UAE port deal and strange bedfellows

Posted by: ST on February 28, 2006 at 10:18 am

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

  • Leaning Straight Up trackbacked with The New Bush Defenders: the LA Times?
  • 78 Responses to “UAE port deal and strange bedfellows”

    Comments

    1. JAC says:

      Sister,

      While a “strong element of profiling” may fit nicely into your larger agenda, I personally could not care less if the company buying the ports were made of one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters. What I care about is that the UAE has been a transfer point for black market nuclear arms shipments and also financed some of the 9/11 terrorists.

      My question to you is: Why can’t you see past the race issue and realize what the concerns regarding this deal are really about? I have my guesses as to the answer to this question, but would like to hear it from you directly.

    2. “While a “strong element of profiling” may fit nicely into your larger agenda”

      Oh really? And what’s my “larger agenda”?

      “Why can’t you see past the race issue and realize what the concerns regarding this deal are really about?”

      And my question to you is: have you even READ anything I’ve written about this? I’m not making it a “race issue” – just pointing out (in this particular post) the inconsistencies on the left hand side of the aisle on the issue of profiling – not only that, but I’ve acknowledged in prior posts that the concerns expressed by my fellow conservatives with regards to the UAE are valid (in fact, I noted that in THIS post!). Try actually reading what I’ve written next time. Otherwise, you’ll be accused of something you’ve accused others of being guilty of at your blog: “Just Not Getting It.”

    3. Karl says:

      It’s typical how much time people take to comment on your article when they didn’t even read it Sister.

      :d

    4. JAC says:

      From listening to you on S&T and reading your blog, it appears your larger agenda is to defend the Bush administration in whatever way possible and distort opposition facts where helpful to your cause.

      Of course I read what you wrote. Let’s take it one piece at at time. You wrote “…and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now.”

      Fine – back that statement up. Show me one reputable source where HC says she is for profiling and she’s not against the port deals due to the previously mentioned security issues of the UAE.

      And they’re not the same thing.

    5. Baklava says:

      JAC wrote, “your larger agenda is to defend the Bush administration

      That is a poor debate tactic, speculating/guessing as to what someone else’s motives/agenda is. You can argue for or against the UAE deal with your own facts but to think you know what is going on in someone elses head is very easily defeated in debate. The person who knows better what is going on in their head can simply say “I’m sorry you’re in error.”

    6. “From listening to you on S&T and reading your blog, it appears your larger agenda is to defend the Bush administration in whatever way possible”

      Defending the admin is an “agenda”? Ok, so I guess your “larger agenda” is making excuses for the left?

      “and distort opposition facts where helpful to your cause.”

      I don’t distort the facts. I blog on them as I understand them. But if I did distort the facts, you calling me on it would be like the pot calling the kettle black since you’ve distorted my comments on this issue.

      “Of course I read what you wrote.”

      No you didn’t. You accused me of only focusing on race and making this a race issue. I’ve done neither.

      “Let’s take it one piece at at time. You wrote “…and Hillary has never been a proponent of profiling – until now.”

      Fine – back that statement up. Show me one reputable source where HC says she is for profiling and she’s not against the port deals due to the previously mentioned security issues of the UAE.

      And they’re not the same thing.”

      This isn’t rocket science and Hillary isn’t stupid nor is she ill-informed. Hillary Clinton knows that the majority of our port operations have been managed by foreign companies for years (her husband was a big proponent of that, as I’m sure you recall). Now all of a sudden she’s on board with legislation that would forbid it. Why? Because she just found out that an Arab country will be in charge of managing port operations. You know this already. Why are you acting like you don’t? Does someone actually have to SAY they for profiling before we know whether or not they are?

    7. PCD says:

      Sister, the DNC spinmeisters have fanned out on the blogs. The Democrats don’t want the public to know that the Teamsters and Longshoremen’s unions are against the deal because they’d have to clean up their act, something P&O and other operators could not get them to do.

    8. JAC says:

      Ooooh! I was rooting for you and you were so close! You said: “Now all of a sudden she’s on board with legislation that would forbid it. Why? Because she just found out that an Arab country will be in charge of managing port operations. ”

      And I think you meant to say “Now all of a sudden she’s on board with legislation that would forbid it. Why? Because she just found out that an Arab country with a history of strong ties to terrorism including moving illegal nukes and financing the 9/11 terrorists will be in charge of managing port operations. ”

      See the difference? What you said smacks of racism, while what I said deals with facts and intelligence.

      And um, yeah, someone has to say they are for profiling unless they’ve shown a long history of profiling and denying it. You don’t get the benefit of the doubt in this case, sorry.

    9. Jack Deth says:

      Hi, Sister Toldjah! \:d/

      I just find it immensely amusing that the Antiquated Dinosaur Media is actually Backtracking as a result of doing what it’s supposed to do:

      Checking facts.

      While the Knee Jerk Jackanapes on the Hill keep trying to mold this into something (Yet Again!) that will gain traction and hopefully split Red States.

      I (yet Again!) don’t see it happening. And with the 45 day extension to “investigate” the deal. The Left is (Yet Again!) going to end up with egg on its face before, and more importantly; after November. :((

      Jack.

    10. Pam says:

      Sister, how will you get through the day without the benefit of the doubt?:-j

    11. CavalierX says:

      >strong ties to terrorism including
      >moving illegal nukes and financing the
      >9/11 terrorists

      As Dubai is the transportation and banking center of the Middle East, this attack is, at best, spurious. Are you also prepared to condemn the states in which the 9/11 hijackers recieved the money? We should never let New Jerseyans be in charge of our ports!

    12. “And I think you meant to say”

      I “meant to say” exactly what I said, not the additional language you inserted in there for me.

      “See the difference? What you said smacks of racism,”

      No it doesn’t. Hillary had no problem with foriegn management of our ports until she found out an Arab country would be involved in managing some of them. I wonder if she’ll be targeting the NSCSA next?

      “while what I said deals with facts and intelligence.”

      Of COURSE it does! Only two posts down and I’m already tired of your patronizing attitude, JACS. Why don’t you save it for your blog and leave it there?

      “And um, yeah, someone has to say they are for profiling”

      UM no, they don’t. Not when they’ve said in the past they are against profiling but all of a sudden start profiling because the find out an Arab country will be handling the management of some of our ports. Something tells me Hillary could have cared less about a German company managing the port operations at the ports in question even though a lot of terrorist activity that was related to 9-11 took place there.

      “You don’t get the benefit of the doubt in this case, sorry. ”

      I really don’t care whether you give me the benefit of the doubt or not. What’s happening here in terms of the left’s newfound support for profiling should be very clear to all but the willfully blind and/or ignorant. That you choose not to see it is not my problem.

    13. Pam: “Sister, how will you get through the day without the benefit of the doubt?:-j

      ST: It’ll be tough, but I’m gonna try my best ;)

    14. Baklava says:

      Cav,

      I think he’ll only see it his way. There are folks saying that UAE since 9/11 has cooperated greatly and was the first country to the Container Inspection Initiative (I may be wrong on the exact title of the initiative) where Americans were allowed to the UAE to do inspections.

      This is a COMPLEX issue and I really don’t think the people highly against the deal are being honest. I was against the deal and changed my mind after hearing Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Robert Kaplan (transcribed on Radioblogger.com). Robert’s expertise on UAE is more respected than let me say JAC.

    15. JAC says:

      CavlierX,

      Are you also prepared to condemn the states in which the 9/11 hijackers recieved the money?
      Sure, if the states in which the hijackers received the money are the same as the states that gave them the money, then I’m all for it. In other words, I actively condemn the perpetrators of 9/11 and all who assisted, which includes the UAE.

      I’m also for catching ObL. Remember him?

      We should never let New Jerseyans be in charge of our ports!
      Well, duh! There’s lots of reasons that statement is true.. \:d/

    16. CavalierX says:

      >There are folks saying that UAE since
      >9/11 has cooperated greatly

      That’s a fact. They’ve allowed us to base ships, planes and troops there. They’ve trained Iraqi forces. They’ve given us valuable intelligence concerning terrrorists, and even turned over captured terrorists to us. We don’t get this level of cooperation from most of our allies. This whole flap is 95% politics. Democrats think they see an opportunity to get to the right of Republicans, and Republicans can’t let them do that. Both sides are going to cost us a valuable Middle Eastern ally now, and friends in the region in the future.

    17. CavalierX says:

      >I actively condemn the perpetrators of
      >9/11 and all who assisted, which
      >includes the UAE.

      And Germany. And several states in the USA. Your position is ridiculous, and based on insisting that nothing changed in our relationship with Dubai after 9/11.

    18. CavalierX says:

      >I’m also for catching ObL. Remember him?

      Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but anytime you want to go pry him out of Baluchistan, let us know.

    19. Baklava says:

      And the LEFT is the one that crowed over and over that they are the experts in being diplomatic and we need better diplomacy.

    20. tommy in nyc says:

      :(( spare me folks if 43 would’ve annonced this deal in October of 04′ Kerry would be president. Honestly I’m not for it but the UAE is an ally. I just don’t think any private foreign company should be involved with port security after 9/11.

    21. CavalierX says:

      >I just don’t think any private foreign
      >company should be involved with port
      >security after 9/11.

      Neither do I. Luckily for both of us, that’s not what’s happening here.

    22. JAC says:

      Awww darn. Run back and play at your own blog, “JAC” if this one has been so disappointing to you. –ST

    23. PCD says:

      tommy is symptomatic of the Left and Democrats in particular. They don’t get the facts straight and then they sound off as loudly as they can trying to create a riot to remove the administration.

      The deal is not about OWNERSHIP of the ports. You got that straight, Tommy?

    24. Baklava says:

      Tommy wrote, “I just don’t think any private foreign company should be involved with port security after 9/11.

      It ISN’T about security Tommy. I’ve said that to you a few days ago and you continue to insist it is.

      I myself have said that the ports shouldn’t have any operations or management after 9/11 be peformed by foreign companies. But how do you do that. You’d have to use eminent domain and seize their operations and hand it to a company in America that could do it which is Halliburton. That would make Kerry president right there also.

      This is a complex issue. And you are ignoring that so many ports in America are in this position currently. It isn’t anything new.

    25. JAC says:

      Cav X,

      And Germany. And several states in the USA.

      How exactly did Germany assist in 9/11? Which states assisted in 9/11, and how did they assist?

      >I’m also for catching ObL. Remember him?

      Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but anytime you want to go pry him out of Baluchistan, let us know.

      Not really irrelevant since we’re talking about friggin’ terrorism!! Have you forgotten? Do you need some sort of graphic with a crying eagle to remind you what happened? Maybe you should go look at all the magnetic ribbons and bumper stickers in your neighborhood for a reality check.

      9.17.01
      QUESTION: Do you want bin Laden dead?

      BUSH: I want justice. And there’s an old poster out west, that I recall, that said, “Wanted, Dead or Alive.”

      Well, he got his wish – ObL is still alive. Unfortunately approx 2300 U.S. soldiers are not.

    26. Baklava says:

      Jac changed up to suit his argument. He said, “we’re talking about friggin’ terrorism!!

      And yes, there were folks in Germany who were involved in terrorism and helped finance terrorism. But you like to change up and focus on 9/11 only sometimes. Why do you do that? Why do lefties do that? It’s a global war on terror and lefties like to (with condescension) say Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11. Who cares? Saudi Arabians were 15 of the hijackers. Nobody but you lefties understand your arguments and you do not take time to listen to our setting the record striaght after launching a list of accusations.

      The LAST part of your post is even more ridiculous. It lacks perspective. It wasn’t just about Hitler either. You could’ve asked the same thing about the hundreds of thousands of dead American soldiers before Hitler died (or is he dead). :-?

      You are a lefty talking point poster who doesn’t engage with civility and you get mad when civility isn’t returned.

    27. CavalierX says:

      >How exactly did Germany assist in 9/11?

      Why, the hijackers lived there and traveled through there, same as Dubai. They also planned 9/11 there, which claim you didn’t make for Dubai.

      >Not really irrelevant since we’re
      >talking about friggin’ terrorism!!

      No, we’re talking about frigging business. Unless, of course, you think bin Laden owns DPW. In fact, DPW has no ties to terrorism for which you’ve been able to provide evidence, and Dubai has been an immense help to us in the War on Terror. There are terrorists in Britain today, yet you seem rather complacent about a British company managing ports. I didn’t hear either you or Hillary Clinton screaming about the Saudi firm that’s been managing several of our ports for years.

      >Do you need some sort of graphic with a
      >crying eagle to remind you what happened?

      This is another Liberal attempt to ramp up emotion where they have no logical points to make. I smelled the smoke, slick. I don’t need some fear- and hate-mongering Liberal to remind me of anything. I’m also not an idiot, easily stampeded into a hate campaign against the innocent. The enemies are terrorists and the Islamofascist regimes behind them, not businessmen embracing capitaism and free trade… the real reason Liberals are fighting this port deal.

    28. JAC says:

      If you can find it within yourself to take back your comments about “bedwetters” we can talk. In the meantime, the comment stands as a testament to your unwillingness to debate the facts and instead engage in ad hominem. –ST

    29. PCD says:

      JAC,

      So what did Clinton do after Al Queda bombed the WTC with a truck bomb? Nothing. He let Jaime Gorelick put out her memo and orders that the intelligence community never get to see the evidence from the FBI or the trial. When the Sudan offered OBL to CLINTON several times, Clinton turned them down. Now, you want to keep up with your partisan bushwa?

    30. Baklava says:

      Damn good post Cav. Beautiful.

    31. JAC says:

      I’ve done no such thing. Your refusal to take it back is noted. Welcome to the blacklist. –ST

    32. Derrick says:

      I’m so glad to hear that so many of the Republicans are now against racial profiling. That’s great to hear. I’m hoping that you will soon be sending your donations to the ACLU, and prove that this isn’t some cynical attempt to justify a crappy decision from a crappy president.

    33. From my post: “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. “

    34. PCD says:

      Derrick,

      How do you go from racial profiling to supporting a bunch of America hating, far leftwing lawyers?

      The ACLU is not race or composed of people of a certain race.

    35. tommy in nyc says:

      You know youse on the right know for a fact that this would NEVER had come up during the 04′ presidental campaign and while the deal may be on the level with all the half-truths,cherry picking on intelligence on Iraq,The mess in the Gulf Coast,etc,etc,etc I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of 43’s mouth even if his tongue was notorized.

    36. Baklava says:

      On with the laundry list Tommy. Stick to the issue.

      Derrick wrote, “I’m so glad to hear that so many of the Republicans are now against racial profiling.

      I’m not sure who is discussing “racial” profiling but you Derrick. Profiling is a tool used by security people all the time. It’s doing security with smarts as opposed to acting all dumb and frisking an elderly Polish grandma (who just might have a bomb in her backpack if someone slipped it there) but will put her bag on the x-ray machine conveyor belt. More scrutiny is required and you can’t provide 100% scrutiny for everyone as we just don’t have the resources. Did you think we did have the resources and are you thinking security people shouldn’t work smartly?

    37. CavalierX says:

      >so many of the Republicans are now
      >against racial profiling

      Profiling individuals has nothing to do with refusing to do business with an entire country for fraudulent reasons.

    38. CavalierX says:

      Wow, look at tommy trying to shoehorn in as many talking points as possible before we stop bothering to read his drivel. Typical Liberal tactic.

    39. Baklava says:

      Sean at EverythingIknowisWrong has an interesting take with respect to the Coast Guard statements taken out of context by the media (surprise surprise).

      Also, has another point of view from the Jerusalem Post which is fascinating.

    40. PCD says:

      tommy, if you had to pass the lessons in a McGuffey’s reader and were locked up with no drugs, TV, or NPR, how long would it take you to pass the tests? I only ask because you don’t seem to read very well and appear to be educated in the NY school system. A school system known for social promotion and poor academics.

      PCD, please cool it. –ST

    41. tommy in nyc says:

      I went to Catholic school for 12 years PCD. And it’s pretty insulting what you just said but that’s not a suprise.

    42. PCD says:

      Tommy, do you even know what a McGuffey reader is? FYI it was an informal national scholastic standard. Most High School graduates can’t pass it eventhough the lessons contained in it are for the PRIMARY GRADES!

    43. tommy in nyc says:

      Oh I thought you meant Mcgruff the crime dog who tells kids not to steal and smoke grass:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

    44. PCD says:

      Thank you for proving my point, tommy.

    45. tommy in nyc says:

      :-" whatever dude.sticks and stones you know.

