Posted on 03/04/2006 5:43:58 PM PST by Former Military Chick
The Taliban came about long after the Soviets were gone. Yes some of its members fought the Soviets but so did many of the anti-Taliban forces.
2. Saddam Hussein (remember when the U.S. was providing him with supplies to fight Iran)?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At the time Iran was the bigger threat.
3. The Shah of Iran. He tried to buy Pan Am (the airline) in 1975.
Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah.
The democrats and their media greatest fear is that we capture Bin Laden or Zawahiri or Zarqawi sometimes before this fall elections because if we do so, the Republicans will have over 90% chance of winning the elections. Also one other thing that will give us a great chance of winning the elections is to make Iran a very central issue in the campaign starting early this summer.
But could you at least try to stop posting lies?
I see your point on Carter and the Shah. Of course, it's also unknown how popular the Dubai government (as a dictatorship) is with the average citizen of UAE.
What lies are those?
Anyone of any nationality can betray us, not just middle-easterners. France and Germany were doing business under the table with Saddam, but they aren't Arabs. So do you want to outlaw France and Germany from operating businesses in the U.S. because of that??
Since you don't trust "middle-easterners" now, start checking and see how many large businesses in the U.S. are owned and operated by "middle-easterners". You will find billions upon billions of $$ of investment in this country by the arabs you so mistrust. If all middle-easterners cannot be trusted and want to blow up us gringos, they already have plenty of opportunities, with or without the ports operation.
Your arguments do not hold water when looking at the bigger picture. A country in the modern world cannot isolate itself from business ownership by a particular nationality. Your views are naive in the extreme.
The United States never supplied Iraq with anything but dollars for Saddam's oil. We did sell him food and stuff, the normal nation-to-nation sales that occur anywhere. But we never supplied him with war materials. He tried to buy weapons from us, but we refused, even when he attacked Iran. He was stuck using crappy French and Soviet stuff.
I suppose you are against profiling at the airport, as well?
I am just saying that we need to be extra cautious with Middle Easterners. Most terrorists are Middle Eastern.
As Ann Coulter says, how many Amish have flown a plane into a skyscraper lately?
The ones in your posts; dear.
Johnny Jihad is an American citizen, white, and his family has lived in California for generations.
Padella is also an American citizen, of Puerto Rican ethnicity.
The guys who shot up random people, in Virginia and the surrounding area, are black.
Chechnya and Palestine use FEMALE suicide bombers now.
LOL....I have taken the time to educate the person calling with the push poll.
Wrong! We should profile young middle-Eastern men at our airports, but if they're clean of contraband, they can board the plane like everyone else.
By the same token, the Dubai-ports-running-company has been checked out and cleared to Pres. Bush, my, and many's satisfaction, so let them operate the ports.
They already operate the biggest port for the U.S. Navy outside the U.S., and the Navy is quite happy with them. They also operate commercial ports all over the world, and have a very very credible record and reputation. We have already been "extra-cautious" as you suggest we be. There are just no merits to oppose them operating the ports, only demagoguery, political posturing and fear-mongering.
how many Amish have flown a plane into a skyscraper lately?
So now you want to prohibit qualified middle-eastern pilots from flying commercial airliners into U.S. airspace??
From the NY Times archives (free preview):
U.S. Secretly Gave Aid to Iraq Early in Its War Against Iran
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH, (Special to The New York Times) 1878 words
Published: January 26, 1992
The Reagan Administration secretly decided to provide highly classified intelligence to Iraq in the spring of 1982 -- more than two years earlier than previously disclosed -- while also permitting the sale of American-made arms to Baghdad in a successful effort to help President Saddam Hussein avert imminent defeat in the war with Iran, former intelligence and State Department officials say.
How's that make you feel?
"The shoe bomber was an ENGLISH BORN CITIZEN, whose parents were also born there. His mother is Caucasian, his father is black. Johnny Jihad is an American citizen, white, and his family has lived in California for generations. Padella is also an American citizen, of Puerto Rican ethnicity. The guys who shot up random people, in Virginia and the surrounding area, are black. Chechnya and Palestine use FEMALE suicide bombers now."
Other than the DC area snipers, these examples just suggest that we should be wary of all Muslims, rather than just Muslims of Middle Eastern ethnicity. Agree with you on that point (if that's what you are trying to say.)
That's why the answers more and more follow the Democratic party line.
Doesn't fly. The media isn't doing anything now that they haven't been doing for the past 6 years.
Furthermore, it shouldn't fall on Fox and talk radio to put a better positive spin on bad news, it should fall on the administration to create better news in the first place.
Bush has lost his support because he has governed as a big government moderate for 5 years and the conservatives are sick of it. When there is an even worse big government liberal opposition candidate to make him (or his designated successor in 2008) look better by comparison most of them will come back into the fold. With the last two elections decided by 1 or 2 points, this may or may not be good enough.
Certain people around here need to get something through their head:
There are many conservatives that don't want a Middle Eastern government anywhere near our ports. Loyal, lifelong conservatives such as Phyllis Schafly, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, etc, etc.
It's not just Democrats and liberals that are distrustful of the UAE.
The fact that ALL national/regional pollsters are currently OVERSAMPLING DEMOCRATS makes their collective results highly suspect. [If you were to re-weight each of these polls using a more REPRESENTATIVE party affiliation/demographic formula, you would probably discover that the President's JA rating is in the mid-40s nationally!]
The following are critical stats that none of these pollsters (or their DNC/media employers) want the public to know:
1.) If the President's JA rating was a mere 20%, the rating for Congress (both Republicans and DEMOCRATS) would still be a net 10-15 points below his. Bottomline: The general public ('adults' vs 'likely voters') is suffering from an anti-Washington malaise not an anti-Bush, anti-incumbent, anti-Republican malaise! [BTW: NO DEMOCRAT has a national JA rating higher than the President's!!]
http://pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
2.) A President's job approval rating moves up or down as the general public's perception of the economy (and/or war) moves up or down. For this reason, the KEY factor for a president is not his JA rating it's his LIKABILITY RATING -- a rating that is for now only measured by THE BATTLEGROUND POLL! [The rest of the pollsters stopped producing this rating when they realized that BJ Clinton couldn't get his likability ratings above 40% even when his JA ratings were in the 60s!!!]
According to the FEBRUARY 2006 BATTLEGROUND POLL, the President's likability rating remains at 60%:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters approve of President Bush personally, while thirty-three (33%) disapprove of him. There is also positive intensity to voters' response to this question. Forty-two percent (42%) of voters "stongly" approve of the president personally, while only twenty-five percent (25%) "strongly" disapprove of the President on a personal level. It is this personal approval of George W Bush that still provides the President and Republicans with an opportunity to rebuild their support among the American electorate."
[scroll down to the "Republican Strategic Analysis" (By Ed Goeas)]
http://www.tarrance.com/battleground.html
BLAST FROM THE PAST:
In late October 1988, President Reagan boasted a 63% JA rating -- despite this rating, Republicans went on to suffer devastating losses in the mid(2nd)term election, losing control of the Senate and even more control of the House.
Within a month of the election debacle, President Reagan's JA rating plummeted to the 40s (a record 'plummet') when the Iran-Contra scandal broke.
Bottomline: JA ratings (and their impact on elections/a presidency) are transitory at best and meaningless/bogus at worst. For this reason, presidents must make decisions based on what they believe is right, not what they believe is politically expedient!
Good grief, you must know better than that. What a laugher!
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.