Ties to a Terrorist Nation

We may finally have caught a President committing treason. That is, if the UAE is in fact a terrorist nation as claimed by Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, and the unhinged left-wing… Bill Clinton has a great deal of explaining to do.

Just four months after 9/11, Bill Clinton went to the UAE and publically told the Crown Prince, the UAE Defence minister, and a UAE Military General that America is wrong and not the bearer of truth in the world.

On January 17, 2002, Bill Clinton spoke in Dubai at an event attended by General Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and UAE Defence Minister and Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan.

Clinton thanked the UAE for its support in the global fight against organised terrorism and reiterated calls for an end to the escalation of violence in Palestine. Clinton's speech at the dinner covered a range of global and social issues. He stressed that 'digital, political, economic and religious divides have to be bridged.'

Support in the global fight against terror? Aren't we being told now that the UAE cannot be trusted to "take over" our ports because of their support for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden-- not to mention their financing of same?

Dems Attack Port Takeover By Arabs

(CBS/AP) Democratic senators assailed an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports and said Monday that President Bush should stop the deal to better protect the U.S. from terrorists.

...critics point to the United Arab Emirates track record — it was the transfer point for nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya, and the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"God, if you have a country that is not doing internally what it should be to prevent the transfer of nuclear parts, we're going to give that country operation of the major ports of this nation?" New Jersey's Menendez asked. "I think not."

"It needs to be stopped by the president, first and foremost. Either freeze the deal or negate the deal," he added. cbsnews.com

Yet before and after 9/11 Bill Clinton is on record as praising the UAE was a valued member in the fight against terror. Does his wife know about this?

Clinton also said that 'America was not always right - or is not the sole bearer of truth - when it comes to burning global issues. Technology and money can never replace whatever truth is in the heart. Life is a journey that allows us to learn from everyone else.' http://www.stars-arabia.com http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae uaeinteract.com

It appears that Bill Clinton has also personally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the UAE since 9/11. Maybe it was Bill Clinton who negotiated Bush's "Secret Deal" for the UAE, a terrorist nation, to take over our ports? Hmm.

We can't trust these people...

The Abu Dhabi World Leadership Summit will be remembered by thousands as one of the most significant and unique events in the Middle East. A gathering of the world's most influential and revered speakers will join together to share strategies for excellence in leadership and international business development. powerwithin.com

Who's speaking at this terrorist haven with the owners of Dubai World Ports?

  • William Jefferson Clinton
    42nd President of the United States
  • John Edwards
    2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate, Former Senator from North Carolina
  • H.E. Mohamed Ali Alabbar
    Director General of the Department of Economic Development (DED) Government of Dubai, and Chairman - Emaar Properties
  • H.E. Sheikh Nahayan Bin Mubarak Al Nahayan
    Minister of Education and Scientific Research, and Chancellor, Higher Colleges of Technology

Hmm... William Jefferson Clinton and John Edwards can safely speak on the same stage as UAE Ministers...

Does it strike any Democrats as odd that they are describing the UAE as a terrorist nation and an untrustworthy ally today citing terrorist ties that happened while their President was in office, and he was oblivious to that fact? Or was he?

Indeed, in 1998, we see the Clinton Administration actually arming the UAE, a supporter of terror. This is after the first World Trade Bombing, after the Kobar Towers Bombing, after reports from the FBI that terrorists are in the US, and after Bin Laden has issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill Americans everywhere.

At the height of the UAE support of terror, Bill Clinton armed them with F-16's! I wonder how much he got paid in that secret deal?

Today, Crown Prince Khalifa and Vice President Gore announced the UAE's acquisition of 80 F-l6 Block 60 fighters from the United States as a significant step towards strengthening the UAE's defense capabilities. In essence, the deal will enable the UAE to achieve a credible and effective defense through the establishment of a conventional deterrent capability based on quality. This acquisition will allow the two countries not only to add a significant stabilizing element to the overall strategic balance in the region but also to further strengthen and fortify the already close security relations between the two countries.

President Clinton conveyed his sincere greetings to the President of the UAE, His Highness Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahyan, wishing him good health and long life. clinton6.nara.gov

Clinton may even have called off the infamous strike on Bin Laden's camp because UAE ministers were there at the time "hunting". (Unfortunately for history Cheney was not there at the time. He could have prevented 9/11.)

I wonder what Clinton and Richard Clark have chosen to keep secret about these details about why they didn't kill Bin Laden when they had him in their sights? It also brings up more questions about what why it was so important for Sandy Berger to steal documents from the archives.

The Sept. 11 commission’s report released last year also raised concerns U.A.E. officials were directly associating with bin Laden as recently as 1999.

Hunting camp cited
The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by U.A.E. officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated "bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emirates," the report said.

"National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely," the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke "called a U.A.E. official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden," the report said. msnbc.msn.com

Secret Deals indeed.

Republicans aren't perfect. The left on the other hand, and particularly elected democrats, seem to be shiftless opportunistic sell-outs who have no problem calling Bush a racist one day, and an Arab-lover the next. What makes it worse is that we are told neocons kill darker skinned third world dwellers, because we don't care about people, only profits.

Clinton leads Dubai praise

FORMER US president Bill Clinton praised Dubai’s leaders last week, telling them the way Islamic and Western values and cultures are being merged is "wonderful".

Speaking via telecast at the Leaders in Dubai conference on Monday, Clinton was quick to highlight the work done by the emirate’s rulers, in particular Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Minister of Defence of the United Arab Emirates.

Clinton said: "Dubai is a role model of what could be achieved despite the other negative developments in the region. When I went to Dubai for the first time, I was taken to a technology facility where I hooked up to a bank kiosk and found that one can use a conventional banking service, while at the same time opt for an Islamic Sharia compliant service, which I thought was wonderful. This is a very good example of how cultures and values could be merged and offered to the rest. I was amazed and I have a lot of admiration for Sheikh Mohammed for what he’s doing in Dubai." itp.net


Posted by Eric Simonson at February 25, 2006 6:07 PM
Comments
Comment #129519

Eric

Good post.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you are not criticizing Clinton, just pointing out that Clinton, Edwards and many others reached the same conclusion that Bush did - that UAE was a valuable partner in the war on terror and racicalism.

Clinton was right.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #129521

My, my. If the Republicans don’t jump all over this immediately and use it in November, they are truly missing the boat.

But, it is just another example of the corruption that grows in both parties. Apparently, there is some kind of organism that infects people inside the beltway that destroys the centers of the brain controlling reason and speech. It also seems to attack the centers that control good sense and consistency. Both sides of the aisle suffer from the sickness and the only known cure is to leave the vicinity where it grows.

