Both countries have "United" in their name. Why shouldn't the deal go through? ;->

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 23, 2006 4:06 AM

We are finished. Political correctness will be the death of America. In 100 years we will be The United States of Ameristan. I'm relieved that I won't be here.

Posted by: ranoir at February 23, 2006 4:27 AM

For all the voices calling this a good thing, I wonder how many know any of the above's details of the deal?

Also, a question for the UAE. Why do you WANT this? Power? the ability to control?

Just what about this deal is in the interest of the UAE?

If the people find out about secret deals, concessions, and everything else that probally is going on, I hope the people see the trouble and demand answers.

Hearing army spokesmen state how great a suporter the UAE is on terror gives me the shivers.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 23, 2006 5:07 AM

Sorry folks, but this has to be the end of the Bushes and Rice's.
Selling the ports to the enemy in a time of war, that is just the end of the line:

For lack of an alternative many of us were most forgiving. We believed that this embarrassment of a president would somehow, instinctively, do the right thing. We knew that he was clueless, but we hoped for the best. We knew that the was a jerk, that he was ignorant and stupid, but everything else was worse.

We were hoping against hope that he would come out one day and tell the nation the truth about Islam. He disappointed. We still gave him a chance. He disappointed again and again and we believed against hope that he would at least rely on some of his advisers to lead the nation. But now it becomes increasingly clear that there is no leadership, that there is instead some kind of administration, as in liquidation, as in 'bankruptcy', and that these liquidation's mean nothing less than flogging off the nations wealth and security to the highest bidder.

America is in deep s@#t by the looks of it and it needs its people to change it.

God bless America! (Because Allah won't!)

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 23, 2006 5:41 AM

Sheik has said just what I was going to say. I quess we could hope to rely on Cheney in a sober moment as a last resort.

Posted by: bobalharb at February 23, 2006 6:14 AM

Remember that shield of the dead officer that Bush flashed in his speech to congress post 911, when the country wanted so desperatly to rally around their leader, remember his promise to the nation. Five years later is a long time; their are grand strategic plans to be made, new promises to good friends and allies in 'the war against terror.' Friends like the UAE where Lou Dobbs noted last night is so dangerous for a Westener you basically shouldn't travel bout without an anti-Jihad escort. But Dr. Rice tells us they are our friends. W's crowd also assured us we'd be welcomed by the Iraqi's with roses. W's crowd looked us in the eye, and extolled the virues Democracy would bring, transforming the middle east. Now W and company promise us to trust them on security; after all there are things that we aren't privy to, secret things about the UAE and their 'help.' This deal, you see, has to go foward. It's just the security of a few ports. It's not like it's the secret service. I wonder if this 'midnight sale' would have gone through so smoothly if Dubai governmental business had proposed to run the secret service or Dr. Rice's detail. After all, it's the free market and we can't now allow our Arab friends to lose face. Why, we've dealt with the foreigners like the Brits for years. The more W and Condi talk about this issue, I believe the more they dig their political tombs, diving so low in the pols never to emerge. This is dangerous too for we have to have an effective executive. All of W's hits have been self inflicted. One could argue, oh the press is liberal and everyone's out to get the poor W. So what's new? Ever hear of Reagan. He managed quite an effective government, one of the best and most popular, without the weekly f@ck up of this crowd. I no longer trust W's crowd, maybe Rum Punch, a bit, but he looks like he wants off the ship IMHO. Bartlet, Condi, Hughes, W, and this Snow guy--all are beneath contempt as they duck and weave, desperately have no doubt called Rush and O'Reiley and Fox to make a goal line stand, but, this time, his own conservative base is so outraged(me), the 'bs'ing is over. Even Mr. Ailes and Mr. Limbaugh cannot explain this issue. They can tell us the dems are full of it, are grandstanding, are profiling. Yes, all true. But they can't tell us why the UAE government should be allowed to run our ports. For this cannot be done. Thanks for Iraq, Mr. Bush. Thanks for the Ports, W. Your opposition may be weak, pandering and vengeful, but, oh, you give so much to work with. A sort of anti-Gipper.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 6:24 AM

This post and the associated AP article are just loaded with misconceptions. The entire fiasco is a race-baiting political mess generated by people like Chuck Schumer who are banking on ignorance, hysteria and knee-jerk reactions.

