Posted on 03/10/2006 8:26:48 AM PST by indcons
Your post to me, and your other posts on this thread, go a long way towards proving my point.
The other message that I received was that neither Bush The third message I received was that his brother neal The first message that was sent by this administration
was Bush does not give a hoot what the American people think.
He has a tin ear to politics; perhaps Karl Rove was on vacation.
nor his cabinet is not involved in managing the War on Terror.
Very poor management style to allow third level staffers
to make decisions without notifying upper management.
and other of bush's cronies had their hand in the pot
at the expense of national security. No Comment on this!
It speaks volumes by itself.
This is a forest/trees issue.
The President and our military leaders see the forest.
Those opposed purloined Dubya's chainsaw and whacked away at that forest sans any chainsaw adroitness.
That's what some people on the Talking Heads shows on cable were indicating (last night)"
Yeah, nine years after the fact.
Those "Talking Heads" are really on the ball, aren't they?
I do as well. And I speak for them as much as YOU do.
I disagree. The facts were carefully investigated from the first by Frank Gaffney, Congressman Peter King (Chmn, Homeland Security Committee), Duncan Hunter (Chmn, House Armed Services Committee) and those who have distinguished themselves in national security journalism such as Kenneth Timmerman.
And the White House didn't help itself by indirectly smearing them...and all concerned Americans... with the broad tar brush. And they also shot themselves in the foot in a number of other ways.
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA, Finance Committee Chmn) had explicitly directed to the members and staff of CFIUS that if another potential security-implicated deal arose after the abortive CNOOC China Oil/UNOCAL takeover bid...that he be notified immediately of the issues and the investigatory status. They said they would do so.
He wasn't. He only learned of it after the issue broke in the news. This is beyond inexcusable. This is political malfeasance par excellance' on the part of the administration. They are turning stalwarts into skeptics instead.
Things need fixing, and it isn't the 'conservatives' at fault here. The administration has to honestly look in the mirror.
You never have trouble if you are prepared for it.
--Theodore Roosevelt
So then you speak for the families of only the ones you know. The rest you don't speak for.
You should really say that instead of saying in poor taste what you said below:
Hogwash. They know that many operations at ports are already run by foreign governments.
I hear lots of complaints from Congress. I am interested to see what kind of legislation they write if they don't like things.
They need to stop BASHING the WH; CONGRESS writes the laws, for Pete's sake! Lindsay Graham...stop whining and write a law if you don't like the current status of things! Sheesh.
I disagree.
I can give you a long list of names of people who investigated the facts and came to the opposite conclusion of the people in your above mentioned list.
I looked at what both King and Gaffney said, and frankly I can find better, less propaganda filled messages elsewhere.
Gee, let me ask the families of 3000 killed some years ago....
Yes.
That's a foolish argument, and a non sequiter. All of the airplanes used in the 9/11 attacks were US carriers, leaving from US airports. So tell me how making all carriers from Muslim countries leave US airports would have stopped the events of 9/11?
You throw out lots of accusations, but no substance. Physician, heal thyself!
Actually those do have higher risk. Which is, arguably, being "managed." The U.S. Customs Office inspects all UAE air freight cargo to the U.S. and has the best gamma and neutron scanners to facilitate that. Operating in the UAE.
So it is not, and never was, the case that there were no risks, or no 'red flags.' Any statement to that effect, which regrettably far too many Cabinet officers claimed, where hyperbole.
Fortunately conservatives have developed a lot of expertise parsing weasel-word laden deceptions and exaggerations...and a consensus concluded reluctantly that increased risks were being run, and that they had simply been deemed necessary and presumably still-manageable...at an unstated higher-than deputy Cabinet post level.
This is not to say that the DPW ports security issues couldn't be "managed" also...but that if it was going to be, that was all pursuant to classifed procedures which where thereby non-transparent to the public. Thence, the administration whose credibility was hanging by a thread asked for yet more trust. The weasel words and the unwarranted, and clearly unfair, defamation of the opponents sealed the fate of the original deal. The thread snapped.
The conservatives are the ones who actually saved the relationship, by proposing, as did Congressman Peter King the idea of a wholly-owned U.S. based subsidiary.
More defamation.
I doubt you did look at either. Or you wouldn't say that. You don't even appear to recognize who they are.
Repetitive, and not credible.
"And you learned nothing from your economic classes, oh wait a minute those "classes" were in union halls between trips to the keg, nevermind."
Ya know, Dane, you spoil your logic when you resort to ad hominems like this one. As you've seen opinions on this issue vary here on Free Republic. Accusing someone of being a beer-swilling union guy isn't really the way to convince anyone of anything other than your inability to argue effectively.
"When, in between knee jerk union hall keggar "classes"."
Please, Dane, stop with the ad hominems. They're ugly, stupid, and not constructive.
The minority IS the devil.
Very possibly more on a per capita basis.
lol!
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.