The Tony Snow Show Thread, Wednesday, February 22, 2006

We all love and trust Pres. Bush, even when we disagree with him. But, he also sets precedents when he does things that set the framework for future presidents. Now, honestly, BushBots, would you be so willing to accept this deal if it was made by WJC or, worse, Hillary?

I just wish there was volume control IN the player....or am I missing something?

Message to Arabs: "Yes, we really hate you, always and forever, and will do harm to you given the chance." (I'll keep my personal feelings to myself.)

Gore did that with his speech last week .. you know .. the one the MSM refuses to report on

I want to know what Oliver North thinks. Any chance you could get him on tomorrow?

Could someone with WSJ online pull this article?

Democrat officials' firm helped Dubai purchase ports

Little noticed in the kerfuffle over the takeover of major US ports by Dubai Ports is the key role being played by former Democratic Party leaders. Lobbying firms associated with ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) have been working http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114054059300379152-email.html (paid subscription only link) to secure approval of the purchase by Dubai.

One would think that our leaders, even when out of office, would care more about their nation than their bank accounts.This hopefully will give impetus to a bill (drafted by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan) working its slow way through Congress that would bar http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/12/INGHIH5NF51.DTL federal employees from representing foreign governments for four years after they leave public service.

A sad statement: we need a law that restricts former government leaders, who presumably would have America’s interest at heart, from going on the payroll of foreign regimes, even those with connections to terror activities.

Ed Lasky 2 22 06

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4515

Also:

A Thought on Port Deals
By Mark Noonan at 08:31 AM
Back in 2000, American Moslems voted for GW, in 2004 they voted for Kerry. The reason? Short sightedness - Moslems were bamboozled into voting Democrat in 2004 because the Democrats were all out against "racial profiling", etc. I hope now that American Moslems have learned where their true friends are - where, that is, decisions are made based upon the right or wrong of it all, rather than based upon short-term political gain.

And then there's this thought from Opinion Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999

The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn't be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - President Bush over his time in office has earned the right to be trusted, at least by we GOPers who have supported him. He hasn't been the rock-ribbed conservative dream, but he never advertised himself as such. What he has said, he has done - and we in the GOP have reaped major rewards due to President Bush's leadership.

President Bush says this deal is ok. Who do you want to trust? President Bush, or a half-assed pundit who doesn't know even 10% of the details? Until someone comes up with a rock solid reason for stopping this deal, I'm going to go along with President Bush judgement.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/

On Its Face This Looks Like Insanity...

February 21, 2006 - When The Republican minority leader of the New York City Council, James Oddo, and ultra-leftist Democrat Senator Charles Schumer agree on something, that's [expletive] news.

At a point in time when Homeland Security and its assorted dot-collectors know that the murderous jihadists have acquired a bunch of ships and the Iranians have test fired seaborne missiles that could carry nukes produced by the Axis of Evil, New Media journalists have looked past the manufactured media hype about VP Cheney's hunting accident to take note of the astonishing fact that the United Arab Emirates might take over management of a list of several key American ports. A British Company called Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. got bought out by Dubai Ports World for $6.8 billion and the implications are significant. New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami are involved.

Suddenly liberal Democrats who see no reason to defend human liberty and establish democracy in the Middle East or concern themselves with whether or not aliens can wander in and pick up a driver's license as easily as they can get movie tickets have become concerned about homeland security.
For the history-impaired public school types, unions involved with longshoremen and stevedores long ago drove the US merchant marine companies away from the American flag to which liberal judges think nobody should swear allegiance if God gets honorable mention. So some Brits have been running things for years and now they're cashing out and Islam is buying in. This is breaking news to people who thought nothing of Jimmy Carter tossing off the Panama Canal which was followed by the acquisition by Chinese Communists of port cities at both ends.

Why the Democrat concern now? Call it a realization of the 9-11 and Katrina effects.

New York liberals were fat, dumb and happy with liberalism until crazed killers came to town and took away lives and landmarks. Since that day, they've since gone back to their delusions but New Orleans presented a different prospect. The crooked politicians who stole or diverted all of the money that has for years been bilked from American taxpayers who bought the bait-and-switch line that the cash would improve levees and save lives have lost their voter base. The levees did break, the welfare recipients have relocated, most will never return to the "chocolate city" and political clout has been dispersed across the map.

What if the UAE lets some major bad thing happen in Baltimore, New York or Miami where Democrat politicians have clout?

Not only will many more Americans realize that a Democrat mayor is the virtual equivalent of a Weapon of Social Destruction but the dependent voters will be dispersed from Demerica and dispersed from the little blue pockets of isolated resistance to places where people believe in success and survival and reject the leftist loser mentality. The government checks, even if wasted on liquor and lap dances, will be spent in the other America. The rebuilders will also come from the real world outside Demerica.