So, let’s help cure all the 535 sufferers of this dread disease and send most or all of them home as soon as possible. Then when the next group of legislators begin showing symptoms, and they will, send them home too. That way we can help prevent public humiliation, slow the speed of global warming by reducing the amount of hot air originating in Washington, and start restoring some semblane of civility and good manners among the people of this U.S. of A.

Posted by: John Back at February 25, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #129524

Clinton says:

America … is not the sole bearer of truth

Simonson twists and misconstrues:

America is wrong and not the bearer of truth in the world

Once again, Eric shows that accuracy and honesty are never to be considered sufficient reasons to back away from a partisan hack-job misquote.

Oh well. Speaking of “shiftless opportunistic sell-outs”…

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 25, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #129528

America is wrong. And it’s right. The really noodle-baking part about this is that it’s all these things at once.

How is this remotely possible?

The problem in all this is that you don’t consider individual behavior in your evaluation, on any side whatsoever. This creates problems for your analysis.

With the UAE, it creates the problem of you assuming that Friendliness with the UAE government means that any an all security fears are unfounded. You don’t consider that al-Qaeda might have the institutions in question infiltrated. Where we can count on the UAE not to launch a military attack on us, we must be more careful in entrusting ports at home to their care.

With your people, you neglect the fact that many of your own people are making a fuss over this, making the same arguments, which Bush has failed to answer.

With my party, you conflate circumstances, misrepresent what Clinton said, and attribute concerns that may have many different motivations soley to racism.

Moreover, you neglect different points of view, including this authors(a whole fricking article, mister, you couldn’t miss it). Even if fears like this are irrational, Bush can go pretty far to easing those fears on the basis of improving homeland security.

So why is he just saying we’re secure, without real evidence that he’s made us more so?

If Bush had truly secured our ports, this deal would not be the trouble it is. As it is, though, he’s left us wide open, claiming that our fight in Iraq will keep the the terrorists preoccupied. Worldwide attacks have drawn a question mark on that.

I know the fear you’ve inspired of the terrorists has been politically convenient, but years of doing little at home has resulted in this whole thing taking on a life of its own. If you want to counter that, in your party and mine, lead the charge for homeland security, and for once be ahead of the curve, not behind it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 25, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #129530

“That is, if the UAE is in fact a terrorist nation as claimed by Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, and the unhinged left-wing… Bill Clinton has a great deal of explaining to do.”

You have some reason to beleive that the UAE does not associate and support terrorists? I’ve seen a mountain of proof to the contrary - care to share your proof?

BTW - get over Clinton. His time is almost 6 years gone… If all you can do is to look into the past for your excuses going forward, don’t surprised when you keep running into things.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #129533

One thing that was overlooked in all this is that Clinton in ‘98 (at the same time he said that Iraq HAD and would use weapons of mass destruction) sold the UAE 60 US-made F-16’s. Fully equipped F-16’s would have a LOT of proprietary avionics on it. So basically he sold a country that has terrorist ties not only miltary equipment, but trade secrets of the US military. Would that be “treasonous”?

And Tony, the only reason we look back is because we’re showing the absolute hypocracy of you on the left. I am not trying to “excuse bad behaviour by pointing to other bad behaviour”…just showing that you sit there and critisize now, but it’s the exact same thing (most times even worse) that was done under an administration that you on the left adore like Clinton was one of the best President’s of all time—what a joke!

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #129534
It appears that Bill Clinton has also personally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the UAE since 9/11.

Eric,

I followed your link to the hundreds of thousands of dollars and it makes no mention whatsoever of Clinton or anybody else personally accepting any money. You seem to be adding 1+1 and getting 5.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 25, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #129536

John…I agree…we REALLY need a constitutional ammendment (not for gay marriage—that’s another subject) but for term-limits on members of congress. Simply put, the President is only in office for a MAX of 10 years…why should a Senator be allowed to be there for 35 (like Teddy) or over 50 (like Strom). That’s as Honore said being “stuck on stupid”.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #129538

Pointing to Clinton and saying he did it too, is not a valid excuse to keep sending the country down a river without a paddle. What is in the past is there, what are we going to do about the future? Rove claims that Democrats live in a pre-9/11 world, maybe he should read this side of Watchblog and see who is really living in a pre 9/11 world.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 25, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #129541

Jay Jay…he received over $300,000 from UAE for his speech in 2002. That is documented. And Lawnboy, how many times has the President been “paraphrased” by the media to twist his words to their whims? Much less, if you kept reading, Eric did DIRECTLY quote it later. It didn’t have quotes on it the first time.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #129542

“And Tony, the only reason we look back is because we’re showing the absolute hypocracy of you on the left. I am not trying to “excuse bad behaviour by pointing to other bad behaviour”…just showing that you sit there and critisize now, but it’s the exact same thing (most times even worse) that was done under an administration that you on the left adore like Clinton was one of the best President’s of all time—what a joke!”

If you are accusing me hypocracy, I hope you have proof of this from my past. (Of course you don’t, so other than taking the easy way out and making blind assumptions, what is the purpose of this post?

So - if hypocracy is your point, please rationalize this quote:

�”For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid��. [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice�. We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.�”
— GW Bush —

I had no idea the price he is referring to here was simply a matter of economics.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #129544

no…that’s the point…Clinton did it WORSE. The pre-9/11 world mentality is seen by the fact that the dems still want to placate to the terrorists, until they come across this issue of basically the fact that a foreign country wants to buy another foreign country’s holdings. This is a business deal and they are always done in secret (so that Martha can’t sell her stocks early). The fact that GWB didn’t know about it until it was done is a testimony to the commission that reviews that kinda stuff as being better at keeping a secret than congressmen who know about the NSA program.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #129545

And yet while in office Clinton never asked the UAE to oversee our ports or any other aspect of our security. Huh. Strange.

Could it be that when Clinton was praising the UAE and asking them to do more in the war against terror and telling them how much we appreciated them he was politicking? You know, doing his job well and diplomatically?

6 years into Bush’s presidency and Bushies are still blaming Clinton.

The only thing more sure than a Bushie blaming Clinton is that a Bushie will always agree with Bush.

Posted by: Max at February 25, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #129546

Robert:

Clinton! Clinton… Clinton… Clinton… BAM!

(See how that works?) If the Rupublican party would look into issues that happen in the present, rather than justifications in the past, they might’ve avoided the 101 screws ups from this present Administration.

Keep your eyes on the ball… we’re at war, ya know?

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #129547

no…I’m talking about the absolute hypocracy of the left…not you personally…other than the fact that you support them.

And let’s see, the UAE has denounced terrorism since 2001, and has also been a help in the war on terror. I don’t know that that is a true reason to trust them YET, but it’s a damn good start. Much better than others.

