Bush supporters need to explain this one

[gardenweasel]

how ironic is it that we now attempt to farm out security(or knowlwdge of same) against muslims... to muslims

i know i`m on the right side of this...jimmy carter gave bush the thumbs up.....

.for god`s sake,jimmy carter`s on board with bush?......tell me that doesn`t scare anybody else........right or left... :mj01: :wtf:

after giving this alot of thought, i'm positive this is another "rovian" plot.....forcing the left
into defending a security proposal......

on the flip side,the glass is half full.....it`s so nice to see democrats and liberals not showing an obsessive concern for the rights of potential terrorists....

if the joos can control the media,why can`t the arabs control the ports?...lol

enough comedy....seriously

....don't be fooled by the line, "it's o.k., because americans are responsible for examining the cargo".....ports are a very expensive form of infrastructure that take a long time to build, and the company operating them,i would think, controls who gets hired to run them...or at the very least,they will have the scoop on port security plans and issues....

are we going to vet every "swinging turban" at every port on the east coast?


you can`t have a state run company from a predominantely hostile part of the world positioned to sabotage a sizeable percentage of the u.s. economy....

you can`t roll the dice on this one....

btw..chris mathews is acting like a total ass....again...making it a "racist issue"....it`s common sense issue...

he is an utter moron....he is an object lesson why the loony left is scoffed at and not taken seriously...

that said,i`m losing patience with the bush administration....

 

[smurphy]

you can`t have a state run company from a predominantely hostile part of the world positioned to sabotage a sizeable percentage of the u.s. economy....

you can`t roll the dice on this one....

Amen. We are in complete agreement on this one. Screw Bush and Carter if they can't have enough common sense to share this sentiment.

At least if there was some kind of consistency, then I could maybe understand the rationale better. But this could not be any more contradictory or disingenuous of a move in the light of 9-11, the war in Iraq, and everything Bush has ever said about the war on terror.

 

[dawgball]

I guess the question is what motivation does Carter have here? This is probably the most perplexing thing that has happened by the Bush administration, in my opinion.

 

[gecko]

btw..chris mathews is acting like a total ass....again...making it a "racist issue"....it`s common sense issue...

he is an utter moron....he is an object lesson why the loony left is scoffed at and not taken seriously...

Don't let Matthews fool you. He's pushing the "issue" so as to make the same point as you, that it's NOT about race. The IRA/terrorism comparison was just to get his guest to agree to acknowledge what the rest of us already know. It may have been a bit out of left field, but I could see where he was going with his line of rhetorical questioning.

Some may not like his style, but I don't consider Matthews to be one of the "loony left". He's a journalist more than an opiner IMO (unlike O'Reilly), and is quite fair to conservatives as well as liberals. His show offers good insight into how politics works.

 

[Pujo21]

Because he is a coke-head scumbag deep down inside

Because he is a coke-head scumbag deep down inside

Bush is a lying backstabber. How does anyone expect to get a straight answer from a coke junkie.?

YOU CAN NEVER EVER TRUST A DRUG ADDICT ! THEY ARE FOREVER FIENDING !

A DRUG FIEND will say anything, do anything , lie , to get what they want.

Make no mistakes , he is a coke head....this is why he is non-remorseful when he " TAKES RESPONSIBLILTY "....Big PHUCKING deal..he takes responsibility...what a laff that was.

He could care less about anybody. This is the way junkies operate.

Why are people surprised when a person of his ilk turns around and tells the whole country that he will veto any legislature that blocks TERROST ALLIGNED REGIMES from getting control of any of our infrastructure.

Can you just immagine? HE SAID HE WILL VETO !

Backstabbing junkie.

 

[ctownguy]

Bush is a lying backstabber. How does anyone expect to get a straight answer from a coke junkie.?

YOU CAN NEVER EVER TRUST A DRUG ADDICT ! THEY ARE FOREVER FIENDING !

A DRUG FIEND will say anything, do anything , lie , to get what they want.

Make no mistakes , he is a coke head....this is why he is non-remorseful when he " TAKES RESPONSIBLILTY "....Big PHUCKING deal..he takes responsibility...what a laff that was.

He could care less about anybody. This is the way junkies operate.

Why are people surprised when a person of his ilk turns around and tells the whole country that he will veto any legislature that blocks TERROST ALLIGNED REGIMES from getting control of any of our infrastructure.

Can you just immagine? HE SAID HE WILL VETO !

Backstabbing junkie.

You are a fu**** idiot and epitomize the left wing wackos in this country.

You are an embarrassment :fingerc:

 

[gardenweasel]

""YOU CAN NEVER EVER TRUST A DRUG ADDICT ! THEY ARE FOREVER FIENDING !""


fiending????

`splain,please...