First, this is the only "port deal" being examined. In order to put this in its proper light one would need to examine other instances where a foreign-held company with a US port deal was bought by another foreign-held company. I don't appreciate being told by a reporter that the deal is "secretive" as if this particular deal in and of itself is a secret. Later in the article, which the reporter or the editor know won't be read by 95% of the people who read the first two paragraphs, he explains that all deals of this nature are usually "secret" due to the trade information involved.

So what he's really saying is that this deal is no more or no less secretive than any other.

Secondly, the reporter makes the alarming accusation that most foreign-held companies are held to certain standards that this particular company will not have to meet. He fans the flames by appealing to the authority of Unnamed Outside Legal Experts who seem to say that this deal is unusual.

To confuse the reader, or perhaps to count on his or her refusal to read below the fold, another paragraph is added before the supporting quote that Outside Legal Experts are "tsk, tsk"ing this deal.

And what does Outside Legal Expert say about this SECRET deal filled with CONCESSIONS to SCARY ARABS in places with STRANGE NAMES like Dubaay? "They're not lax but they're not draconian,"

Did you hear that? Oh my gosh, this deal is NOT lax but NOT draconian. This is a scandal. This deal is, like, even handed and moderate in its restrictions. What is Bush thinking? *yawn*

And then the last scandalous bit of info Mr. Bridis shares with us is that "such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public." Yet these records are being made public. Scandalous, I tell ya.

Some good to come out of this is that democrats in congress will go on record as saying arab and muslim owned companies should meet requirements for doing business in the US that western-owned companies should not, and that will be fun to watch them explain how this is not racism and this will not offend the moderate arab muslim. Good comedy, that.

The other good is that conservatives will finally see Bush use his veto power on something. It may have nothing to do with restraining spending or increasing national security but when it comes to projecting our image abroad the president will protect it. We're not a bunch of toothless paranoid rednecks around here, no matter how bad Chuck Schumer makes us look.

Posted by: SAS at February 23, 2006 9:10 AM

One hears that Dubai has hired one of the whores of the beltway, Bob Dole to pitch their side.

We dont have to have the Dems screw us - it can be handled by our own so called conservatives.

This one wont pass the smell test. There must not be blood in the streets of America, let's hope not.

Posted by: dgene at February 23, 2006 9:20 AM

Maybe we can also help al jazeera (another product of the UAD) buy some television stations in the west.

Posted by: restitutor orbis at February 23, 2006 9:20 AM

so, Chuck Schumer is a dufas, a blowhard and runs to the camera for his close up. So what. What's new. Every dog has his day in the sun. The fact that Jimmy Carter supports Bush and Carter is a jerk. So what? I don't opposed Bush's port stand because Carter is a jerk and I don't oppose it because Chuck Schumer opposes it. So what. I don't want an Arab country--where two killers from the 911 crowd originated--where a UAE Prince falconed with Bin Laden--where terrorists so for money and succor. I don't want this government in charge of the ports, privy to security information for containers. Am I racist? If this is racism, bring out the white sheets. This is utterly ridiculous . . . to allow an Arab country be involved in our ports in any way whatsoever. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A VENERABLE BRITTISH COMPANY. There is a difference. I have an idea for Dr. Rice and the Prez. To save face with our friends the UAE, nix the port detail, fire the secret service, and have the UAE replace the secret service. What could show more deference and respect to our friends the Saudis and the UAE. The proponents of this are starting to sound like the Manchurian Canidate. Dubai Ports is the best, most efficient company there is. right.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 9:25 AM

Rabbi,

Great, like I said... let the democrats lead the way off the cliff of paranoid racism. I love it. It's great comedy.

Am I against being against the deal because Schumer the Clown is against the deal? No. I'm against being against the deal because the ONLY argument being presented so far is

"Dude, they're Arabs,"

and that argument is led by a whole class of people who say "Iraq didn't do anything! Bush invented terrorism! Bush lied, thousands died! We are not at war with Islam. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! 9/11 was an inside job."

Forgive me if, as a group, these people have lost a little credibility with me.

Present me with a rational argument as to why I should be upset with this not-so-secretive secret, lax, but not really lax, deal.

Posted by: SAS at February 23, 2006 9:39 AM

UAE has been linked with terror. Less then a decade ago, a prince from the UAE falconed with BinLaden and the CIA called off a predator drone 'hit' on his camp. One of the 'pilots' on 911 that knifed through the WTC was born and bred in UAE, served in their army, then helped other 'brothers' learn the true faith in Hamburg, Germany. Much of the funding, terror nexus, wiring of money went to and fro UAE. While I don't expect Jihadists to replace longshoreman, I do expect that the government of UAE AKA Dubai Ports will have inside information on our ports, security structures and practices. Lets say that Prince who falconed with BinLaden is now Pro-American, maybe he's still got some friends who have Jihadi tendencies. This reason is the key--Dubai Ports will learn ALL about our ports and security. They don't have to act on this. Of course thats ludicrous, but what if this information isn't so closely guarded? What if this information on radiation detection, coast guard routes, inspection practises ect . . . is 'loaned out' to 'brothers'. Then what happens. This is not pure zenophobia. I have no objection to Bin Taweed or whatever his name is buying stock in GM or Fox news. will he influence editorial policy. Probably, but it's a big bad world, lots of information venues, internet ect, so if Dubai wants to invest in Honda, Ford, GM fine, but I do have a problem with this country or Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, Iran, Iraq being involved . . . in our ports, airports and security service. But since your a defender of this wonderful idea, and I'm just a yahoo, then why not agree that to save face for our friends in UAE to take over Condi's security detail and W's. Am I a bastard to suggest this? Why? Won't they do a good job? Isn't their population friendly to us? That's what our shmuck in chief is telling us, as out state department tells us to hunker down and travel with extreme caution.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 9:59 AM

I'm also convinced that Fox news, the one bastion of balanced news information is being 'altered' by the Saudi investment. It's too weird to have them all lock step for this deal, defending the President, from Fox and Friends with their talking points(all the same talking points on the cue cards) to Bill O'rilley, looking out for the little guy, more exorcised on this issue than any other. I smell a Saudi Prince burning up the phone lines to Mr. Ailes. But this dog will not hunt. People are not buying it. By the way SAS, I am in favor of profiling . . . both people and companies. The Brits did not attack on 911, but some fine allies in the war on terror from UAE did. I wonder what your 'Arabs', SAS, felt like on 911 when they saw the jumpers flying out the windows in Lower Manhattan. I bet they were upset . . . from the royal family of UAE on down. As for the democrats making hay, forget it. Bush is toast. Too incomp, wrong headed, just plain wrong and not ready for prime time . . . but the Republicans from hastert to Frist are showing balls on this issue and don't agree with your SAS assessment. This is not a 50-50 split with the GOP vs the demos--it's more like 98 to 2 ratio with Jimmy Carter supporting the shmuck in chief. He should be impeached. On this issue alone for derliction of duty.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 10:18 AM

Yo, SAS. How 'bout this . . .

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

March 25, 2004 12:04 IST

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

Director Tenet went on in his testimony to state that U.S. Predator drone unmaned aircraft flew their first mission armed with Hellfire missiles, with the permission of the “host nation” (most likely Pakistan), on October 7, 2001.

Logically the conclusion could be drawn that a large portion of the royal family of the United Arab Emirates was with Osama bin Laden when he was targeted in Afghanistan during the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001

So is this true SAS. Does it matter it got so 'toasty' in the towers that business men decided to take a plotz out the windows. Does it matter? Or does W's veto power matter more, the success of W, our reliable ally in the 'war on terror,'

So Schumer's a jerk, but if true part of the UAE or a 'rogue element' of the royals(LOL) partied with Bin Laden, might this be a ittle bittie reason to not have the royal family of the UAE run our ports? Or am I being to obtuse, racist, Arab hating yahoo, all of the above? Answer that.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 11:09 AM

Funny how the timing of this "sale" comes out while embassies are still smoldering. Alot of businesses, including our free press are self-censoring because of fear, could the whitehouse be doing the same,too?

We will die because of a thousand little cuts

*Can't show some lame cartooons, but we'll gladly show you the Virgin Mary with poo and porn accessories again and again.
*O'Reilly not relaying the truth about the enemy, either from fear or ignorance, to Joe Public who rely on him to show the way
*art classes in Minnesota changed to not offend muslims
*California public schools indoctrinating students into islam in world studies classes
*Universities receiving 20 million dollar gifts from Saudi Princes, no strings attached, of course, nudge, nudge, wink, wink
*No 'Merry Christmas'or, God forbid, a nativity scene, but all the rest of the gobbly gook
*Bush getting council from Karen Hughes who gets her council from John Esposito
*prayer rooms in football stadiums, Christians and Jews need not apply
*ACLU fighting profiling tooth and nail of the BAD GUYS
*MSM convincing people NSA wiretaps really want to hear you and Aunt Sue's quilting plans.
*Inability or unwillingness to crack down on the borders even though OTM (read:TERRORISTS)have been caught attempting to get in.
*The insidious way "occupied territories" and "islamaphobia" roll off the MSM's tongues
*Kids being taught to be ashamed of Big, Bad America in school and given heaping doses of our countries errors, but no balancing with all the good we and the West have done.
*And the latest, giving a "country" (really an Arab tribe and all that implies) access to our port security procedures with or without the understanding that there are two worlds: Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.

