Luckovich cartoon changes address!
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.
The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.
Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:
Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2006 > February > 21 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USHigh-flying ski jumper
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Permalink | Comments (197) | Categories: Editorial Cartoon
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 07:37 AM | Link to this
When he does land see if he will share some “juice” with Bode Miller.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this
In his presentation at the so-called “Intelligence Summit,” Tierney, an Arabic speaker, described how he received the “Saddam Tapes” from federal authorities last year as part of his job as a contract translator. It was supposed to be a routine assignment, but Tierney said he soon realized the tapes had special significance and decided to make them public. Tierney said he believes other tapes, which have not yet been heard, will eventually reveal that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Tierney also said that he believes Iraq orchestrated the 2001 anthrax attacks, with Saddam Hussein using American scientist Steven Hatfill as a “proxy” to carry out the mission.
By Pinko Liberal
February 21, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Andy - Blah, blah, blah. You ar so full of sh1t. You are quite entertaining though.
By Barry H
February 21, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this
Andy, what are your sources for these claims? Did tim McVeigh have anything at all to do with OKC?
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Sources? I don’t see many links to sources coming from the “left” in here. I think it is speculation for grown ups.
Just because the “left” took the burden of proof off of Saddam and placed it on America doesn’t mean the case is closed. Remember the Oil for Food Scandal and how that would still be going on had Bush not did what he did?
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Barry H, Pinko Liberal
There isn’t a single word of Andy’s in his 7:54 post. Let’s play a game of spot the idiots, I’ll start with you two.
By getalife
February 21, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
Money over security.Tell me again how this is good for America?
This shows the war on terror is a scam.
By The Grinch
February 21, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
Every time more information from the Saddam tapes comes out, You can hear a Liberal back peddle…..
and a kitten dies.
By Napo D
February 21, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this
Talk about your SWEET JUMPS! Lucky….
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
getalife,
How is this money over security? This is a UAE company buying a British company and has nothing to do with the way security is done at our ports.
Although the strangest part of this whole situation has to be Chuck Schumer on Fox asking why we can’t just let Halliburton do this.
Just last week there were no terrorists in the world and Halliburton was the devil.
By Spot
February 21, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
RW and Andy, that was easy.
By Ray Powell
February 21, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
Mr. Lukovich, Did you see the idea I sent about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad discussiong which of their respective religions have been used to justify violence, prejudice, hatred, and murder. After discussing in turn, Mohammad says, but can any of you start riots, violence, etc. just by turning around? His back has been to us the entire time. The others stop him from turning around and concede, “You win.”
By Andy
February 21, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Cheney’s mistake in this episode was that he acted as a normal human being, not a vice president being stalked. He gave his enemies an opening, and they stormed through it. The lesson of last week is that the Bush White House had better get its act together, because the adversary press has its act together.
They aim to take this president down, and last week they got the scent of blood in their nostrils. It was written all over them in that pressroom.
They liked it, and they will be back.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
They aim to take this president down, and last week they got the scent of blood in their nostrils
The hunter becomes the hunted, eh?
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Well, I guess Olympic drug testing is a good subject for a political cartoonist at AJC. We have some editors “drawing” crazy conclusions every day. And no testing.
The next exciting political cartoon will be AMERICAN IDOL. Tune in.
By Syd
February 21, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Here is a link with more info on the subject.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/85636.shtml?s=ic
Wonder why we don’t get these same reports from the mainstream media?
By finch
February 21, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
I certainly hope people read the whole article in National Review on William Tierney, his Saddam tapes, and the so-called “Intelligence Summit” last weekend where the tape transcripts were released. It portrays Tierney as a very mixed up guy.
Tierney does admit in the piece that his predictions over as yet unreleased tapes proving Iraq’s involvement with 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the anthrax letters, have absolutely no foundation.
However, he does reveal that God personally tells him about these things.
“What I did was I sort of tweaked it (the Bible) *a little bit — ‘In all thy UNSCOM inspections, He shall direct thy paths to the weapons of mass destruction.’ “
Riiiiiight.
Even the National Review is wearing thick, protective gloves as it peruses Tierney:
“According to published reports, investigators for the House Intelligence Committee, working with government intelligence experts, have verified the Saddam Tapes as authentic. So in coming weeks, the controversy over them will be not about their authenticity but about how best to interpret them. And in that, the people associated with the Intelligence Summit start with a significant credibility disadvantage.”
I predict the Saddam tapes will show that he had no involvement in anti US terror, and in fact, suspected weapons facilities will turn out to be candy factories and used car parts warehouses. You know how I know that?
God told me.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
We all know what then happened. But the only thing that then happened that seemed to catch national attention was that the party drove not to the nearest newspaper, but to the hospital.- William F. Buckley, NY Sun 2/21/06
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
Jewish and Proud,
Right! Bush hunts terrorists and the liberal press hunts the president.
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Uh oh. finch has gotten religion. Run for your life.
By getalife
February 21, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
People who hear God talking to them are insane.
Take Bush for example, he said God told him to invade Iraq.
Pat…..
And the idiot in Iran….
Where is This Justin when you need him?
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Official news from getalife…finch is insane!
By getalife
February 21, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Riiiiiight.
By getalife
February 21, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
I am fed up with these people
By BigDaddy
February 21, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
getalife, don’t worry, This Justin is right here to keep you safe…
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Getalife,
I am glad you are feeling frisky.
But are ONLY people who talk to God insane? How do you explain Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, etc., etc., etc.?
By getalife
February 21, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Good point Dusty.
I think most people are crazy in their own liitle way
By Objective Observer
February 21, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Finch:
Tell your crony Barry H. that he has only to hit the blue text to find the source.
Oh, by the way, I am invested in Kleenex stock now. Your whining the other night told me it was a good move.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
Any luck on a flight?
By Objective Observer
February 21, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
R.W.:
This afternoon, but it will be raining on me by Thursday. But again, I think POSITIVE.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
Weather girls style?
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Getalife,
That is one cute, crazy pup.
I knew you would come up with something good.
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
At least you don’t have to worry about your wings icing up.
As we have been informed, even the glaciers are melting. Watch out for icebergs.