 

[Pujo21]

GW :violin:

i don't know why after all his phuckups some of you folks are still trying to justify this drug addict.

here's a guy that is going to let his butt-buddies take over the ports.

and yet some of yas are still trying to defend his every bumbled action. moon1

HE IS A DRUG ADDICT---YOU CANT TRUST HIM>> :fingerc:

 

[gardenweasel]

no prob,pujo....

it`s just that i `d just never heard the word "fiend" used like that...and i`m a p.h.d.(post hole digger)....

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Will on rare occasion give Carter credit of being consistant--unlike those against profiling one day--Gore on his mistreated Muslims spiel ect--

This is a catch 22 if there ever was one--Oreilly had interesting take on factor last night--and guest was sharp guy I'd seen on there before taking issue on other side. Was quite interesting an one of few times I saw 2 diiferent sides both give and compromise on middle ground.Will put up Oreilly's when available and will see if I can find other guys who had very good points also.
Anyone else view the talking points last night?

 

[gardenweasel]

dtb.....i heard o`reilly....and i wasn`t surprised that he took bush`s back....i don`t like him...

i`m a a little surprised that o`reilly`s so hard on the border,but has little problem with the shaky,totalitarian govt of a muslim nation having the inside skinny on our precious east coast ports....

the mexicans aren`t trying to destroy our society...at least not consciously...

....the uae has been a friend recently(but,that could also have been said of saddam)...they also have no democratic checks and balances in their governmental process......

one that also does major business and is friendly with iran......one that reportedly allowed(consciously or unconsciously) the a.q. khan technology to flow through their ports to n.korea and iran...

and the uae isn`t a monolith....i keep hearing that their citizens are becoming so westernized....but,i read that 80%...that is 8 out of 10 people in the u.a.e. are ex-patriots....from egypt,yemen,saudi arabia,iran.....from all over the middle east...and their polls show that a large majority don`t like us much....

i understand o`reilly`s take on changing hearts and minds..about insulting these people ...but,damn,cartoons insult these people.......there has to be a more prudent way of accomplishing this goal...


remember..if this goes through... after some passage of time...our guard will come down...this will fade in the public consciousness...

these islamists appear to be chess players...

the muslim fringe are very shrewd...and very patient...


don't short-change the arab world, regarding their long-range planning abilities... envision a dozen or more u.s. ports slowly coming under the control of efficient arab businessmen, it being more and more o.k. "because they're really good at it, and they've been doing this forever."

envision hundreds of foreign (meaning "natives born to a primarily antagonistic overseas entities") managers and workers slowly assuming more and more control of u.s. ports.. ... envision them having more and more say over who gets hired, what cargo gets priority attention, and what security measures are (or aren't) utilized, until "oh, you're abdullah's second cousin?....it's o.k., come right on in...."

alternately, envision yourself personally owning a nice large gated estate, and then (instead of hiring trustworthy local professionals) bringing in some muslim managers from the u.a.e. to handle hiring and firing, security, and supervising the grounds, including minding your wife and kids while you're away at work.

i don't like that overall concept, any more than I liked hearing about the estimated 2,000 illegal immigrants who walked past a texas rancher on his property just one night alone, a few months ago.

"homeland insecurity" seems like a more fitting term. .....the job of the president of the united states should be to threaten to veto anyone stupid enough to propose the above deal, instead of the other way around...

this is the first place in which he chooses to use his veto authority?....

we saw in the ohio arrest just how diabolical and dangerous three fanatical yo yo`s can be...

we sincerely need to aggressively protect each and every seemingly-insignificant little pawn that we have, from here on out...... much less our economy`s life`s blood...

i still can`t believe that the president compared dubai to great britain....

let`s win hearts and minds..fine....but lets use our heads here...

btw...i just heard peter king(r-ny) say on the radio that he has close contacts on the inside of the "vetting " process of the dubai deal,and he claims that it`s untrue that this thing was "thoroughly investigated".......

and this guy`s no liberal...

maybe that`s why the administration hasn`t been as forthcoming on this issue as they`ve indicated...maybe exposing this so-called vetting process would be a major embarrassment...

 

[djv]

Now white house spokesman states Bush told of and given facts on this deal Monday. By Tuesday he is so sold on it he's ready to veto any bill sent to him blocking it. Guys this president has some very poor advisor's hanging around. This is bigger deal then that and deserves some good debate.

 

[StevieD]

Bush claims to not of known of deal. This administration likes to work in secret. You would think that it would be an easy call that this would cause some attention and maybe should be run by the boss. More smoke in my opinion. Someones making millions in this deal.

 

[Chadman]

Very astute points in your last post, gw. When you mentioned the state run company having control over personnel and hiring of workers in these ports you hit upon a very serious situation in my mind. These people will have access to high security areas simply by being hired and working in the port areas. It's one thing to maintain some kind of security in a port, and it's another to not actually manage the personnel or have choices in hiring for that port.

