted.

Posted by: Cole at February 24, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #129046
“This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.”

There’s the probem, they aint concerned about the security of the US. The only reason the Democrats are against this is because Bush is for it. If he was against it then they’d be for it. It’s all just politics and profit of them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 24, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #129048

Sanger,

Good to hear from you. Sorry I got “off point”. It seems that Jack’s timeline leaves out one primary detail. All of the Clinton era negotiations were pre 9-11.

Would you expect me to believe that “all” legislation and agreements signed by Clinton must remain in effect throughout the Bush presidency?

Oh, oh, yeah, it’s called congressional OVERSIGHT!
I nearly forgot we live in a true democracy.

BTW, a visceral response is one that arises more from instinct or emotion than from rational thought.

I certainly think I’ve shown some rationale, albeit arguable, so I don’t think my comments are visceral.

But, we really were originally talking about Rove’s manipulation of facts weren’t we?

KansasDem

Rove to Sanger: you’re learning grasshopper!

Posted by: KansasDem at February 24, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #129055

I am curious about your rove obsession. How do you know without speculating how decisions come down in the administration. This makes postings appear like black helicopter stuff. I thought the british were selling the port operations. Is this discrimination against arabs? I thought we couldn’t profile in airports why now with transactions.

Posted by: kruser at February 24, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #129057

Cole and Ron,

Sorry, sometimes I get caught up in things.

You both actually make good points.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 24, 2006 12:59 AM
Comment #129062

KansasDem, it’s just impossible to follow your rather random train of thought here.

I thought you were blaming “Neocons,” but now you’re blaming inadequate Congressional oversight?

What was the problem with Congressional oversight, and what does this have to with 9-11?

Did Congress raise a peep about these Clinton era aircraft sales to Dubai before OR after 9-11? If so, why would they have?

Were the 9-11 airplanes military aircraft sold to an Arab goverment? Isn’t a primary goal of Al Qaida to overthrow Arab goverments?

How many “Neocons” are there in Congress, anyway, if this is both a congressional problem and a neocon problem?

Did any in Congress who are not “Neo-cons” object to this Clinton-era deal?

Or is everybody, including every Democrat in Congress, a “Neocon” now. Interesting, I guess they’re all “Neocons.”

And didn’t most of the 9-11 ringleaders live in Germany, where the plot was hatched?

Are BMW and Mercedes Benz now terrorist organizations too? What is the standard here? Why is this port managament company guilty if Mercedes Benz is not?

Do you know of any actual connection between this Arab company and terrorism?

I mean, beyond that they are Arabs. Or is it just that you saying that brown-skinned Arab people are probably terrorists and white-skinned people are not? That if you have a contract with a brown-skinned Arab you should cancel it because they look like the 9-11 hijackers?

That’s what YOU were talking about. I consider that to be pure partisan silliness and not worth anyone’s time.

Posted by: sanger at February 24, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #129063

i wonder who’s going offload and load all those ships after we fire all foriegn port operators

uh-oh —lots of empty wal-marts

Posted by: charlie w at February 24, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #129067

I guess it’s time for America’s sons and daughters to step to the plate. Alright citiizens, all of you who know how to operate a port terminal step forward. Come on, don’t be shy. We’ll leave a sign up sheet.

The US congress reserves the right to terminate the relationship for partisan political gain at their convenience.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #129068

we could use all those big metal boxes to build a great big wall on the mexican border—

Posted by: charlie w at February 24, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #129072

Sanger,
***
“You gotta’ do better than this to even qualify for Rove 101: KansasDem, it’s just impossible to follow your rather random train of thought here.”
*
If my train of thought cause’s you great anxiety just ignore me. I have no real influence on national policy.
***

“What was the problem with Congressional oversight, and what does this have to with 9-11?”
*
First of all, since you want to get real darn technical you left out a “do”. Now that we have that out of the way the problem is that the bush administration has IMO done everything in their power to avoid congressional oversight in every instance they can. (I must also mention that Paul’s post had nothing to do with what you’re now questioning me about) Rove 102!
***

“Did Congress raise a peep about these Clinton era aircraft sales to Dubai before OR after 9-11? If so, why would they have?”
*
Well, by then we had a Gingrich congress. Old Newt (and his following) were pretty well on top of things, why don’t you call and ask him?
***

“Were the 9-11 airplanes military aircraft sold to an Arab goverment? Isn’t a primary goal of Al Qaida to overthrow Arab goverments?”
*
Would you please explain “visceral” to me just one more time?
***

“That’s what YOU were talking about. I consider that to be pure partisan silliness and not worth anyone’s time.”
*
I’m sorry you feel that way. It’ll still hurt when they’re cutting our heads off. At least I’d think it would, I’ve not had my head cut off yet.
***

“Do you know of any actual connection between this Arab company and terrorism?”
*
Only based on the 9-11 commission which also condemned the white house.