By Objective Observer
February 21, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
R.W.:
I could enjoy that rain? Gotta go get dressed, I’ve been packed for days. You guys have fun, I will.
Friction to Big Daddy!
By getalife
February 21, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Of course, RW has good links
By Midori
February 21, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Well, that didn’t take long:
How is this money over security? This is a UAE company buying a British company and has nothing to do with the way security is done at our ports.
That picture adequately describes that rationale.
I thought 9/11 changed everything?
Why can’t America defend er own ports?
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 21, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
I’m enjoying the non-effects of global warming, it hardly ever gets cold where I come from.
By Barry H
February 21, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
I’m nobody’s crony. The National Review doesn’t give Tierney much credibility. He sounds as nutty as Pat Robinson. His assignment was to translate not analyze. God told me he is a nut and the Bush administration is full of self-righteous incompetent ideologues.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Midori,
We weren’t doing the port operations anyway. I’m still trying to get REAL information on this, as you can see here.
If you anything besides childish pictures I would appreciate the info.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Barry H -
Did Tim Mc Veigh have anything to do with Oklahoma City? Absolutely. [Is that the end of the story? Nope, ask Jayna Davis.] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48585,00.html)
More info
And the 9/11 commission broaches the subject
Interesting stuff, but when Bill Clinton blamed Oklahoma City on “talk radio” his poll ratings zoomed up, and since tying in Iraq to domestic terrorism would just totally blow every premise the DNC operates from, the MSM didn’t bother to pursue this fascinating story. It also fit their agenda so much better to blame it entirely on a white male soldier…
By Midori
February 21, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Sources? I don’t see many links to sources coming from the “left� in here. I think it is speculation for grown ups.
Yet, when I or others from the left post links we are ridiculed for it.
So on the one hand, I shouldn’t post links because RW and his assistant cheerleader find them offensive, or some other b.s., and on the other hand Scooter thinks there haven’t been enough links posted from the left.
Oy. Veh.
I suppose Andy is the Keeper of the Flame.
He can post anything he wants, any links he wants, and everything is okey, dokey. I’ve seen some of you anxiously await him posting links to coincide with your argument (if that’s what you call it).
So my question is: why died and crowned you king, queen, etc.? Your hypocrisy and disingenuous logic notwithstanding, who gave you the right to make up the posting rules?
You people on the right are full of so much sh*t, even a 48 hour enema wouldn’t help.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 21, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
I suppose that if Clinton were secretly tapping phone calls back then he could have prevented the OKC bombing…
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
This just in:
Court Allows Church’s Hallucinogenic Tea
We have finally found a way for liberals to praise religion.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Midori -
Relax dear. Have a nice cup of tea and you’ll feel so much better.
JAP -
Actually, if Clinton had tapped calls that originated in Iraq, which is not “domestic wiretapping”, then it is possible.
By BigDaddy
February 21, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
U.A.E.: “All your port are belong to us! You have no chance to survive make your time”
It really looks like somebody set us up the bomb…
(for a refresher, just click “Watch This Movie”…)
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Midori -
Relax dear. Have a nice cup of tea and you’ll feel much better.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
My posts aren’t posting - so if you see an almost duplicate post, please forgive the error.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Tariq Aziz, a senior {Saddam Hussein} henchman, then chipped in with some supportive thoughts of his own.
“Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It’s so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it.”
These would be hard to prevent, he said. “In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?”
By Cry me a river...
February 21, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Midori, It’s not your links that you are ridiculed for. It’s that filthy, disgusting, big mouth of yours.
By Mark
February 21, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
Liberals will never praise religion. We just tolerate the fact that you idiot cons have put your whole faith into believing what some guys wrote in a book 3 thousand years ago.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
BigDaddy,
Are you comparing our ports to a star filled monolith?
“All these ports are yours except Europa, attempt no landing there”
By Cry me a river
February 21, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Midori, The reason you get ridiculed is not because of your links. It’s because of that filthy, disgusting, big mouth of yours.
By Cry me a river
February 21, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Midori, You don’t draw ridicule due to your links. It’s because of that filthy, disgusting, big mouth of yours.
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 21, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Actually, if Clinton had tapped calls that originated in Iraq, which is not “domestic wiretapping�, then it is possible
How? I thought that Jayna Davis said that Osama bin Hiden was the mastermind…was he in Iraq at the time. I vaguely remember that Bin Hiden was in Iraq at some point but was it during that time?
By Andy
February 21, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Colonel Sanders MIA After Cartoon Riots
Thus, radical Islam is always looking for insults to freak out about. It’s the Joe Pesci of religious movements. One moment you think the world is getting along fine and the next moment some oversensitive suicide bomber has got his finger on the trigger, saying “You think my prophet is funny? Funny how? Like he’s a clown? You think he’s a clown? He’s here to amuse you? No, Anthony, he’s a big boy. He knows what he drew. How is my prophet funny?â€?
By getalife
February 21, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Frist said the ports deal should be put on hold.
What happenned, he did not get his cut?
By getalife
February 21, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Good link Andy
By finch
February 21, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
How convenient of so called “impartial” news outlets to ignore the fact that the Saddam tapes show that Iraq’s number one idiot rebuked Tariq Aziz for merely suggesting WMD attacks on the West.
Saddam even went on to say that he warned the US and Britain that terror attacks by someone other than Iraq were inevitable.
All this on tapes that were never meant to be heard outside Saddam-land.
Now, if Saddam were planning to support 3rd party WMD attacks, would he have warned the US and Britain of this potential menace?? Would he have told his cronys that he had warned the allies of this very threat???
I think not.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
But Scooter’s great service to our country has now been cut short, and his good name attacked. A distinguished group of friends, business leaders and former government officials have joined The Libby Legal Defense Trust to help Scooter defray his legal costs from the recent charges. We hope you will join us in supporting this effort.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Sada, who is a national security adviser in Iraq’s new government, alleges that in June 2002 Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and into Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
finch, did you question UBL’s intentions when he publicly declared his jihad intentions back in 96, when Bush was in office of course?
