JMO, onyx, whenever I hear this is "Tone Deaf", it reminds me of the "republican" who first stated it.
JMO, one shouldn't criticize being deaf on anything especially when one is essentially deaf at taking a picture.
Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
What the hell does that mean in the context of this discussion?
JMO, onyx, whenever I hear this is "Tone Deaf", it reminds me of the "republican" who first stated it.
JMO, one shouldn't criticize being deaf on anything especially when one is essentially deaf at taking a picture.
I'm afraid you are right. I reluctantly came to the same conclusion about two years ago. That was about the time that the "rehabilitation" of the Xlintons went full-steam ahead.
And they continue. Sandy Hamburglar got off with a slap on the wrist, and countless other actions have tarnished the administration.
...leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
That line seems to sum up the basis for much of the knee-jerk opposition. Since the United States is a country with ties to the Oklahoma City bomber, I guess they're also against a US company operating the ports?
Not that I'm endorsing this deal, but I do wonder who went to the AP and suggested framing the story this way. Maybe the Dems simply got lucky with a story ripe for political exploitation, but I doubt that.
Imagine the negative ads the 'Rats will run in November against Republicans who support the port turnover. It's just insane that Bush and his advisors are giving the 'Rats this opening. Kill the deal now.
i know that i'm taking the minority view on this matter but i just can't buy into the argument that because terrorist come from this part of the world that want to own these ports that that disqualifies them from owning them. if that's the logic for denying someone to own something here in America then that would disqualify even an American company from owning these ports. We have a father-son on trial in Lodi, CA for planning terrorists activity. We just arrested three people in Ohio today for planning terrorists activities. That's just to name a couple. I'm sorry but i just can't buy into this guilty by association mentality.
Some speculate about a "secret plan". I see no evidence of such, nor does it make sense. This was a private business transaction between two companies, and it would be quite a stretch to think the U.S. was manipulating world markets to that degree.
I don't think there needs to be a secret plan. Like it or not, Bush believes we need nations on our side, and when they ARE on our side, he wants PROOF that they are not before he stabs them in the back.
As he said, step up and explain why an Arab company is by its very nature unworthy of the trust we placed in the same company when it was a british company publicly owned by stockholders.
I haven't seen anyone explain it without appeal to the "all muslims are bad, all muslims hate us, we can't trust muslims". All this might be true (I don't believe it), but we can't operate on that assumption. We need partners, and UAE is a good partner to us based on evidence.
At least Pataki has never pretended to be anything more than a dopey, dim-witted "Blue" state governor. Peter King is supposed to be the chairman of the House committee on homeland security!
I'm afraid Bush will hurt himeself and the GOP on this one.
Thank you, Charles. May I have your permission to cut and paste your comments about 1000 times?
Ditto yours.
Interesting point.
He's really in a Catch-22, since he really can't explain this logic publicly. This is one of those where we're just going to have to trust him and hope to God he hasn't misplaced his trust in Dubai.
...a voice of reason...thank you
You're exactly right about the poor timing of the veto threat. If a president is going to distinguish his administration by going 5 years without a veto, he could have certainly picked a better time to menacingly wave the veto pen.
I hope you'll be addressing this tonight. I'd love to hear your take.
"As he said, step up and explain why an Arab company is by its very nature unworthy of the trust we placed in the same company when it was a british company publicly owned by stockholders."
I think the point of all the conservative howling, is that even if the UAE comes in and does a masterful first couple of years running the ports, what happens when Port Master Sharik's brother-in-law, that just got kicked out of Dubai Univerisity, and has cut a deal to bring in a plutonium weapon on container 2A1134, labeled "Chinese Plastic DogSh*t", and then, well...there you go.
I think this thread has exhausted its use unless something else is revealed.
The "public pressure" surrounding that story was about as idiotic as anything I've seen on this one.
All six of the islamic states they have confederated with are typical, repressive Arab muslim states, but since Dubai has some Western style commerce and fashions that makes them completely trustworthy allies. Are you interested in buying a bridge in New York, I can sell it cheap.
Don't leave before you have read this post. It's most excellent:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582942/posts?page=918#918
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.