KansasDem

PS: I think I’ll use that word “visceral” more often. It’s a good word. I liked that “out on a limb” thing. I plan on using that a lot.


Posted by: KansasDem at February 24, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #129074

Charlie, LOL.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 2:25 AM
Comment #129114

KansasDem,

“Do you know of any actual connection between this Arab company and terrorism?”
*
Only based on the 9-11 commission which also condemned the white house.

Was Dubai Ports World was mentioned in the 911 Commission report?

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 24, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #129117

Sanger,

Sorry to inform you BUUUUT the company out of Dubai that is buying the 6 ports IS actually owned by the UAE, that’s why the alarm. It is not an independent company.

BMW and Mercedes however ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES. Could Germany be at fault?—by that I mean the government not some private German chocolate cake company somewhere. I think there could be a case drawn in terms of negligence in allowing these foreigners to have amnesty that were involved in the Al Qaida terror cells—sure I’m game there too.

But my point is that the company that is buying the ports IS NOT at all a private company it is owned and managed by the UAE government. AND THEY DO FUND TERROR.

Posted by: Translator at February 24, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #129140

Cole, good points.

Kansas Dem:
“Only based on the 9-11 commission which also condemned the white house.”

Translator:
“Sorry to inform you BUUUUT the company out of Dubai that is buying the 6 ports IS actually owned by the UAE, that’s why the alarm. It is not an independent company.”

Exactly. It amazes me that these righties don’t seem to understand this. Haven’t they read anything about links between Bin Laden and UAE since 9/11? Didn’t they read the 9/11 Commission Report?

From a 2004 article:
UAE royals, bin Laden’s saviours

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency’s director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the (UAE) royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #129161

Adrienne
Of course the righties haven’t read the 9-11 reports. The only thing they read is their Bible. They can’t be dissuaded from their belief that King George is correct in everything he does. He is after all a born again Christian and as such can do no wrong. They can easily rationalize CIA leaks, the release of classified information to suit their positions, lying to pursue their agenda is nothing they can’t overlook. They know that the King couldn’t know Abramoff cause he only met him about a dozen times and raised large amounts of money for each of his election campaigns. Who would bother to remember such a person? Clearly the King doesn’t need to be bothered by details, below is a classic example of the deep thought that he puts into each of the positions he is told to assume.

Bush Explains Medicare Drug Bill — Verbatim Quote

Submitted on 2005-12-13 16:35:14

WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: ‘I don’t really understand. How is

the new plan going to fix the problem?’

Verbatim response: PRESIDENT BUSH:

‘Because the — all which is on the table begins to

address the big cost drivers. For example, how

benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table.

Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases

or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the

formula that are being considered. And when you couple

that, those different cost drivers, affecting those —

changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to

get what has been promised more likely to be — or

closer delivered to that has been promised. Does that

make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look,

there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for

example, benefits are calculated based upon the

increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of

prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the

benefits will rise based upon inflation, supposed to

wage increases. There is a reform that would help

solve the red if that were put into effect. In other

words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised

benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected,

it will help on the red.’
This is a clown who governs on sound bytes he has been fed without even bothering to learn the facts. Remeber his social security plan? How about the cake walk into Iraq and the utopian government we will effortlessly install?
The list is much longer, but most of the readers already know that and the neocon readers will never be able to grasp any of it until they stop wearing their bodies as hats. You can cure that by coughing and yanking down on your ear. I hope the light doesn’t blind you.
For those who try to explain it to the neos, I would suggest reading “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer. Perhaps then you will realize the futility of wasting your breath or time with them.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #129164

Thank you all for trying to get across the fact AGAIN, that this is not a private company we’re looking at here, but a government run organization.
Less than two hours ago in a speech in front of an American Legion audience in D.C……Bush made this statement….”there is no distinction between a terrorist and the country that harbors them”. Now I have to admit he didn’t go so far as to provide a timeline for that….or that we should all just wait a while for his next statement, because he can come back and contradict himself ! It only means that for today , anyway, that’s his stand. And this is the party that beat the phrase “flip-flop” to death.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 24, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #129166

Hey KansasDem…..we all might want to think about the idea that our heads can’t be cut off if they are up our butts………so looks like at least of few of the posters on here will be safe……. ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 24, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #129167

Syndyrmony,
That quote is hard to believe.