By getalife
February 21, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
A song for the right wing
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
JAP -
Question from Lehman of 9/11 commission to Freeh:
There’s a new book out now, as you probably know, called The Third Terrorist, that has new information that begs for further investigation showing the links or purporting very significant links between Terry Nichols and Ramzi Yousef in the Philippines, and also links between the two perpetrators and Hussein al-Husseini, the Iraqi, perhaps, agent. Are you satisfied that you ran all of these potential Al Qaida links to ground with McVeigh and Nichols?
As a reminder since you are not an American, Iraqi citizen Ramzi Yousef, along with the Blind Sheik, was behind the first World Trade Center bombing.
So, it seems reasonable that there should have been wiretapping of calls from Iraq to the U.S., which is NOT domestic wiretapping.
compris?
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
getalife, do you enjoy lumping all conservatives into one basket? Are you one of those people that think all people from the same party all think the same?
By getalife
February 21, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Ricky,
No, I enjoy humor.
McCain for President.
There you go.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Finch -
So you think that Saddam was smart enough to know that non-state actors could use WMDs, but that without his help and warning, the US and Britain would never have figured this out for themselves?
And what would his motive have been to reveal this to us?
Just curious…
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 21, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
And what would his motive have been to reveal this to us
Trying to get the U.S. off his back for awhile…
By getalife
February 21, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Please help Scooter
By Jewish and Proud of It
February 21, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Food for thought…
Christian mobs rampaged through a southern Nigerian city Tuesday, burning mosques and killing several people in an outbreak of anti-Muslim violence that followed protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend. Residents and witnesses in the southern, predominantly Christian city of Onitsha said several Muslims with origins in the north were beaten to death by mobs which also burned two mosques there
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this
The board seems quiet today. Maybe it just the lack of the bomb throwers from both sides not posting as much as usual
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
JAP -
It’s always interesting to study cause and effect.
flashback
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
JAP -
Hmmmm, could revenge be a motive?
By JMM&I
February 21, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Seems to be their way or no way. Time to stand up and say **NO WAY” to radical Islam.
By RE
February 21, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Score 1 for scooter…Clinton did it!
Score one for BD…Clinton did it!
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
RE, why are you so obsessed with Clinton>
By WashingtonState
February 21, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Here’s to one honest man.
By WashingtonState
February 21, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
RW, I don’t have any information about the port takeovers, but here is an article from the NYT, that bastion of liberalism:
Pataki Joins Opposition to Takeover of Ports By David D. Kirkpatrick and Patrick McGeehan The New York Times
Tuesday 21 February 2006 Washington - The Republican governors of New York and Maryland on Monday joined the growing chorus of criticism of an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports. Both raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in a statement. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract. Pushing back, officials of Dubai Ports World defended the federal government's speedy approval of its takeover, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades. The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president. The Bush administration said on Thursday that its approval of the deal was final. The sale is scheduled to close on March 2. Congressional criticism of the deal grew on Sunday after Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, defended the arrangement in television appearances, saying there were unspecified "assurances in place" that the takeover was "appropriate from a national security standpoint." Critics in both parties argue that a takeover by Dubai Ports World warranted special scrutiny. The company is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates, an ally of the United States that has also been home to terrorists, and its newly acquired P & O subsidiary operates major terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said the review was conducted in just 30 days - far too little time to vet the company thoroughly. "There wasn't a full investigation in the context of a post 9/11 world," he said. Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, "You would just think that when a Dubai company is taking over, that is enough to raise a flag - at least to do a thorough review, at minimum." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, another New York Democrat, and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, are expected to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of terminal operators to foreign governments. While Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, has expressed confidence that American officials would not have approved the port deal if it put national security at risk, he said on Monday, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here." In an interview with CNN, he said it would be "very appropriate" for the administration to brief Congress about why it believes the port arrangement not only does not compromise security but will actually improve it. People involved in the approval process said that, like all acquisitions of domestic businesses by foreign-owned companies, the Dubai Ports World acquisition was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, representing 12 federal agencies. Officials of Dubai Ports World's North American subsidiary, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the situation, said the critics' fears were misdirected because the Coast Guard and the United States customs authorities, not the terminal operators, are responsible for checking incoming cargo, passengers and crews as well as for planning and maintaining port security. Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the agency could not stop the Dubai company from assuming a 30-year lease on a major container terminal in New York Harbor unless some provision of the lease was violated. He said the agency's lawyers had been studying the lease of the terminal to P & O Ports North America, a subsidiary of the company being acquired by Dubai Ports World, but had not reached any conclusion. ------- Patrick McGeehan contributed reporting for this article.By Andy
February 21, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Glorifying the enemy only leads to fear-mongering- SFGate, 2/23/06
Vice President Dick Cheney quickly seized on bin Laden’s tape to beat on the fear drum,… But if Bush keeps saying that the “war on terror” is going to be a long one, the mistakes will not help his efforts to win. A good start would be to de-Islamize the war on terrorism and stop scaring the American people with Muslims, extreme or not.
‘Fear Escalates on Foreign Control of Ports- SFGate, 2/21/06
planned to criticize the deal Sunday during a press conference with Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading critic of the sale. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he is dubious any assurances can justify the UAE’s involvement in American ports.
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
WashingtonState, I think we can all agree that allowing an Arab company to take over our port security is a bad idea all around. We don’t need to turn this into a partisan issue
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
WashingtonState,
That seems to a popular article. I put it in my updates this morning and a little while later finch put it in the comments.
By WashingtonState
February 21, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Ricky,
I was replying to RW’s request for information on the whole affair. It wasn’t meant to be a partisan post.
By RE
February 21, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
RIcky,
That is my favorite justification, even after 5 years of a new administration, when the call goes out for justification or blame over and over that Clinton did it.
By WashingtonState
February 21, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Ricky,
It’s just that usually any article from the NYT is met by a barrage of skepticism from half the posters here. I was trying to forestall that.
By Steve
February 21, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
RW, you don’t have “any information” on…anything. Never have. Never will. Just another little weak link searching in vain for your masculinity w/o having any concept of what it is. Another boor/bore.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
WashingtonState,
Thank you, though.
Ricky,
One thing I have found out is that this doesn’t have anything to do with port security. This mad rush to say this is such a bad thing seems to pretty uninformed.
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
RE, while I agree that Clinton shares the blame for many things, it is getting old bringing him up. He was at best an avg president that is trying extremely hard to rewrite history. WashingtonState, sorry didn’t mean to misinterept your post. Like I said, I think we can all agree it is a bad idea
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Steve thanks for bringing so much to the discussion
By Andy
February 21, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Clinton blasts Bush on war
WASHINGTON — Ignoring GOP criticism that she’s too angry for prime time, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday walloped Karl Rove and President George W. Bush for “playing the fear card” on terrorism
Hillary bids to stop port takeovers
The US senator for New York claims the deal poses a threat to national security because it would place operations at six major US ports under the control of the government of the United Arab Emirates, which owns Dubai Ports World.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
RE, it seems like you admit no fault of Clinton and use that position as a straw man to knock down anyones argument.
The thing is finch was saying that Saddam was harmless because he came out and told America we would see terrorism and by saying that it showed his harmless intentions. After all as finch said:
“Now, if Saddam were planning to support 3rd party WMD attacks, would he have warned the US and Britain of this potential menace?? Would he have told his cronys that he had warned the allies of this very threat???”
“I think not.”
RE, sense you seem to be so sensitive about the noble William Jefferson Clinton and keeping score, what do you think of these. Do I get another point?
By RE
February 21, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Oh Scooter, he is not so noble or great as a president. It is a very common theme brought up over and over to justify any shortcomings of the current admin. I do think it is interesting how often the blame arises, and I was trying to track it.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
So far, 45 people have lost their lives, either due to police crackdowns on destructiveness in the name of Islam or directly through mob murder. Muslim hordes burned down 15 Christian churches Saturday in Maiduguri, Nigeria. They also trashed and looted stores owned by Christians. Death toll: 16.
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
RE, while I agree with you that the talk of Clinton is just as annoying as listening to him, there are some valid points to be made by looking back at his admin, just as their are for looking back at Bush and Reagan. Just because somebody mentions his name doesn’t mean you should automatically dismiss the comparision, it might actually hold some relevance
By RE
February 21, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Fair enough Ricky, point taken.
My problem with the comparison comes up when, for example, Dick Cheney has a hunting accident. I have no doubt it was no more than a hunting accident, I still do find it suspecious how long it took for the cops to come question him. This is not a national security issue, nor is it relevent in any significant way to this country, however it does show a bit of a double standard in how powerful people are treated by the authorities vs. how ordinary folks are treated, I doubt you or I could hold off on reporting the incident and being questioned for 18 hours. Not a very important issue, but there are some points to make on it. However it is kinda crazy to equate Cheney’s actions and how it was handled with say Vince Foster. That is the kind of CLinton did it! justification that is infuriating to me.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
RE, no president is perfect and the following president often has to deal with past policies and actions or inactions of the prior pres. If you are simply keeping record of the mentions, without looking into the reason for mentioning, I don’t understand the point.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
RE, our post passed in cyber space, sorry.
By RE
February 21, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
on Drudge:
BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL
The one issue the republicans still dominate the dems on is national security, if Bush uses his first veto on this, the GOP is going to have a very hard time during the midterms.
By AntiRadical
February 21, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
AP - Tue Feb 21, 7:53 AM ET KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said disgraced U.S. lobbyist Jack Abramoff was paid $1.2 million to organize a meeting between him and President Bush in 2002, but denied the money came from the Malaysian government.
Why in the heck does the Prime Minister of Malaysia need Abramhoff to arrange a meeting with the President of the USA? Would the Malaysian PM have some agenda to lie? Reps worry about Scooter Libby (who is one of the President’s men and will be sheltered if he remains loyal), when they should worry about Abramhoff (who is an outsider that desperately needs to squeal his way out of a lengthy stint in prison). As more and more revelations come out, it appears less and less likely that the President is telling the whole truth about his “non-relationship” with Abramhoff. The fun will really begin when the prosecutors start putting the thumb-screws to Abramhoff to make him geek. I cringe at the thought of what may fall out as “un-coerced” testimony.
By RE
February 21, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Something begins to smell fishy…then you start to find the fish
“One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.”
Red Herring or sardines?
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
RE,
Sardines at most, this is a much larger deal than the portion that involves our ports and the administration has no say in letting the UAE company buy the British company.
By RE
February 21, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Treasury Secretary, an office of the executive branch must sign off on the deal before the UAE company can take control
They did
its part of the executive branch that approved the deal.
We have no say in what company buys out another company, but we do control who manages our ports. If the UAE wants to buy up the british company, fine, no problem, but that does not mean we have no say in who controls the ports of this country.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
RE,
Snow didn’t sign off on this by himself. It makes very little difference anyway because the political firestorm has already probably killed it even with the veto threat.
By Daniel
February 21, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
AR: This is the way the Republicans do business. It’s real simple: “You pay, you play”. By the way, when we’re in debt up to our ears and severly dependent upon foreign oil we’re vulnerable to these types of takeovers. What are we going to do when China starts buying America? The president is right to call for alternative energy, and a lessening of our dependence upon foreign oil. Shouldn’t the government guard our ports? Why are we outsourcing this, at all? The knuckleheads are going berserk.
By RE
February 21, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
I agree, Snow did head the panel however.
This is most likely not going to happen, however if Bush sticks by his statements that he will veto any legistlation to overturn it, the GOP will have trouble in the midterms. If he goes back on his statement and allows the legistlature to overturn the control, he loses credibility.
Lose-lose
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Daniel, why do you insist on lumping all conservatives into one basket. You would flip out if someone posted this is how Dems do business: “You make money, the govt takes it away and wastes it.”
RE, once again no matter what Bush does he is going to be blasted. He has been in a no win situation for about the last three years. He is doing what he thinks is best. Has he made some mistakes? Of course he has. But the last couple of years, it hasn’t mattered what he has done
By Midori
February 21, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this
“You make money, the govt takes it away and wastes it.�
Thank you, Ricky, for describing the GOP so adequately.
Maybe there is hope for you after all……..
By Ricky
February 21, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this
Midori, your posts are always good for a laugh. What you don’t want to mention of course is that Bush is an anamoly in the GOP. He is a big govt Republican, not a conservative. That is why there is so much unrest in the GOP right now. Of course I assume that you are in favor of higher taxes so that the govt can take away the money you work hard to make. Funny how the Dems claim to be for the middle class yet are proponents of higher taxes isn’t it?