As for economics…the UAE gave a vast amount of money to the Katrina relief project. Should we reject that money from a “friend”? because of their past or accept it as a show of support and a gift of goodwill. Does that mean they’ve had a “change of heart”…only time will tell.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #129548

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend lately among Republicans. Whenever Bush is criticized for doing something wrong, they defend him by trying to prove that Bill Clinton did it first.

Doesn’t it seem strange that the REPUBLICANS — of all people — would consider Bill Clinton the standard to live up to!!?? Maybe they should use that as their party motto at the next convention:

WWCD — What Would Clinton Do?

Either that, or they should start judging Bush’s actions by a higher-quality standard.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 25, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #129549

yes…at war at home as well…b/c “dissent” (I like to call it sedition) has become almost as much of a threat as the terrorists.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #129550

not only did Clinton do it, but since he’s been the only dem president in the last 30 years, we don’t want to just look back at Bush 41 or Reagan (who did a lot of the same things as well) so our only example IS Clinton (as sad as that is). Maybe when you win elections we’ll take you seriously.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #129553

“yes…at war at home as well…b/c “dissent” (I like to call it sedition) has become almost as much of a threat as the terrorists.”

One man’s sedition is another man’s constitutional right? Is that we’re your heading now.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #129555

Robert, I’m thinking you forgot Carter.

Posted by: Rocky at February 25, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #129556

don’t start tony…your emotion is showing

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #129557

Can you provide links to this:
“(Clinton) he received over $300,000 from UAE for his speech in 2002.”…?

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #129559

no I didn’t…but if you READ…carter was more than 30 years ago when he was elected (splitting hairs I realize, but it’s true).

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #129560

I’ll tell you what…go to RushLimbaugh.com and find it yourself…it’s there

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #129562

Why is it that no one can understand that bringing up a past president(CLinton) is only allowed when it is to show how wonderful he was.
Same goes for Gore ‘the whore’.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 25, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #129563

Wow, rushlimbaugh.com, now there’s an unbiased source.

Posted by: Rocky at February 25, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #129564

“don’t start tony…your emotion is showing”

Hardly. Please, Clinton is hardly someone to take to heart. If you would look close enough at us DEMs, we use our own heads for thinking and don’t blindly follow our President’s every whim.

I’m just trying to grasp what base exists for this discussion. It looks a lot like “things aren’t going well at all for us so let’s trash someone else to help us feel better” kind of argument.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #129565

well…he got it from the AP wires…so is that biased as well?

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #129566

Let’s stop bashing and defending Clinton.

The point is that Bill Clinton,as president and as former president, and George Bush as president both understood the strategic value of UAE. And both understood the nuances their connections with radicals.

The reason Eric’s argument makes sense is not to blame Clinton too or blame him more. It is to show that Clinton (who is not Bush and not a Republican) came to a very similar conclusion as Bush. That should make Dems think twice before jumping on Bush, but it doesn’t explain why most Republicans are sinking as low.

Maybe that is just politics.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #129567

Robert,

Those must be really fine hairs as he took office 30 years ago last month.

Posted by: Rocky at February 25, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #129568

“go to RushLimbaugh.com”

Wow, I’ve heard that some peopel out there actually consider Rush a reliable souce for their news… I just didn’t think it was real.

OK - you’re right, my emotion is showing now. (smirk) Damn, I have to go put my kids to bed on that note. Sheeesh… thanks, it’s been kind of a drab day up till now.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #129571

I’m sorry…should I get my news from NPR or Air America instead? At least his broadcasting company doesn’t have to be subsidized by the gov’t or by the likes of Soros.

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #129578

and maybe if you actually listened to his show once in a while you might become enlightened a little bit tony…

Posted by: Robert at February 25, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #129582

Eric,

“Did you know that the United Arab Emirites just paid off Kofi Annan with a cool half-million dollars?”

Your article, your words. Two weeks ago you seemed quite upset about this bribe. If Kofi Annan deserved condemnation for accepting a bribe, shouldn’t the UAE be condemned for making it? You came down on both Kofi and the UAE rather hard. Has your opinion changed in the last two weeks? Since you exposed their corruption so recently, why do you think we should we deal with the UAE today?

Just wondering; after all, hypocrisy is the current article’s topic.

Posted by: phx8 at February 25, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #129583

Rush Limbaugh enlighten anyone? Some time ago I programed my car radio to the local conservative station and to the local Air America station. I usually listen to one then switch to the other when a commerical starts. The Rush Limbaugh show is on when I drive to work and the Mark Lavigne show is on my home. Both are othing but a platform for liberal bashing. On Air America on the other hand they actually talk about the issues.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 25, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #129584

Robert,

And Lawnboy, how many times has the President been “paraphrased” by the media to twist his words to their whims?

So it’s alright for Eric to misquote person A because person B misquoted person C? Sorry, morality and integrity don’t work that way.

Much less, if you kept reading, Eric did DIRECTLY quote it later. It didn’t have quotes on it the first time.

Yes, he did, which made it all stranger. But it doesn’t make it right.

He put the intentional misquote in bold on the front page. He buried the actual quote (which said something very different) deep in the article. That is proof of bad behavior, not justification for it.

Twisting a statement that the U.S. is a bearer of truth (if not the only one) into the U.S. is not a bearer of truth is a partisan hack job.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 25, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #129586
The reason Eric’s argument makes sense

His argument doesn’t make sense at all. Basically, his argument is the following:

Democrats disagree on the issue. So, either some Democrats are traitors or the other Democrats are shiftless opportunistic sell-outs, or perhaps both are true.

Please ignore the inconvenient fact that Republicans also disagree over this very same issue, so my argument makes members of my side either traitors or hacks. My arguments are made only for attacking, not for logical consistency.

It’s not an argument that makes sense. It’s not really even an argument. It’s just Eric being Eric; taking advantage of a disagreement to paint his opposition with the worst conceivable (if unsupportable) brush while ignoring what that logic would mean for his side.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 25, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #129587

I found a copy of Republican chat rooms rules at: Fact Based Initiatives. There are 41 of them all together, but this one is especially appropriate to mention here.

GOP Public Forum & Chat Room Handbook

Listed here is the Rules for Public Forums and Chat room.. ..

1) CLINTON.. …. Always Blame Clinton (or anyone around him)
As a young republican you will come into contact with lost liberals that need a talking to. The chat room is a wonderful tool for this and spreading the GOP platform. This first rule is what we call a “GOLDEN RULE” The use of Clinton over and over will always frustrate a liberal. You may be in the wrong on the topic at hand but remember to ALWAYS use Clinton as a comeback.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #129592

Get over Clinton will you? It makes you look weak. If that is the best that you have. Who cares who Clinton did 6 years ago. I am much more interested in doing my wife tonight.

