Posted on 03/20/2006 7:59:14 PM PST by Chickenhawk Warmonger
While we are damning Schmuckie Schumer, let's not forget what's due on this side of the aisle. Hunter, and Frist immediatly come to mind, along with the host of others that wouldn't keep their pants on long enough for the 45 day review.
Where oh where are all the anti-DPW posters now? I think they've crawled back into their respective spider holes.
Thanks for the ping CW, good work.
Thanks for the ping and good job!
It's precisely stuff like this that needs to be publicly thrown back in the Dems' faces as they gear up for the '06 elections on their phony tough-on-security platform.
Our sweet Senator Schumer did that? Well, this is only one time, and we must look at the good things he's done. I'm sure there' something amidst all the muck...
This quote says he went to congress in late January, but the republicans who were crying about this deal said they were "blindsided" by the approval in February.
No point in sending to Sean he's "moved on".
It's the republican's fault. If they had realised the Democrats were playing them (and it isn't hard) they could have put up a strong opposition to a rush to judgment, which would have given time for this information to get out.
The Media won't cover this now because it's old news, if there was still a real debate this stuff would show up on the news.
But don't wake them, I don't want to read another 'we won, you lost, get over it' diatribes.
TOO sad we here at FR will be the only ones with this info, the MSM will not touch it. The MSM isn't interested the truth,
doesn't make good headlines.
Well that settles that then? Two "experts"?
Schumer obviously played the Political Card, but then so did the Adminstration pull its own aces out of the deck.
I honestly don't think a security "risk" can truly totally be discounted in this case, as much as some of us would liked to have believed it were so.
In this case, they could't find ANY port experts to say there was a security problem. So they went to Schumer, and he gave them the names of two that "agreed with him". When asked though, these two ALSO said there was no security problem.
So it's not that someone happened to find two people who disagreed with Schumer, it's that EVERYBODY disagreed, even the people he said would agree with him.
It is certainly true that we can't guarantee there would be no security issue, but that's true even if americans run the terminals.
No opponent was ever able to provide a concrete security problem with the deal, only nebulous fears of what might happen in the future, or blanket assertions that american companies would inherently be better at security than a foreign company, with no proof for the assertion.
With Americans like Schumer who needs enemies. He's looks evil and is evil. Is he a walking demon?
To far more Americans than you apparently imagine, "nebulous fear" is not applicable with respect to Muslim entities involved at U.S. port facilities.
Simply put, Islamic countries (included our "new friend," the UAE) have historically not yet warranted the type of trust required in so suseptible a crucial hub of commercial and trade distribution centers as ports.
The risk factor may be "low," but not comfortably low enough.
No, I understand that. It is an honest assessment of the opponent position. But it would be wrong to confuse honest but mistaken fear for a real threat.
On Sunday night's West Wing, they actually allowed Alan Alda's character to come out and defend nuclear energy again (I thought they wouldn't, because he did so well in his "live debate" that I thought the environmentalists forced them to write a nuclear meltdown into the show to stop the bleeding).
He pointed out that you were much safer living by a nuclear power plant, than you were driving your car. But people are still truly afraid of nuclear energy, because of what WE know are lies, prejudice, and ignorance.
I would say that many opponents of the terminal deal were truly afraid, for the same reasons -- lies, prejudice, and ignorance.
I shall NOT forget Dyncan Hunter whose committee sunk it.
The GOP were caught watching polls and allowed themselves to get swept up in the anti-Bush democrat spin. They're a real sorry group. Pathetic.
I would say that many opponents of the terminal deal were truly afraid, for the same reasons -- lies, prejudice, and ignorance."
"Prejudice" is not necessarily a pejorative, is it? We demonstrate "prejudice" or "pre-judgement" in a number of ways in our lives, or regarding people and our children all the time.
But in the case of Islamic countries like the UAE, it may or may not be fair, but the die is undoubtedly cast in the psyche of much of America since 9/11. Trust of anything Islam is a tough sell.
Constant news events and violent protests around the world in the name of Islam haven not helped.
The "lies" and "ignorance" may well be construed as "misunderstanding" but the lack of the Administration's preempting the fallout by communicating the details of the Dubai Port deal far earlier was a huge mustake.
They were ill-prepared and simply caught flat-footed, but this is a debate that could go on forever.
Maybe the Administration, instead of being clueless, was obeying the law.
Perhaps "obeying the law, " however clueless they were at public relations and prepping a leery citizenry of Muslim involvement of something so vital and vulnerable as U.S. ports.
Being "right" doesn't always mean you win the battle.
I admit I hadn't heard about it six months ago. Had you?
All that really matters is the recent revelation and reaction.
The reaction was manufactured artificially. The hysteria was whipped up on purpose by political operatives. That matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.