Ijaz: Un-American - A disappointing and damaging response to the Dubai deal.

National Review ^ | 2-22-06 | Mansoor Ijaz

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

This is shaping up as a Miers moment for the current admin.

Using my short-term memory.........

I believe that turned out splendidly!!

We got Alito!

This will turn out good also.

You will see.

Amazing to see how many lemmings are out there ready to follow Schumer and Clinton straight off the cliff.

[Pukin Dog]

This deal is fine. It would have been just as fine under any President, including Clinton. This deal has caused the worst of times on Free Republic.

[RunningWolf]

Great article CGK.

I can see how this could be or/is an emotionally charged flash-point for people.

But I think we need to engage and draw to us as much of Arab ME as we can. This is one demonstration of that.

It takes cool heads to fight the WOT, and that means not closing USA off to the better elements of Arab ME. They need to see that we are a big piece of their prosperity. Prosperity has a quality all its own LOL.

No I am not saying to be naive or blind as some might jump to a conclusion, but operating from fear and paranoia is not strength.

The other course would play right into Bin Laden's hand, say also as a more violent haphazard response to 9-11 would have been.

Wolf

[cgk]

I can see how this could be or/is an emotionally charged flash-point for people.

But I think we need to engage and draw to us as much of Arab ME as we can. This is one demonstration of that.

It takes cool heads to fight the WOT, and that means not closing USA off to the better elements of Arab ME. They need to see that we are a big piece of their prosperity. Prosperity has a quality all its own LOL.

No I am not saying to be naive or blind as some might jump to a conclusion, but operating from fear and paranoia is not strength.

The other course would play right into Bin Laden's hand, say also as a more violent haphazard response to 9-11 would have been.

---

EXCELLENT POST, Wolf! My husband said much the same thing to me last night. I am pinging it out, thank you!

[CyberAnt]

Yes, I agree. I was kind of surprised initially, until I listened to Rush and Ijaz and a former Ambassador of Morocco - can't remember his name .. they explained a lot of information which the democrats conveniently left out of the mix.

Now I find out that this process the dems are complaining about WAS A LAW WRITTEN BY CONGRESS AND THE LAW STATES IT HAS TO BE KEPT SECRET .. LOL!! Can you believe this .. the congress is mad because Bush didn't tell them .. Sheeesh!

[claudiustg]

I fully agree that this is a racist knee-jerk reaction on the part of many of our politicians and much of the conservative media, and I am hardly a friend of Islam or Arabs in general.

We will likely need to bomb the hell out of Iran and we need the help of the Islamic world in isolating and destroying Hamas and like organizations. How are we supposed to accomplish these goals if we trash a respected international Arab company that has been steadily by or side throughout the WOT?

[GOP_1900AD]

I hate to write this to someone at NRO, but .... Memo to Ijaz: STFU!!!!

[GOP_1900AD]

Once again, the Mises Institute ideologues with tunnel vision have failed to understand Main Street. Of course, although most such ideologues have the ear of leadership for now, it is telling that many of them actually call Blue States home. They are so 9/10, and so non-Fly-Over. That's why they don't get Main Street.

[Slump Tester]

Sounds like you think we need more of them, huh?

[highlander_UW]

It is president Bush who is standing against the strong stream of the "American street" that does not want the UAE company to take over operations of the ports. The very same Bush who is burned in effigy by the muslim street...they owe him a big apology...which, of course, will never be tendered.

[BigSkyFreeper]

When the average American discovers that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the Emirates, his antennae go way, way up...as they should.

At best, that's a weak argument, usually from those who lack thinking skills.

That's like saying Richard Reid (the shoebomber) came from England and we should cut ties with England because of who Richard Reid was and where he come from.

[kevao]

why dont you ask your Congressman why Bush keeps getting all those pork-laden bills, that also contain spending for the WOT since after he was in office for 8 MONTHS? Is it Bush's job to strip out the excess, or veto bills which would also delay defense spending? Or is Congress to blame for that spending?

Go back and read my post. I never said Congress didn't share the blame for pork legislation. They draft the stuff, after all.

Then go read the Constitution. Hint: You won't find anything in there about POTUS being obligated to sign any old piece of legislation, no matter how foul, sent to him by Congress.

Then go read some history, specifically about the Reagan Administration. Ronnie used the veto frequently. Heck, sometimes he'd veto a bill just for kicks. Yet military spending during his terms was up, BIG time. And he managed this in spite of NEVER having the advantage Dubya has -- both houses of Congress controlled by his own party.

By the way, do you remember that monstrosity of a Farm Bill Bush signed off on a few years back? I don't recall any military spending being tied to that one.