You Republicans are so fond of saying that 911 changed everything, so Clinton’s dealings with the UAE occurred in a different universe - far far away. Besides, the UAE and Osama are not going to attack us with F16s. They may attack us with a shipping container and Al Qaeda may have infiltrated Arab shipping / port management companies. As I said on the the Bush regimes failure to initiate a full investigation at least shows that Bush is still reading “MY PET GOAT.” I got his pet goat right here.

You guys are really calling the kettle black when you talk about talking out of both sides of ones mouth.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #129599

Great article!

I do not like Clinton. However, unlike the mindless drones, I do recognize him as someone with a brain. Both Bush and Clinton arrived at the same conclusion which basically means, to put it in a way the dems may understand, shut up, morons.

And Ray G., always using Clinton should actually be considered cheating, its so easy.

Posted by: CommonSense at February 25, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #129601

by the way the UAE donated 100 mil to katrina relief. oops.

Posted by: CommonSense at February 25, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #129603

Eric,

Here are your words again:

“Did you know that the United Arab Emirites just paid off Kofi Annan with a cool half-million dollars?”

I’d like to juxtapose this with an AP article from 2/24, and give you a chance to explain how you reconcile this. If a publicly awarded prize to Kofi Annan shows Kofi and the UAE are corrupt, what on earth do you make of this? The donation is over four times as large as all other donations combined! And it was cash on the dollar, wired!

“WASHINGTON - The United Arab Emirates gave the Bush administration $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina weeks before a state-owned company there sought U.S. approval for its ports deal.”

Posted by: phx8 at February 25, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #129604

Robert: “and maybe if you actually listened to his show once in a while you might become enlightened a little bit tony…”

Hey Robert,
Have you digressed so far from the actual point of Eric’s article as to be saying that RUSH (yes, the pain-killer guy) can lead one to enlightenment?

Wow, you are bound to reach a rational conclusion when your information comes from such credible sources

Posted by: Beijing_Rob at February 25, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #129614

jack,

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you are not criticizing Clinton, just pointing out that Clinton, Edwards and many others reached the same conclusion that Bush did - that UAE was a valuable partner in the war on terror and racicalism.

Clinton was right.

I think I’m too obtuse sometimes, but yes that is the major thrust- in response to the conversations we’ve been having over the port deal. How many do you think will actually pick up on that fact? Will it even matter?


LawnBoy,

Clinton says:
America … is not the sole bearer of truth

Simonson twists and misconstrues:

America is wrong and not the bearer of truth in the world

Once again, Eric shows that accuracy and honesty are never to be considered sufficient reasons to back away from a partisan hack-job misquote.

Oh well. Speaking of “shiftless opportunistic sell-outs”…

Another excellent endoresment quote for my blog! I hope you don’t mind if I quote you for my own glorification on my blog LawnBoy.

“Simonson twists and misconstrues” ~LawnBoy, comment on Watchblog.com 2006

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #129619

beijing rob, or we could get our information from the most credible sources, like the al franken show or from bill press or john tunney or julia roberts or maybe cher or the newmans? anything would be better than a pain killer guy..

Posted by: rodney brown at February 26, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #129622

Clinton did it to. Clinton did it to.
well that makes it fine then.
Ohh Mr W Bush got money to open
his first oil company from them.
Oil Rich Nation payed W to drill
Dry holes in texas.
Mr W Bush has a lesser Known
Brother who Has a software company
Guess where that money came from
UAE. Please this Port deal smells
of Dirty money and repayed favors.
I don’t care what Clinton did he
is not now and will never be President
again.

And Quoting Rush proves you are a
cult member. He is not a reporter
he is a GOP lying Propaganda
spinning. Hate mongering Drug
useing Kool aid queen.
You need deprograming

sorry for the tirate but this
is nonsense.

Posted by: Honey P at February 26, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #129623

Stephen,

I agree with you about the need to improve security at our ports. Bush was not my first choice for President in 2001. But he is not the incompetent monster portayed by some either.

My actual down to earth opinion is that Clinton is right about the present UAE leadership and what they have decided. They have decided they will be for us, not against us. On that basis alone and on the actions they continue to take in the war on terror and as a logistical help and strategic location to our military forces in the middle east I don’t see the boogeyman portrayed by tony or max for instance.

I know the fear you’ve inspired of the terrorists has been politically convenient, but years of doing little at home has resulted in this whole thing taking on a life of its own. If you want to counter that, in your party and mine, lead the charge for homeland security, and for once be ahead of the curve, not behind it.

Here’s the thing. I don’t think this is true. Bush has been far more moderate than you give him credit for. I think that, like Clinton for conservatives, it will take perspective for those on the left to be able to look back and take a second more objective look at Bush in the light of history. No doubt we will see his mistakes, but at some point admit where he has done well and even good, and made the best choices among several seemingly bad options.

In the end we can rarely arrive at the perfect solution and always do what is perfect, we do what we can and what we must and manage the rest. It has always been so.

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #129626

tony,

So - if hypocracy is your point, please rationalize this quote:
“For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid? [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice?. We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.” — GW Bush —

I had no idea the price he is referring to here was simply a matter of economics.

I guess I just don’t understand liberal logic. When Bush said you are either for us or against us, the UAE said, “We are for you.” Then they set about answering our requests in fighting the war on terror. Things like cleaning up their financial system- they are the Switzerland of the Middle east- almost all money goes through there at some point. They began arresting people we asked for. They provide us logistical support… in short they give us practically whatever we want.

Are you saying that it is the left’s opinon that we shut that down and begin a bombing campaign in order to avoid an appearance of hypocrisy? (A convoluted interpretation of hypocrisy I might add because saying you will pay a price for sponsoring terror even if you repent of it is a strange version of hypocrisy.)

Am I saying the UAE is perfect and ready to become the 52nd State (after Iraq, the 51st state)? Not at all. But to say they are a terrorist nation and presently terror sponsors is plain silly.

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #129627

max,

Could it be that when Clinton was praising the UAE and asking them to do more in the war against terror and telling them how much we appreciated them he was politicking? You know, doing his job well and diplomatically?

6 years into Bush’s presidency and Bushies are still blaming Clinton.

The only thing more sure than a Bushie blaming Clinton is that a Bushie will always agree with Bush.

Please allow me to pull out the plank that is in thine own eye…

This is exactly what I wanted to illustrate. Are you familiar with Occams razor? It says that, “one should make no more assumptions than needed.” In your opinion this applies in Clinton’s case but not Bush’s. Why? For you Clinton gets the benefit of the doubt. For Bush there must be “a secret deal”… a treasonous betrayal of national security.

Could it be that the simplest explanations are that the UAE firm is a global business that is not an arm of Jihad and that Bush did not insidiously take bribes in order to give the swarthy arabs control of all of our ports to begin funneling bombs into the suburbs?