By RE
February 21, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this
Ricky,
In some situations there is no good option. I am not trying to blast Bush on this, nor is this a media conspiracy. Bush has just made the statement that he will veto any legistlation to overturn the sale. That is something he did and is responsible for. I have no polling data to support this, but I would imagine most Americans think it is a bad idea to have a UAE company control our ports. Any critisism he gets has been brought about by his own actions and statements.
It is politics, if he decided against the turn over of control, I am sure there would have been shouts of racisim…but that would have been a minority view, this takes the country down a path the majority see as less safe
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this
I prefer to wait for the facts to settle before I jump on a bash wagon. But, that’s just me.
By Daniel
February 21, 2006 05:27 PM | Link to this
Ricky: The “No pay, No play” standard has been the way the republicans have been doing business. Under Delay Committee Chairmen had to raise a set amount of cash toi keep their seats. Surely you are aware of this? Than you for acknowledging the Big Government mess. I want good government. When the Dems screw up, they get hammered, as well. The republicans control everything. Bush has placed America up for sale. Let’s see if Congress has the guts to stand up to him on this one.
By RE
February 21, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this
Scooter,
Did you feel you had to wait for all the facts to come in on Iraq as well?
Perhaps instead of answering that, could you list out proclaimations from dems about Iraq’s WMD.
By Dusty
February 21, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this
So, everybody is upset becasue an Arab country wants to own space in a port. What happened to the great American idea that we should despise only fundamentalistic terrorist muslims and all the rest are real sweethearts like any other human beings?
I admit it SOUNDS scary. Arabs, Muslims, whooo! Well, if we are going to say viva la difference, welcome brother, never judge, and all that good stuff, what is the lowdown on all this grief?
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this
Scooter - me too.
RE, I was just about to compliment you for making a good point about the possibility that Bush would have been called a “racist” if he opposed the deal, but then came your 5:29 post and I am forced to withdraw the compliment.
I am curious if nixing this UAE deal now means that we can throw objections to “profiling” out the window and leave the little old blue-haired ladies and their infant grandchildren alone…
By getalife
February 21, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this
Spin it all you want but common sensetells me this is outsourcing America.
Lets outsource the government and save money.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
I was just working on a blog post about that very thing. Great minds! Do you have any juicy “we must not profile” links handy?
By RE
February 21, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this
Just for clarification, this is not a free market issue on port security. Dubai Ports in owned by the government of UAE. For this to go through we are not just giving control to a company based in another country, but to a company OWNED by a country. The free market allows for correction and responsibility to companies, but a state run company is somewhat immune to those pressures and has every right to bring it’s own national interests into play while controlling the port.
By Andy
February 21, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this
It’s no secret: The CIA plays politics
As the public contemplates a world in which Hussein still reigns, perhaps it should also consider the unchecked politicization of the Central Intelligence Agency. There are challenges ahead in Iran, North Korea, China and in the war on terror. No matter how those issues play out, the American people should be certain that their democratically elected leaders are making decisions based on unbiased intelligence. They won’t get that from today’s CIA.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this
RE,
If this deal does go through we are far better off that it is state owned. It certainly lets us put pressure directly on the UAE government if anything goes wrong.
I can’t believe you would even consider for one second that the reverse would be true.
By RE
February 21, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this
Hmmm Andy, a piece written by the VP of the american enterprise institute talking about partisan bias….
Well if anyone knows the subject, it is the AEI
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this
RW -
No juicy links, just my occasionally faulty memory. It’s a pervasive issue, from local law enforcement, to Homeland Security policy.
Here’s another point to ponder -
What if Jose Padilla, an American citizen, had gone to a place like Madrid, or London and taken part in a terrorist attack. Would the world now have to boycott American companies who operated on foreign soil because we “were home to a terrorist”?
BTW, if I won the lottery, the first thing that I would do is book a week at the Hotel Arabbyia (sp?) in Dubai. That has got to be the coolest place on the planet.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this
Right again, RW.
Besides, The UAE is not Iran or Syria or North Korea. It is an ally, and a Western looking country, as Iran and Lebanon were before the mullahs took over.
Ultimately though, the odds are that it is loser, because the issue got away from the White House before they had an opportunity to pre-sell it.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 06:03 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Richard Reid is British, so why have we been letting a British company handle port operations? I’m rapidly becoming convinced that there is nothing to this story. I hate to see what our relationship in the Arab world will be after we say no deal. The ramifications of that will be far worse than allowing this to proceed.
By RE
February 21, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this
Lets see, so far we have RW, Scooter and BD giving tacit approval to the turn over of port control to the UAE.
Where are all the homeland security folks?
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this
RE,
I don’t think I am being tacit, I’m saying it out loud. I see no problem with this. I actually see it making us more secure.
By getalife
February 21, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this
There are GOP members against this deal.
Talk about national security, where are the real Americans?
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this
RE, you asked;
Scooter,
Did you feel you had to wait for all the facts to come in on Iraq as well?
Perhaps instead of answering that, could you list out proclaimations from dems about Iraq’s WMD.
The answser to your question is no. The facts were readily available from the history of Saddam making a mockery of the UN and its resolutions. However, the fact that the UN Oil for Food Program was corrupt helped to reinforce.
RE, I also remember when the dems were making the same case directly before the UN inspectors left because of Operation Desert Fox. I further understand that the inspectors were removed all that time until just before Bush enforced the cease fire agreement, from 1991. The facts were there all the time some just forgot about them, but not for political reasons of course.
Understanding that all the inspectors were gone from Iraq between 1998 and our current invasion, maybe you can help me understand how the “left” new there were no WMD’s, if there were not.
Tacit support? You would make it seem as though the UAE were going to be in charge of all security measures and I don’t know that to be the case.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this
This is a classic tempest in a teapot, fueled by opportunistic politicians on both sides of the aisle. One side sees it as a rare opportunity to look strong on national security, and the other side jumps on the bandwagon.
I trust Bush, not Schumer, Clinton, Pataki, or Frist. He is steadfast in his beliefs, while they sway with the wind.
