Originally Posted By ecdc "but the UAE?? Nooo, we can't have them as a friend." Err, they had some ties to 9/11 that are still being questioned. But if Saudi Arabia is our buddy, why not the UAE? Its only Iraq that we have a problem with. It must be the fact that all 19 hijackers came from Iraq and Iraq's long documented history of terrorist actions against the United States and...oh, wait. Nevermind.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If there was an honest report of all the foreign investment in America I suspect a great deal of people on here would have heart attacks. Again I say...this was never about security and always about politics. There isn't a single doubt in my mind about that.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It must be the fact that all 19 hijackers came from Iraq> They did? So, if the 9/11 hijackers had come from Sudan, we'd be hating Sudan?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>this was never about security and always about politics<< I've been saying from day one, if the President had launched an informative campaign, rather than digging in and threatening VETO right away, perhaps he could have shown the American people why this was a positive thing (if, indeed it was). Instead, the White House chose to go combative -- largely, I think, because they misjudged how many in their OWN party would kick up sand about this thing. The "just trust us, we know what we're doing" free pass days are long gone for this administration. They should know that now, but if they don't, as the President's approval ratings will continue to drop like a rock.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy So we admit that the deal was not a security rish afterall, just a bunch of hysterical misinformation. Bush does have a problem sometimes getting the truth out which is sad. Once again, people have taken an issue and misrepresented the facts to an ignorant public. Yet somehow Bush is the bad guy once again to the usual no idea, we love saddam crowd. My problem is with the Republicans in congress who are supposed to be the smart ones. For some reason they went into liberal moonbat mode during an election year and spread the misinformation themselves... Duncan Hunter... go figure.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Err, they had some ties to 9/11 that are still being questioned. But if Saudi Arabia is our buddy, why not the UAE? Its only Iraq that we have a problem with.>> The UAE and Saudi Arabia are helping us fight terrorism. Are they perfect? No, but they also are not Saddam, a guy, I'm sorry who is not coming back ecdc.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So we admit that the deal was not a security rish afterall, just a bunch of hysterical misinformation.<< "We" don't know one way or the other. Why? Because what we got from the White House is "I'll VETO anything that tries to stop this deal!" rather than a rational explanation with evidence of it being safe. It's not like he couldn't have gotten anyone to listen. He's the President, and could have scheduled a speech with slides and charts and testimonials from people guaranteeing that this was safe. He didn't even bother trying to convince his OWN party, who, by the way, control the house and senate. Curious, Beau -- which part of Duncan Hunter's information is misinformation? What evidence do you have that he is lying?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<"We" don't know one way or the other. Why? Because what we got from the White House is "I'll VETO anything that tries to stop this deal!" rather than a rational explanation with evidence of it being safe.>> This is not true K2man. The reason I suppoted the deal from day one was because Condi Rice and Rummy, people close to the Administration, explained the deal was safe. I then went to the Homeland security website which described our ports and how this deal worked. THEN, Rush came out with reasons why the port deal was something to be considered. His arguments made a lot more sense than the typical person who said " WE CANT TURN THE PORTS OVER TO ARABS!! " At that point Bush said he would veto a bill that tried to stop the deal. Why would Bush take this stance after being ROCK solid on the war on terror?? That was the next question a thinking, fair person should have asked. What did Bush see in this deal that made him so strong for it?? Since I truse his leadership, that was good enough for me. Instead the story turned into a pack of hysterical misinformation complete with REPUBLICAN lawmakers leading the charge.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Since I truse his leadership, that was good enough for me.<< Since most Americans don't trust his leadership, he should have tried to explain it better to them, as 2oony pointed out.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Exactly, Tom. >>hysterical misinformation<< Again, what part of Duncan Hunter's concerns are misinformation? Please be specific.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The reason I suppoted the deal from day one was because<< your radio told you to.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Again, what part of Duncan Hunter's concerns are misinformation?<< Rush said they were misinformation, and since he truse his leadership that's good enough for him.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Like I said Tom and Kar2oonMan... It's okay if Dubai owns the U.S. ports and it's not okay if Dubai owns the U.S. ports.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Again, what part of Duncan Hunter's concerns are misinformation? Please be specific.>> Duncan Hunter never told us how the Port deal would actually be a real risk. He didn't explain how the ports would operate and how in reality the security measures we have in place would not be at risk whatsoever. He didn't explain any of this and instead mislead people to think if the UAE port deal happened we would all be in danger. Throw in the fact that you slap the UAE in the face, a friend in the region, by telling them we don't trust you, and you have a stupid move by stupid people who relied on more stupid people to listen to them, all while never explaining the fine points of the deal or how security works on our ports.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<your radio told you to.>> No, it didn't. And you have yet to tell me how the deal was a security risk or how killing this deal helped the country.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <,My problem is with the Republicans in congress who are supposed to be the smart ones. For some reason they went into liberal moonbat mode during an election year and spread the misinformation themselves>> Interesting how Republicans start acting like Democrats when it's nearing election time. **WILD SPECULATION TIME** Could it be that this was all a setup by Rove? Picture this... The President is a lame duck, he has nothing to lose and Cheney has no aspirations for the presidency. Also, the President is unpopular (with Republicians and Democrats) no matter which poll you read. So, this being an election year, Rove sees this as an opportunity to cash in on his unpopularity to retain power for the mid-terms. Create a situation that will be so unpopular on it's face that the American voter will be instantly opposed to it. Then have Bush, who people already don't trust, be vehemently in favor of it. The Republican Congress can then look like they've "grown a pair" and will dare to oppose the president, which will instantly put their constituents behind them, especially since it is an issue which people will have strong feelings about. Maybe they (the WH) wanted to do that with the NSA issue, but it didn't go over for some reason. This whole port issue seems to have helped the GOP congress if nothing else. Even if the deal did not start this way, they (Rove & Co.) could have turned the issue behind the scenes to get this outcome. So, at the expense of the original deal, they still end up with a loftier prize, control of the US government. I don't know if I (or anyone else) subscribe to this line of thought, but it's definately plausible. Rove and Co. have come up with crafty ideas before.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy BB. that Rove conspiracy is a good one, but not the best one. LOL When is Rove going to jail???
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<When is Rove going to jail???>> Probably as soon as the Dems gain control of the House and can then subpoena him. They can't do that now and the neo-cons won't do it ever.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