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #129629

All,

This really doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the UAE should be overseeing our ports does it?

The security issues are real and have nothing to do with racism.

1. Dubai Ports World would not be required to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil and therefore, accountable to U.S. Courts.

2. Dubai Ports World would not have to require a U.S. citizen to accommodate government requests.

Ideally no foreign nation would oversee our ports. If we must trust another nation with this, I would hope it would be a moderate one. The UAE can hardly be considered moderate with links to:

- 9/11
- Repressive policies
- Money laundering
- Drug trafficking,
- Sex/human slave trade
- Refusal to recognize Israel

They are merely a channel for organized crime. Remember what Reagan said: trust if you must, but verify.

I don’t doubt the UAE is on the forefront of fighting terror in the Arab world, and is an ally of ours. They should be commended, but they still have not earned the trust needed to oversee our ports.

And there’s the difference between what Clinton did and what Bush wants to do. Clinton praised the UAE for the positive changes they are making, but he didn’t give them oversight for our security. That would be dumb.

Bushies. Crucial differences sail right over their heads.

Posted by: Max at February 26, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #129630

phx8,

Your article, your words. Two weeks ago you seemed quite upset about this bribe. If Kofi Annan deserved condemnation for accepting a bribe, shouldn’t the UAE be condemned for making it? You came down on both Kofi and the UAE rather hard. Has your opinion changed in the last two weeks? Since you exposed their corruption so recently, why do you think we should we deal with the UAE today?

Just wondering; after all, hypocrisy is the current article’s topic.

I recall you rightly agreeing with me that personal contributions of a lobbyist like Abramoff to Republicans is not in itself corrupt. But many on the left think differently. I thought you understood that I was pointing out that the left never sees corruption on the left in progressive politicians, and never ever in the hallowed halls of the United Nations.

But I’m not sure what the point would be if the UAE were “guilty” of bribing the General Secratary of the UN. Is that, in fact what you are alleging? If so, I will have to give that idea some thought. You may be right. At least, in the same way that corporations are guilty of giving money to other politicians.

But then we could also think about the necessity of businesses “keeping tabs” on politicians. The way things work is that politicians have the power of life and death over business. Just look at this deal. Who knows when a faithless politician will see the need to put you out of business purely in the pursuit of political gain. It’s jaded I know, but what choice would you have?

Look at Microsoft. They ignored campaign contributions to their peril. They tried to stay completely away from politics. Unfortunately politics didn’t ignore them.

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #129637

Jayjay,

Yes, he did, which made it all stranger. But it doesn’t make it right.

He put the intentional misquote in bold on the front page. He buried the actual quote (which said something very different) deep in the article. That is proof of bad behavior, not justification for it.

Twisting a statement that the U.S. is a bearer of truth (if not the only one) into the U.S. is not a bearer of truth is a partisan hack job.

There’s no need for such a senseless attack on my sensitive person. Obviously you don’t want to or cannot defend what Clinton said, but why attack me personally for it?

What Clinton is quoted as saying speaks for itself.

Let’s break it down. First, what is the definition of a paraphrase?

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. answers.com

Characteristics of a well done Paraphrase.

-It is not a summary. -It does not contain words or phrases from the original.(Plagarism) wikipedia

Ok, so how did I misquote Clinton?

Clinton also said that ‘America was not always right - or is not the sole bearer of truth - when it comes to burning global issues.

Clinton said: “America is not always right”

Now I don’t know what you think Clinton’s statement means, but when someone (perhaps your wife or girlfriend) tells you that you’re “not always right”, what they are really saying is that you are wrong.

This is essentially what Clinton is saying here. Obviously no one says you’re “not always right” if they mean to convey the sense that you are in fact right about whatever issue it is they are discussing (or nagging) you about?

Do you get the sense that Clinton is saying America is right or wrong here? What message is he attempting to convey to his Arab audience?

My paraphrase: “America is wrong” The audience no doubt ate it up.

Ok. Next…

Clinton said: “or is not the sole bearer of truth”

Again, within the context of the geopolitical environment, what does Clinton mean by this? Remember he is speaking in the negative. What does he want his audience to believe? Clinton’s gift is that he is the quintisential politician with an uncanny ability to tell his audience exactly what they want to hear, and he tells them that America “isn’t the sole bearer of truth.”

So what does he mean the audience to believe he is saying? Oh no, America can be very very wrong, right Bill? Obviously they elected Bush right? Essentially, he is saying that America right now doesn’t have the truth. That America is wrong and that “other bearers of truth” are possible besides America— until we elect a democrat again.

Am I right or am I right?

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #129641

Eric,
I’m surprised the UAE/port story lasted this long. An article on CNN news makes it sound like a compromise between congressional Republicans & Bush is in the offing. One certainly should be. It seems like the easy, obvious thing to do. Delay the transaction. Talk everyone down. We’ll see.

What’s more interesting are possible long term repercussions. Talk of Islamofascism has magically disappeared, which is good. Republicans/conservatives have, at least temporarily, backed off their promotion of fear as a political weapon. Sadly, the Democrats are picking up the sword, and finding it has a very sharp edge. It’s worrisome, because fanning the flames risks igniting a Christian/Muslim world war, or at any rate, of causing me to mix metaphors.

Meanwhile, everyone is collectively holding their breath, waiting to see if Iraq will pull back from the brink, or go over the cliff into full fledged civil war. It’s horrible. On one hand, you’d expect there to be a lot of commentary on the subject on Watchblog and elsewhere; on the other hand, maybe not, because there’s just no upside to being right, any way you cut it.

The whole port issue convinces me more than ever that, although I’m in a very small minority, I’m right. The War on Terror needs to end, the fear & hatred needs to stop. Jingoism, yellow journalism, veiled racism, incendiary terms like ‘islamofascism,’ these need to be dampened down. If Dems & Reps get into a competition over who can be the most bloodthirsty the results will not be good.

Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #129647

By the way, about that $100 million the UAE gave to the US for Katrina… after that tsunami killed over 200,000, the UAE pledged $24.5 million for relief. As for the $100 million, that money was wired, which is really remarkable; but there’s no question it went to FEMA and the rebuilding of schools. Still, the disproportionate size of the donation being given to the wealthiest country in the world certainly gives the appearance of possible impropiety.

Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #129651

philosopher and ambassador sir oliver franks. was at a party in 1948. a reporter asked a question what would you like for christmas? peace throughout the world the french ambassador demanded. freedoms for all peoples enslaved by imperialism the soviet ambassador countered! and so it went on and on. the last reporter called on sir oliver, what do you want for christmas sir oliver? it is very kind of you to ask a polite sir oliver replied, i would quite like a box of crystallized fruit!!!!

