We are fighting a three year war in Iraq a country that had absolutely no links to the attacks on 9/11 with over 2,000 dead soldiers and now George Bush wants to allow Dubai a country from which two of the 17 hijackers came from and a country that directly funneled money to bin Laden and his terrorist organization to have control over 6 American ports. If no links to 9/11 or bin Laden was enough to warrant invasion, then how can direct links to both bin Laden and 9/11 warrant private control over our ports?
George Bush is obviously not serious about national security or fighting those responsible for 9/11.
2.23.2006
Posted by Chris at 8:55 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"If you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist..."
Everybody knows UAE harbors terrorists. They offer them safe harbor in exchange for their money and a promise they'll mind their P's and Q's while over there. I haven't even bothered to search google on it because everybody who's ever been over there for any length of time, and I have been in that area; knows this is a fact.
While I don't think the UAE government has a problem with Americans, or America's Government right now, oh how quickly things can change over there. It wasn't all that long ago the United States was ALSO in bed with Bin Ladin, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
Sure, UAE is an ally, CURRENTLY... and they are not avid supporters of al-Qaida, I'll GIVE the Administration that much. But that is ALL I'm going to give them.
This ports idea is just plain NUTS!
You know, this is just another layer being peeled off the facade.
This whole thing, which I have only read bits and pieces of at this point, is in a way flabbergasting me on some level.
"The fact that the argument is gaining steam underscores the reality that politicians can still successfully politicize 9/11 by using the manipulative politics of fear" -http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/dubai-counterpoint
GTL, NUTS!, the seige of Bastogne, Battle of the Bulge, correct? I totally agree with you man.
Alice, doesn't make much sense to me either. Iraq is the standard at which Bush is willing to risk military intervention post-9/11, and according to that standard, Dubai should not be anywhere near our ports. Thanks for reading.
Ah, now Jaz there's the link I was looking for. And I absolutely disagree with Faiz's words, which only goes to show you, to your dismay I'm sure, that I do not follow in line with the liberal/progressive talking heads either. Like I've been saying all along, I think for myself.
off topic but mj change my link to wonderlandornot.net I will no longer be using the livingwellornot.blogspot site.
Of course they shouldn't be near our ports. I would like to se a good explanation for this and althought there is plenty of talk in blog land about it where is the real outrage and concern of the country on this???
President Theodore Roosevelt said, “Patriotism means to stand by the country. IT DOES NOT MEAN TO STAND BY THE PRESIDENT or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. IT IS UNPATRIOTIC NOT TO OPPOSE HIM to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
I believe you are doing just that... and yes... I do believe you think for yourself and what a great brain you have! -shayna
You accuse others of 'lazy politics,' while you've sadly lumped yourself in with the miscreants who are too dim-witted to read the fine print of this port deal.
This post is so intellectually dishonest, so predictably knee jerk, it is far, far beneath you.
Kent I only strive to be as smart as you.
Post a Comment