France has learned yet again the futility of appeasement. Maybe New Jersey, New York, Miami and Baltimore are seeking a cure for Clue Deficiency Syndrome as well.

http://www.therant.us/staff/mr_smith/02212006.htm

http://www.therant.us/staff/mr_smith/02212006.htm

"Would you rather have a skunk on the outside of the tent pissing in, or on the inside pissing out?"

"Neither, I'd shoot the darn skunk before it had a chance." - b4its2late.

Now, honestly, BushBots, would you be so willing to accept this deal if it was made by WJC or, worse, Hillary?

It really would not make a difference to me on this issue.

I know you are being funny, but it is a political metaphor and shooting is not always the most prudent action.

Gore did that with his speech last week

Exactly. Do they really want this thing ramped up a whole bunch of notches? If so, why?

Ben Nelson on Port Security:

"Question is whether any other country should run Port Secuity"

Actually he didn't say anything new.

I just got the radio feed, finally.

Some interesting info about who is involved in the UAE deal.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583378/posts

From the article on the link I posted earlier and a few posts:

Not So Fast On the UAE Port Deal...Check This Out...
multiple links on UAE-Iran-USA | 02.21.06 | Me...composite sources

Posted on 02/21/2006 11:10:13 PM PST by antaresequity

There is Obviously way more to the UAE story than just the managment of port operations...I implore all freepers to dig a little deeper...

Credit to Diddle E Squat for getting me to think and dig a little deeper...

Take a look at the map and the links and snippets...then lets get back to a constructive discussion regarding the UAE as an ally or foe in the war on terrorism....and more importantly...a strategic ally in the coming war against Iran...

Foreign Affairs
The UAE and Iran continue to dispute the ownership of three islands, Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb Islands, which are strategically located in the Strait of Hormuz. All three islands were effectively occupied by Iranian troops in 1992. The Mubarak field, which is located six miles off Abu Musa, has been producing oil and associated natural gas since 1974. In 1995, the Iranian Foreign Ministry claimed that the islands are "an inseparable part of Iran." Iran rejected a 1996 proposal by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for the dispute to be resolved by the International Court of Justice, an option supported by the UAE. In early 1996, Iran took further moves to strengthen its hold on the disputed islands. These actions included starting up a power plant on Greater Tunb, opening an airport on Abu Musa, and announcing plans for construction of a new port on Abu Musa. In the dispute, the UAE has received strong support from the GCC, the United Nations, and the United States. Although Iran remains a continuing concern for officials in Abu Dhabi, they have chosen not to escalate the territorial dispute. Iran is one of Dubai's major trading partners, accounting for 20 percent to 30 percent of Dubai's business.

Source...

The Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf ( Arabic : ãÌáÓ ÇáÊÚÇæä áÏæá ÇáÎáíÌ ÇáÚÑÈíÉ), formerly named and still commonly called Gulf Cooperation Council ( GCC ) (ãÌáÓ ÇáÊÚÇæä ÇáÎáíÌí) is a regional organization involving the six Persian Gulf Arab States with many economic and social objectives in mind. Created May 25 , 1981 , the Council is comprised of Bahrain , Kuwait , Oman , Qatar , Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates .

Source...

Historical analysis indicates that Iran's claims to disputed islands are unfounded
Al Roken, M. / Abu Dhabi Government, UAE , 2001
The chapter discusses the current dispute between the United Arab Emirates and Iran over the three islands of Greater and Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa from a historical- legal dimension. The author deals with different axes indicating the historical dimension of the dispute which supports the UAE`s title to the three islands and refutes Iranian claims.

Source...

Iran bars National Geographic over gulf's name

Sales of magazines, reporting banned until atlas is changed

TEHRAN - Iran banned National Geographic reporters and sales of the magazine until it corrects an atlas it published using a disputed name for waters off the Islamic Republic's south coast.

Iran insists on calling the waters the “Persian Gulf.” However, the saltwater body also touches the shores of eastern Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain. Many people in these other states refer to the waters as the “Arabian Gulf.”

Source...

And this post:

I sure hope you are right. I have a lot of faith our president and constantly see him doing things that are "dumb like a fox", much to the chagrin of his enemies. I think the UAE may be a lot more progressive than many realize.

I pulled this from the UAE website:

"Since the nomadic days, the women of the UAE have played a pivotal role.
When the men were occupied in the fishing and pearling industry, the women took care of agriculture, rearing of livestock and bringing up the children…no mean task in the desert land.

The first women's association in the country, the Abu Dhabi Women's Association, was formed in February 1973 by First Lady, H.H. Sheikha Fatima bint Mubarak. In 1975, the women’s associations in the seven emirates were brought together under the UAE Women's Federation.

