Posted on 03/10/2006 5:34:07 AM PST by soccermom
Dear Mr. Hannity,
Your cavalier attitude toward the possible removal of our troops from the UAE air base (as discussed on Thursday's show) has finally caused me to lose whatever remaining affection I had for you. It is very easy for you, sitting in your comfortable studio, to respond, “Let em”. You're not the one who has to conduct missions in the Middle East. You're not the one that needs the logistical support. Why don't you tell it to General Tommy Franks? Better yet, why don't you tell it to the men and women that are currently working with the UAE?
Yesterday's stunt by congress to revoke the contract with DPW has done absolutely nothing to make our country any safer. It was purely a political stunt. Unless congress closes down every air and sea port to imports (and foreign visitors) of any kind, there will always be a risk. Changing whomever holds the contract is nothing more than a change in window dressing and you know it. Meanwhile, as you and others are stirring up people into a frenzy over them thar A-rabs, another pale-skinned, British-accented Richard Reid will waltz right in under your nose.
Whether or not the selfish pandering of our politicians hampers our war effort remains to be seen. But, if our troops are forced to take on additional risks due to a lack of cooperation by the UAE, I will lay their blood directly at the feet of you, like-minded shock-jocks, and the spineless Republicans in congress. (I expected such tactics from the Demagoguecrats. I did not expect Republicans to put their own miserable political careers ahead of national interest.)
Furthermore, I am getting more than a little tired of your wrapping yourself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Your repeated attempts to paint yourself as a “Reagan Conservative” is nothing more than an intellectually lazy way for you to appeal to your audience. It is very easy to simply claim “I'm with him – the cool guy”, rather have to define yourself and stand on your own.
We (conservatives) all love Ronald Reagan. Who are you to invoke him as to where he would stand on your issue? My father was a fighter pilot from the time he fought in Vietnam to the time he retired in 1992. He will tell anyone who will listen about the brilliance of Ronald Reagan. He tells us he is a “World War Three” veteran and that Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. For Father's Day a few years ago, I even got him a license plate frame that reads: “World War III Veteran......Reagan Won the Cold War.” Incidentally, my father was the DO for the fighter wing that bombed Libya. I was only a teen then but, if I'm not mistaken, France was even uncooperative then, refusing to let us use their airspace. So while you're telling it to Tommy Franks and our troops in the Middle East, why don't you go ahead and tell my father how insignificant it is to have strategic allies as well?
Finally, I get a little tired of people like you holding subsequent presidents to the “Reagan Ideal” -- an illusion that Ronald Reagan himself couldn't possibly live up to. Yes, Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. Yes, he was a conservative leader. But, NO, he didn't always adhere to his conservative principles and I'm getting a little tired of you revisionists pretending he did. President Reagan, like any great leader, was a pragmatist. And he, like any great leader, occasionally had to set aside his conservative ideals for more practical purposes. Raising taxes on social security isn't a conservative ideal. I don't think Reagan wanted to do it, but he did so in order to get other concessions from congress. Growing the deficit is not a conservative ideal. I don't think Reagan wanted to do it, but he did so for the greater goal of building up our military (and he thought he was getting other concessions from congress.) I don't think a conservative like Reagan would want to ally himself with a country like Iraq, but he did so because it was the pragmatic thing to do at the time. And let's not forget Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. So please, stop holding Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to a purely conservative standard that never was.
So WWRD? I don't know what Reagan would have done in the DPW controversy. NEITHER DO YOU. I do know that Reagan wasn't concerned with what the “popular” thought was. He did what he thought was best for our nation, regardless of what the critics said. Unlike you, he was not short-sighted. He knew that the long-term benefit of defeating communism was more important than avoiding the contemporaneous scorn of his critics. And unlike the spineless Republicans in congress, he didn't ignore the best interests of the country in an attempt to save his own political rear end. And that is why his legacy stands today.
Since we hate Hannity today, let's not forget that he's too much of a coward to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.
What!? And miss constantly hearing "vis-a-vis" used incorrectly?
In the early 80s, Reagan advocated constructive engagement with countries like South Africa, when many sought divestiture on account of their policy of apartheid. Reagan recognized that not all of our friends have to be perfect in order to be treated like friends.
"It may be that the way it was first reported made it sound as though the UAE would have more involvement with security than it actually would have, but those errors were quickly corrected" Really? So why did Hannity not correct the misinformed woman who called into his show yesterday? You and I both know that the correction never gets as much play as the initial (wrong) story.
