Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

Miami Herald ^ | 02/21/2006 | LESLEY CLARK

[Tatze]

Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.

BY LESLEY CLARK
lclark@MiamiHerald.com

WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

[be-baw]

I was referring to those who support whatever Bush proposes or does, regardless of the merits in any particular case. I voted for him twice, but I don't support everything he does or wants to do...so take THAT and put it where the sun don't shine.

[Wolfstar]

I voted for him twice, but I don't support everything he does or wants to do...so take THAT and put it where the sun don't shine.

Whoop-de-do. You voted for him twice, but don't support everything he does or wants to do. Near as I can tell, that doesn't distinguish you in any way from probably 99% of his voters.

[meandog]

I don't agree with you. The situations are not analogous in the least. And I think the whole Bush = Hitler/his supporters = Nazis has been done to death. You may have a valid point about the imprudence of outsourcing control of ports to a foreign nation, especially one from a hostile region, but you do yourself a disservice by couching things in terms such as you have....

...okay, then, can you see an analogy with, say, the current event where Israel agreed to a concession of Gaza to what believed would lead to a peaceful Palestinian government; or, perhaps, you could agree that Taiwan could agree to having China run its ports, or agree that India should let Islamic Pakistan have unfettered opportunity over Kashmir points of entry; or that Islamic Turkey should have complete autonomy in Cyprus; or that World War I German minster Zimmerman was perfectly correct in his infamous cablegram about Mexican-American sovereignty, etc., etc.

My point: Having the least hint of an Islamic government control of our ports while we're in a WAR on terror is beyond folly and Bush is proving himself a fool in approving it.

[Prince Charles]

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

If Amy Carter also says it's okay, then it must be good for the country.

[Paperdoll]

OMG - If Jimma Cotta approves, it's far worse than we thought!

[meandog]

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Meandog law: Whenever one endorses the proposal of folly, he proves himself a fool--the president has done just that and, IMHO, is mirroring the PO tu S who gave away the Panama Canal!

[TheForceOfOne]

Did you support President Bush going into Iraq to remove Saddam?

[meandog]

Did you support President Bush going into Iraq to remove Saddam?

ABSOLUTELY...only, I had wished that he had done it with five times the force level that went in...in that way we might have ACTUALLY nabbed the WMDs before they were moved, caught Zakawri, prevented looting, and stepped up the process in having Iraq shoulder its part of the load.

[TheForceOfOne]

So did these Democrats.

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)


My point is, it doesn't matter what Carter or any other Liberal thinks or says. We must make our decisions based on the best facts available at that time. Simply being for or against something just because of what a Liberal thinks is silly, even a clock is right twice a day.

[meandog]

Do you support President Bush:
1. When he constantly snuggles up to Bill Clinton?
2. When he signed CAFTA (and, admittedly, my personal favorites: CFR and anti-torture bills)?
3. When he proposed his personal lawyer for the SC?
4. When "Browney" does "a heck of a job" and has to step down because of it?
5. When "Mission Accomplished" becomes something entirely unrecognizable?
6. When the Commonwealth of Virginia has two successive Democratic governors because of him?
7. When he continues as the best gift libeRATS ever had because of constant screw-ups (i.e., Katrina aftermath, IEDs in Iraq, Valerie Plame, skyrocketing deficit, unbelievable gas prices, jobs going overseas, etc., etc.?

[Czar]

So Carter is supporting Bush.

That ought to resonate real well with the conservative base.

Lets be tone deaf some more.

[daybreakcoming]

That was quite a stretch to liken your fellow FReepers to Nazis just because some might disagree with your opinion.

[Doctor Don]

Reckon ole Jim-boy is still runnin from that monster rabbit?

[Mr. Mojo]

It is entirely possible to be a supporter of GWB and to disagree with this or other administration policies.

Obviously. ...but it appears you don't understand the distinction between a Bush supporter and a Bushbot. The former are able to think for themselves and occasionally disagree with the President while at the same time supporting him. The latter act like programmed robotoids, unable (or publicly unwilling) to criticize the President under any circumstances.

[Mr. Mojo]

President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, but he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter

lol.....I wouldn't exactly call it a boost.

I suspect the fact that the incompetent traitor is on his side is giving the President nightmares.

[Czar]

"...and Jorge's IMPOTENCE in all things involving Borders and Homeland Security!"

The truth will out, sadly.

[Wolfstar]

I do not in any way agree with you about using the insulting term "Bushbot." I do not care to understand it, no matter how you choose to define it.

I will not go about using insulting terms simply because I may happen to disagree with a fellow conservative/Republican on a particular policy matter. If we can't debate and argue out our differences civilly, then we are no better than the Leftist scuzz who habitually resort to intimidation.

[Mr. Mojo]

the insulting term "Bushbot."

Quite a sensitive one, aren't you? Most Bushbots actually find the term endearing, and proudly display their Bushbot Banners on their profile pages.

Time to lighten up.

[Wolfstar]

It's not a question of sensitivity, but of civility.

[meandog]

That was quite a stretch to liken your fellow FReepers to Nazis just because some might disagree with your opinion...

It is the best analogy that I could imagine for A FEW of the ultra conservative "Clymers" who seem to follow in jackbooted lockstep postings with every directive handed down, regardless of the stupidity of the order.