in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
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.
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.
“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.”
It’s typical how much time people take to comment on your article when they didn’t even read it Sister.
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.
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.”
“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?
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.
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.
Hi, Sister Toldjah!
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.
Sister, how will you get through the day without the benefit of the doubt?
>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!
“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.
Pam: “Sister, how will you get through the day without the benefit of the doubt?
”
ST: It’ll be tough, but I’m gonna try my best
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.
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..
>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.
>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.
>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.
And the LEFT is the one that crowed over and over that they are the experts in being diplomatic and we need better diplomacy.
>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.
Awww darn. Run back and play at your own blog, “JAC” if this one has been so disappointing to you. –ST
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?
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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
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?
Damn good post Cav. Beautiful.
I’ve done no such thing. Your refusal to take it back is noted. Welcome to the blacklist. –ST
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.
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. “
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.
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.
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?
>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.
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.
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.
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
I went to Catholic school for 12 years PCD. And it’s pretty insulting what you just said but that’s not a suprise.
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!
Oh I thought you meant Mcgruff the crime dog who tells kids not to steal and smoke grass
Thank you for proving my point, tommy.
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.
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
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.
”
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.
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?
TNG wrote, “even as the Coast Guard dubbed it high-risk
TNG, I addressed that in my 1:48 PM post.