But why? Why take a chance of allowing Islamics an intimate connection with the business of the US when we don't have to? To prove we're not "racist"? 
Posted on 03/10/2006 5:34:07 AM PST by soccermom
"Reagan may not have known about the deal any earlier than Bush did, but ONCE HE DID KNOW, Reagan's values and instincts would have led him to reject such a deal, whereas Bush's values and instincts led him to embrace such a deal. Reagan valued the sovereignty of the United States above almost any other value. Bush values globalism and business above sovereignty." LOL! You don't think Reagan ever made any deals that undermined our sovereignty? I seem to recall some nuclear arms treaty that caused quite a stir. Incidentally, I notice you refer to Reagan's "values and instincts". You assume he would have acted on a gut impulse -- much like you guys have been -- rather than looking at the facts and implications they would have for our military. You can point to his love of sovereignty -- I can point to his love of the military. (Not to mention the fact that foreign businesses holding contracts in America doesn't give away sovereignty. You think we didn't contract to foreign businesses in the eighties?) The bottom line is we don't know what Reagan would have done and I take issue with those who are so presumptuous and arrogant as to claim they do know.
"If you don't think that you know what Reagan would have done in this situation, why did you refer to Reagan's likely response in your vanity?" I don't refer to a "likely response." I state very clearly that I don't know what Reagan would do. I only know what his values are. Why did I bring up Reagan? Because Hannity is the one who tries to claim the Reagan mantle. He said, specifically in reference to this deal, he asks WWRD?
Thanks. Until this point,I had tolerated Hannity. He may have been repetitive and intellectually shallow, but he is basically a nice, well-intentioned guy. Once he made the "let 'em" comment, I had enough.
Excellent research -- thanks!
I think this is the crux of the problem. You are incapable of distinguishing between an Arab country and Muslims. Not all Arabs are Muslim. Not all Arabs are religious. Not all Muslims are terrorists. You look at a deal and think "Ahhh! A-rabs!" We do business and entrust our military with Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan etc.
Don't you see how simplistic and diplomatically disastrous it is to conclude we want to renege on a deal, just because they're Arab?
Refer to post #208. My point (and hers) is that militant Islamists will infiltrate anywhere they can. While we're getting all hyped up over an ally who happens to be Arab, those who mean us harm will come right in under our noses.
We have accomplished nothing that would make us any safer by rescinding the deal, but may have done damage to our relationship with a partner (and would-be partners?) in the War On Terror.
The bottom line is, unless we are inspecting every single thing that comes into our ports and every single human being that flies, boats or walks in, it really doesn't matter who is issuing a pay-check to longshoremen. It is all window dressing and shameless political stunt that will only hurt the GOP and strengthen democrats.
Would the Port Authority have divested its interest to DPW under this deal?
Would the Port Authority have divested its interest to DPW under this deal?
Contracts in which a foreign nation would be allowed to do business within the borders of the United States, particularly an authoritarian government that had no transparency is something old man Casey would have vetted every possible way.
It was Casey and men like him who had seen the horrors of security failures first hand during WWII, that President Reagan relied on. In my opinion President Reagan had better people within his circle of advisors than does President Bush. It is for that reason that something such as DWP would not have taken place in the Reagan administration.
I trust that someone's area responsibility includes keeping track of foreign business deals that could have political ramifications for President Bush. Whoever that person is they need to be fired in a public way.If no such person is in place I am concerned about the structure of the President's administration and what that means for the United States.
"hannity is a fraud; an impersonator."
I refer to Hannity as "Plastic Man"
But why? Why take a chance of allowing Islamics an intimate connection with the business of the US when we don't have to? To prove we're not "racist"?
AND the sudden utilization of co-opting the RATS playbook of using the "race card."
These people not only have short memories but actually believed Dubya's post-9/11 characterization of Islam as "The Religion of Peace."
The animus directed at Sean Hannity by FR's Nuremburg cabal is the outrage of his having the audicity of putting "principle over power and party."
THANK YOU, SEAN!
Well articulated.
Personally I don't give a damn if someone disagrees. I prefer they base disagreement on actual facts...but even if not no matter. Disagree on whatever flimsy or strong argument you wish.
Where I drew the line in the sand was in how he, and others, launched their Last Stand. For that...I have tuned him off. About two weeks without and intention to tune back in anytime soon.
I have Rush. I have the 'net. That's enough right now. If I get a craving for talk radio aside from Rush at Hannity's hour, I'll tune to sports talk or Medved.
"I trust that someone's area responsibility includes keeping track of foreign business deals that could have political ramifications for President Bush." You don't get it. Neither Bush nor Reagan acted based on political ramifications. They did what was in the long term interest of this country, regardless of the political ramifications.! And thumbing one's nose at an ally in the war on terror is the ramification they should be concerned with. The long-term security of this country is more important than the short term hysteria fomented by demagogues.
Just curious. I used to listen to him all the time. Haven't lately.
Thanks. As I've said repeatedly here, I drew the line when he was so arrogant as to what impact this might have on our military relationship with the UAE. For some time, I have found Sean to be repetitive and intellectually shallow. He's a charming guy and a great cheerleader, but there isn't much depth there. I used to listen to Medved before we moved. I could no longer get Medved in my new location and was stuck with Hannity. Someone on this thread has provided me with a link to catch Medved online, which I will do from now on.
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.