| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
UAE port deal and strange bedfellows
The debate surrounding the controversial UAE port deal has made for some strange bedfellows. I’m on board with it, and this morning the LA Times editorial page has come out in support of it (hat tip: Karl), Richard Cohen at the WashPost is in favor of it, as is Nick Kristoff (paid reg. req.) at the New York Times.
The same can be said for my friends on the right who are against the UAE port deal, who are on the same side of the fence on this one as Senator Hillary Clinton (among others on the left who share her opinion) – although the reasons why why our friends on the right are against the deal more than pass the credibility test whereas the Hillary Clinton-led left’s do not.
Stange bedfellows indeed, eh?
There’s a strong element of profiling in all of this, and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now. Whether for or against it, the right’s position on this is pretty consistent with their belief in profiling: both pro and con UAE port deal on the right believe the UAE should have been more heavily scrutinized than, say, the UK, on this deal for the obvious reasons – namely, the fact that two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE and also the UAE’s questionable relationship in the past with the Taliban. One side of the right says that scrutiny should have shown that the deal shouldn’t have been approved while the other side of the right (the pro-deal side) welcomed the extra scrutiny but believed in the end that the scrutiny shows that the UAE are a valuable ally in the war on terror and have proven their worth with their assistance in the WOT.
The left’s position on this all of a sudden seems to be that it’s ok to profile because the buyers are from the UAE. Does this mean that Hillary and the rest of the newfound supporters of profiling on the left are now on board with a more targeted scrutiny of UAE Muslims who pass through our airports? I would bet the answer on that would be a resounding “NO.”
(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
78 Responses to “UAE port deal and strange bedfellows”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
ST: And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you’re ok with this deal.
I didn’t say I agree. I said there were still too many questions. Your intelligence remains uninsulted.
ST: LOL. “Knee jerk response”?…I’ve blogged about this issue five times…
I’m talking about your knee jerk response to my questioning this deal. You haven’t blogged about that have you? You automatically assumed that I was against it b/c the Republicans were for it…at least that’s what you said.
ST: The CG’s questions were asked and answered to their satisfaction. Your comment about it made it sound like it was rammed through without their concerns being addressed.
My point is that if it’s that much cause for concern, then maybe Bush’s 2-day (or whatever) review might be a tad rash.
ST:But this deal *was* reviewed – by all the intelligence agencies … again, to their satisfaction.
Even the #2 guy in DHS testified just today that, in retrospect, he wishes he had the info in that report. Is he one you’re citing as having “approved” the deal.
And it hadn’t gone through the mandatory 45-day review period required by law when Bush was threatening vetos, etc.
ST: let me give a small rundown: No Child Left Behind, the farm bill…Patriot Act…
Wow, and yet you guys hide your dissent so well. Still when anyone disagrees with some of these same issues, they’re traitors and want the US to lose the WOT.
ST: Thanks. I’ll sleep much better tonight knowing that.
As will I.
ST:BTW, if you don’t think there’s any logic to the support of this deal, then I guess my belief that you were against it was right on the mark.
Huh? Nice try…but you conveniently forgot the rest of the quote “…if you support the president’s previous headlong rush into this deal.”
Once again, my point is that more review is in order and Bush is jumping the gun. I never said there was no logic to this deal.
ST:Secondly, discussions about profiling DO help this country in understanding exactly when/if we should profile and why.
True. It could. But you didn’t bring it up in that context. You’re railing on about hypocrisy and such. Strange way of opening an honest debate on profiling. Now, I think you’re insulting my intelligence.
ST: Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that part of the issue here IS profiling of Arabs…
I think we all know that’s been brought into the issue. I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning your need to make the Dems’ motivation out to be less honorable.
ST:I suppose you think they’re “not helping this country” either and are acting like Ann Coulter…
No. I don’t remember them ranting about “Hillary’s hypocrisy” and attempting to make the port issue a Dems problem. Honestly, it doesn’t matter what happens or who did it. There’s always a Democrat to blame, isn’t there?