Anyone got any others?

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at February 23, 2006 11:33 AM

Bush has failed me, I didn´t expect this, in Spain, we are very angry with him, for the support to the ex-communist and now muslim Mansur Escudero, that made a fatwa against Ben Laden, and now this. Western have to be joined, but the liberalism, the money, the power and lack of valors is huge in the current politics.

Posted by: Franze at February 23, 2006 1:29 PM

Bush has failed me, I didn´t expect this, in Spain, we are very angry with him, for the support to the ex-communist and now muslim Mansur Escudero, that made a fatwa against Ben Laden, and now this. Western have to be joined, but the liberalism, the money, the power and lack of valors is huge in the current politics.

Posted by: Franze at February 23, 2006 1:34 PM

When the followers of Islam give up their imperialistic marching orders decreed by the Koran (and given bloody icing by the bizarre Hadiths), then they can be allowed the economic benifits that come from any form of oblique control over vital aspects of the U.S. infrastructure like ports.

The Muslim-friendly government functionaries and pandering talking heads, trying to bluster their way through this central concern of the American people, are pathetically trying to describe the non-existent clothes of the butt-naked emperor.

Islam is rooted in global unrelenting imperialism.

Its followers are all in on the Big Koranic plan.

Enabling their aim is suicide for infidels.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 23, 2006 2:13 PM

(Condi) described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."

You know, if this war were not falsely named, she wouldn't even be able to make that ridiculous statement. Why? Because the UAE is filled with Moslems, and the real name of this war is the Islamic War.

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

Fitzpatrick, have you applied your analytical skills to the problem of naming in all of this? It seems to me to be central to the whole mess, and becoming more so and we descend further into what Diane West calls Dreampolitik.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 23, 2006 3:42 PM

The Democrats dont have must to fall on, as the Clinton gang sold Dubai a ton of fighter jets. not one word of this got out in protests. l really think that most are missing the point... you do need some allies..even arab ones.. they have US military bases and would prol need them for attacking Iran.
From what l also heard, is the Florida port union people first put out the word against UAE Dubai in getting these ports, as they feel threatened with loss of union jobs.. the democrats are bought off by the unions, and so they put on a big show of concern for US sercurity. Anyhow.. there is much more to meet the eye, than bashing for the sake of bashing.

Posted by: Lulu at February 23, 2006 6:34 PM

rabbi said:

"Logically the conclusion could be drawn that a large portion of the royal family of the United Arab Emirates was with Osama bin Laden when he was targeted in Afghanistan during the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001"

Well that's what you get for thinking... and letting a reporter lead you down a primrose path.

The mission to take out bin Laden, which was aborted because of the presence of "half the royal family of the UAE" occurred... not in the AFTERMATH of 9/11... but in February, 1999.

Logically, one would want to READ the testimony one was going to use to advance the suggestion that the UAE royal family was with bin Laden in Afghanistan in the "immediate aftermath" of 9/11.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-24.htm

Does it matter, rabbi, that you misrepresented Tenet's tesimony to fit your predrawn conclusion that the UAE is no good? Does it matter that you use the imagery of businessman plummeting to their deaths in order to advance your racism?

Does it matter that you have not nearly enough information to justify your opposition to this deal and that you are basing your opinion solely on race, religion and paranoia?

You call me a supporter of this idea and yet I've never supported it. The only thing I don't like is racist garbage being used as the justification for blocking it. I also didn't like how it was characterized in the AP story as "secret" and "lax." However, if the democrats want to block the deal, great. I love it. Like I already said, let the democrats scream about how arabs can't be trusted with our port business. What I want is Hillary Clinton (well, okay she doesn't really stand for anything so it's not likely she'd do it) or Chuck Schumer to get up there and sponsor a bill that blocks the approval of this deal due to the fact that the buyers are ragheads. That's what I want.

I could see conditions under which I would approve the deal. If we could get a guarantee of cooperation from the UAE royals in terror investigations including fiancial investigations, it would be worth throwing them a bone and using them as a test case. We may even be able to infiltrate the company and have some agents there to calm your fears.

Posted by: SAS at February 23, 2006 7:30 PM

SAS check out Michele Malkin website, linked on Jihad watch. She has the RNC talking points on how to 'address' the Dubai Ports issue. It is being done on Fox, Rush and a few others, but not with success for the Republican base doesn't by it--and the rank-and-file GOP members of congress are not jumping into a chasm for W. They are acting with cynicism according to some, or with bravery according to others, but this will not be massaged. I don't think a county whose royal Prince and enterouge went huntint with their pal is an ally. The alliance is a huge tit of petro dollars, who want to invest, and influence 'the debate.' I guess my point is, forgetting the advantage to the dems vs Bush for a moment, is maybe you are right, maybe their will not be a flow of information into the royal family of our security measures, maybe it doesn't matter, maybe the royals would never use this information(or sell it)against us, maybe a rogue prince will decide not to harm his own investment in pursuit of Jihadist aims. Maybe. But why chance it. Forget the racist name calling stuff and the political angle. I think these arguements are red herrings for those who don't want to address the basic issue of why take a chance and outsource the running of our ports to a Muslim, Royal family with defined Bin Laden ties. Am I missing something? What is the difference b/w 1999 and 2001 except our eyes were opened? Perhaps there might be a better choice than the UAE. LOL. by the way, I'm very much GOP, and I don't want an Arab country running our ports.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 8:12 PM

One more thing SAS, would it have been such a loss to the world if that predator drone had killed half of the UAE royal family in 1999 along with UBL, or am I being obtuse or racist? I think it would have been a very good idea. Lets me get this straight, after UBL had taken out two US embassys in Africa, issued countless Fatwas with his fellow islamist scum against us, the UAE guys weren't really sure he was a good guy, but they're different after 911, real good guys to be trusted.

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 8:17 PM

biorabbi-

Exactly. The Dubai boys are jetsetting pimps for any purchasable power, and Islam is their pirate "God".

I couldn't care less of Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, FDR and George Washington all came out in favor of this UAE deal, it stinks to high hell to me.

I do not trust the Islamic Imperialists, however much they pseudo-Westernize (practice taqiyya) their image and however many hundreds of thousands of bucks they bribe Bob Dole with to hire him to promote their de facto infiltration of the U.S. port infrastructure.

They can stick their falcons where the sun don't shine and email Osama that the predators are armed.

All Bush does with this port faux pas is divide our energies over trivia (mere money deals thrown at faux Muslim "allies" in the "Long War" -...formerly known as the "War On Terror", but more accurately "The War Against Islamic Imperialism").

When we desperately need to be united to defend the country's future and freedom- in a global war with theocratic extremists coming from the Koran's intolerant teachings- instead, the political money-is-everything class squander our national intensity and intelligence with dismal a folly like this.

As we argue in Congress and the Press over this utterly unnecessary diversion, the Islamicists can plot with a little less scrutiny, and increased pleasure at our infidel stupidity.

Follow the marked money.

(There's goddamned enough of it.)

The Teapot Dome.

The Dubai Port.

Rotten fish.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 23, 2006 9:08 PM

Wonder of wonders. Surprise, Surprise. Tonight, hot off the press, Dubai Ports World, the British, er Arab, company, has offered to delay the closing of their 7 billion dollar deal.

How freaking predictable and is this shades of Hariet Miers, W's crony, er prestigious lawyer. What a dufas. Let's review. First W jumps in front of a stupid position, a poorly thought out position, and tells us he'll veto, never back down, acuse the questioners, do his poor imitation of John Wayne. And then something . . . happens. Miers backs down. Bush caves to his base(thank god) and picks a highly qualified justice, but also demeans his own administration as being not ready for prime time. Here, W calls his detractors racist, questions any difference b/w GB and UAE(LOL), threatens a veto, plays the Duke routine(NOT) and then, saves face by having Neal or daddy call UAE and gets them to back down. So the Duke can run and hide. What a whussy, but, like Hariet Miers, thank god they backed down.

What will curious George's next f up be?

