Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paul Ross
Total, and Complete B.S.

Stay tuned. Paul Ross is now going to tell us how and why he is smarter than the WSJ editorial board, Rush Limbaugh and ME!!. LOL. He probably won't have a problem with that last one.

138 posted on 03/11/2006 7:35:07 AM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]


To: groanup
Stay tuned. Paul Ross is now going to tell us how and why he is smarter than the WSJ editorial board, Rush Limbaugh and ME!!

I have no need or desire to vainly puff up any egos either way, particularly as we are all just specks of dust before God, and I typically don't disparage civilized opponents who abide within the rules of courteous discourse.

The issue of credibility is not one of intelligence...it is a plain honest assessment of the body of political opinion. The WSJ has damaged itself, as has Rush, but to a far lesser degree. He always acknowledged that these issues of fact (which he took issue with) were in fact raised by Conservatives of true national security principle. He never went on the "Arabophobic Bigot Jihad" that the WSJ, White House, LA Times, NYT and Novak did. He did point out how the RATS did however. And the conservatives did not deserve or warrant being defamed. The WSJ, White House, etc. never drew those distinctions. They never apologize either.

The White House was warned that the conservatives had the firepower to take 'em down on this one...and they refused to budge. The rest is history. This is only proper that the Congress successfully checked the executive where there is a real difference of view as to what is fact and what is opinion. They were diammetrically reversed in this case.

Fortunately, the foreigners have a clearer sense of propriety in representative republics than do the 'bots who are running around potty-mouthed currently, and the White House sulking and making recriminatory remarks, as is the WSJ. Remember this Indian view:

No Exceptional Security
K.Vijayakumar - Bangalore, India

As the editorial says, foreigners who invest in the U.S. may be in a way financing the military that keeps Americans safe. But will the U.S. allow foreigners, even citizens of friendly countries, to run the military? If foreign companies were to invest in building new ports, the Congress may not have objected. But operating the ports is understandably a different matter. In these uncertain times, if the Congress thinks that security can be compromised if ports are operated by even a foreign company from a friendly Islamic country, it cannot possibly be faulted. Security does not allow for exceptions.

170 posted on 03/11/2006 11:53:42 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson