Sunday Weekly Review: Bush says "Security Is Not the Issue"
(Archive
)
Why did we invade Iraq? Bush has given any number of contradictory reasons, including nuclear weapons (that don’t exist) and democracy (that is rapidly becoming an Islamic theocracy with ties to Iran).
But one of the Administration’s favorite lies is the virtually non-existent “ties” of Saddam Hussein to Al Quaeda. Something like a person in the Iraqi Government once was in the same city with a member of Al Quaeda a decade ago…
But there are STRONG connections between Bin Laden, Al Quaeda, and the United Arab Emirates, which gave strong operational to them.
So Bush is insisting that a company from this country control our ports at NYC, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, and New Orleans (guess Katrina wasn’t enough to scare its residents!) He’s willing to risk his first veto ever in six years of Government to make sure that a company from a nation that supports terrorists controls our ports.
Is Bush smoking something? Or is he drunk again?
To defend the indefensible, I have invited my favorite Republican, Mike Lane of Intelephant Strategies, a political strategist who works hard to get Republicans elected to office.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What price security? March 3, 2006 10:25 am
What is interesting is the attitude of those in favor of the deal–that says the deal must go through because dollars have been committed to it and must be paid out by a certain date
That certainly puts the importance of security in its place
Vicky March 3, 2006 7:57 am
Mark – Why are Bill and Hillary on opposite sides of this issue?
And is it that the Dems truly disagree with Bush on this or is it as one of the bloggers on this site stated….”I hate Bush so much…”
And who is running the West coast ports?
Robt March 1, 2006 2:44 pm
Our US Navy does not yield their port security in the UAE with this company, nor does it give port control over the Navy in the UAE. Our Navy does not share its own port security with the UAE while there. But chertoff et al say that the UAE is trust worthy of U.S. security stateside?
If the UAE were that trust worthy they would be in control where U.S. naval ships port in the UAE right now?
So there is a limit on trust.
===============================================
What I am not quite clear on is:
If the UAE and this deal is a non security issue.
-Why was this deal being done in secret?
-Why are they against scrutiny of the deal?
-Why can’t they scrutinize this deal on
CSPAN to place the publics concern at ease?
-If, ” security is not an issue “, Then a investigation by these (closet profiteering) legislators LIVE on CSPAN is not a issue and can be done.
-I am most certain that if formally requested for open scrutiny as I suggest, there would be ” security issues ” from the same people espousing it is not a security issue. In which the flip-flop misdirections needs to be confronted.
The Totem Poll March 1, 2006 9:29 am
Bush has a favorability rating of 34%–his lowest ever–has he hit bottom? Stay tuned to Apocalypse Radio–all apocalypse–all the time
Sean February 28, 2006 10:34 pm
Thanks for the quotes Gordon!
I have been enjoying Letterman more and more lately. I have always enjoyed his brand of humor, and with this administration he has so much material it is just fun to watch his opening monologue.
It really outlines just how out of mainstream the Bush-politicians are. Rove might try hard to convince everyone that the Bushies have a broad base, but I tell you the only ones left supporting this administration are the blindly faithful. Only those listening exclusively to Fox could even be so diluted. These are the same people that think Nixon got robbed.
Sean