Posted on 03/02/2006 6:52:04 AM PST by SJackson
Good post!
The term "Jump to a Conclusion" is the key phrase that enters my mind.
People jump to a conclusion, and after that, the facts are filtered to support that conclusion. This is typical for both left and right and this particular issue makes it so very difficult to maintain a conclusion because the facts are not easily dismissed in either direction.
This is a fruit of the politization of things.
Then, I found out that they had no control over security, represents a strategic partnership in the WOT, and that this was a business that would not want to see itself lose Billions if the USA suffered a hit, and changed my conclusion to support it.
This has been "the party line," but we have yet to hear what DPW employees/managers, etc. do on the typical work day when they walk in the door. The pros would have us believe that all they do is shuffle financial papers, write pay checks, and otherwise have absolutely no contact or insight into any classified data whatsoever. Yet, we haven't been given a specific and detailed list of their "job descriptions," so we just don't know.
Ultimately, we elect people to make these decisions. We should trust them and if they screw up, don't re-elect them.
Yes, but sadly many, perhaps a majority, of Americans are clueless to the issues with some reasonable degree of detail. They don't get "not re-elected" b/c politics in this country has become something akin to a high school most popular classmate election.
Stopping Dubae from running the ports would mean that we now have a non-free enterprise system, that only *government approved* operations are allowed, and that sounds a lot like the way to increase costs and decrease efficiency.
We've had a "non-free enterprise system" in that regard for a long time. Countries such as Communist China, the Soviet Union/Russia, Cuba, N.Korea, many ME countries, etc., etc., etc. have been disallowed from bidding or competing or otherwise acquiring US Government business interests and military weapons and systems. We often can't stop them in private free enterprise, but there's an enormous difference between the two.
In fact, there used to be, and I say that somewhat facetiously, a network in place involving the State Department, Dept. of Commerce, along with the WH and other intelligence agencies, among perhaps another here or there, to ensure that only "friendly" countries could deal with the US in one form or another. That usually involved what we sell them. One really dubious transaction there was Loral's weapons delivery techonology to China under the Clinton administration. Anyway, that's a massive oversimplification and extremely general to boot.
Anyhoo...
But you're right about how our political process has evolved. Something's happened in the last couple of decades, and that is that party politics have become blind rallying points for some, many, people. What used to be blind adherence by people to the Dim party, something that is now changing in spades, appears to have "spilled over" into GOP ranks.
On a side note, I'm curious what the same people that are "pro" on the ports deal/DPW, would think about a similar arrangement in the Airline industry? What if some "Arab" nation wanted to "run our airports" in spite of assurances that they would have no duties in terms of securing passengers or flights? I can't imagine them supporting that.
As it stands, in spite of all of the security that's taken place since 9/11, we still hear of reports about "dubious" cargo laders that got jobs w/o proper screening, or muslims working in those roles, or other similar issues. There are always "security gaps" that "insiders" can exploit if they so choose, and often w/o anyone even knowing that it was them, often boiling down to a simple provision of information.
Russia (the Soviet Union's) biggest gains were information, not people allowing Russians or Russian/Soviet cargo into this country. Why that is all of a sudden different regarding DPW and "Arabs," the PC code word for "muslims" in this case, and Islam in general is beyond me.
The bottom line in Bush's methodology, is that he is willing to take huge risks in favor of trying to garner some "favor" and to generate some "good faith" and "good will" that really should be the onus of "Arabs," not us! And how long before Arabs begin intergrating themselves then into other "business interests" in this country.
It is funny/interesting how history has a tendency to repeat itself, particularly on the stuff that has hideous consequences. I see very little difference between pre-WWII Germany here in a philosophical way and the proliferation of Islam around the world, other than we appear to be "opening our arms" to Islam. We are opening our arms carte blanche for the most part to Islam and muslims, that we simply cannot tell what their thoughts are on their opinions of us or our nation, simply in the hopes that at some point, apparently, they'll abandon their "faith" that spells out very clearly that Islam must take over the world! That's a problem whether we care to admit it or not.
Apparently! LOL
He's giving us his full assurances which can only be given, in earnst, with such insight! Rush, Snow, et al. too.
I wish I had their supermental powers. ; )
placemarker
I'm changing my tagline for now.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah
[4.95] The holders back from among the believers, not having any injury, and those who strive hard in Allah's way with their property and their persons are not equal
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
They don't view us (non-muslims) as equal, and therefore they seek to "fix the world" via takeover and domination. That much is clear to anyone with a brain and even a remote awareness of what's going on in this realm.
I'm guessing that the majority of the Muslims in the world, just don't think like us westerners, and that may be part of the reason they do not act like we would want or expect them to. The few that I do know personally, are against the violence, but they have lifes to live, and do not go out publicly speaking.
I don't think silence speaks to anyone other than those that have already decided what they want to hear.
I defend no one, I just attempt to see more than one side to things.
Only if you assume that the majority of Muslims in the world, think as we westerners do. I would think, knowing the population of Muslims in the world, that evidence shows that most do not act violently.
So?
"Perhaps"?
Now there's a firm foundation for not subjecting Islamic nations to greater scrutiny than non-Islamic ones.
"I defend no one"
In your case, that has multiple, and very telling meanings.
I would certainly hope so.
If I had said anything definitively, then someone would have demanded a source. It is a possibility, nothing more.
Michael Reagan speaks the truth BTTT!
Hey....I'm in fly over country. Not to negate the seriousness of the issue but I still think it's hilarious that Chuckie and Hillary are bleeding mega minority votes by looking like she is lumping all Arabs into one mad-dog race.
They all look alike don't they Miss Hillary?
Yesterday following his islamaphobic rant coupled with patting himself on the back for good ratings, his better in ratings and quality, Brit Hume blew him out of the water. There was an interview with a former marine longshoreman at the Port of Baltimore refuting everything Gibson was saying.
Have ever seen longshoremen working in the hatches of cargo vessels???
I found Rush's attitude yesterday (Wednesday) disgusting. For the first time, I starting seeing Rush in a different light, and it wasn't flattering.
And, what did you specific heard that you now see Rush in a different light???
Does the truth bother you, or is it because that you don't chat???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.