Posted by: rodney brown at February 26, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #129659

Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist are liberals who complained about the UAE Deal too. Where are they in your tirade, Eric?

Posted by: Aldous at February 26, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #129664

Eric-
Oh, I think we clarified what you think Clinton meant, but not what conclusion his audience was meant to draw.

America isn’t always right. No country built by human beings can be. We shouldn’t seek false certainty on that matter because it blinds us to our true weaknesses and strengths. The cliche is thinking outside the box, but like many cliches it’s as trite as it is because it’s true.

The Bush administration likes its box. It likes knowing The Truth, and making sure everybody else recognizes the fact.

But the Bush administration could not have ascended to power and remained there without playing on a key weakness in our society: Groupthink. It’s not merely intellectual conformity, but the pressure to conform from others. The Bush Administration could not have been elected or reelected without playing on the GOP and Right’s culture of top-down authority: The leader is always right, we remain loyal to “official” sources of information, while shunning those (seemingly) of the opposition as tainted, and we don’t make trouble over small disagreements.

It works, really, as long as people don’t have much cause to disagree, between themselves or within themselves. The Bush administration, unfortunately for it, has put itself in a position of bring about both disagreements.

By its actions and the news of the results of those actions, they have planted profound doubts about their ability to properly conduct policy. This causes people to internally question Bush’s authority to lead, along with that of his party.

More importantly, though, Bush has failed to strike compromises, instead going for an arbitrary approach. That may seem bold when you’re all for what he’s selling, but when you’re on the other side, it’s pushy at best, tyrannical at worst. It doesn’t get much better if you’re just being sneaky about things. Somehow, while y’all were supporting him, he managed to outspend and out deficit the worst liberals, add entitlements, and generally betray some of the most fundamental conservative principles.

This creates problems for your party, as it whipsaws between absolute lockstep loyalty, and splitting into factions based on interests without much moderation.The removal of the moderates, of course, was something else that seemed a good idea at the time.

All of this comes of the fact that your people have been more concerned about party discipline and ideological dominance than the consequences of governing. When image and politics matters more than results, this is what occurs.

For this port thing to pass without making trouble for the party, there will have to be a recognition that security concerns are legitimate, and that certain safeguards must be worked into the deal and into the port security apparatus in general. Failure to do so will show the nation where Bush’s “real” loyalties lie, regardless of his earnest words about homeland security.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 26, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #129666

It does matter what the Clinton Administration did or did’nt do in foreign affairs because this attack of hatred by the terrorist started way before Bush got in there and we need to look beyond politics and unpeel the onion layers and find out just what is the root of all of this.

Posted by: rick santi at February 26, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #129668

“I guess I just don’t understand liberal logic. “

This is also pretty basic. I think the best policies must be consistent.

The UAE was heavily involved with 9/11, and I don’t think anyone would consider 9/11 as anything other than a monumental event in our history. It pretty much changed standard operation on just about everything, and at the core it caused drastic change in our international policy.

So, with that mentality, how do you allow for a pardon of one the main perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks with a simple “sorry, won’t do that again”? Also, the UAE still does not recognize Israel… That’s one of the core tenants that we hold against Palestine. If the Taliban comes back and says “sorry” - do we let them back in power? Do we allow them to take over operations within the US? If the Taliban had come across with $100 million for Katrina aid - would we have taken the check? Or would that money paid for their past sins? Does the fact that the money for Katrina was given just before the deal was announced?

The point is that these were the bad guys on 9/11 - and to simply ignore that now because of a financial interest seems to me to be sending absolutely the wrong message - and it completely contrasts with Bush’s quote immediately following 9/11. We have had to except these “for us or against us” rationales when sending our troops to battle, how can we allow such a simple change in plans for business dealings. And what about the Unocal deal: “Energy is a strategic commodity - and thus China’s purchase of a US oil company would irreparably damage US national security.” How does this differ from the UAE deal? (And as far as I can tell, China was not directly involved with 9/11.)

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #129670
Jayjay,

No, it was me.

There’s no need for such a senseless attack on my sensitive person.
It’s not a senseless attack. It’s an accurate discription of the type of integrity-free approach you all-too-often take.
Obviously you don’t want to or cannot defend what Clinton said, but why attack me personally for it?

You’re right, my point is not to defend Clinton here. My point is to point out that once again you chose to make an invalid attack instead of an argument.

What Clinton is quoted as saying speaks for itself.

Yes, it does. Unfortunately, that’s wasn’t good enough for you, and you had to make up your own meaning.

Let’s look at the definition of paraphrase you presented:

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning. answers.com

The problem is that your “paraphrase” did not clarify meaning. It twisted the meaning to its opposite. That’s not a paraphrase. That’s a misquote and a lie for partisan purposes.

Clinton said: “America is not always right”…what they are really saying is that you are wrong.

No, it’s saying that you are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It’s not always, not not ever. Anyways, my focus is more on the sceond section.

Clinton said: “or is not the sole bearer of truth”

Yep, Clinton said that we are a bearer of truth. That’s what he said. He explicitly did not say that we are not a bearer of truth. He said the opposite of what you claim he said. Just because you have in your mind context and pre-conceived misinterpretations of what you want the man to believe doesn’t change what he actually said.

Looking back, I realize that your initial phrasing was “not the bearer of truth”. Did you mean this as “not the (one and only) bearer of truth”? Or did you mean this as “not (at all a) bearer of truth”? I initially read it as the latter. Did you mean the former?

If so, you’re textually more accurate, but it proves my point in a different way. You attack a man in bold letters above the fold for saying the completely accurate and sensible phrase that we make mistakes and other people sometimes know what they’re doing, too. How dare he be humble? How dare he be reasonable? Doesn’t he know that the White House is populated by a man who is never wrong?

Is that really what you’re saying?

So, either you are blatantly twisted his words 100% against their meaning, or you’re showing a complete lack of ability to be honest and critical in your appraisal of the United States and its current leadership.

It’s your choice. Which way are you a partisan hack?

Am I right or am I right?

Well, since you obviously think that those are the only options, I’ll go with with Lasagna.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 26, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #129671

And also, Eric, what about all the disagreement within the Republican party on this issue? Why do they get a free pass when you spend 1400 words attacking the Democrats for doing the exact same thing.

Oh, don’t bother answering. I already know.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 26, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #129686

The debating is gone, replaced by partisan bickering….

I will still reserve my judgement until the facts are better understood. I have heard many in the so-called liberal media praise the deal with Dubai. I have also heard the same from the conservative side. I have equally heard both sides question the deal.