By RE
February 21, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this
Yeah BD, he is steadfast, no doubt. But he is wrong alot as well
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 06:26 PM | Link to this
RE and Scooter -
I don’t know that all the facts will come in on Iraq in our lifetime! That is an absurd requirement for action.
It would have been nice to review the facts about the UAE deal before getting hysterical over what will prove to be a big fat nothing.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this
RE -
Thrice in my estimation: Once for signing “campaign finance reform”, once for not vetoeing bloated spending bills, and once for nominating Harriet Miers.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this
I agree, but now we will certainly know more than if we had continued trusting the UN.
By Josh
February 21, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this
For all you blinded Repubs out there, if Bush’s previous record of total imcompetence, gross lies, mindless slaughter, and so much more, has not caught your attention, perhaps his insanity re the port security issue will sound a gong within that tiny space between your ears. I happen to live in one of those port cities and am much involved in the port itself. The lack of “security” readily seen/observed by anyone with one eye is frighteningly and humiliatingly obvious, obvious, obvious. And that’s on a daily basis, every day of the world. And refers only to the “stuff” that the average person, not really looking for anything, can readily see and/or not miss. And now the Arabs??
What the hell is the matter with your heads? How far do you carry your blind political obedience? Somebody here mentioned the other day that Bush badly needs to be put before a firing squad. Certainly true. Well, NOW more than ever!
By Josh
February 21, 2006 06:37 PM | Link to this
Oh yeah! And I’d love to give each & every one of you a tour. It would leave your chin resting in your nuts. Just like the rest of us who see it every day. - Night.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 06:38 PM | Link to this
Josh,
Yeah Buddy! I went to the moon.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this
I bet JOSH told us just last week that there were no terrorist threats.
By John
February 21, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish. That’s it -“Bush is steadfast in his beliefs.” Very much like the Klan. You’re another disappointment.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this
Es possible. But if our intelligence agencies budget cuts hurt so much that the port is the only line of defense. What I’m sayin is damn, Josh doesn’t know anymore than I do from looking at the moon and reading stuff. I can always ssay I went the moon.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this
John, KKK like all those southern democrats?
By Josh
February 21, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this
Scooter & RW. I don’t normally review your crap - it’s worthless. But I recall that you’re 2 of the geeks we turn on your bellies and use you as sleds all year round. What the hell would you know about “terrorism”? You’re a gutless part of the problem. Hiding under your “parents’” rocks. Talking tough from behind protective trailer walls. It’s always been that way. Quick - where’s the RAID???
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this
Josh, are you huffing that Raid?
Thanks for telling us a little about yourself though.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 07:10 PM | Link to this
RW, I would certainly bet Josh would one week tell us our “crap” wasn’t worth review and the next week instruct his followers that we are Joseph Goebells reincarnate.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this
Scooter,
That’s what huffing Raid in a trailer at a cargo port will do for you, I guess.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 07:16 PM | Link to this
Josh -
It is so refreshing to have a newcomer come on board, especially someone such as yourself with such erudition, class, and aplomb.
Now, since you are so passionate on the issue of port security, would you be so kinds as to provide us with your ideas.
They would be most welcome.
John -
Sorry to disappoint. I don’t see the Klan connection quite frankly, especially as a Yankee. Since when is “steadfast” a perjorative? I use it in the sense of being “principled” and not wavering with every new poll.
By Jean
February 21, 2006 07:17 PM | Link to this
RW, Riiiicky, Danish, the lot of you loud mouthed sissies. You show time and again that you are completely unable to comprehend anything written in this blog. Yet it is your very life. Sour, needy, weak, angry, inwardly tormented little would-be men. You loath life itself as much as you loath yourselves. Why do cretins like you insist upon taking up space in public forums? When you do dare to walk out of your little hovels you are doubtlessly mocked as the laughingstocks that you most obviuosly are. What a God-awful ugly life to live. No wonder you are forever locked into your bigitries and hatreds and ignorance of any and all. Wow. Talk about “losers.” You dirtbags have won gold.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 07:20 PM | Link to this
What’s the matter Jean? Josh won’t share?
By Bill
February 21, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this
Danish - do a fave and STFU. You’re waaaaay over your head and outta your league. Take another sip of your life support - you’ll feel better. But it still won’t help you advance academically. You clowns never learn that, thus just continue in your excremental manners and ways. You’ve quickly made the “list to be ignored.” Gee whiz. Avast.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 07:24 PM | Link to this
The lack of “security� readily seen/observed by anyone with one eye is frighteningly and humiliatingly obvious, obvious, obvious. And that’s on a daily basis, every day of the world
Josh -
I read your post too quickly. Did you lose an eye? Are you related to the Mullah Omar?
And can you explain the term, “every day of the world” to me? I’ve never heard it before. It must be known only to sophisticates like yourself.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this
Uh Oh, Jean thinks AJC’s property is a public forum? Watch out AJC Jean may be bringing the government takeover, under the guise of progressive of course.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this
OOOOOH. I am SO impressed by Jean and Bill and Josh. Golly, how can I ever compete. Tell me, where did you all grow up and go to school? I want to know so my son can have the same opportunities that you all did.
Please share your bios with me and send pictures too!
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 07:31 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
I can’t imagine your disappointment at finding yourself on “Bill’s” little moonbat don’t type list.
By clark
February 21, 2006 07:34 PM | Link to this
“The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword,” Phelps-Roper said. “Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier’s funeral.”
Wingnuts!
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 07:37 PM | Link to this
RW -
I find it interesting that Josh only has one eye, and Bill used the term,”avast” and they are both concerned with ports.
I wonder if they are one and the same person, flying a Jolly Roger on the mast of the iddy widdy boat that floats in their bathtub?
By GrassyKnoll
February 21, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this
Let’s get a visual here. Jean and Bill! Faces all red with blood rush, mumbling as they type asking themselves why nobody believes their profound lack of……..well, anything comprehensive!!!
By finch
February 21, 2006 07:45 PM | Link to this
Are Jean, John and Josh the same person??
Place your bets! Place your bets here, ladies and gentlemen!!
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 07:49 PM | Link to this
Josh, I mean Clark, does that 5,000 strong anti war and anti Fred Phelps homophobics, motorcycle club help you keep the division between free market lovers and government regulation lovers?