She still serves as the Chairwoman. Her commitment and dedication towards the cause of woman in the UAE has won her accolades and praise from the United Nations Organization for Women. The UAE Women's Federation covers topics such as Religious Affairs, Mother and Child Care, Social Affairs, Cultural Affairs, Arts and Sports.

The UAE Constitution too ensures women’s equality with men and protects their rights in accordance with the rights and privileges laid down in Islam. They enjoy the same legal status, title claims, access to education, the right to a profession of their choice, health and family welfare facilities and rights with regard to the inheritance of property are also guaranteed.

The UAE University and HCTs are producing women graduates in disciplines such as the arts, engineering, sciences, including environmental sciences, media and communications, as well as computer technology. Women are now found in the fields of business, technology, aviation, armed forces, literature etc."

Sound like their attitudes toward women are on the right track and that's a big step in the right direction for this region.

19 posted on 02/21/2006 11:29:25 PM PST by Left2Right ("Democracy isn't perfect, but other governments are so much worse")

To: antaresequity
Excellent points. Thank god some sanity has returned to this tonight and we are starting to DISCUSS FACTS.
A post I made on another thread:

I'm trying to think from the goal backward, as opposed to the method forward. The goal is a peaceful region with the US a strong presence in that part of the world, though in a post-WW2 Eastern Europe caretaker role as opposed to an occupying army role. I am not ready to just say "He's my President, he's got some reason for this," but Bush does nothing for no reason, and certainly not just to play nice. His contempt for the UN is blindingly obvious because he thinks he can do the job better--NOT in terms of being a worldwide peacemaker (I don't think he's impressed with that one of his father's interests)but in positioning the US so our security is as assured as can be.

The man who, after we took Afghanistan, looked at the globe and knew the war wasn't over but had barely begun, is not someone who's going to hand over anything to a foreign power just to play nice. Bush looked at the Middle East, I believe the evidence shows, and thought, This clash is coming whether we want it to or not; do we do it on our terms or on theirs? Do we wait for a nuke or another 9-11, and admit to what we know NOW, or do we take the fight to the enemy?

People seem to forget something about the Iraq invasion (they forget a lot of things, but anyway): Sure, Cheney was incorrect in saying we would be welcomed with open arms, but his and Bush's critics seem to forget how very wrong THEY were about The "Arab Street". Remember those stories after we took Baghdad (which a certain democrat candidate said would take one year and at least 5000 US dead) about how depressed Arab men were because we took down "the Elite Republican Guard" so easily? That's because the Middle East is both more complex and more subtle than many Americans know, or want to believe.

It's a game. A dangerous one, but a game. How will it be won--by us basically admitting we think all those Arabs are alike and we will kill them all and that's it? (Isn't that called genocide?) Or do we live on the planet Earth and deal with those who can be dealt with using the currency they understand...namely, uh, currency. Business. What is the Middle East without all that oil? And do all those countries have the same interests?

Tell me which scenario is more likely: The Middle East, minus Israel, is united against the US and tries to destroy us because they all hate us, every one of them (I'll ask my Iraqi housemate about that, and the Chinese one, too--once they're done with their English courses and their nights on the town)? Or that the Middle East has inter-national interests IN the Middle East, and is not completely US-focused, and would rather make money than blow up one of its best sources of income and in turn get blown up?

Just some thoughts, but I think Bush is playing a longterm game here. I suppose after WW2 we stopped trading with Germany, Japan and Italy, but I wasn't around so I can't comment. But those three nations aren't exactly considered nuclear threats to us, now are they?

35 posted on 02/21/2006 11:44:21 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (atheist)

If you want more non-hysterical analysis, you should check out this site, he has three very enlightening pieces.

Port Deal Short Sightedness Runs Amok
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1376

What Is Port Operations?
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1368

‘Operations’ Is Not ‘Control’
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1370

44 posted on 02/21/2006 11:50:23 PM PST by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)

From a UAE blog I frequent go interact with him anti arab people he has laid down the challenge
http://aethoughts.blogspot.com/

Dem Tayrorests Awre Tayken ova our Damn pawts !

Whatever uneducated Barbarians seem to be existent in some small measure in the US Government, their insecurity is worrying.

It seems that everyones been talking about this DP World Thing. Lets make sure to make more people aware of what the UAE is. This is again due to an international ignorance of the UAE. When you travel or when you go abroad, try to inform a few people about the UAE, that it is not a barbarian desert dwelling, that it does not support terrorists, that it is a peaceful country which has stood by everyone that needed them.