I, personally, reserve my judgement until an investigation into the security issue has been complete. I hope it is an honest investigation and not political. This topic is too important to simply jump on board with the administration. We’ve got security problems as it stands regarding our ports. We need to shore up our defense in that area and I think both sides can agree to that. So, prior to handing the management of our ports over to a Middle Eastern country with a rather recent shady history I would like to be sure. I’m not against it yet….but I do question…

Posted by: Tom l at February 26, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #129692

eric,
Yet more hate-filled, divisive rhetoric from the extreme Wrong wing, trying to obfuscate the fact that support for Bush is draining like water out of a toilet. An apt metaphor considering the actions of this administration.

Robert,

“dissent” (I like to call it sedition) has become almost as much of a threat as the terrorists.

3 points about your quote:
1. If dissent=sedition, then the Wrong wing was seditious during the Clinton administration.
2. If you wanna point fingers at Clinton (as in “wahhhh, he did it too!”), you must agree that the Wrong wing bears a large share of the responsibility becuase they held a majority in the House at the time.
3. The Wrong wing must also take blame for trying to focus the national attention SOLELY on the Presidential Penis during the Clinton years, instead of on the growing terrorist threat.

That’s the problem with Wrong wing ideologues, and in fact all ideologues. They aren’t interested in actually governing. God knows they aren’t any good at it. And when ideologues screw up (as they are bound to do), they act like spoiled little children, yelling “he started it” or “he did it too” instead of acting like ADULTS and accepting responsibility for their actions. Which, ironically, is what the Wrong wing constantly screams that all Americans should do.

Yet more hypocrisy from the Wrong wing.

Posted by: Elliottbay at February 26, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #129699

Jack,

The reason Eric’s argument makes sense is not to blame Clinton too or blame him more. It is to show that Clinton (who is not Bush and not a Republican) came to a very similar conclusion as Bush. That should make Dems think twice before jumping on Bush, but it doesn’t explain why most Republicans are sinking as low.

I think it’s cute how you assume that everyone debating here is either a Democrat or a Republican. Wrong, but cute.

My point is that just because Clinton thought something was OK doesn’t mean that it’s true. Heck, the guy thought that getting oral sex in the Oval Office from an intern was a good idea. I tend to hold the President to a rather high standard, no matter which party he comes from. The Republicans don’t seem to be willing to hold Bush to any standard higher than that set by a guy who they IMPEACHED! It doesn’t make sense!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 26, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #129715

I wonder - it seems that the REPs political stretegy has become “I know you are but what am I?”

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #129716

“The Oregonian” is the major newspaper in Oregon. The paper’s letters to the editor reflect its liberal bent, and we all know the number of letters received can be influenced in many ways. But this is kind of funny; on the topic of ports:
111 against
2 for

Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #129722

In times of so much national insecurity, I don’t really think calling each other a hypocrite is a good use of time, especially, since almost anyone can be accused of that sin, sometime in their life. What I prefer to do is bring to your attention that the Dubai firm in question is not talking about taking over 6 ports, but rather 21.. I tried to link the UPI article, but if I failed, you can find it at Huffpo.com.

I think at this time, it is incumbent upon us to get over ourselves and get together to protect this country we all love so dearly.

Posted by: Tapia at February 26, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #129725

Eric,

Another thorough, well done article. Bravo.


Liberals,

I’m just tickled pink to watch you folks type the words “national security”. Bravo to you as well. Just that we’re talking about it as an issue (instead of the right calling it a war and the left relegating it to a criminal matter) makes me think this country has more of a bright future ahead.


BLOG Operators,

If I’ve made some mistake by being happy with both the right and the left, please forgive.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 26, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #129729

Tapia -

I agree with your focus… however it’s not always so easy to just give us the partisan bickering. One probelm that I see with seriously looking into this issue is that many people are looking at this as a single isolated issue. I’d like to come to some consensus on rules we will apply to these types of situations and then start from there.

Personally, it seems rather odd that on matters of National Security - which have received mostly failing grades, we would so easily dismis who is running out ports. And to suggest that when the company (government-owned) with a strong association/support for terrorist activites and groups in it’s recent past gets a pass simply because it says it’s mended it’s ways and gave us some money… If that’s out approach then maybe we should just transfer the money we plan to spend on prevention and just try to build up some savings before we get attacked and then use that money to rebuild.

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #129750

Whats funny is that I have previously attacked republicans for conflagrating terrorism with arabs, but now im pissed at the dems. Clinton had a respectable plan for terrorism, and i definately trust his view over his wife or any of the other opportunists going after Bush because they see weakness. The only thing i get tired of is us commending countries like the UAE with little or no personal freedom for the work they are doing. If we support democracy in the middle east we shouldnt be sending a contradictory message, that we support overthrowing dictatorships…except those that help us out.

Posted by: iandanger at February 26, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #129772

Amen

Posted by: Tapia at February 26, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #129853
I wonder - it seems that the REPs political stretegy has become “I know you are but what am I?” Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 03:51 PM

Shouldn’t that read “I know I am, but you are too. Trust me.”?

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #129957

How about “You’re ugly and youR mom wears combat boots. (My mom got a deferment!)”

Posted by: tony at February 27, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #130171

” al-Qaeda might have the institutions in question infiltrated”

Well, they say that they do. But dis-information is their speciality.

It should not be a concern because al-Qaeda is present in many countries in the world that we do business with. They are like rats, they are everywhere, even in the United States.

That guy delivering the gasoline or the fuel oil or running your corner gas station, who is he, what does he believe, who does he hate?

You will find out soon enough.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Posted by: Papa Ray at February 28, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #130184

“It appears that Bill Clinton has also personally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the UAE since 9/11. Maybe it was Bill Clinton who negotiated Bush’s “Secret Deal” for the UAE, a terrorist nation, to take over our ports?”

I have read crackpot conspiracies but you guys top it. Someone seriously needs to get off the Karl Rove Kool-Aide and get a clue: 70 percent of Americans disagee with you on the seaports issue. It is not, as you dishonestly imply, solely a Democratic issue. Lots of enlightened Republicans oppose it, too.

By the way, DPW is Dubai Ports World, not Dubai World Ports. Duh.

Terrorists controlling ports. Swell. You guys are giving credence to competing crackpots who claim Bush was complicit in the 9-11 attacks. Hmmm…

Posted by: Limo Liberal at February 28, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #130288

Perhaps the strangest of all is:

1. Terrorism is so feared by this administration that it is willing, even eager to circumvent the Constitution by warrantless wiretapping on American citizens, but…

2. Is so trusting of them that it is okay to contract terrorist backers to run some of our ports…

Bad Americans…Good UAEers…Huh!?!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 28, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #130500

Robert,

“no…that’s the point…Clinton did it WORSE. The pre-9/11 world mentality is seen by the fact that the dems still want to placate to the terrorists, until they come across this issue of basically the fact that a foreign country wants to buy another foreign country’s holdings. This is a business deal and they are always done in secret (so that Martha can’t sell her stocks early).”