I saw the much vilified Jimmy Carter on CNN. He spoke on several topics and said he would trust that the Administration has done it’s due diligence on the Ports deal. He reminded me that not all presidents have a grammer school comprehension level.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 24, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #129172

Schwamp
I find Jimmys’ comment very disquieting given that the Prs claims he only heard about the port thing after it was done and his pal Rummy didn’t know anything about it either. (heard a great quote from Howard Fineman the other day. It went something like this. “Unfortunately this President has a great deal of credibility when he claims ignorance.”) Pretty hard to imagine how much due diligence was done. I think they looked at who the UAE had contributed to and decided it was a good deal. So much for due diligence.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #129177

Paul,
Again you’ve hit the nail on the head.
I would like to add: That the loyalties of various countries seems to change at the drop of a hat.

I know many Moslems whom I would trust to handle the port operations. I have know them for many many years. They do not flip-flop in their roles as people.

From what I can tell, the UEA has flip-flopped several times during the last decade.

Of course one way to solve this dilemma might be to treat the the Saudis the same way - after all most of the terrorists came from there. Lets let Saudi Arabia buy control of our ports as well.

That would really put us in an insecure situation - but would increase our global situation. Heck why don’t we just out-source our jobs to both countries….

Posted by: Linda H. at February 24, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #129179

sndyrmony,

He’s so bloody confused it’s pathetic. Cheney really should have chosen Jeb to be his puppet rather than Dubya.

““Unfortunately this President has a great deal of credibility when he claims ignorance.”)”

LOL! I’ll have to remember that one.

“Pretty hard to imagine how much due diligence was done. I think they looked at who the UAE had contributed to and decided it was a good deal. So much for due diligence.”

Indeed. I put this up in another thread yesterday:
Obscure US intelligence agency assessed ports deal

Just call me a stickler, but an intelligence agency which has only existed for four months (with the deal supposedly put forward in early November) and which is headed by John “Deathsquad” Negroponte really doesn’t reassure me of due diligence.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #129180

“Jack, Did all this not happen before 9/11/2001?
Posted by: Peter at February 23, 2006 10:59 PM”

Oklahoma before 9/11. London bombings and UAE cooperation after. Point is? Many people who post around here can’t really understand the chronology thing or the cause and effect concept.

Kansas

I thought your point was that UAE supported the Taliban. When do you suppose that was? It could not have been for very long after 9/11.

I can see that both Presidents Clinton and Bush were doing what they thought best. And I said so. I support my country more than I support any particular leader. Ironically, you seem to blame Bush for not vetoing a Clinton decision. The clear implication is that you think Clinton made so many mistakes before 9/11 that Bush should repudiate his basic foreign policy thrust. I don’t agree.

Translator

Please check your facts. Nobody is buying any U.S. ports. Cargo handling, not the same.

Question to all:

If the UAE is so bad, do you advocate cutting ties? You know a lot of cargo is shipped from UAE to ports all over the world. Much cargo is carried in ships owned or controlled by UAE interests. Doesn’t this frighten you who are easily frightened?

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #129186

Jack
The easily frightened voted for Bush. As for UAE shipping I think it’s a grand idea to turn the ports over to them. Their history of facilitating arms and drug traffic makes their free access to our ports a blessing. They may be able to get a nuke in and cure the republican administration once and for all. (paranoid? No, hopeful) If nothing else maybe they can just bring in enough heroin and hashish to bring the street prices down. A win win situation if you get my drift.
You realize of course that we could get your opinions first hand by listening intently to the ilk of Rush, O’Rielly or Coulter. Of course your interpretation of their spew is far more entertaining.
What I find frightening is that their are so many self righteous people in this country who feel that what they believe is best for everyone. No abortions, who cares who it hurts. Anyway we can execute them later. Intelligent design should be taught so that our up coming generation can have the clear 12th century thinking to deal effectively with the fundamentalists from every corner of the world.
Yes a great idea. I just wish that the fundamentalists who espouse this war and the correctness of Dummies (dubyas’) plan could be drafted to go deal with the fundamentalist movement in the middle east. You really should report to the nearest recruiter and lend a hand in recreating the world in your image.


Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #129188
Doesn’t this frighten you who are easily frightened?
Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 01:42 PM

Best joke of the day, thanks Jack.
(since you probably need an explanation; chickenhawks making people scared is how bushie got elected.)
A poem
Title: The towers fell
The sheeps bleeted,
Bush cheated,
Democracy defeated,
Treasury depleted,
Expletives deleted

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #129198

What is interesting about the liberal posters is how often they use a variation of the ad hominem. I don’t usually get information from the sources you mention. You will notice that when I link to media, it is most often the NPR, The Economist, or PBS.

It makes you feel happy, I guess, to attack the messengers every time I show why you are mistaken in simple things like chronology or numbers. I got into a long dispute a while back when I actually quoted from a source one of my opponents provided.

You guys hate so much it makes you hysterical. That is why the charge sticks (and makes you so hysterical).

BTW - Fox News Sunday is probably the best weekly show of its kind on TV. Meet the Press is better, but I am not sure that we can directly compare the format. The Newshour on PBS is my favorite. So I guess you are right. I get all my information from Bill O’Reilly and Rush.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #129205

The Current administration stepped in and stopped the purchase of a US Oil Company by China. In light of our national security, this was, is and will continue to be the a right thing to do. By the same token, China would not have allowed the US to do the converse. For the very same reason, our National Security, the UAE or any other nation for that matter should not be allowed to Own/contract the running of our ports, period! Perhaps we should ask the UAE if the US can control the running of their ports in exchange and see their response. I agree a British Company previously owned these rights before. But we are now in a new era and this should not be allowed again. KansasDem I support you all the way!

Posted by: Peter at February 24, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #129207

Well that revelation certainly explains a lot Jack…..and was that knowledge you gleaned from Rush pre- or post drug bust ????
The choice of news reporting is no less a surprise if you’re close-minded and determined to not change.
It looks to me like both the worm and the tide are beginning to turn, so am sure there will be many interpretations from you to keep us on the right track………

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 24, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #129211

Jack:
“What is interesting about the liberal posters is how often they use a variation of the ad hominem.”

“You guys hate so much it makes you hysterical. That is why the charge sticks (and makes you so hysterical).”

Ad hominem? Oh yeah, Jack NEVER does that.
Hysterical? Oh yeah, quite hilariously so!

“It makes you feel happy, I guess, to attack the messengers every time I show why you are mistaken in simple things like chronology or numbers. I got into a long dispute a while back when I actually quoted from a source one of my opponents provided.”

That’d be me he’s referring to there. He just can’t get over how I exposed his cherry-picking of facts and complete ignoring of others in order to make a rather pitiful defense of his Dear Leader in one of the many “hysterical” threads in the Rose-Colored Column.

Jack, yesterday you said you didn’t want to “pollute the threads”. I suppose you’ve changed your mind today?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #129222

I thought we cleared this ad hominem thing up with rahdigly.

Insulting someone does not constitute the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is when an argument is rejected simply because of its source (viz. a wingnut rejecting an NYT article out of hand).

Disputing the facts or underlying assumptions of someone’s argument AND insulting them in the process is probably immature, certainly irritating, and generally kind of fun. It is not, however, arguing ad hominem.

If insults _are_ ad hominem attacks, Jack, then every accusation of hysteria and hatred certainly constitute ad hominem attacks as well.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 24, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #129228

Adreinne

Correcting what someone about me is not polluting the tread. It is cleaning it up. Re ad hominem, I imply and let the evidence point in the right direction.

Consider (you can find the full texts above)
“Jack,

Where the hell does that put your Neo-Con logic?”

My response was to correct the illogic and show that negotiations for the sale began in 1995. Point won.

“Jack, Did all this not happen before 9/11/2001?
Posted by: Peter at February 23, 2006 10:59 PM Peter,
Trust me on this one, never, ever try to confuse a Neo-Con with the facts. Watch Fox News for six months and you’ll understand”

My response was just to say that one of the events took place before and two after. I am not sure what the point of the question was but point won.

“Jack
You realize of course that we could get your opinions first hand by listening intently to the ilk of Rush, O’Rielly or Coulter. Of course your interpretation of their spew is far more entertaining.”

He also included references to intelligent design and conditions in the 12th Century. Who knows why?

My response was to mention which sources I most often refer in my articles and that they didn’t include the above. Point won.

Some things are just empirically wrong. I can often find the internal contradictions in the sources other supply. You and I have talked many times. Do you ever recall me calling you any pejorative name? I have questioned your analysis and analyzed your sources in ways you didn’t expect or like, but pointing out errors is just part of the debate. It is not ad hominem.

