|
| Author |
Message |
Steve
Rancher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 3335
Location: Wildwood New Jersey
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
even though (GOD forbid) I agree with Hillary on foreign ownership of our ports, doesn't make me like her, or even think I would vote for her....
NJSteve.....I must admit I NEVER thought I'd hear this !!!! Amazing!!!! |
| Quote: |
| Washington, DC – United States Senators Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton announced today that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. The legislation would block such transactions as the proposed sale of operations at six major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. |
but now hillary stabs US all in the back,,,,Cosco, and the other goverment owned port operations her Husband approved would not be affected by her legislation, Just the dubia deal....so it only took a few days for me to see that she hasn't changed.........
she is still the same, playing to the liberal media saying what she believes the polls want her to say all the while doing nothing of real importance for this country.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
reader (the Second)
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 5221
Location: Northern Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's why it's called politics. The more ambition you have, the more you listen to the pollsters and strategists and base your decisions on what will positively affect your political ambitions. I think part of this administration's problem is that they are being run by people who are thinking of the next elections more than being thrilled with being able to make policy and provide leadership. They act not like the administration elected/appointed to our highest office but like folks running a campaign. Thanks Karl.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
reader (the Second)
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 5221
Location: Northern Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually Arafat was like this. It's a well known phenomenon, a person can't shake the guerrilla techniques that he/she used to achieve power when power is ultimately achieved. I'd say Rove fits the bill. Hillary is just still hungry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mike
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 10352
Location: Montgomery, Al
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reader (the Second) wrote: |
| Actually Arafat was like this. It's a well known phenomenon, a person can't shake the guerrilla techniques that he/she used to achieve power when power is ultimately achieved. I'd say Rove fits the bill. Hillary is just still hungry. |
To use Rove and Arafat in the same paragraph for comparisons' sake deeply troubles me about your comprehension abilities and views on politics.
You should be ashamed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
reader (the Second)
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 5221
Location: Northern Virginia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Steve
Rancher
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 3335
Location: Wildwood New Jersey
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
R2
| Quote: |
| They act not like the administration elected/appointed to our highest office but like folks running a campaign. |
against the repetative drum beat of the liberal press, they are forced to stay on constant gaurd......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
reader (the Second)
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 5221
Location: Northern Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steve,
No, I don't believe it has anything to do with the liberal media.
I think that when history is written on this administration, it will acknowledge that there were too many cooks and that each of the cooks had a very entrenched set of beliefs and motivations -- Cheney, Rove, and probably Rumsfeld. Secrecy/authoritarianism/continue the oil alliances (Cheney); win the campaign at all costs and promote Republican election victories and destroy all enemies (Rove); and win the Gulf War and promote democracy in the Middle East (Rumsfeld). I'm unsure truthfully about Rummie and his role anymore. It may only have been Cheney and Rove in control. I am not even saying that any of these folks are BAD folks or even that taken separately their passion and commitment and belief sets would have been a bad thing. The combination of too many cooks with such set views has in my opinion resulted in a very odd administration. I admit that you have to add 9/11 to the mix as well and it may be that without 9/11, it would have been just the normal partisan administration.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Cal
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 2881
Location: Southern SD
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reader (the Second) wrote: |
| Cal wrote: |
| reader (the Second) wrote: |
Yes, I also found this a fascinating study in contradictions. I have seen more anti-Islam across the board here than in my life so I'm so glad that there has been a super pro-Islam flip-flop  I thought we were gonna nuke em all? |
So, as someone working in Homeland Security, do you think Kudlow is right or wrong? Can we trust Dubai? Are other foreign operated ports a threat? |
My instincts on this are that it was a mistake. I have not read the Coast Guard's assessment, but I believe that Homeland Security advised against this deal. I don't distrust Dubai, however we have trouble screening our own airport personnel, it seems like a nightmare to me to have a Middle Eastern company operating major ports regardless of the safeguards. Remember we have a history of making diplomatic and international relations choices that blow up in our face later (training Osama Bin Laden, arming Saddam Hussain against Iran). This administration wants it both ways -- play the trump card of national security at every corner but continue their personal (Bush and Cheney) long and close relationship with the oil producing countries and their rulers. I understand the argument that allying ourselves with and aiding Middle Eastern countries offsets Radical Islam but these are sensitive times with infiltration of Radical Islam in every country with a large Muslim population, including throughout Europe. Like it or not, we are at war with an asymmetric threat and it means war and diplomacy as usual won't work.
We appear to be making trade decisions left and right that make me personally nervous in light of national security. I would be happy if there was a brilliant grand scheme behind it -- bringing down the USSR with blue jeans type of thing -- but knowing the Government well as I do, I doubt that. |
Thanks for your reply. Can I ask one more question  What do you think the biggest threat might be...smuggling in nuclear devices or other type of wmd, sneaking in terrorists...just wondering?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Of course there's no comparison. I know you know me better than that. The other analogy I was thinking of was Moses and Aaron and entering the Promised Land.