The world community, spearheaded by the media and this Incredibly Stupid Cartoon situation which has just spiralled out of control, begun to try and dig up whatever dirt it could on the UAE Government. We should therefore be sorry that:

We have banks. Big no no, what are you doing with all that financial infrastructure ? Bring it here and sit down and be a good little building burning Arab.
Two of the people who were involved in the September 11th attacks held UAE Citizenship. So then we should ban McDonalds and other things because of the actions of a few disgruntled college students who beat up Emaratis in the US ? The Governors calling for the DP world ports deal to not go through are just as stupid as those illiterate bastards whose attention has been diverted away from internal problems and more towards building embassies. They are just as threatened by others, and are willing to break agreements and conventions in order to prove their point.
We are Arab. Bad Mr. Arab, go and blow up buses full of school children instead of meddling in this complicated financial thing which you dont understand.
We gave donations to Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan. I doubt that Kofi or Bill would really stake their careers on the 500,000 Dollar awards. But then again were arab, Hillary Clinton must have seen us on that Arnie movie, going around smacking women and bribing officials.
But then again, there is this...

Sen. Barbara Boxer, on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, [to] take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

Senators, and correct me if im wrong, should be chosen on the basis of education and capability. However this has not been the case judging by Sen. Boxers (pun intended) argument. What exact ties does the UAE have to the 9/11 hijackers ? We in the UAE also fear a terrorist attack. We in the UAE, have also been threatened with terrorist actions. We in the UAE, have assisted the US far before the war on terror. Why does this has to stop ? First of all, what has to stop ? Free trade ? The capability to buy a company in a foreign country ? What is 'this' that you are so afraid of ? You know what you are like ? Youre like a girl who screams "Rape" when a guy jsut shakes her hand. Paranoid and Insecure. Point me out one occasion where the UAE Government took any other step but to combat terrorists. Give me one example of where the UAE government has been warmongering, or has attacked other people. Our army has done more peacekeeping than war for gods sakes. We are the Liberal Hippy Scandanavians of the Middle East. Do you have anything to argue against this ? Only because they use our banks, or stayed in our country, we have ties to them ? Why not end Daimler-Chrysler or Ford ? You are playing around with Words Sen. Boxer, and are either very stupid and uninformed, or you are very crafty and want to exploit this situation to get yourself re-elected.

But most seriously I to be honest am most honored and privelliged, to see expatriate bloggers rise up in defence of the UAE. I will certainly be telling my Emarati friends about this stand.
posted by Emirati at 9:49 AM 22 comments

74 posted on 02/22/2006 12:17:32 AM PST by bayourant

I think the real reasons do go deeper than we know, and Tony has touched on a critical one, but the more important the reason for the deal the more criticism the Administration will face for not greasing the skids.

Chuck Schummer is a media hog and should be ignored on this issue whatever side he eventually chooses.

I don't care for metaphors so I'd shoot the skunk. Or run it over. Did that once, not on purpose though. Had the car in the driveway for a few days......

Exactly. Do they really want this thing ramped up a whole bunch of notches? If so, why?

yes they do

why?

To bring the fight to our shores maybe??

What is the one thing Bush always says .. it's better to fight them over there then here are home

Now, honestly, BushBots, would you be so willing to accept this deal if it was made by WJC or, worse, Hillary?

On this one, yes. I think it's interesting that Hillary(?) has come out against it, just for political points. I haven't heard Bill, one way or another. Because from where I sit in the shipping industry, I KNOW that it's not going to impact security. For another, I DON'T think the Clintoons would make this decision because they seemed to be incapable of thinking strategically. But on this one issue, if it were framed in this context, yeah, I'd go along. Now, this is NOT precedential. We know that decisions like Microsoft go all different sorts of ways for all different sorts of reasons. But this particular decision does not harm US Security and I believe to be good for the US interest in keeping intelligence outposts in the Islamic World precisely to fight the Islamo-Fascists.

Call me a bot, but I prefer to trust President Bush rather than the pundits and politicians who try to use this for further political gain. W is doing what is best for our country. I trust President Bush and have since he ran for congress here in Texas, (but lost). He is a man of his word and is not going to harm us in any way!

This is Carrie's friend, Pat, letting you know she's on her way.

She got a late start, deciding to wait until after the rush hour was over. It was raining when we got up but soon changed to snow.

She hopes to make it to just over the border into SC by tonight - about halfway.

She checked with a local flight service guy to get the weather (thanks to FOXFAN I understand) and got the weather all the way from here to her home in FL for the next 3 days.

He told her that once she got 40 miles south of here, she's in rain all the way to Charlotte. She hates driving in rain but I tried to tell her it's better than driving into the sun. It didn't work.

Truth is - she flipped a coin - heads, she stayed, and tails, she started driving. It came up tails! She immediately called for a recount.

Absolutely right, and I am not a blind bushbot either, but after checking the thing out he is doing the right thing for the country.

But it's not really a skunk. It's a person of odious but necessary presence.