My goodness… I sometimes really do need to leave breadcrumbs so I can find my way back…

Please explain the difference in the liberal support of Afganistan and Iraq?

The issue here, sir, is enemy identification! There was a clear link between Afgainstan, Al-Qadea and the Taliban. One that justified our actions. There is so little oppostition to this. Stange, huh? Maybe not.

We know that there are bad people out there trying to get us. Geeeee! Hello! Republican’s were not the only ones tuned in on September 11th. We got the message just as clearly as everyone else. However, we believed that the people responsible for that attack were the ones that needed to be hunted down. Not everyone living in that area that we didn’t agree with. (Hint, that would be everyone… even UAE, but you sometimes praise the small accomplishments to provide the postive feedback to encourage more accomplishments.)

Oh, I forgot, that is soft and wishy-washy liberal crap. They are either for us, or against us. Black and white! Good or bad. Differences are “multicultural” claptrap garbage. No… they are all the same, based upon what Joe told me at the bar last night… did you know that some Muslims can only read the Koran? No other book is allowed? Or, that in some Muslim countries they will cut your hand off if you are holding the Bible? And, that every Iranian wants to behead us?

Iraq was different. I am sorry, but subtle differences can mean a lot. The evidence presented did not meet the sufficiency to justify attacking Iraq. I was listening to a Professor talking on Wisc. Public Radio this morning and he was saying that the reasoning behind the justifiable attack on Iraq was too complex (yes, a conservative professor on a public radio!) and because of this, things like terrorists connections and WMD were overblown and now unfairly used against the government’s reasons to get into the justifiable war. If I followed my bread crumbs right. You can check the Wisc. Public radio website probably for a transcript. He did not say what the justifications were that made it a justifiable war… but what they heck.

Anyway, no one disagrees that Saddam was an ass. That Iraq would be better off without him… er… execpt for one thing. As President Bush’s father noted at the end of the first Gulf War, if there isn’t something to replace him with then we are in deep doo-doo!

This was his rationalization behind abandoning all those Shiites and Kurds who rose up against Saddam in 1991 at the behest of President G.H.W. Bush. It was a “civil problem” and America does not involve itself in “civil wars.”

There were lots of reasons to get rid of Saddam… liberals are not going to argue that. He was a bad person. History has a collection of bad people… some that we supported and that legacy is now coming back to bite us on the butt. Saddam was a enemy of our enemy Iran. The Shah of Iran was our friend because of its strategic location to the USSR and its oil so we helped him torture and control his population.

Think-tanks and conservative (in particular, the neo-conservatives that believe America should flex its muscle as the only remaining “Superpower” didn’t have it wrong that he was a bad guy. Come on…

Where they got it wrong was that through military superiority and defeating the enemy in battle that Iraq would be pacified. This is almost criminal in its simplistic view. They knew all about the why and assumed that they knew the how.


Next, business deals are not supposed to be done in secret when the involve American public assets! Especially if they do not involve national security as this one supposedly doesn’t! Come on! Martha dealt with information that was not publiclly available… if she would have waited until the information was announced, then no problem.

Confusing private business dealings with public business dealings was probably a lapse.

Business deals with the American govenment (our government… not the Republican’s, not the Democrat’s) are supposed to be overseen, bids taken and the best company winning the contract.

Maybe this is why the Republican’s aren’t so upset that there were so many “no-bid” contracts with such poor oversite? Why they aren’t upset at the $22 billion dollar gift to the HMO’s done in a republican only meeting? Or, the vice-president formulates our energy policy under the cloak of secrecy. Heck, you all don’t need to know.

Guess where the money for this war is coming from? Foreign investors… Guess what tail is going to be wagging this dog? Bush sold out America with this war.


Try as much as you want… history will be written based on the facts, not rhetoric or poilitcal poinst created by Rove. This Presidency will be seen as the fall of the stature of America.

I know that you won’t like polls… because they all lie (unless they say what you believe), but with the President’s latest rating… about 30%, you cannot get much lower that that! Those are his most base supporters who will never ever admit that their President was wrong… because, to be wrong… to admit a change of belief based upon new evidence is seen as weak, demoratic and “immoral.”

Posted by: Darren7160 at March 1, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #131576

Marysdude,

Do you have a job working for the media? Because you are very good at repeating the rhetoric they spout out.

First fact, it is not “warrantless wiretapping”. It is interception of cel phone calls being made to or from people whose names are listed by the CIA or the FBI as known or suspected associates of terrorist organizations. The calls being intercepted are either originating from or being made to another person OUTSIDE the border of the United States. This violates no law on the books in the U.S. And in most cases, neither party involved in the call IS actually a citizen of the United States! And in the few cases where an American Citizen IS involved in that phone call, why aren’t you asking the better question of “Why is that person in contact with a known terrorist?”

Second, the monitoring of communications to or from known enemies of the United States is a granted power of the Commander in Chief of the United States. Every president since the first one has made use of this power to provide national security. The problem is that some presidents abuse that right and use it to monitor communications of personal nemeses, a la Richard Nixon. But no-one has shown any proof, or even doubt, that Bush was abusing this power to monitor his personal enemies. Which is kind of why all the flap about that has died down…

What Bush did was very much within the powers granted to president, and even the very monicker of “warrantless wiretapping” is nothing more than a mainstream media tactic to smear him once again.

To respond to your second point: The whole point of this initial posting by Eric Simonson was to show that if the UAE is indeed a terrorist-backing nation, as all you libs are crying right now, where was the same outcry when Clinton was making deals with them 6 years ago? If they are a terrorist-backing nation, then they have been for years now, and your precious Democratic party knew about it when they were dealing with them, pre-9/11. Don’t act like it’s some great surprise now!

In fact, Clinton and your Democratic party seemed quite cozy with the UAE then, and now seem even cozier, based on current relationships and $$$ being given over. So are they, or aren’t they a threat? If they are, why do prominent members of your party deal with them? If they aren’t, then why is it such a threat for the UAE-run Dubai Ports to have administrative control of six of our ports? You can’t have it both ways, and I won’t allow you and your media talking head morons to use this to bash Bush unfairly yet again.

I, personally, am uncomfortable with the idea of them being in control of our ports. Which is why I am glad to see the further review (45 days) that has been requested and instrumented. But my question is, why are the Dems now screaming for a “Vote Now! VOTE ON IT NOW!” mentality? What’s wrong with taking an extended review of the situation, other than the Dems want to strike Bush while they’ve managed to get their hands on yet another fictional, self-enflamed hot poker?

Posted by: Lee at March 6, 2006 11:37 AM
Post a comment