In this short thread alone, I can find several instances of attacks against me that are fairly personal. I always try to turn the other cheek, but sometimes the cheek I turn is not part of the face.


Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #129229

use all those big metal boxes to build a great big wall on the mexican border
Posted by: charlie w

NO, It is the Canadian border that needs the wall, they are all so white that they can easily slip across in the snow

Adrienne, thanks for that link about OBL and the UAE, somebody is still funding him in his mountain retreat in Pakistan.

Sndyrmony, also thanks, I have said it before, but anyone who ever heard GWBush speak and then voted for him, is not interested in our national security. But, if they bring in enough heroin and hashish to bring the street prices down, the CIA will take care of them. What is going on at Mena airport these days?

Does doing due diligence divert diverse directors discovering diabolical devices?

Posted by: ohrealy at February 24, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #129230

In order to avoid this sort of embarressing diplomatic situation in the future, perhaps it would be helpful to prepare a list of acceptable bidders. That way we can clearly indicate to prospective participants whether they should bother submit a bid. We can have a separate, more discerning list where free market forces and established procurement guidelines and contractual law will operate normally. (Disclaimer: The US Congress reserves the right to change this list without notice.)

I think that this separate, but unequal, clause is an interesting idea. It sounds alot like the platform the Democrats advocated for public education in the past. Given the current political climate, the idea may become policy since the current targets are brown, not black.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #129231

And Arr squared

I think the examples above qualify as ad hominem, since they attack the sources in an attempt to prove the argument.

Fortunatley, they are easy to pull down.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #129239

ned,

“In order to avoid this sort of embarressing diplomatic situation in the future, perhaps it would be helpful to prepare a list of acceptable bidders.”

What’s the point?

We could just give it to Halliburton.

Posted by: Rocky at February 24, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #129242

Rocky,

Who are you kidding? You know Halliburton wouldn’t make the lefty list. It’s a shame that Ben and Jerry’s don’t manage port terminals. Everyone loves ice cream. Failing that maybe we can find some company with no current or historical global connections to manage our global interests. What a spledid liberal idea. Why discriminate against a company just because they didn’t perform well in our procurement process. We all know that process, like everything else, is dominated by corrupt WASPish influence. I think it is an excellent idea to select professional service providers based on their popularity with progressive interests. Oh yes, they should be white and American also. That’s not protectionism, it’s just common sense.

Why I bet the cultures don’t even want to mix. Don’t you think that they would be happier with their own kind?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #129253

ned,

What do I care if Halliburton doesn’t make the “lefty” list?
When did performance start to count with this addministration?
Cheney could have them over for the no-bid luncheon and all would be right with the world again.

Posted by: Rocky at February 24, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #129256

Jack:
“In this short thread alone, I can find several instances of attacks against me that are fairly personal. I always try to turn the other cheek, but sometimes the cheek I turn is not part of the face.”

:^) I find this very amusing.
You Elephants (everyone from Karl Rove on down to so many folks in this here blog, including you Jack) have been nastily stomping all over Liberals for years, and yet you always act so sensitive and surprised when those “cheeks” of yours get a swift kick from a few Donkey’s.

IMO if one is going to dish it out, one has to expect to take some in return.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #129265

“You can cure that by coughing and yanking down on your ear.
Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 12:30 PM”

Just freakin’ hilarious. You should write for Comedy Central.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 24, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #129273

Not surprised, Adrienne,just pointing out the bankrupt nature of the attacks.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #129282

Jack:
“Not surprised, Adrienne,just pointing out the bankrupt nature of the attacks.”

Jack, talk about cheek! I’m surprised you would use the word bankrupt — since that’s what Bush has done to this country.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #129324

Alright Rocky,

Let’s try a different approach to this issue. Current procurement laws didn’t prohibit the UAE owned company from being eligible. What changes do you propose? Do you agree that the US should have the same standard from the beginning of the neogiation process through the awarding of the contract and if so what prohibitions would you recommend?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #129328

ohrealy,i qoute (it is the canadian border that needs the wall they are all so white they can all easly slip across in the snow) hmm i thought there was a very large indigenous population there! you would not be profiling people would you!!!!!!

Posted by: rodney brown at February 24, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #129342

Governments that are not democratic should not be allowed to purchase US assets,period.

Posted by: BillS at February 25, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #129349

ned,

You never remarked about the last post on the hysterical liberals thread.


“What changes do you propose? Do you agree that the US should have the same standard from the beginning of the neogiation process through the awarding of the contract and if so what prohibitions would you recommend”

One wonders what experience that the UAE folks have dealing with the Teamsters union.