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 10:33 PM

One last point SAS, the issue is not the democrats making hay. The better question or issue would be, why does W continue to be the gift that keeps on giving. Is his goal to destroy the GOP? and elect a landslide in '06, to demoralize his base, to embolden his opponents, to take our eye off the Jihadist threat, to rebuild the blue or the purple mosque in Iraq? If this is his goal, he's a success. I'll never forget or forgive his comment likening a venerable GB company to the government of UAE and questioning the motives of those who questioned his policy? And then running for cover, getting them to back off. Was daddy on the phone begging and crying? Save my poor son?

Posted by: biorabbi at February 23, 2006 10:39 PM

What will curious George's next f up be?

- biorabbi

Your disgust is shared more, if not equally by many here. But seriously, did this f up come as a surprise? Not to me. I mean... connect these dots:

- Excort Bin Ladens to safety.
- Block 9/11 invstigation.
- Blacken pages in the interim 9/11 report.
- Make Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladin's home, an 'ally against (against??) terror.
- Make Pakistan, the mother of Taliban, an 'ally against (against??) terror.

Now tell me (and I have not yet mentioned the hole in the southern border) you are shocked.

Posted by: Alert at February 24, 2006 12:20 AM

Alert-

As a Libertarian (although I always argue with them about their naive isolationism as a damned silly pose in a world of interconnected everything), I found Bush a pubic hair better -against the jihadist threat- than Kerry (who could only be voted for cynically, to cause a terrorist disaster to strike the U.S. a little sooner, through his geopolitical sense of unreality, and then force a real wartime president to the fore in the next election).

Since 2004, with his odd wandering off into the arcane Social Security labyrinth (when border security is more pressing) and the squandering of his "political capital" for this inane enterprise (after having thrown hundred of billions of dolloars worth of drugs at senior citizens... with no means testing, and no particular call from the nation for this largesse in wartime) I now question not only his native intelligence, which I never thought much of, but also wonder about his only appealing characteristic: stoical doggedness.

Used against jihadist terror, it is useful and admirable trait. Used for anything less serious, it tends to turn into simplistic pugnaciousness, constantly alienating his allies at home and abroad, when bridges need to be built to shore up Western Civilization (failing to support our loyal and Islamically threatened ally Denmark and letting his lower level mouthpieces slander them is shameful stupidity), as the fires of Koranically-sanctified terrorism flare up worldwide (over the sheer absurdity of cartoons) and comes nearer and nearer to our shores.

Thank Allah he'll be out of office in two years. McCain supported his port fiasco, so that ended any interest I might have had in him. I'm now for Tancredo and Weldon as guys with some testicular fortitude and a healthy antipathy to our surrender to the 7th century.

Interesing [cursed] times.

Any port in a storm?

Not bloody likely.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 24, 2006 12:45 AM

Alert-

As a Libertarian (although I always argue with them about their naive isolationism as a damned silly pose in a world of interconnected everything), I found Bush a pubic hair better -against the jihadist threat- than Kerry (who could only be voted for cynically, to cause a terrorist disaster to strike the U.S. a little sooner, through his geopolitical sense of unreality, and then force a real wartime president to the fore in the next election).

Since 2004, with his odd wandering off into the arcane Social Security labyrinth (when border security is more pressing) and the squandering of his "political capital" for this inane enterprise (after having thrown hundred of billions of dolloars worth of drugs at senior citizens... with no means testing, and no particular call from the nation for this largesse in wartime) I now question not only his native intelligence, which I never thought much of, but also wonder about his only appealing characteristic: stoical doggedness.

Used against jihadist terror, it is useful and admirable trait. Used for anything less serious, it tends to turn into simplistic pugnaciousness, constantly alienating his allies at home and abroad, when bridges need to be built to shore up Western Civilization (failing to support our loyal and Islamically threatened ally Denmark and letting his lower level mouthpieces slander them is shameful stupidity), as the fires of Koranically-sanctified terrorism flare up worldwide (over the sheer absurdity of cartoons) and comes nearer and nearer to our shores, again.

Thank Allah he'll be out of office in two years. McCain supported his port fiasco, so that ended any interest I might have had in him. I'm now for Tancredo and Weldon as guys with some testicular fortitude and a healthy antipathy to our surrender to the 7th century.

Interesing [cursed] times.

Any port in a storm?

Not bloody likely.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 24, 2006 1:36 AM

Type Key hiccoughs, again.

All trying to delete an "o" from "dolloar".

And getting no change.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 24, 2006 1:37 AM

The money destroy the convictions, and this time too.

Posted by: Franze at February 24, 2006 10:01 AM