Dubya Jeopardy [UAE Deal "Fundamentally Foolish" and "Indefensible"]

New York Post ^ | 02/22/2006 | Staff

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

*SNIP*

To Bush, this is all a matter of anti-Arab profiling: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company," which last week was sold to the UAE firm.

With all due respect, Mr. President, here's why:

* The UAE — and, specifically, Dubai — has been a breeding ground for terrorism.

* Its banking system — considered the commercial center of the Arab world — provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers.

* * It continues to stonewall the U.S. Treasury Department's efforts to track al Qaeda's bank accounts.

* * Some of the operational planning for 9/11 took place inside the UAE.

* * It exchanged ambassadors with the Taliban when the latter subjugated Afghanistan.

* * And it trans-shipped weapons to Iran.

Nor does it matter, as Bush said yesterday, that port security still would be controlled by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Security at the ports is already lax enough; there's no need to bring in another compromising element to what has been America's most vulnerable point of entry, post-9/11.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ping

[Echo Talon]

Some of the operational planning for 9/11 took place inside the UAE.

Most of it took place in Florida and we trained them to fly airplanes.

[Echo Talon]

Read this before you look foolish on the subject

[ARCADIA]

Most of it took place in Florida and we trained them to fly airplanes.

And their presence in Florida was approved by the same collection of idiots that want to approve the port deal.

[Echo Talon]

Bill Clinton?

[Siena Dreaming]

Yeah, but by the reasoning of the article the US itself would be barred from port operations because major terrorist preparations took place here.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Already read it, thank you. The arguments rehashed therein are no more convincing reheated than they were fresh.

[Echo Talon]

Yeah, but by the reasoning of the article the US itself would be barred from port operations because major terrorist preparations took place here.

Not to mention major amounts of money was raised and funneled though the US to terrorist.

[ARCADIA]

Bill Clinton?

He, Bush, and the entrenched bureaucracy that is still there.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"The arguments rehashed therein are no more convincing reheated than they were fresh."

ha ha. pretty astute.

[Echo Talon]

Already read it, thank you. The arguments rehashed therein are no more convincing reheated than they were fresh.

Those aren't arguements those are what we call FACTS.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Those aren't arguements those are what we call FACTS.

This would all be a good deal easier to take seriously, from someone capable of spelling the word "arguments" correctly.

[Echo Talon]

This would all be a good deal easier to take seriously, from someone capable of spelling the word "arguments" correctly.

oh boy... guess I deserved it I made fun of someone yesterday for misspelling "Cheney"

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

All right, then. Let's both start over, with clean hands and composure: convince me, without resorting to the sort of dogmatic declarations ("These are the FACTS!") that end up making you sound like a wild-eyed and bearded imam, declaring jihad... and I'll listen.

Note that this is nothing even remotely like a solemn pledge to be convinced, mind. :)

[Siena Dreaming]

Don't fret...Kent himself used a comma in post #13 where it is grammatically incorrect.

I have found that if you make fun of someone's spelling on this forum it will invariably come back and byte you. (oops)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Don't fret...Kent himself used a comma in post #13 where it is grammatically incorrect.

THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE disagrees with you. Given that they have the actual rep for this sort of thing: I'll side with them, thank you. :)

[Echo Talon]

Ok what do you oppose about the deal?

[Darkwolf377]

Yeah, but by the reasoning of the article the US itself would be barred from port operations because major terrorist preparations took place here.

Peter King will propose that we allow only Eskimos to do, well, anything, anywhere, ever, involving our ports, airplane training, fundraising, snack food production, etc.

Yes, we know it's election year, Petey.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

There are six red-fonted bullet points, in the original article. I've yet to see any coherent (or even intellectually honest) gainsaying of any of these, hereabouts. Those should do, for starters. :)