Frankly if the President is speaking the truth, which would supprise me, these UAE guys are supposed to be ok.
I also wonder why it wasn’t brought to the public’s attention before that the ports were managed by foriegn interests. Even though the “security” (and I use that word in the loosest of terms”, is still handled by the Coast Guard, it really doesn’t seem to matter to this addministration that the greater part of goods coming into this country come in unsecured.

Messers bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al have made a mockery of us all, claiming to be acting in the best interests of security of the country, and yet all claim they didn’t know about this transaction until last week?

Here in America, our security, with the exception of our internet access and phone lines, which our intrepid leaders wish, no demand, to tap with impunity, is non-existant.
The patriot act is just a bad joke played on the stiffs (that’s you and me) that reside in this country.

We have been told constantly that Mr. Bush knows what he is doing, and that he has the intrests of the country on his mind.
Well, has anybody bothered to ask which country that is?

The ports, like everything else in this country, are probably being run by offshore companies because it is cheaper to do so, and who are we to stand in the way of progress.

Someday we, in this country, may again realize that the bottom line isn’t the only thing important to run a business.

I, for one, hope it is someday soon.

Posted by: Rocky at February 25, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #129386

Rocky,

I understand from the above post that you are dissatisified with the current administration’s handling of port security and security in general; however I am no clearer on what sorts of changes that you would propose to structure the service procurement process to improve the results.

Re: The gloomy/rosy perspective from “hysterical Liberals”
* … the economy is only ok, wages, adjusted for inflation, are only keeping up , or are falling slightly, the high paying jobs are moving off-shore where they can be done cheaper, latino immigrants are not just doing the “jobs that Americans don’t want to do”, but are taking away skilled jobs as well, because they will do them cheaper, and when I go to the mountains I can still smell the smog, and see the haze from the city. … *

I would say that of this list of problems, some are attributable to the economic disruption that followed the September 11th attack. The immediate shutdown of air travel and the restructuring for security purposes created havoc on American industry which in my opinion was addicted to air travel. Since there have been no further significant incidents, this is a fading effect. Job creation also came to an abrupt halt after September 11, while businesses regrouped and reassessed strategies for growth in the new normal. I personally lost a buttload of money due to market reactions. Any evaluation of economic progress must consider little bumps on the road like domestic attacks.

Regarding outsourcing, I think that is a trend that belongs to the times we live in, not to any particular administration. There have always been periods of economic development characterized by a change in domestic production patterns. Those persons employed in or profiting from the industries that are shifting have always complained when this happened. There complaints have never reversed the tendency for mature manufacturing concerns to move to less developed countries. America’s response has been to develop domestic employment in other industrial areas. That is happening now, for instance, employment in the health care sector is skyrocketing. A workforce must react to these changes to the employment infrastructure because industrial development can’t be stopped.

Regarding illegal immigrant labor, I have alot of problems with this issue, but I basically belief that if someone is working in this country, they deserve a minimum wage. I also think that a person should not be in this country illegally and when they are located by any one, INS, local, state or federal officials, they should be punished and then deported. Employers who use illegal labor and don’t comply with labor law should be punished, fined and possibly incarcerated. That said, I recognize that America needs additional labor and I support increasing the visa program for workers. Proper regulation of the foreign labor market would require higher wages and thay should address some of your concerns about skilled jobs leakage.

Regarding the haze in the mountains, argue with Jack about that. I’m tired of that topic.

Here’s is the last part of your post:
* … Little has been made of the fact that, last year, for the first time since the ’20s, Americans pulled more money from their savings than they deposited. In my search for a reason, all I could find was that Americans are using their savings to maintain their current lifestyles. *

I might suggest that Americans may be not using savings accounts because they aren’t generating any income due to the low interest rate. Many people are seeking to diversify their wealth in order to generate more income. I think that the tremendous increase in investment in the housing market is due partly to the public perception that its more profitable than stuffing your money in a bank or low yield mutual funds.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 25, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #129406

ned,

Long way around.
I think that American ports should be run by American companies, plain and simple.

I abhor the bid process, because the best job is never done on low bid, and truth be known, the best job is rarely done on high bid either.
Obviously experience should be a factor, and security is a must.
A streamlined process is preferable.

Interestingly enough there was a program on Discovery last night about the Port of Long Beach Ca. Showing how it is run at the bottom supervisory levels and how everything runs about.

I hope this helps you out.