    46. thatniceguy says:

      What a ridiculous double standard.

      I can’t even believe this discussion is taking place. Who are we kidding here? If this deal was embraced/pushed by Dems, you guys would be screaming bloody murder and going on about how weak the Dems are on terror.

      Instead, you’re rabidly defending Bush, even as the Coast Guard dubbed it high-risk and it’s still being studied under the 45-day law.

      But many (thankfully, not all) on the right just magically morph things to fit their view. It’s “follow Bush at any cost”. So, his self contradictions cause you to contort yourself into the strangest positions as you fail in your attempts to make the logic work. Hence, these ridiculous, off-top arguments about profiliing, etc.

      And ST, you are trying to downplay your bringing profiling into the discussion as the underhanded diversionary tactic that it is. You’re just trying to create a rallying point, because your party is split on the issue. “If we can’t agree on the real and important issue, let’s just agree to hate the slimy Dems”. So transparent.

      “Something tells me Hillary could have cared less about a German company managing the port operations…”

      What does that piece of pure conjecture mean? “Something” like what “tells you”? Maybe that “something” is more of your contortions to ignore the real reasons your peers are split, and provide a baseless rallying point?

      Why is Hillary using racial profiling simply because she is expressing concern? More importantly, why is that even relevant to the discussion about the real questions of port security raised by this deal?

      Then you get ticked and feign ignorance when someone calls you on it. :-w

    47. steve says:

      The Democrats are trying to make points on national security and the Republicans are playing the race card, that’s not news. bush and Hillary are both opportunists and neither will be the president in 2009. The story here is the fact that the UAE will not recognize Israels’ right to exist nor does Hamas. Hamas is catching hel1 and the UAE is getting easy access to American ports. That is a double standard which has now become the standard operating proceedure for the Republican Party. That’s called corruption and that charge will stick in November. Peace

    48. TNG: “What a ridiculous double standard.”

      ST: Yeah, after reading your post,I can see quite a few double standards on your part, which I’ll get to shortly.

      TNG: “I can’t even believe this discussion is taking place. Who are we kidding here?”

      ST: Yourself?

      TNG: “If this deal was embraced/pushed by Dems, you guys would be screaming bloody murder and going on about how weak the Dems are on terror. ”

      ST: And because this deal is being pushed by Republicans, you scream how bad the idea is. Double standard my foot. What’s interesting is that the anti-deal brigade started by Hillary and Co. was embraced by several Republicans in Washington. Next?

      TNG: “Instead, you’re rabidly defending Bush, even as the Coast Guard dubbed it high-risk and it’s still being studied under the 45-day law.”

      ST: You’re poorly informed. LINK

      TNG: “But many (thankfully, not all) on the right just magically morph things to fit their view. It’s “follow Bush at any cost”.”

      ST: Uh huh. That’s why about 90% of the right (including me) were against the Miers nomination and are pretty much evenly split on the UAE port deal. This is not about “following Bush” anymore than your opinion is about “following Dems at any cost.” Give me the benefit of the doubt and I’ll return it to you. If you don’t, this conversation goes nowhere.

      TNG: “So, his self contradictions cause you to contort yourself into the strangest positions as you fail in your attempts to make the logic work.”

      ST: And the factual rant I’m responding to from you totally demolishes the logic behind my position, right? LOL.

      TNG: “Hence, these ridiculous, off-top arguments about profiliing, etc.”

      ST: Off topic? Get real! I’ve already posted about the crux of the concern, as it related to our national security here in a pretty lengthy post. Perhaps you need to do a little catching up before you start talking about things you obviously know very little about. The profiling angle is part of the story that I can and WILL discuss. Just because you don’t like talking about the hypocrisy coming forth from your side of the aisle doesn’t make it ‘off-topic’ – maybe in your world it does but it doesn’t mine. Of course then again, attacking my motivations seems to be your MOI rather than attacking the substance of the issue discussed in this thread. So much easier to do for you, isn’t it?

      TNG: “And ST, you are trying to downplay your bringing profiling into the discussion as the underhanded diversionary tactic that it is.”

      ST: ROTFLMAO – “diversionary tactic”?? That’s a trip, considering that’s exactly what you just did: you diverted the topic into being about ME rather than whether or not this truly was profiling. Hilarious. What was that you were saying about ‘double standards’ again?

      TNG: “You’re just trying to create a rallying point, because your party is split on the issue. “If we can’t agree on the real and important issue, let’s just agree to hate the slimy Dems”. So transparent.”

      ST: The only thing transparent here is your inability to respond to the points I made in my post in favor of ad hominem jibes at me. Nice try, but it says volumes about your inability to address the substance of what I said.

      TNG: “”Something tells me Hillary could have cared less about a German company managing the port operations…”

      What does that piece of pure conjecture mean? “Something” like what “tells you”?”

      ST: Again, you’re lecturing me on something you’re doing (“conjecture”) when you yourself engaged in such in the very post I”m responding to? Examples: If this deal was embraced/pushed by Dems, you guys would be screaming bloody murder and going on about how weak the Dems are on terror. and “But many (thankfully, not all) on the right just magically morph things to fit their view. It’s “follow Bush at any cost” Ahem – double standards, eh? Ya don’t say?!

      TNG: “Maybe that “something” is more of your contortions to ignore the real reasons your peers are split, and provide a baseless rallying point?

      ST: Again, see this post – I’ve addressed those reasons, not ignored them. Please try to keep up.

      TNG: “Why is Hillary using racial profiling simply because she is expressing concern? More importantly, why is that even relevant to the discussion about the real questions of port security raised by this deal?”