ST: Ah, so now you admit that I have addressed the crux of the concerns whereas before you made it seem like I had ignored them.
Never said you hadn’t. I questioned your need to bring in the extraneous stuff.
ST: Oh yes, I’m all about dividing the country! Get a grip.
Are we pretending that such divisiveness hasn’t helped the right lately?
ST:You know what? Get over it.
I will if you will.
ST:I’ll continue to criticize Democrats and call them on their hypocrisy every chance I get…
In general, you’re pretending that you’re raising this general point about profiling in a way that’s useful (or even truthful) to the discussion.
In fact, you’re wildly singling out Hillary and Dems. You’re irresponsibly charging them with less honorable motivations when there’s concern on both sides. i.e., you’re saying that her concerns about the UAE are based simply on them being a Middle Eastern nation, when there are clearly issues specifically with that government’s history that are being raised from all quarters.
So, the irony is that even while you’re so determined to create some Democratic problem from this whole thing and drag in “Democratic hypocrisy”, your charges there are just plain baseless. In fact, this whole “on-topic thread” has no merit to begin with.
Funny once GB and P&O were the enemy then came WW1 and WW2. Now Dubai and DP are being called the enemy. If they are the enemy where’s the meat? Any problems and they are out. So the proof then action. In the meantime we wait and watch.
“So, the irony is that even while you’re so determined to create some Democratic problem from this whole thing and drag in “Democratic hypocrisy”, your charges there are just plain baseless.”
No they’re not, and I explained exactly why in my post:
There’s a strong element of profiling in all of this, and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now. Whether for or against it, the right’s position on this is pretty consistent with their belief in profiling: both pro and con UAE port deal on the right believe the UAE should have been more heavily scrutinized than, say, the UK, on this deal for the obvious reasons – namely, the fact that two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE and also the UAE’s questionable relationship in the past with the Taliban. One side of the right says that scrutiny should have shown that the deal shouldn’t have been approved while the other side of the right (the pro-deal side) welcomed the extra scrutiny but believed in the end that the scrutiny shows that the UAE are a valuable ally in the war on terror and have proven their worth with their assistance in the WOT.
“In fact, this whole “on-topic thread” has no merit to begin with.”
You’ve made it clear that’s how you feel, but thankfully you’re in the minority here on that – I’m going to repeat to you one more time: I will blog about what I want and when I want, irregardless of YOUR concerns on whether or not something is “on topic.”
The bottom line is your big issue here is that I had the audacity to call Democrats on their hypocrisy on profiling – a hypocrisy that I explained quite well in my post. Because I discussed an aspect of this issue that you disagreed with, you decided to declare it “off topic” even though you refuse to acknowledge that I’m not the only one to have brought up this angle and not only that but you refuse to acknowledge that it’s not just ‘the right’ bringing up this angle.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of someone’s position (as I did with Hillary and others on the left who agree with her) calls their credibility into question as to whether or not their ‘concern’ is genuine, or whether or not there’s another angle (i.e. political motivations). There’s nothing wrong with questioning the credibility of someone’s argument – in fact, that’s something you did right here and quite extensively, I might add. So chalk up yet another double standard for you. It’s ok for you to attack the credibility of someone else’s argument but when someone else does it it’s “off topic” “baseless” and serves no purpose in ‘helping this country progress.’
Here’s a bit of advice, TNG: if you don’t like something I’m blogging about, don’t comment on it. Move on to something you’re interested in discussing. You got your feathers ruffled because I called people in your party on their double standards on profiling – it’s understandable you’d get a bit rankled, but for you to call it “off topic” and baseless in merit is laughable, considering you’ve offered no contrary viewpoint except to say essentially “no, that’s not true!” as if your blanket denial is supposed to hold water? LOL
Since you have such a problem with this thread, I encourage you to move on from it because this little back and forth between me and you has gone on long enough and taken away from the point of the thread, which was to discuss Democratic hypocrisy on the issue of profiling in addition to marvelling about the strange bedfellows some of us are making. And in case you have a problem “moving on” from this thread, I’ll be around to help. Understood?