By finch
February 21, 2006 07:51 PM | Link to this
“By Scooter - February 21, 2006 12:29 PM - finch, did you question UBL’s intentions when he publicly declared his jihad intentions back in 96, when Bush was in office of course?”
Nope. But we were talking about Saddam’s intentions, not UBL’s. And it’s pretty clear that Saddam and UBL never partied together. PS: I liked the Bush 96 joke. Really!
February 21, 2006 03:16 PM - “The thing is finch was saying that Saddam was harmless because he came out and told America we would see terrorism and by saying that it showed his harmless intentions.”
That’s not exactly right. What I was trying to say was that the Tierney tapes don’t prove that Saddam had active plans to attack the US with WMDs. And if anything, they just show he wanted to avoid even a hint of WMD plot entanglements by his government because he was sick and tired of getting beaten up by the allies. He’d have considered it a bonus if the allies thought, even for a moment ,that he had “harmless intentions”.
At any rate, the tapes are not “a smoking gun” on Iraq and WMDs. Not even close.
By Russ
February 21, 2006 07:52 PM | Link to this
A guy takes a moment to comment on his considerable experinces with a seaport for the good of all. And you low-life Republican bastards can’t even understand that. What a shame this blog is so anonymous. Cause your empty hate mongers need badly to be visited and given the beatings you so richly deserve. Nooo, I won’t be viewing any of your John Wayne type childish retorts. You are empty little people, the worst in the nation. Forever in hiding.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 07:53 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Do you think Jean and John get to use the tub next, or do they alternate weeks?
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this
Does government regulation lovers work in place of socialist?
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 07:54 PM | Link to this
finch -
I think Josh and Bill are the same person because of the nautical imagery they both used (one-eyed and avast).
Jean/John could be the same person, but I don’t think that they are Josh/Bill. It is possible that they all know each other and plan their blog attacks in advance and then dive in nearly simultaneously.
By SS&S
February 21, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this
Can somebody tell me what that ski jumper left dangling just above the ramp in Mr. Luckovich’s cartoon.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 07:59 PM | Link to this
I do know that Bill/John/Josh/Jean/Russ are fond of four letter words.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 08:02 PM | Link to this
RW -
Bathtub swapping and iddy bitty boat sharing is risky business, like any communal activity. It causes petty jealousies to rise to the surface such as, who will get to hoist the Jolly Roger?
Now that Russ has climbed on board, they’re also going to have water displacement problem. I bet that Jean will have to clean up all the water from the bathroom floor. These lefties only pretend to care about women’s rights.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 08:02 PM | Link to this
finch, you will not come in here and get me nutted up in your half a*’d nuance. You said Saddam was not a threat because he openly stated that there was a threat of terrorism to the US and Brittain. I asked if you applied that same logic to UBL’s openly stated decleration of Jihad.
Also, you will not sit here and type me into forgeting what I remember when I was in college. Saddam was a threat and a destabilizer of the region. The UN resolutions spoke of bringing stability to the region. Bush is removing a destabilizer and trying to implant a representative government in the heart of the region. Sounds stabilizing don’t it.
Now finch, review the above post, pick a sentence and wrap up some intelligent nuance for us. Anyone can talk you out of doing what you know is right and sound real smart doing it.
**The UN is a failure on Iraq and Saddam was a p****** that needed to be removed.
By finch
February 21, 2006 08:05 PM | Link to this
Has anybody considered the history that will be made if Congress passes a bill sinking the Dubai port deal, and Bush vetos it??
It’ll be Bush’s first veto ever!!!
RW, The UAE/Dubai may give lip service to being a US ally, but they’re not squeaky clean…. 3 of the 9-11 hijackers came from there; Al Qaeda money was laundered there; it’s a major drug pipeline from Afghanistan to Europe…
And Michael Jackson now lives there.
Glad to see you (HTMLSNARK on) shamelessly exploiting this issue on your blog…
Which I will shamelessly pimp here.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 08:07 PM | Link to this
RW -
O’Reilly is actually making sense on this UAE issue. Not completely, but mostly.
By clark
February 21, 2006 08:13 PM | Link to this
Iraq, like the UAE, was our Ally once upon a time too.
By finch
February 21, 2006 08:15 PM | Link to this
Scooter, I love it when you speak French! Nutted up?? Oh well…
“You said Saddam was not a threat because he openly stated that there was a threat of terrorism to the US and Brittain. I asked if you applied that same logic to UBL’s openly stated decleration of Jihad.”
Close. I said that Saddam’s statement could not be considered a threat. How could it? He was telling his flunkies he’d warned the allies about WMDs ‘cause he wanted some peace and quiet, and by the way fellow Baathists, dont even THINK about WMDs. He’s not THAT dumb.
OBL’s declaration was starkly different. It was public, not private. He wasn’t the leader of a soverign nation. And while Saddam’s words were a warning (watch out!! Any nutcase could do this!!), Osama’s were a THREAT (watch out, we are the nutcases).
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 08:15 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
Did he do something at the start of the show or is he going to do a segment? Please don’t make me watch a whole hour of O’Reilly.
finch,
It’s kind of silly to use where three hijackers came from as a reason to alienate an entire country.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 08:27 PM | Link to this
Start of show. He was interviewing someone from the Brookings institute.
I’m on to American Idol at this point, but BO was good tonite.
By clark
February 21, 2006 08:27 PM | Link to this
Scooter; Clark, does that 5,000 strong anti war and anti Fred Phelps homophobics, motorcycle club help you keep the division between free market lovers and government regulation lovers?
Huh? You have to speak in complete sentences please.
By Richard Milhaus Nixon
February 21, 2006 08:27 PM | Link to this
Buffer, Scootalot, RW, the rest of you morphodytes: you must not take out your ever present anger and rage upon the rest of us just because it hurts so every time you try to sit down. That’s been your own choice. Trust me and take it from ol’ Dick. Because I’ve been there too. Did I ever show you my hate lists and enemies lists and …. God Bless Amerucuh!
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 08:29 PM | Link to this
Oh well, I don’t do grammer well.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 08:34 PM | Link to this
Iraq, like the UAE, was our Ally once upon a time too.