      ST: To repeat my earlier statement:

      I’ve already posted about the crux of the concern, as it related to our national security here in a pretty lengthy post. Perhaps you need to do a little catching up before you start talking about things you obviously know very little about. The profiling angle is part of the story that I can and WILL discuss. Just because you don’t like talking about the hypocrisy coming forth from your side of the aisle doesn’t make it ‘off-topic’ – maybe in your world it does but it doesn’t mine. Of course then again, attacking my motivations seems to be your MOI rather than attacking the substance of the issue discussed in this thread. So much easier to do for you, isn’t it?

      ST: Back to your original point about double standards:

      TNG: “What a ridiculous double standard”

      ST: Indeed. Your double standards are quite ridiculous – and obvious.

      TNG: “Then you get ticked and feign ignorance when someone calls you on it. :-w

      ST: LOL – “Feign ignorance”? Get real. The only one ignorant here is you and I’ve just proved it. Rather than give a thoughtful well researched response to anything I wrote in my blogpost, you go on some tangent about supposed Republican double standards and in the process unwittingly display several yourself. You didn’t address the substance of what I wrote, and instead went about an ad hominem attack on me. Very weak argument. Is that the best you can do? Did you even stop to think about the people on the left (some of whom I mentioned in my blogpost) who are pushing the profiling and/or xenophobic (the latter of which I haven’t pushed) angle? Are they following Bush “no matter the cost”? Nope.

    49. GBA says:

      I am sure that the President is being forthcoming as usual. He has never ever lied according to folks here. So our ports must totally secure or he would not allow this business transaction to go through.

      Is the President telling the truth here?
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/#

      President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
      Aired December 4, 2001 – 15:18 ET

      This remark is 0:54:42 into 1:01:17 speech during a Q&A session. Jordan is a young boy from Florida. Here’s what they said.

      QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you’ve done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

      BUSH: Well…

      (APPLAUSE)

      Thank you, Jordan (ph).

      Well, Jordan (ph), you’re not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card — actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower — the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, “There’s one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident.”

      But I was whisked off there — I didn’t have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, “A second plane has hit the tower. America’s under attack.”

      A Freudian slip? Or an elaborate mistatement?

      You make the call.

      The first plane hitting the tower was not on TV that morning. And the second plane hit the tower when he was in the classroom.

      This is when I really took a hard look at who I voted for. I had already had concerns about Cheney. Because I felt he violated the 12th Amendment and he was the Halliburton CEO at the time of his nomination. And I knew about the work they had done in Balkans and Nigeria. I knew they were corrupt. You had to be an idiot not to know it. But Bush I thought was a straight shooter. But now I don’t know anymore.

      Alot of people I know worked in the WTC, my sister, her husband and a bunch of my friends. The WTC is only 6 miles from my shop. My family and some of my friends made it out. It took me 15 hours to find my family. The others are buried in a garbage dump in Staten Island.

      So when I heard the President say this I wondered for a long time whether this was political posturing or if there was colusion. I still wonder. What did we know and when did we know it?

      I want to trust my President. But he has given me no reason to do so other than blind patriotism.

      Alot of people here made transitions in thier political thinking that have had monumental impacts on them personally. Sister Toldjah speaks of her political epiphany in her Bio. Baklava is very passionate about his metamorphosis. I am not about mine.

      I went to grad school in Hyde Park in Chicago. For years I volunteered as the Republican election judge in our district. Being a Republican in the south side of Chicago is an act of bravery. And I was very proud on each election day. Albeit very lonely.

      I don’t like what is going on. The political divisiveness of both parties, the widespread corruption from the pentagon, to K Street, through the halls of Congress and into the Whitehouse. It sucks.

      So I am saying that if the President really wants to ease the anxiety of Americans he should create tremendous transparency for this port deal. We should have the right to any an all documents as long as this foreign government owned company is operating in the US. No secrecy, instead we need honesty. We should be entitled to know who the private equity partners are. So if something does go wrong we will know exactly who is accountable. And we should be entitled to greater safeguards than verbal assurances alone..like say a heavy security bond.

      Our current level of port security is often referred to as being governed by a “risk based matrix”. This means a series of processes and safeguards. Each safeguard on its own is ineffective. But the reasoning is that if you layer these ineffective safeguards they will become effective. This is based on a formula of cost versus security. Still less than 1% of all cargo containers are physically searched in our ports. And only a fraction are x-ray scanned. Most of them it is merely enough just to audit the manifest. Is this the best we can do?

    50. Baklava says:

      TNG wrote, “even as the Coast Guard dubbed it high-risk

      TNG, I addressed that in my 1:48 PM post.

    51. Baklava says:

      GBA tried to hard but looked foolish by saying, “The first plane hitting the tower was not on TV that morning.

      The aftermath of the first plane hitting the tower was on within minutes. And you know darn well that’s what Bush meant. It was on TV. Bush was looking at the TV and saw that building. But GBA looks very hard for a conspiracy and it only makes you look…. loony.

      GBA eerily asked, “So when I heard the President say this I wondered for a long time whether this was political posturing or if there was colusion. I still wonder. What did we know and when did we know it?

      I don’t know. You are getting me to think. If I think as long as you did… oh. It’s coming to me. I got it. Bush planned it so that he could take away our civil liberties and have an excuse to go into Iraq and “steal the oil” as you said yesterday. Now I know. Now I’m on your side. I hate Bush and think he’s LYING. I was just convinced by ya..

      GBA really amazed me with this quote, “I don’t like what is going on. The political divisiveness of both parties.”