It seems to me that this deal is no big deal from a security standpoint. If someone wants to bring weapons into America, they can smuggle them in in the same fashion that drug dealers have been doing for decades. It would be much easier than trying to sneak them through our ports by what will certainly be the most scrutinized shipping company in America.
And I don’t approve of their boycott of Israeli products, but it is discomforting to find out that we have a law that forces companies in America to do business with people they would prefer not to.
I read an excellent article, got to find it, think it was on Big Lizard.
Anyways, it pointed out that if we don’t do business with someone because they have had a terrorists that was part of thier society, then we will be removing alot of busies from trade. UAE, British, even the US. Each has had citizens that have been a terrorist.
The arguement everyone keeps coming up wiht about Israel not being recognized, while Israel is a partner and ally, should we never do business with someone if they don’t recognize the same things we do?
While its good to have common interest in business, you will have differing attitudes. I am not overly concern with them recognizing an ally as long as they are not actively threatening our ally like Iran is.
Found it. Hate talking about something without physical proof…
Link
Sanity, “U.S. laws bar firms cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel”, at least according to this article. It sounds like a horrible law to me, but if it’s accurate, this deal can’t go through.
And if I am not mistaken, the UAE consists of several arab governments.
So what happens if a portion of that seven recognizes Israel and the others do not?
Also, would that article apply if it is not one government though? the UAE is not one government but is a ‘coalition’ of several. Could it be argued that the UAE is not a government?
Just curious.
forest,
I think sometimes he gives an indication that he might actually understand what you wrote, but then he comes back around full circle as if nothing was discussed. There is no movement. He continues on with inaccurate accusations on EVERY topic. Why would someone want to continue that kind of pattern? It doesn’t make one look intelligent. Sure people have the right to say stuff, but depending on what they say is how we perceive them.
“depending on what they say is how we preceive them”, right-on! And that is why showing Mohammad as a terrorist was so stupid and wrong. The USA invades Afghanistan and Iraq and bush is constantly running down the “Arab terrorists”, don’t you think that if you lived over their you might be a tad freaked-out. Then these horrible catoons show up at the same time bush is theatening to invade Iran. That creates an overload for these poor people. It is time for Peace not more war. Peace
To be fair, Steve is the proud grandson of Neville Chamberlain.
Baklava: As you pointed out his spiraling inane stance was a big part of the reason I went off on him. It’s frustrating to witness his destructive blather and know the impact that it has, where he seems even happy to be in the oblivion. It’s not like the pet steve barking from behind the Vets that maintain his right to bark. It’s to be expected from him in his utopian drift. Which is likely the main reason why he has never answered a single question I’ve confronted him with. He can’t and I have learned to expect nothing from people like that.
I take issue with the disrespectful emanations read daily throughout the various sites. That’s precisely why, being listed among the fallible humans I apologized to him. My own standards were violated. I led by example and I simply demonstrated to him, what I would expect of any considerate human being.
Wow Forest, that video you mentioned in an earlier post is very powerful (seen here). That is a very brave woman speaking the truth at a time and place that speaking the truth can get you killed. Very brave.
“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”…T.H.Huxley
“You shake and shake the ketchup bottle. None’ll come, and then a lot’l.” – Richard Armour
(I can post unrelated stuff too!)
Hot off the presses! The Financial Times reports that Bill Clinton was working with the UAE and DPW to get the deal to buy P&O accepted by the US while Hillary was waddling to the cameras to denounce the deal.
Bill Works for UAE While Hillary Bashes Deal
I wonder how much Bill got paid?
SAY IT AINT SO! Nice job PCD! Can’t you just hear the donks running to the microphones and cameras to “EXPLAIN” the reasoning. I wonder if we’ll get to hear about the “log in our own eye” part again?