It just takes one person. That's it. Couple that with the fact that right now we only examine 5% of the cargo that comes into these ports, and I think we are wide open for disaster - especially if this goes through.

Why is nobody concerned about the 5% cargo examination rate? Where is Homeland Security on THIS issue? I'm not blaming the Bush administration specifically on that, other than maybe not giving it a priority since 9-11. It's time this got some attention.

 

[ctownguy]

All this are good points, but I don't understand with all these concerns where does the mobbed up unions come into this.

Because believe me they aren't going to stand by and not get their share.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I understand your point very well GW -- and I am definatly on side of anyway we can dis-associate from Musims entering or having anything to do with U.S. or free world as far as that goes--just trying to put forth what a complicated no win situation this is.
Also to point out this wasn't something the admin wanted --it happened via British Co being bought out. This all transpired in Nov and no one from either side seemed to know what was going down till just recently---I expect the Rebs to diss plan in general and Bush back it--simply because he is not running again and I would expect he has made some promises to "friendly" mid eastern allies (if there is such a thing) and I doubt seriously he will go back on his word as his father did and I would think less of him if he did--if that is the case.


Danger in American Ports...

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly



Danger in American ports, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

As we discussed last night, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates has bought a British company that does work in some American ports ? places like New York and Miami. This has caused shock and awe on talk radio and on Capitol Hill, where elements on both the left and the right want to kick the Arab company out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: But it's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, who avows to destroy Israel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now with all due respect to Senator Graham, whom we do respect, we could find no evidence the UAE government wants to destroy Israel ? none. In fact, the Emirates, along with Jordan, is America's best Arab state ally in the War on Terror. That company allows U.S. planes to base on its soil. It's a tremendous help in intelligence gathering.

So let's cut through all the bull and grandstanding. If the Bush administration fires the Emirates company without cause, it spits in the eye of a strong Mideast ally. I hope everybody understands how dreadful that would be.

The USA cannot win the War on Terror without the help of moderate Arab nations. "Talking Points" believes we will actually lose the terror war unless we build alliances in the Middle East. Right now, there's no reason to fire the Arab company, except that they are Arabs. Isn't that racism? Can America afford to send that message to the world?

Think about the unintended consequences of that. They're staggering. There's nothing bin Laden would like more than for the USA to alienate the United Arab Emirates.

So we have to give the new company a chance to work in our ports, but with strict oversight. And any foreign company should have that these days. The Bush administration has to monitor all aspects of port operations. And the new Arab company has to understand that.

As for the demagogues insisting we kick the Arabs out of the ports, one question: Is that smart? The answer is no, that's not smart. That would hurt us dramatically in the War on Terror.

And that's "The Memo."

 

[shamrock]

this is such bs its incredible, if some Democrat pulled this some of you would be jumping from Bridges. This isn't Herrod's department store being bought by some Arab in London, its the 6 major ports of this country. Wtf remember everybody was so concerned about the cargo containers in ports, and how nobody is watching them, or at a staggering inefficient manner. Anyone see 60 minutes or 20/20 on how easy it would be to smuggle dirty bomb into American port via cargo container??
How old tough on terror president Bush has completely ignored this scenario. What is the only possible scenario he could fuk this up worse? Let's see, how about putting Arab s in charge of every major port in the country, BRILLIANT!! as the Guinness boys would say. What color does that warrant Red? Purple?

We've already witnessed what Arabs do in ports, does this idiot remember the USS Cole??

 

[djv]

DTB don't think Bush made any promise on this one. Bush and W H say they just found out about this deal Sunday or Monday and had not been involved. But for some reason in so short a time backs it 100%. O'Riley some how making the U A E are best friends. Where was it where some of the money came from for 9/11 other then Saudi. And why have they anything to do with our best interest. He's just backing Bush as he does 99% of the time. Fair and Balanced B S is just that. Time for a few folks to keep-em honest. I like that better then fair and balanced.

 

[smurphy]

I don't know, Dogs. Unless you retract all bashing of Clinton deals with China, then you will have pulled a massive FLIP-FLOP by suddenly taking such a soft stance on a far more dangerous deal.

Concerned about Muslim feelings? Good God, Man! Is that the same concern we have when we bomb several thousand Iraqi civilians? The mixed messages from this administration are beyond perplexing at this point.

I am glad to see that many Republicans are not standing quiet over this. I hope they fight like hell. Unbelieveable if this becomes Dubya's only veto.

 

[JCDunkDogs]

where does the mobbed up unions come into this.

Those union workers will now be the front line in the war on terror. They are as patriotic as they come. Do you think they won't have their eyes open for any suspicious activity?