Posted by: Rocky at February 25, 2006 2:51 AM
Comment #129411

Thanks Rocky,

My only problem with American management is that most companys in this field are foreign owned. I don’t think that it is possible to utilize only domestically owned companys. I don’t think that the gap can be filled with local management, but I didn’t see the program you’re referring to, so maybe.

operating comp

Posted by: goodkingned at February 25, 2006 3:05 AM
Comment #129412

Good night. I’m going to Mardi Gras.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 25, 2006 3:07 AM
Comment #129426

How much truth is there that it is in fact
that it is 21 P&O ports not 6?
I believe media is also wrong about who
is in charge of security. Cost Gard has it
while in port waters. coustoms has it for
a short time. Dubi Hires a large portion
of Security and I believe has some control
over what part coustoms sees? The facts on
this needs brought to light Because here is
where media is placeing the spin.
The added time to convince people is a not
good it gives more time for closet deals
and Misinformation. Lou Dobbs has exelent
reports on this subject. Including the fact
that UAE has funded one of the lesser known
Bush boys software company.

Posted by: Honey P at February 25, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #129469

Jack,

I fail to see a “personal” nature in what you describe as an attack.

***

You said,
“We will lose this one. Xenophobia will win out.”

I consider this “spin”. Phobia indicates unjustified or irrational fear.

***

You said,
“UAE used to recognize the Taliban, I heard. Back then, Clinton sold them $8 billion worth of F-16s, anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, other advanced weapons. (BTW - I was not against that. I am just pointing out inconsistency)”

I tried to point out that the actual delivery of these F-16’s occured under Bush’s watch.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=25097
IMO just more illogical spin.

***

You said,
“And of course, Republicans had to stop Clinton from selling U.S. Naval Station in Long Beach to a subsidiary of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Maybe being part of a government is not the same as being owned by one.”

I see that as totally illogical spin. At the very least it has nothing to do with the UAE ports deal and I’ve always thought the whole thing was nothing but BS. Artjoe asked,
“I wonder where rove digs up the folks that blog on this post. Clinton selling what Naval station?? Where do you come up with repub bull like this one???………………
Posted by: artjoe at February 23, 2006 08:48 PM

I never saw a reply.

***

So, I said,
” Jack,

Spin it somewhere else. Check this out:

“Just one year after Israel, the United Arab Emirates this week took delivery
of the most advanced F-16 ever produced.
The first batch of US-built 80 F-16 “Block 60” fighters landed at an
official, but quiet ceremony in Abu Dhabi.”
from:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=25097
May 5, 2005

Where the hell does that put your Neo-Con logic?”


I fail to see that as a personal attack. IMO I’m clearly critiquing what I described as “Neo-con logic” and “spin”.

OTOH perhaps I should whine about being referred to as xenophobic or visceral.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #129503

Kansas

The deliver took place on Bush’s watch. The deal was made under Clinton. It was bipartisan. AMERICAN. Maybe that work doesn’t mean as much to you as it does to me. I don’t see Bush or Clinton in this, I see American interest that both presidents recognized. I am not putting down Clinton. I am merely pointing out the Clinton also thought the same thing during a time when UAE was actually behaving worse than today.

Re the Atjoe - respond to what? It is just stupid. Let me tell you two simple things. First I am not Karl Rove or found by Karl Rove. I have never met him or even seen him in person. Second, what vanity! Do you really think that Karl Rove cares enough about what you write on this blog to send an operative after you. Get real boys. This is fun. That’s it. Karl Rove is not staying up nights worried about your searing intellects.

Re attacks. Personally I don’t mind. I am just pointing them out. Whenever I square one of you guys, you label it. Often it is neocon. Sometimes it is Straussian (my personal favorite among the foil heads). Sometimes a Karl Rove operative. Sometimes a neobot. Sometimes a liar. Sometimes a fool. My response is usually a subtle putdown that seems to send people into hysterics, hence the use of the term.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #129525

Jack,

You somewhat miss my point. I’ll try this one more time.

Let me begin with the original purpose of Paul’s post. Paul say’s, “The Republican instigator (referring to Rove) made this ridiculous statement:

“Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world. That doesn’t make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.” “

I think most of my fellow Democrats would agree that we’ve heard that rhetoric from the right ‘ad nauseam’. Many of us find the UAE ports deal to completely contradict the so called “post-9/11 view”.

I’d think it reasonable to argue that Bush & Co. coined the phrase “flip-flop” to describe just that type of change in direction. IMO to suggest otherwise would amount to applying a “double standard”.

In your last post you refer to artjoe’s comments and question as “stupid”, quote: “Re the Atjoe - respond to what? It is just stupid.”

In large part he’s asking for clarification of a statement you made. He asked, “Clinton selling what Naval station??”

My point is that you refer to artjoe’s post as “stupid”. How is that any less of a “personal attack” than “Neo-con logic” or “spin it somewhere else”?

It seems to me that you’re applying the same kind of “double standard” that Paul points to in his original and insightful post.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #129558

The stupid part was not asking about the naval station, which we could easily check.

I focused on the part where he asks how Karl Rove digs up people to post. That is the stupid part. While I am flattered that he thinks someone like Karl Rove would give me the mission of blogging, it is so silly that he would care that much.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #129612

Jack,

Please check this: “The stupid part was not asking about the naval station, which we could easily check.”

I remember hearing all kinds of BS about that but nothing substantial. You made the statement as a point in an argument but never showed any proof.

It’s the equivalent of saying Rove is gay. There’s no real proof or even a reasonable indication of that. I try to deal in facts.

Although I consider it a fact that Bush 43 is a failure, but we both know that’s actually just my opinion.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #129621

I thought the naval station thing was something everybody knew about.

You can goodgle search for more (keywords like Clinton Cosco Long Beach), but here is a starting reference.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_cr/h970520-cosco.htm

Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #129636

“I thought the naval station thing was something everybody knew about.”

Jack,

What I remember is that a very few inept and arguably mentally ill folks tried to make something out of nothing. I’ll ask one question: if it was nearly as serious as the right wing-nuts suggested why did all the bru-ha-ha die down so quickly.

From the “recent” news:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48995

Quoting Al Haig,
“Well, that’s a wang-banger,” he said “Let me answer that, because it’s all hogwash. And whoever wrote such claptrap ought to be put in jail for perjury. This is totally untrue. The COSCO operation in Long Beach is no more than a taking over a now-defunct naval port facility and bringing jobs and opportunities to the local community and opening up American and China together. This other talk that you mentioned is just plain hogwash. And I would be very, very skeptical of people running around accusing our president of some kind of disloyalty. Let me tell you, that’s not the case.”

Jack, if there were any truth to this FOX would be making hay out of the deal. Their ratings would soar. That whole deal involved private enterprise and, if I need remind you, it was all pre 9-11.

The Chinese didn’t bring down the towers, nor did Iraq. And if you want to peddle the “China threat” why the heck is Bush not worried about the growing debt they now own?

That whole story is and was total hogwash combined with an ample amount of poo from various animals of nearly every species.

There was no more threat there than letting WalMart sell Chinese goods.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 26, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #129640

Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah

excerpt:

“Farah began working with Rush Limbaugh on the book See, I Told You So, which was released in 1994.”

That should say enough about the reliability of the Clinton sold out to the Chinese story.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 26, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #129739

I did not have a problem with Clinton foreign policy when he was my president. If you look carefully at Clinton and Bush policy, you find many more continuities than changes. Among the continuities were attitudes toward strategic countries such as UAE and attitudes toward foreign purchase of American assets. They also both pushed the democracy and the free trade agendas.

I don’t want to trash Clinton. On the contrary, I use Clinton as evidence that Bush is doing the right thing in that a Republican President and a Democratic President came to similar conclusions when faced with a similar set of facts.

When I look at trend lines in general, I don’t see many big discontinuities when administrations change. This is a good thing. Imagine how bad it would be if our policies lurched left to right when we changed leaders.

If Kerry had been elected, we would likely be having this same debate, except that Dems would be crying about the xenophobia and the racism of the other side.

Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #130694

I’m not new to put-downs of the Cheney/Bush administration, and have on occasion lambasted King George and his Roundabout Table.

Cheney/Bush has done some strange things and said some stranger things, but I think that perhaps the strangest of all is:

1. Terrorism is so feared by his administration that it is willing, even eager to circumvent the Constitution of the United States by warrantless wiretapping on American citizens, illegally outing American CIA agents, and foolishly sending Americans into an uncalled for war…but,

2. Terrorism is so trusted by his administration that it thinks it is okay to contract a group that backs terrorism to run some of our ports…

Cheney/Bush seems to be saying,

Americans are terrorists, but folks who sponsor terrorists are not…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #130695

I wrote that in WORD and forgot to save in htm, sorry…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 2, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #132974

This was an excellent piece, Paul.

Posted by: Jude Nagurney Camwell at March 12, 2006 2:58 PM
Post a comment