What does Hannity's campaiging for Bush have to do with anything? The fact that he campaigned for Bush has nothing to do with the fact that he is indifferent to the diplomatic fiasco and possible strategic losses we may face. And then he turns around and complains that democrats are exploiting this and Bush is taking a beating in the polls. As Rush would say, "Well, Hells Bells!" What did you expect? Until Hannity made his "let 'em" comment, I was willing to let it go.
Sean is a nice guy. Sean is a patriotic guy. Sean is a charming guy. But, IMO he is not the brightest crayon in the box. You have to admit he isn't a very good debater. And if he's going to call those who disagree with him "knee jerk" and "Kool-aid" drinkers, he's going to get it as well as he gives it. I find it particularly funny when he uses the "knee-jerk" line when, very clearly, it is those who oppose the deal who are reacting in a knee jerk manner, while those who defend it took the time to look beyond all the demagoguery.
"Did we sell Stalin our US ports during WWII?" No, and we haven't sold our ports to the UAE now. The fact that you guys continue to perpepuate these exaggerations illustrates my point exactly.
"Today, I am on my knees thanking the US House for in effect saving many Republicans from certain defeat this November." LOL! You think this is going to save them? Now they look like the "me-too" party following Hillary and Schumer! All they've done is give another blow to Bush. Boehner (sp?), the new House majority leader, was on Snow's show the other night. He basically said, he wasn't interested in the facts -- it was all politics now. He then went on to say that, if the president was unpopular, it would hurt Republicans in the midterm elections. So this helps them???????
"President Reagan would have never found himself in such a position as "W" has allowed himself to be placed." Oh PUHLEEZE! You expect us to believe that Reagan would have been aware of the deal, micromanaging who gets what contracts? I wouldn't expect Reagan, or any president for that matter, to be involved in such deals. Reagan was a delegator. He wasn't even aware of the arms deal, and you want to pretend he would have been on top of this! Yeah -- right!
I understand that they won't be "managing" our sea ports. They will be handling the payroll for American longshoremen. Do you not understand that our sea ports are vulnerable, no matter who manages them? A British citizen with terrorist sympathies can infiltrate the system, just as easily, even more so. Is nationality your concern, or religion? Perhaps we should put a ban on all Muslims working at all ports.
Yeah, that's like saying the Philadelpha Phillies don't really own their baseball team because the MLB (Major League Baseball) REALLY has DEFACTO control over the teams and can nix and/or approve anything the Phillies front office wants to do.
As for your comment on the difference between terminals and ports, please dont be so condenscending.
Anyone who owns a terminal has control over which ships come to that terminal, and control over what cargo is removed, when and where, and who works at that terminal.
So don't give me this baloney that a terminal owner/operator is simply some innocent entity which has nothing to do with shipping goods into the USA, etc.
"Given Reagan's opposition to the give-away of the Panama Canal, I think that we can safely presume that he would never have allowed this deal to get as far as it did." If you can't distinguish between "giving away" the Panama Canal and allowing foreigners to have contracts with American-owned ports, I think you've illustrated that you have fallen for the hype and hysteria. And, as I noted to another poster, what makes you think Reagan would have been aware of such a deal, let alone micro-managing it? No president would have been involved in such a decision. Reagan wasn't even aware of the arms deal, yet you expect me to believe he would have been all over this?
Oh, I know. It simply amazed me when I listened to him. I couldn't help thinking sometimes "You know, if a Democrat did this, you'd be hopping mad. But it's Bush, so everything is okay."
Thanks -- I'll bookmark it.
well said
As Rush said today ...(I am paraphrasing) This is not a moment of triumph, this is a moment of shame...Sean should be ashamed
The UAE does not even allow foreigners to own businesses in their country, outside a small "free trade zone", that is.
Check out the UAE govt. website. Since I refuse to join, I got the info from a business information site BELOW: (do your own research if you dont believe me)
"In this type of ownership, 51% of the company will be owned by a UAE national and the other 49% you may own, with the business being situated anywhere in the UAE.
There are seven categories of business organisation that can be established, which are - general partnership company, partnership-en-commendam, joint venture company, public shareholding company, private shareholding company, limited liability company and share partnership company. General partnership companies are limited only to UAE nationals, while the establishment of partnership-en-commendam and share partnership companies are not presently encouraged."
Cool.
Who owns the ports in New York and New Jersey?
Howey Carr out of WRKO in Boston was against too, but he's always been a frontrunner and a shameless self-promoter.
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.