Lazy Politics

Some things are just too important to leave hidden in the comment section.

Jaz says:

It’s amazing; all of a sudden Liberals are very passionate about national security. Oh, I get it; it’s a golden opportunity to attack President Bush. I’m surprised at the sloppiness and logical inconsistency I find in this most recent post of yours.

First of all, you take every opportunity to pointlessly bash Fox News yet you seem to watching and are certainly citing it a lot. Could it possibly be that Fox is an interesting and worthwhile news outlet? For example, I find CNN to be boring and slanted left and therefore I rarely watch it. You say, “Bush only threatened the veto in front of Fox News reporters, which wouldn’t surprise me at all and only goes to show the agenda that Fox promotes…” which is what? What is this conspiratorial agenda that you imagine Fox news is promoting? In the context of your post it would seem that Fox’s agenda is to make president Bush look bad by reporting a vastly unpopular decision in the case of this veto. Could it be that Fox reported this story because it is newsworthy and therefore are demonstrably not “carrying the water” of the Bush administration? Then you say, “[this goes to show]…the total disdain for the public the Bush administration has.” Like with the Cheney story I believe your confusing “the public” with “the mainstream media”. That Bush or Cheney might bypass the mainstream media only shows me that they don’t trust them to report a story accurately. After all, you and countless others seem to be able to get your news from Fox and by Bush going to them with a story exclusively (if that’s even what happened) Bush is doing “the public” a service by going through the network that reaches the most people overall. Having something being reported on Fox, the most popular news TV news outlet, is hardly under the radar. I believe that if there is disdain on Bush’s part it is for liberal mainstream media and not “the public” as you say.

You go on to say, “And anyone that would support the private transaction of 6 American ports to a terrorist supporting state couldn’t possibly be serious about leading a war on terrorism.” Hold on a second, that doesn’t sound very politically correct of you. You wouldn’t be “discriminating” against Arabs would you? Seems to me that everyone, Democrats, Republicans, and the Bush Administration are all in a difficult position over this. The latter two risk schism and as for Democrats, in order to be against awarding this contract to Arabs they will have to abandon the ever-present and insipid position of being anti-discrimination and politically correct. Hilary Clinton, the opportunist political chameleon that she is, won’t think twice before abandoning the tenants of anti discrimination political correctness in order to appear moving to the right of Bush on National Security, but some of you other liberals I would have thought to be well…more open minded and principled. Really, is it not blatant discrimination to be against working with the most benign Arab country on the planet (OAE has been referred to as the Hong Kong of the Middle East) simply because they are Arabs? Because the facts painting the OAE as a “terrorist supporting state” are very weak so far. The first “damming” fact you cite is the easiest one to dismiss. You say, “The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.” Yes, The UAE was one of the countries that recognized the Taliban. Was, as in the past tense. Japan was the enemy to America but what do you know, times have changed. And as for harboring Al Qeada supporters (not something you address but I have heard it elsewhere as evidence that the OAE are terror supporters), the current country that runs this shipping operation, England, has Al Queada supporters in its midst, should we then therefore cease all trade operations with them? Of course not. You say, “The UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.” Wow, you mean there are countries that do not fully cooperate with American Efforts in the war on terror? I suppose we should cut of all diplomatic ties and cease trading with countries that do not cooperate fully. That would mean…well almost every country other than Great Britain and Israel. Certainly France, Germany, Russia, Spain and others have been less than cooperative with our terrorist tracking maneuvers. Gee, what’s the most noticeable difference between the OAE and these other countries that have been less than helpful? Answer: They are Arabs. So in the end, you will have to reconcile that fact that you are against this proposal by Bush because of a racial or at least cultural bias.

As for me, I haven’t heard enough evidence yet to decide on this matter but I am open minded enough not to be against it on the basis of an Anti-Arab sentiment. I just love this double standard than exists vis a vis politically correctness. If I’m against indiscriminately awarding student visas to Arab nations, for example, I get to be called a racist, but liberals just get to toss over board those pesky things called principles if it means seizing an opportunity to attack Bush. Like in the case of Hilary, it seems as though the order of the day for liberals is, “by any means necessary”, traditional liberal principles of open mindedness and tolerance be damned.

Not sure where to start on this one.

I think in this modern world we are told what to think and say and how to believe rather than forming opinions ourselves. If I had to wait around to hear what Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken was going to say about a particular subject or topic just so I could then form an opinion, I don’t think I would sleep at night. Too many times we let others do our thinking for us. My main rationale for having this blog was to leave the talking heads aside and for once have a national debate where conviction matters.

That doesn’t mean that punditry should be put aside when entering this site. It is impossible to have political discussions without backup. For those who lean to the right and must produce conservative sources and for those who lean to the left and do the same, so be it. Just know what it is that you’re getting into before you jump. It is possible, however, to have political discussions without personal tirades. God, it must be.

For one, I’m not a liberal. At least not how you use the term. I come from an Irish background in a small town full of coalmines and hillbillies. I’m not sure how much more Democratic that could be.

My point is, you don’t know enough about me to lay out my politics. And the same applies to me with you, which is why I don’t go to your site and spill out condemnations from everything as distanced as Hillary Clinton to the occupation of Japan.

You can question my intelligence all day long and I really don’t care. I don’t post to prove to anyone how smart I may or may not be. When I first published the previous post about Bush threatening to veto any legislation that would stop the transaction of an Arab country with ties to terrorism from owning 6 American ports, Fox News was the only station reporting the veto threat. More precisely, they were the only station reporting that Bush did in fact personally state he would veto any legislation. The other news outlets were only reporting that Bush made comments that he supported the transaction of the ports to UAE and that the deal should be allowed to go through, not that he threatened a veto to ensure the transaction. I found it awkward that the transcript, which I linked to, from Bush’s speech to the press did not contain any language about him threatening a veto. It was only Fox News that reported such.

If anything, I think my original post was in defense of Bush and that maybe Fox had jumped the gun in reporting the veto threat. And to falsely report that Bush was threatening a veto, if he did not do that, places Bush in a very bad position. Still, all transcripts that I can find do not contain the veto threat. So apparently Bush made the threat in passing after his speech was over. And apparently it was made to Fox News, because they were the first to report such. Now it appears that most media is reporting the veto threat, and certainly the White House has not come out to direct us otherwise.

Your assumption that I watch Fox News is unfounded and what would it matter if I did. I have a news alert from Reuters for my email and the alerts were pouring in like crazy, that's how I first learned of it. Not to mention that I work in politics and usually hear about matters long before they ever come across a television set. But why I must explain my business to you is beyond me. I form my own opinions despite where I get my news.

I find your implication of me being racist somewhat troubling and offensive. You can use your site for personal tirades but not mine.

If you are in support of the sale of 6 American ports to a country that has substantial links to terrorism, then that is your position to take. I do not question your intelligence or your party affiliation, and it proves no merit to take the route of lazy politics that you so want to relish. But I will say that I take comfort that people like you do disagree with me.