      What do you think the divisiveness is caused from? I’ll answer that. People making false allegations. Incorrect accusations…. Like these from you yesterday:
      1) “We went there to steal the oil.”
      2) “And we have rebuilt almost nothing.”
      3) “We bomb indiscriminately”
      4) “What makes you think that Abu al Zarqawi even exist?”
      5) “we tortured, raped and murdered to centralize our power.”

      Then GBA because of his distrust and mind full of inaccurate accusations said, “So I am saying that if the President really wants to ease the anxiety of Americans he should create tremendous transparency for this port deal.

      While I agree that the President is lacking in ability to articulate like Robert Kaplan did on the UAE ports deal subject… I was against the deal before I heard him (his interview can be found on radioblogger.com), in this issue it’d be hard for the President or anyone to satisfy anyone for 2 big reasons:
      1) You can’t divulge all of the security protocols/measures of the ports.
      2) Given what you can say, you can’t convince most people because NOBODY can guarantee 100% security. Period. All other ports operated/managed by Chinese and other folks you can’t guarantee 100% security. This isn’t about just security. There is a whole RANGE of COMPLEX ideas on this issue. And NEVER ONCE did I Baklava come around because I feel for Bush. It has never been about Bush no matter how many times GBA thinks/says so.

      GBA asked, “Is this the best we can do?

      No. We can spend more money on more resources. Just like at the airports and nuclear plants and what not. It is not up to the President as the president doesn’t control the purse strings. THe Congress does. And… The Congress has increased dollars spent for security by large margins. I’m not sure why it just seems to me that Democrats/liberals want to continually score points by bashing as opposed to rallying behind their leaders to offer solutions. I shouldn’t generalize. Both parties bash. But you get my drift.

    52. benning says:

      I’m still not sure how I think about the deal, except that a lot of BS has been spewed about it.

      Me, I’m all for profiling! Profile away! As for the ports deal – let’s see what the 45 day delay allows us to discover.

    53. thatniceguy says:

      ST: “And because this deal is being pushed by Republicans, you scream how bad the idea is. Double standard my foot.”

      Show me where I’ve “screamed” that. I never said the deal was bad. I just said that it raised real questions that should be answered. You assumed that. Maybe your knee-jerk response requires that you assign a knee-jerk response to me?

      TNG:“Instead, you’re rabidly defending Bush, even as the Coast Guard dubbed it high-risk and it’s still being studied under the 45-day law.”

      ST: “You’re poorly informed”

      Actually, I’ve read that CG PR. Do you really believe that it completely erases the concern that the coast guard previously expressed and mitigates the need for the 45 day window? That was my point. The CG dubbed it high risk. Bush tried to ram it through with veto threats, etc. I think that’s a problem. If anything, the PR raises a lot of caveats that underscore the need for the review period.

      ST: That’s why about 90% of the right were against the Miers nomination and are pretty much evenly split on the UAE port deal. This is not about following Bush…

      Citing Harriet Miers among the sheer volume of substantive cases to the contrary doesn’t say much. And note that I said “many” not all. The fact that ANY (let alone 50%) of you guys jump to support and defend Bush’s headlong rush into this deal, given your typical approach to the WOT trumping everything else, I think my point stands.

      But, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt since you offered such a compelling deal.

      TNG: “So, his self contradictions cause you to contort yourself into the strangest positions as you fail in your attempts to make the logic work.”

      ST: And the factual rant I’m responding to from you totally demolishes the logic behind my position, right?

      There is no logic in your position if you support the president’s previous headlong rush into this deal. Consider my post an observation of that fact.

      TNG: Hence, these ridiculous, off-top arguments about profiliing, etc.”

      ST: Off topic? Get real! I’ve already posted about the crux of the concern, as it related to our national security here in a pretty lengthy post.

      That’s another post…one that was on-topic. This post is still off-topic and does a disservice to any real discussion about serious security questions. Hauling in conjecture about Hillary is akin to Ann Coulter’s deplorable baiting tactics and doesn’t help this country. The original commenter pointed this out and you tried to downplay your original post by saying you weren’t making it a profiling issue.

      And I’m saying that you are, in fact, obscuring the real issue with this Hillary, profiling nonsense.

      Why not just stick to your more thought out analysis based on the real concern, rather than raising these divisive red herrings? Again, you’re obviously free to do it, but what value are you trying to add? So you prove Hillary’s a hypocrite. Now what? How much safer are the ports?

      In fact, with the two posts that you are fond of reffering to, it’s like you’re saying, “ok, we’ve talked about the issue, now let’s get back to demeaning the Dems and dividing the country”.

      ST: Just because you don’t like talking about the hypocrisy coming forth from your side of the aisle doesn’t make it ‘off-topic’ – maybe in your world it does …

      You’re right. That’s not what makes it off-topic. It’s off-topic on its own. That’s my whole point. The topic (at least the key topic raised by the port deal) is security. Yours is about Hillary.

      TNG: And ST, you are trying to downplay your bringing profiling into the discussion as the underhanded diversionary tactic that it is.

      ST: ROTFLMAO – “diversionary tactic”?? That’s a trip, considering that’s exactly what you just did: you diverted the topic into being about ME rather than whether or not this truly was profiling.

      No. Your topic itself is the diversion. I simply rejected your attempt to change to this topic as underhanded, and I further pointed out your unwillingness to own up to it when put to you.

      Again, we’re all entitled to freedom of speech. I’m just suggesting that, here, yours is intentinally divisive and I’m suggesting that we not feign indignance and ignorance when called on it.

    54. Baklava says:

      TNG wrote, “No. Your topic itself is the diversion.

      Seems to me it’s her blog and you can turn the channel if you think it’s a diversion. I choose this one because I like what she writes about and find her stance on this issue took GREAT courage at the time she did take it and I told her so. She changed her mind for the deal before I did. She (ST) is FREE to write about what she feels and is only a diversion as much as YOU feel it is and in such case…. turn the channel….

    55. thatniceguy says:

      Baklava,

      I agree completely, and I stated more than once that she (and all of us for that matter) are free to say what we want.

      And, that means I’m free to reject what she says. And, in fact, since we share this country and I find this divisive and harmful to our country, I have incentive for speaking out.

      Of course, since this is her blog, she’s also free to edit out that rejection or ban me altogether. This is all a given.

      But, all of that notwithstanding, maybe you can answer the question, since you “like what she writes”: What’s the point of trying to prove Hillary a hypocrite in all this? What value do we, as a country, get out of it? Or you as an invidiual for that matter?

    56. Karl says:

      Sister,

      Look at the encouraging side of this, they wouldn’t argue with you unless they say you as a threat.

      Amazing when the simple truth is more of a threat then the rhetoric…..

    57. TNG: “Show me where I’ve “screamed” that. I never said the deal was bad. I just said that it raised real questions that should be answered. You assumed that.”

      ST: Oh ok. So you think it was a good deal, right? Otherwise, you wouldn’t be b!tching to me about how I’m being “off topic” for criticizing Hillary and other Dems for their hypocrisy on this issue.

      TNG: Maybe your knee-jerk response requires that you assign a knee-jerk response to me?

      ST: LOL. “Knee jerk response”? I’ve blogged about this issue five times now, with my first post initially stating that I was against the deal. My position has evolved – so my response to this issue was not knee jerk. And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you’re ok with this deal.

      TNG: “Actually, I’ve read that CG PR. Do you really believe that it completely erases the concern that the coast guard previously expressed and mitigates the need for the 45 day window? That was my point. The CG dubbed it high risk.”

      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. That’s not what happened. That’s why I said you were poorly informed.

      TNG: “Bush tried to ram it through with veto threats, etc. I think that’s a problem. If anything, the PR raises a lot of caveats that underscore the need for the review period.”

      But this deal *was* reviewed – by all the intelligence agencies … again, to their satisfaction.

      TNG: Citing Harriet Miers among the sheer volume of substantive cases to the contrary doesn’t say much. And note that I said “many” not all. The fact that ANY (let alone 50%) of you guys jump to support and defend Bush’s headlong rush into this deal, given your typical approach to the WOT trumping everything else, I think my point stands.”

      ST: Well of COURSE you think your point stands, because you couldn’t possibly want to admit that conservatives have been divided and didn’t march lockstep with Bush on many things and been quite vocal about it – let me give a small rundown: No Child Left Behind, the farm bill, the Patriot Act, the Bush adminstration’s response to the Schiavo case, Harriet Miers, now this. So no, your point does NOT stand.

      TNG: But, I’ll give you benefit of the doubt since you offered such a compelling deal.

      ST: Thanks. I’ll sleep much better tonight knowing that.

      TNG: “There is no logic in your position if you support the president’s previous headlong rush into this deal. Consider my post an observation of that fact.”

      ST: LOL! Just because you say there’s no logic doesn’t make it so. And 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. Thanks for confirming it for me.

      TNG: “That’s another post…one that was on-topic. This post is still off-topic and does a disservice to any real discussion about serious security questions.”

      ST: BS. I started this post off talking about the strange bedfellows each side was making with respect to this issue (I urge you to read it again) and their positions on it and then went on to point out Hillary and the rest of the left (who stand with her on this) hypocrisy on profiling. That is NOT off topic – that is PART OF THE ISSUE.

      TNG: “Hauling in conjecture about Hillary is akin to Ann Coulter’s deplorable baiting tactics and doesn’t help this country.”

      ST: First, don’t ever compare me to Ann Coulter again. I don’t act like Ann Coulter, I don’t look like Ann Coulter, and I don’t talk like Ann Coulter. I don’t go around calling Arabs ragheads nor do I talk about how much I’d like to blow up the NYT. Secondly, discussions about profiling DO help this country in understanding exactly when/if we should profile and why.

      TNG: “The original commenter pointed this out and you tried to downplay your original post by saying you weren’t making it a profiling issue.”

      ST: Learn to read more carefully. The previous poster said I was trying to make this about race. I wasn’t.

      TNG: “And I’m saying that you are, in fact, obscuring the real issue with this Hillary, profiling nonsense.”

      ST: Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that part of the issue here IS profiling of Arabs – you, for whatever reason (I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that you’re uptight because I’m *GASP* picking on Democrats!) don’t seem to grasp that. Why don’t you ask a few Muslims how they feel about the hype on this issue? Why don’t you read a few op/eds and see what people I don’t normally agree with say about this issue (op/eds which I referenced in this post). I suppose you think they’re “not helping this country” either and are acting like Ann Coulter as well and are deliberately trying to sidetrack from the real issue, eh? What a joke.

      TNG: “Why not just stick to your more thought out analysis based on the real concern, rather than raising these divisive red herrings?”

      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. Good – we’re making progress. WRT to your ‘red herring’ ‘off topic’ nonsense, I’m going to say once again that profiling is PART of the issue, one which is on the table for discussion and not just here. If you don’t like it, tough.

      TNG: “Again, you’re obviously free to do it, but what value are you trying to add?”

      ST: Trying to keep people consistent, last I checked, wasn’t a crime. There’s a lot of value in consistency. Surprising you haven’t figured that out yet.

      TNG: “So you prove Hillary’s a hypocrite.”

      ST: So you agree with me?

      TNG: “Now what? How much safer are the ports?”

      ST: Not safe enough, but port security wasn’t the topic of this post. It was about strange bedfellows and the hypocrisy of the left on profiling. I’m sorry you have such a problem with me calling the left out when they’re being hypocrites but I’m going to continue to do it – your concerns on that front, however, are duly noted.

      TNG: “In fact, with the two posts that you are fond of reffering to, it’s like you’re saying, “ok, we’ve talked about the issue, now let’s get back to demeaning the Dems and dividing the country”.”

      ST: Oh yes, I’m all about dividing the country! Get a grip. The gist of your argument seems to be: “OMG, ST is attacking Dems. How dare her!” You know what? Get over it.

      TNG: “You’re right. That’s not what makes it off-topic. It’s off-topic on its own. That’s my whole point. The topic (at least the key topic raised by the port deal) is security. Yours is about Hillary.”

      ST: The topic of this post was strange bedfellows and Dem hypocrisy on the issue of profiling. Please read it again.

      TNG: “And ST, you are trying to downplay your bringing profiling into the discussion as the underhanded diversionary tactic that it is.”

      ST: I’ve done no such thing. Why would I try to downplay that part of the issue is profiling when I MENTIONED it in the very post in question?? And again, discussion of profiling as it relates to this issue is quite relevant, your protestations notwithstanding.

      TNG: “No. Your topic itself is the diversion. I simply rejected your attempt to change to this topic as underhanded, and I further pointed out your unwillingness to own up to it when put to you.”

      ST: BS. You made the discussion about ME rather than the topic at hand. You didn’t once address whether or not profiling was at play here WRT to Hillary and the left’s position on this issue. You made it about me (which you did again in the post I’m responding to). Again, so much easier to attack the messenger than the message, isn’t it TNG?

      TNG: “Again, we’re all entitled to freedom of speech. I’m just suggesting that, here, yours is intentinally divisive and I’m suggesting that we not feign indignance and ignorance when called on it.”

      ST: You can “suggest” it all you want, that doesn’t make it so. I blog about the issues that are important to me, and have blogged about the concerns people have as it relates to the security aspect of this issue and turned today to blog about another aspect of the issue I thought should be noted and discussed. Your whole argument boils down to the fact that you’re irritated that I’ve criticized the left’s position on this issue when you should know at this point that coming here and seeing me criticize the left really isn’t a surprise.

      Newsflash, TNG: your declaring something off topic and ‘intentionally divisive’ does not make it so. And if you don’t like to read criticism of Democrats and thinking exploring different aspects of an issue equates to being ‘off topic’, I suggest you turn to a blog more to your liking, because I’ll continue to criticize Democrats and call them on their hypocrisy every chance I get, and will continue to blog about different aspects of issues that I believe are important to discuss.

    58. CavalierX says:

      >that means I’m free to reject what she
      >says

      Yeah! Vote with your feet… err, mouse! I assure you that the drop in blog traffic cause by your leaving and never coming back will absolutely crush her!

    59. sanity says:

      *chuckling*

      I do believe that whatever ST wants the topic to be is what the topic is. How can she put something off topic when it is hers to mold/guide how she wants.

      Side note: It was mentioned we have freedom of speech here on comments, this is where you are wrong. Oh your free to make such comments, your free to curse, your free to berate, your even free to put out death threats…at least you think its free……

      There is always consequences to your actions (cause and effect), and what you feel “free” to do, can result in being turned into the authorities, banning, editting or plain deletions.

      Temper your words and they will outlive you – sanity

    60. forest hunter says:

      Baklava thanks for the 17:05 post. I actually believe that GBA is an intelligent person and wants what most of us here want. The five remarks he made that you listed, made my blood boil! He backed off some but I’m pretty sure there’s a heartfelt apology yet unstated from him for his ignorant accusations, that he should make to those he kicked in the teeth yesterday.

      I’ll go first GBA. I don’t normally allow my emotions to run my mouth or actions, but I did yesterday. I truly am sorry for what I called you GBA and all who might’ve been offended by my language^:)^. I hope I didn’t try your patience Sis, sorry about the outburst.

      Trust is the issue and not blind patriotism. Support and unity is what keeps us all safe. The old divide and conquer reality is what’s really at stake.**==

      Slightly OT: Not being computer savvy, I can’t link the video of a Muslim woman named Wafa Sultan at Ace of Spades “Must Watch Video From MEMRI TV”. Outstanding, no matter who you are unless your an Islamic Terrorist or one of their supporters! I’m seriously concerned for her safety. If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs! – Poe I think, but in a literal way.*-:)

    61. thatniceguy says:

      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.

    62. stackja says:

      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.

    63. “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?

    64. blogagog says:

      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.

    65. sanity says:

      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.

    66. sanity says:

      Found it. Hate talking about something without physical proof…

      Yes, two of the hijackers held UAE nationality. But then, those port terminals are currently managed by British company P&O, even though the London bombers hold UK nationality, as does failed shoe-bomber Richard Reid. And of course, Jose Padilla holds American nationality — so don’t even think of letting some American company manage cargo ops there!

      Link

    67. blogagog says:

      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.

    68. sanity says:

      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.

    69. Baklava says:

      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.

    70. steve says:

      “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

    71. blogagog says:

      To be fair, Steve is the proud grandson of Neville Chamberlain.

    72. forest hunter says:

      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.

    73. blogagog says:

      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.

    74. steve says:

      “Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”…T.H.Huxley

    75. blogagog says:

      “You shake and shake the ketchup bottle. None’ll come, and then a lot’l.” – Richard Armour

      (I can post unrelated stuff too!)

    76. PCD says:

      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?

    77. forest hunter says:

      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? =((