Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Duncan Hunter never told us how the Port deal would actually be a real risk. << And the administration never told us how the port deal would be beneficial - other than some hastily cobbled together statements about engendering trust in the middle east, along with unwarranted comments of racism and xenophobia of those that were opposed. If that's the only reason they can come up with, it's not nearly good enough. Are we to believe that selling our ports to an islamic government is the only way we can demonstrate our commitment to a reputed ally? Please. >> 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. << Sort of like what bush did with his buildup to the iraq war. So you don't seem to have any problem when republicans play the 'politics of fear'. >> ... all while never explaining the fine points of the deal or how security works on our ports. << No one on either side of the argument ever did explain the fine points of the deal. We're left to believe that the bush administration wanted badly for this deal to go through to demonstrate our trust and commitment to the UAE. I'm not believing that for one second. More likely, there motivation was the same as always - money, power, and greed. We don't know what was going on, but it was sure to benefit those who created the deal in the first place, and we already know that their not concerned with the well-being of the american public.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Are we to believe that selling our ports to an islamic government is the only way we can demonstrate our commitment to a reputed ally? Please.>> Gadzuux, the fact that you think we are " selling our ports " demonstrates my point perfectly that people have no idea what they are talking about, yet they want to take a " stand ". Nowhere in this deal were we selling our ports. But thanks for advancing the misinformation.
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>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Sort of like what bush did with his buildup to the iraq war. So you don't seem to have any problem when republicans play the 'politics of fear'.>> Like when Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, Boxer, France, Germany, Clinton and the rest said saddam was a threat with WMD's and that he needed to be removed. How do you explain your peeps using the " politics of fear" Gadzuux ? <<More likely, there motivation was the same as always - money, power, and greed.>> The port deal was for money and power. That is called capitalism Gadzuux. The UAE is into capitalism and money, which is a lot better than being into terrorism. But hey, maybe the UAE can get into terrorism now that they see we are not interested in treating them like a respected trade partner.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA So, if World War III begins, we can blame the moonbats. Right Beau?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy WW III has already begun, it's called the war on terror against radical Islam.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Funny -- the war on terror, and yet when people on BOTH sides of the aisle want to take a closer look at something, you're content with "It's fine because Bush (and my radio) sez so." If there's nothing to be concerned about in this deal, why not take the 45 days for an extra look-see? I mean, you're fine with phone taps 'cause you've got nothing to hide. What's Dubai got to hide that extra oversight would be uncomfortable? If nothing, then there was no reason for Bush to get instantly indignant and combative.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<If there's nothing to be concerned about in this deal, why not take the 45 days for an extra look-see>> Well, maybe you can tell me why the 45 days was ignored after 2 weeks and guys like Duncan Hunter couldn't wait to draw up a bill killing the deal? Could it be Duncan Hunter and other idiots in congres saw a chance to make political points with a misinformed public??
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Could it be Duncan Hunter and other idiots in congres saw a chance to make political points with a misinformed public??<< How dare he even try to do that! Only Fox News personalities and radio show hosts are allowed to do that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Could be. Could also be that they were genuinely concerned, or a combination of factors. And it could also be that Bush & Co. did nothing to INFORM the public or correct misinformation. They got sulky and combative instead. They played it poorly, Beau. >>Well, maybe you can tell me why the 45 days was ignored after 2 weeks and guys like Duncan Hunter couldn't wait to draw up a bill killing the deal?<< He said on an interview with Chris Matthews that Dubai had a mixed record in the war on terror, including allowing nuclear triggers through their ports into Iran. He says US requests to stop those shipments were ignored. Is he right? I dunno. Worth looking into though, isn't it? Or is it better to just start discrediting him personally, rather than seeing if there is any meat on the bones of his accusations?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << And it could also be that Bush & Co. did nothing to INFORM the public or correct misinformation. >> They did try and inform the public about the deal being fine, but once the hysteria got kicked into high gear, and that includes lawyers on this site, the facts were no longer important. I wouldn't be proud or brag that I was part of the 70% that had no clue about something they were against. I would also ask Duncan Hunter if he feels better about the UAE and their role in the war on terror now that guys like him have led the charge to tell them they are not to be trusted. If he thought they were a problem before, can't wait to see what he thinks now of the A-Rabs in Dubai.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I love it how the American people are right on and how smart they are when they support Bush and his programs, but when they oppose something he supports, they're suddently ignorant, misinformed, hysterical fools.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Like I said weeks ago, we're screwed now. the UAE is threatening to pull their money out of our country, they've hinted they want our planes gone. Aren't we great friends as the whole Arab world now sees us? We're just racists is what they think I don't blame them. As I also said Republicans just ran for cover for political purposes and did NOT agree with the Dems. They just had no stones, plain and simple. People who argue with this, are the same people who didn't see that we should have done the deal in the first place and there is no reasoning with them.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why would you want Muslims to have anything to do with our ports, Beau? Haven't you said over and over that Muslims are out to destroy everything we believe in?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think the Muslims are going to look at the port deal and suddenly think that we hate them. They already think that. Saying that they will suddenly start thinking that we don't like them is like saying that Beau is going to suddenly start disliking Liberals after seeing a Kerry bumper sticker
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>
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>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Why would you want Muslims to have anything to do with our ports, Beau? >> Because their money is good and their involvement in the ports is about as dangerous as Air France being involved at LAX. If I see Muslims trying to be good capitalists and a friend in the war on terror, I will back them. If I see a Muslim being a anti American, Taliban type, I am going to hope for their downfall. So Tom, why were the libs against this deal again?