Soviet Union? Japan? Germany? Things change dude.
By clark
February 21, 2006 08:38 PM | Link to this
VD; Soviet Union? Japan? Germany? Things change dude
Yeah but the UAE has that crazy Islamic religion that many of you say needs to be stopped because they hate all that the US stands for and stuff, remember Dudette (I rememeber you saying you were a she, if not then change it to dude).
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this
Buy Danish,
OK, I’ll give him a few minutes at eleven. I wish Nixon could remember how to spell his middle name if he’s going to keep popping back in from the great beyond.
By Dave
February 21, 2006 08:57 PM | Link to this
This sorry 52 year old Nam-era-Vet is VERY thankful his only 19 year old son is not in Iraq, in pieces, or … Only the average American citizens’ tolerance can feul and allow foriegn control of critical resources, the debt and loans from hell to other countries … damn, at 52 I can not believe what “W” is giving my kids and what theirs will be paying.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 09:23 PM | Link to this
Clark -
We’re trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.
RW -
NotExactlyNixon seems to be spending his afterlife in some Tuetonic netherworld. I hope that milHAUS has a nice HAUSfrau to keep him company here
By getalife
February 21, 2006 09:26 PM | Link to this
Business as usual
By Semper Fi
February 21, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this
This sorry 54 year old Nam-era-Vet is tickled to death we have a Prez taking action to make my kids safer.
The port sell surely sounds ad when you think of it as giving terroist control of our ports. But of course, that is not what we are going. There’s no way we are turning over security of any port to any other country or foreign business. Who owns the deed, schedules the port activity , collect the fees and makes a profit may not be that big of deal. I am waiting for more facts, of course.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 09:49 PM | Link to this
Semper Fi, I think some have their minds made up already.
The more I think about it, the more I remember how they marginalized the contributions of the small countries that were on board with Iraqi Freedom. So, its not too far of a stretch to see the sensationalism and thinking with emotion that is so typical of our intelectualy superior.
By finch
February 21, 2006 09:52 PM | Link to this
After exhaustive research, I’ve narrowed the search for “Milhaus” to [this guy.(http://cristal.inria.fr/~harley/ecdl3/pics/butthead.gif)
Just kidding about your grammar, Scooter. I are not prefect, eihter.
By finch
February 21, 2006 09:53 PM | Link to this
I’ll try again.
This guy.
By Scooter
February 21, 2006 10:01 PM | Link to this
No worries finch, but I think it was Clark I was typing to. Early to bed early to rise for the not in the news Scooter.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 10:03 PM | Link to this
finch,
Your research must not have been too exhaustive.
By Jay not jay
February 21, 2006 10:07 PM | Link to this
finch, what did Allah tell you about the port contract this morning also?
Seems no one else seems to know the details of the contract.
Do you really think we’re going to hand our East coast ports over to UAE? Nonsense, this has been blown way out of proportion.
By clark
February 21, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this
Al Gore giving a speech in Saudia Arabia = Traitor
UAE taking over management of US ports = Nonsense, this has been blown way out of proportion
And you conservatives say liberals are the kings of spin.
By Jay not jay
February 21, 2006 10:22 PM | Link to this
clark, what does “management” of the ports entail and how does that make one a traitor?
By Semper Fi
February 21, 2006 10:25 PM | Link to this
Jay not jay, I’ll let you try and straighten this confused liberal out(confused liberal is redudant). I got to go to bed. Good luck.
By clark
February 21, 2006 10:32 PM | Link to this
JnJ; That’s what some on this blog said Al Gore was for his speech. Yet for this UAE fiasco all you guys can say is Nonsense, this has been blown way out of proportion
I didn’t say it makes anyone a traitor. It’s just our ports will be handled by the guys burning flags, and destroying embassies because of a cartoon. A real stable strategy if I say so.
By Buy Danish
February 21, 2006 10:46 PM | Link to this
clark -
You seem to have difficulty with this wheat from the chaff stuff. Okay, I’ll try to help you out:
After Loserman’s speech, would the Saudis be thinking, “I like America, let’s be friends and work together to bring peace to the world”, or “I want to slaughter those abusive American imperialist infidels”?
By Jay not jay
February 21, 2006 10:46 PM | Link to this
clark, Gore’s speech and this is a little different.
It’s just our ports will be handled by the guys burning flags, and destroying embassies because of a cartoon.
We’re not going to let the above ^^^^ “handle” our ports. I think everyone is very un-informed about the situation at the moment.
Regardless, I don’t think it will go through anyway and that’s fine by me (no love lost).
By finch
February 21, 2006 11:07 PM | Link to this
RW,
I defer to your web genius. Figures you’d find the better Milhaus. Hell, you’re the one with the blog!
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 11:09 PM | Link to this
Jay not jay,
If this doesn’t go through we have a whole new set of problems that will be far worse. The sale is happening anyway leaving us with an alienated ally and nobody to do the port operations.
Buy Danish,
This is scary, as I have been updating my post I have been noting the strange bedfellows this issue is creating. Now it’s got me agreeing with Bill O’Reilly and in spite of the talking points from the shared bathwater set, that is rare.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 11:11 PM | Link to this
finch,
That’s web-fu! Ol’ Milhaus is happening, don’t you think?
By finch
February 21, 2006 11:13 PM | Link to this
BD,
Actually, I think after Gore’s speech, the Saudis were saying, “These nincompoop Americans, how much MORE oil can we sell them??”
Jaynj.
I dont think we’ll have to worry about the UAE shutting down US ports. The highly unionized, all American and very patriotic Longshoremen who work the docks wouldnt like that. Neither would the truck drivers who ferry stuff to and from the ports.
By RW-(the original)
February 21, 2006 11:21 PM | Link to this
Sheesh…this strange bedfellow thing is getting out of control. I was just thinking, if there was ever a good thing about a union and primarily the assorted ones that hang around our ports this is it.
The most hilarious thing I have seen being spread around the web today is that Bush just wants to move these jobs overseas. As Larry the Cable Guy might say, “Now that’s funny right there”
By Buy Danish
February 22, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
RW-
Actually it seems that the unions have a hand in preventing this deal from going through.The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase.