A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
February 22, 2006Myrick to W: Hell No!Red State points out this letter from North Carolina Republican Congresswoman Sue Myrick, to President Bush, which contains one line: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just no - BUT HELL NO! I am sufficiently jaded and don't expect much from the Congress "critters" of either party anymore, but I DO expect that when explaining their position to the leader of the free world they at least take the time to, I don't know, present actual facts. I am not asking for much, maybe a sentence or two or even a paragraph is all I expect from a group of elected officials that make six figures. The fact that those opposed to the deal completely have failed to explain why, other than generally passing it off as a threat to our security, only makes it more obvious that their motive is nothing more than their own ambition. I am also not naive enough to expect that elected members of the people's house wouldn't use public funds to run for higher office, Sue wants to be Governor of North Carolina for instance, but would at least appreciate that they avoid placing blatant attempts at political pandering on letter head that my frigging tax dollars paid for. What an embarrassment to the great state of North Carolina. Posted by Starbucks Republican at February 22, 2006 04:51 PMComments
the subwerviant GOP congress ofpast 5 years has spoiled an already spoiled president. he has become increasing outrageous, arrogant, in choices for high court, and now theports conflicts. cheney shot a guy in the head, bush has blown off his foot. Posted by: george at February 22, 2006 06:13 PMTwo things come to mind here. For one thing, the UAE company is responsible for the workers they hire and their hiring standards are perhaps not what ours are here. The second thing is that the front line security workers, the customs and security inspectors who are under Homeland Security, DON'T WANT THIS. Since they are on the front lines and should know better than most, and have the port level responsibility for safety and security, their opinion should be respected. Posted by: Sharon at February 22, 2006 06:20 PMI think she said all she needed to say. All I want to know is what is Bush smoking these days? To let another country own and control our ports....What was he thinking? One of the pilots of 911 was from the United Arab Emirates. This idea is even dumber than invading Iraq for made up reasons. Posted by: dawn at February 22, 2006 06:24 PMThe AOL drive-by crew is certainly knee-jerking in unison today. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 06:34 PMThink back to high school and your Social Studies you will understand the meaning of her letter. As for an explination most ALL americans can answer that one for you. Or atleast any American current in national annd international affairs. A. It has been a surfacing rumor that the US milatary had a shot at bin ladden. One problum he was inside one of the UAE prince's homes with the prince's. B. the UAE has been noted for years to support milatant orginizations. They want our money just as badly as they want our downfall. This i remind you isa general statement. I am certain there are quite a few good people living in the UAE. Only takes one bad apple...... C. Forign control of vital seaports into the US is regardless of what country it might be nieve. It would be the same as allowing another country to own the white house. Think about it i think you will understand what i am saying. D. Bush calls Arab countries unstable. He has called for an end to our dependance on corrupt governments for oil. Yet supports these same unstable countries in ownership of vital shipping ports? Question dose he not play polotics? Can't he ever agree with what he says? E. Here's a good question to pose all who read this. 911 happened because our own ((suppsidly not unstable)) Gevernment gave these people student VISA's to never go these schools only to later hijacks plans and whalla 911. The question is... How long before the same thing happens because of this deal? And an added bonus question. How can Bush condemn Arab Nations then support Arab control of domestic ports? I add as a personel note i have no Ill will towards any Arabs. Even as far as Iraq i think there are alot of good people out there in these nations. But the fact is there is a group within Arabs that has a singular purpose to eliminate us and our influence. To destroy our economy and demoralize our spirits. It's like a lake with one Parana. for the most part the lake is safe. But eventually you may find yourself bitten. Posted by: matthew at February 22, 2006 06:42 PMPerhaps a Gdansk-type port strike, with our workers saying HELL NO would help sway the government. Do the workers have the guts and the SOLIDARITY to do so? I used to cooperate with port workers and there is NO WAY they will stand for this Arab-foreign control of their workplace. WE shouldn't stand for this either ! Posted by: FuzzyBear at February 22, 2006 06:46 PMBush and Cheney must be impeached NOW and voted out of office. Clinton was impeached for lying about screwing around with an intern BUT Bush and Cheney are fucking the entire United States,our future and by having lied about weapons of mass destruction, the reaons for invading Iraq, social security, that tax cuts are good for the economy while wiping out the record surplus and wiping out and converting it to the largest budget deficit in history. Stupidity is no defense. Posted by: Gordon Marshall at February 22, 2006 06:46 PMI've always known Bush was an idiot, now there is no doubt. Posted by: Mary at February 22, 2006 06:47 PMI've always known Bush was an idiot, now there is no doubt. Posted by: Mary at February 22, 2006 06:48 PMHas Bush Lost His Mind? It Is Time For A New Leader Before He Kills Us All. Like Father Like Son. Think About It America. God Be With This Great Country. Posted by: Robert Bobbitt at February 22, 2006 06:48 PMA a proud citizen of the great State of North Carolina, let me add this second: We should not EVEN be presented with such a ridiculous proposal! Moreover, it is an embarrassment to all of us, the AMERICAN PEOPLE, to have to contend with such a hideous proposal. Of course, the answer is NO; it is like a child asking the parent to buy porno for him/her. Anyone who would even suggest letting an enemy run the ins/outs of their society has an elevator stuck in the basement and not likely to EVER go anywhere! Also, the question of torture and murder of 'detainees' is deplorable and worse than that, seeing as the folks who are being overseen to do this are also citizens who will return to our society and probably work in the private sector as guards, policemen, etc. If anyone thinks this is not scary, then I suggest that you be DETAINED by these JADED souls. Posted by: Kay at February 22, 2006 06:56 PMWow, Tully! The tough part is, with this issue, it's hard to tell which wings they are the nuts of. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 07:07 PMIMPEACHMENT would be wonderful - send the message please that we will NOT stand for this! THIS IS AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY! Posted by: Kryztyna at February 22, 2006 07:08 PMAnyone who voted for this dim bulb President and his crooked, lieing, underhanded, string pulling Vice Pres. should be ashamed of them self!!!!! Posted by: Tom at February 22, 2006 07:09 PMJust one question? how much of a kickback is he and cheney getting on this deal? or for that matter, how much is DICK going to make on this deal? time for these two lying clowns to go. NOW!!! Posted by: pete at February 22, 2006 07:11 PMI cannot believe Bush's insanity! I thought that Bush would end social programs, etc., so I didn't vote for him, the first time or the fake time. I had no idea that social issues were the least of the problems he would begin. He promises safety, a victory against terrorism, and then invites a country involved, to whatever extent, to be our fence? You're telling me that no other country in the world could do it better, cheaper? We could have gotten ANYONE, and this is his best. And he even thinks it's worth fighting for! As Bugs says, "What a moroon". Posted by: S at February 22, 2006 07:12 PMLet me understand this, we can keep out a copy because of their race (Arab) and that really is our main objection, isn't it? But the Arabs should be expected to buy American goods from Boeing, Lockheed, etc etc. otherwise that would be discrimination and violation of the WTO! Posted by: A Adam at February 22, 2006 07:13 PMBush has mistaken his title as president for the title of King. Now chew on that notion and tell me you will sleep well tonight. Think about it. "I will Veto any legislation that blocks my decision." All people want in time to investigate all aspects. " I can wire tap anyone who poses a threat to our national security." PETA was on the list of those wiretapped. He will always do what he wants then hide behind the national security curtain. On this port thing he is actually quoted saying, " The legislature needs to know my approval of this deal was final." He is not our father who need not explain his decisions. He did not even consult the congressmen or local authorities in the areas of concern. They need to revisit the term GROUP THINK and hear the bell ringing. Posted by: carey at February 22, 2006 07:15 PMI've always known Bush was an idiot, now there is no doubt.And drive-by's perseverate too! Well all these drive-by's confirm my initial reaction. Posted by: c3 at February 22, 2006 07:17 PM A note to all our visitors: Welcome to our CENTRIST web site. We work hard to be a place for rational, polite debate of important political issues. We enjoy visitors very much and invite you to stay, but we do have a few traditions here that we try to respect. We ask you to do so, too. Please don't cuss. It tends to lower the debate and incite people to respond in kind, with reason and thought being drowned out by unthinking emotion. Please try to back up your arguments with facts (preferably with links) and logical argument from those facts. You should make yourself familiar with basic facts surrounding the issue. For example, the operating companies for these ports were already owned by a foreign country, a British conglomerate. Simple statements like "Bush is an idiot" or "Clinton is a pot-smoker" are most unwelcome here. They add nothing to any discussion and attract the wrong sort of attention. If that's all you can find to say, you might prefer to visit here or here to engage in mindless partisan sniping to your heart's content. Again, to those of you who really want to join in a real, intelligent (sometimes), polite debate, welcome, and please stick around. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 07:19 PMMathew, did you post a link to this thread on another site or something? At least at this rate we may set a new record for number of comments! Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 07:22 PMTHIS IS NUTS!! BUSH HAS COMPLETELY LOST ALL TOUCH WITH REALITY!! HE THINKS THAT THIS IS A GOOD WILL GESTURE?? A BETTER GESTURE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! I GUESS HE THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HIRE THE FOX TO RUN THE HEN HOUSE!! WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SPOILED LITTLE RICH KID, IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF HIM!! HEY I GOT AN IDEA MR BUSH. WHY DON'T YOU AND CHENEY GO QUAIL HUNTING NEXT WEEKEND!!?? Posted by: JOE at February 22, 2006 07:25 PMTHANK GOD I SEE THAT MOST OF US ARE ON THE SAME PAGE!!!! W. HAS GONE WAY WAY TOO FAR AND YES HE THINKS HE IS KING. GIVING UP OUR PORTS ?? THE MAN IS BRAIN DEAD AND NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED AND TAKE CHENEY AND RUMSFELD WITH HIM How many of us knew that a British company was"overseeing" our national ports and that company could be bought by anyone? I did'nt and I I dont think the Bush boy knew it either. Posted by: virginia at February 22, 2006 07:26 PMAOL must have put up a link to us in a story about blog reaction or something, I guess. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 07:26 PMi think bush needs to stop before the uae is in the white house and he will be bringing them their coffe. IF theres any left or should i say filling their oil barrels p.s. i,m from n.c. go myrick Posted by: rita at February 22, 2006 07:27 PMHow many of us knew that a British company was"overseeing" our national ports and that company could be bought by anyone? I did'nt and I I dont think the Bush boy knew it either. Posted by: virginia at February 22, 2006 07:27 PMOops! I knew I forgot one: Please, visitors, do not use ALL CAPS. It's not very pleasant for the readers. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 07:29 PMif you think back from day one Bush has lied about the reason for going into Irag. How many American Men have to lose there lives for someone thats only interested in lining his on pocket. what the price for selling out your country? why should we force our will on another country. They have been there a few hundred years before us. The polls show Bush as a lame duck for the rest of his term. As for as i am concern he was a lame duck from day One. Posted by: Dan at February 22, 2006 07:37 PMI've tried to dig around on the AOL site but I'm not coming up with anything. Do ya'll have a site meter that might show where your referrals are coming from? That would be the quickest way to find out. Needless to say, my opinion of the average AOL user is being consistently validated as I read the comments. On topic, I find it sad that a representative of Congress can do no better than a "Hell no" type of response, especially one of such apparent interest. Though Tully probably said it best in another thread, it is an election year so nothing should surprise me. Posted by: Scotch Drinker at February 22, 2006 07:38 PMI have known Bush and Cheney were idiots and what Bush is doing at this time proves it. It is outrageous he lets an Arab nation take over our ports. He might as well have an Arab take over our country too and we be ruled by them. And Cheney is another one. If someone else shot somebody they would be arrested. I hope this man he shot sues him for all he got. Posted by: AUDREY at February 22, 2006 07:38 PMAOL must have put up a link to us in a story about blog reaction or something, I guess. Bingo, Pat. I don't have AOL so I won't even try to track it down, but someone at AOL news feed has decided we're a good reference for "grass roots" blogging. Witness this. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 07:50 PMBush and company have been acting illegally and irresponsibly since he usurped office. I'm not a nut of either wing, but I find it STUNNING that it has taken this long for people to finally realize what a corrupt despot this man is. I will forever remember him sipping wine (dry alcoholic my ass) and smoking cigars with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as the Pentagon lay smoking in the distance and the bodies were still cooling in NYC. Yech! But he and his PNAC buddies were too busy celebrating their "trifecta" to see the humanity...to ever see the humanity. Sigh... Posted by: Michelle at February 22, 2006 07:55 PMGot it. We've been graced with position in the AOL Daily Pulse, between the Huffington Post and David Corn, and along with Joe Gandelman and Andrew Sullivan. Woo hoo! Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 07:59 PMI believe the President has gone too far. This last decision is pure arogance. When he was first elected (we all knew he really wasn't) the only consolation I had was that it appeared he was surrounding himself with people with experience. Six years later I can see that Cheyney and Rumsfeld appear to be pulling the strings and people like Condy Rice and Karen Hughes are nothing more than mouth pieces for W. Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfeld are the real "Axis of Evil". W has either lost his mind or really believes that he has total control of our country. It hurts to see how many countries hate us now. Iraq was a huge mistake. I am a veteran, Vietnam era, and this situation is even worse. We now have been there for three years and lost so many innocent, young Americans. I pray everyday for God to reach these people in the White House, but I do believe "God will protect us from harm and danger but He also gives us enough sense to get off the track when the train is coming". In other words, as Americans, we must all scream "NO" to this once and for all. Write to your congressmen and women, your senators. God protect us all. Posted by: Jackie at February 22, 2006 08:00 PMthis stupid bastard needs to be impeached or tried for treason what it took for our forefathers this idot undone since he took the "throne" Posted by: richard at February 22, 2006 08:12 PMI see that AOL subscribers often have trouble reading directions, and are somewhat short on the rudiments of manners. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:13 PMAOL must have put up a link to us in a story about blog reaction or something, I guess.Hence, in certain quarters, "AOL!" is net slang for "me too!" I've basically concluded that anybody who says Bush should be impeached is brain dead. I don't particularly like the guy or agree with him, and I'm sceptical about this deal, but the constant calls for impeachment are getting past the point of being funny. Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:15 PMIncidentally, let's be clear: as Joe Gandelman pointed out, this administration is using the Harriet Miers defense, and that didn't work either. What is that word for someone that keeps doing the same thing hoping for a different result? One has to envisage the President scratching his head saying "don't they hear me saying 'jump'? Why are they just standing around? Do I need to say it louder?" Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:19 PMJust using the avalanche of hate mails now showing up in my inbox as a reference, Simon, I'm sure I could write a lexicon to answer your question. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:23 PMMaybe we should outsource the running of the White House also. A lot of people have lost lives or jobs by this administration's policies. Perhaps it is time that those working at the White House lose theirs also. I think the president should be hospitalized or impeached. Take your choice. Tully, Tully, spelling is not always their strong suit, either. Thanks for the AOL link. I went looking for it but came up empty. You're getting hate mail? You lucky bastard! I thought I was being offensive enough to warrant hate mail. I'm jealous! Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:27 PM One of these days our country will wake and realise the Bush has done more harm to this country than anythibg since the civil war. His tax rebates didnt help the poor but they sure did hurt the treasury. His war in iraq is showing very poor overall results but is runnubg up our national debt to new hieghts. We are over there trying to help the arabians out and they cut our throats wwith higher and higher oil prices. I must say that to let an autocratic gov't like UAE able to control our ports is really bad. Why? We must make ourselves more independent of them9 the arabs), not more dependent. Apparently for the sin of being peripherally mean to AOL'ers, or being a Bushie, or something like that. What I get for using a real email addie, I guess. But hey, to those who've actually said something indicating intelligence, instead of just ranting or calling me names, thank you! Do come back. Intelligent new blood with manners is always welcome. To those just ranting and calling me names, puh-lease. You think that's impressive? I've been abused by the best, and y'all aren't it. Heck, I've got hundreds of people waiting to abuse me. :-) Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:30 PMFirst of all, LOFL! We've been spammed. What's actually funny is that it probably isn't "freaks" in the plural sense, it's most likely one person who has some major self-confidence issues. Anyway, back to Sue. "Sell the ports?" It just goes back to my earlier comment about knee-jerk Congressmen (and women) who don't have a clue. If Sue was the only candidate running in my district, would I vote for her? "No, hell no!" Posted by: AR at February 22, 2006 08:30 PMI must say that to let an autocratic gov't like UAE able to control our ports is really bad. Why? We must make ourselves more independent of them9 the arabs), not more dependent. I must say that to let an autocratic gov't like UAE able to control our ports is really bad. Why? We must make ourselves more independent of them9 the arabs), not more dependent. I must say that to let an autocratic gov't like UAE able to control our ports is really bad. Why? We must make ourselves more independent of them9 the arabs), not more dependent. Some of 'em stutter too, Pat. But we shouldn't mock the afflicted. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:31 PMSimon, I don't know that I would call this the Harriet Meiers defense. He's not saying "trust me" so much as he's saying this is a necessary outgrowth of our current foreign policy. And, as you well know, presenting a united front in matters of foreign policy is why the Constitution geverally vests the President with very broad discretion in matters of foreign policy. Not to say that Congress cannot act to undo this, but just a reminder that we generally entrust foreign policy to the President and, because it can involve such a complex web of competing interests and bargains between a bunch of sovereign countries, it's usually best (in my opinion) to defer to his judgment. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:32 PMPerhaps we could ask AOL to remove the link; if AOL is the biggest ISP in America and this deluge represents the intellectual prowess of their subscriber base, I am no longer surprised that Kerry nearly won last lear... Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:33 PMIf I make a joke about taking AOLers off of life support because they are obviously brain-dead, would that get me hate mail? Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:35 PMSad that this once proud country has become a hate zone for anything and everything foreign. Time to put your guns down and reach out children!! Hey, if I copy my post and re-post it several times by pasting, do I get extra points? Please! Posted by: AR at February 22, 2006 08:37 PMCould be payback for the NSA conundrum he handed them. They can't really touch that, so this might be the revenge. Or the "trade-off" issue. Obviously, the deal has already been properly vetted by the forms by CFIUS and the intel agencies, so it would take an act of Congress to derail it at this point--which would be vetoed, if W can actually bring himself to recover that dried-out veto pen from whatever wastebasket it's been in the last several years. Lame ducks do have their uses for posturing politicos. They can do something, knowing it will mean nothing. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:37 PMtully go to hell i am an aol user and we are the epitome intellect so i say once again go to fucking hell Posted by: nnva at February 22, 2006 08:40 PMIf I make a joke about taking AOLers off of life support because they are obviously brain-dead, would that get me hate mail? I think the plug has already been pulled, they just apparently didn't get the memo. Posted by: AR at February 22, 2006 08:42 PMNot just no, but AOhelL No! Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:44 PMtully go to hell i am an aol user and we are the epitome intellect so i say once again go to fucking hell Everything about that post screams "intellectual" to me. I was particularly impressed with the proper use of CAPS and punctuation. I must say; however, it was the use of the truly original "go to hell" that sealed the deal for me. The guy is a genius! Simon, why would we want AOL to pull the link? This is the most fun I've had all day! Moonbats and wing-nuts on parade. Somebody pass the popcorn. Throw me something, mister! Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:46 PMOh, that stung! However shall I bear it? Some of the mail's been worse. But it seems to have quit trickling in for now, after a mere twenty-odd. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:46 PMPat, what I meant r.e. the Miers comparison (and what I take to be Joe's point) actually had to do with the way this administration handles frustration and opposition (particularly from within its own ranks, and not just from terrible RINOs like me). Bush is treating this exactly the same as it always does: pig-headed hard-charging drawbridge-raising self-belief. "Congress disagrees with me? Well, bugger Congress!" So my thought is, when is Bush going to realize that the CGOP is less and less interested in him, and more and more interested in getting re-elected. Let's have a show of hands: how many regulars here at Centerfield seriously think a Republican Congressman or Senator is so loyal to Bush that s/he's willing to lose his/her seat so that a middle-eastern company can run US ports? You think it's a higher or lower number than the number who were willing to go out on a limb for him on social security reform (stiffed) or the Miers nomination (stiffed)? Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:47 PMButter with that, Pat? I've been saying it all week, Simon. It's an election year. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:48 PMMoonbats and wing-nuts on parade.Oh, in that case, you HAVE to go and check out C-SPAN's video of a few LaRouche Youth muppets trying (and I do mean trying) to heckle a Scalia speech. It's the funniest thing (or at least, the funniest Scalia story) since Al Franken thought he could step up to the plate. Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:49 PM Scalia was awfully kind and patient. But I still say nothing in recent memory beats Tucker Carlson haplessly and hopelessly trying to make a straight man out of Jon Stewart. (You rock, Jon.) Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:52 PMBut what else should he do, Simon? If he really believes this is the right decision, he must defend it, and that obviously entails taking on his own party. Part of the problem, based on news reports today, is that the upper echelons of the administration apparently didn't really know about the decision by that committee until after it was made. So they were caught flat-footed and didn't lay the groundwork with their own party in Congress beforehand. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:52 PMRE: the Port Deal It's ALWAYS about money with this Bush crowd. They are greedy with a capital "G". They will sell their souls for gold and will most certainly bend rules, suspend comman sense, and defy the truth when it hits them in the face. Our Treasury boss Snow has more ties to that goverment than Neil Bush has defaulted SBA loans. Snow stands to make tons of money over this scam as will Neil Bush, GW Bush Senior. Let Bush veto a law to stop this sale and I predict that this dark period in America's history; this "Stay The Curse" administration, will finally be sent packing. It's a sad 8 years too late for a bunch of our bravest heroic troops however. I have had five doses of the Bush's- first, Bush the Elder, then I worked and lived in Texas under GW as gov, then two shots of GWB Jr. as President, and now live in Florida where, the gov's name is Bush! What must I have done in a previous life to be dealt such a cosmic whammy? Posted by: Reid at February 22, 2006 08:53 PMIt wasn't really noteworthy until the "I wanna be elected" crowd got ahold of it. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:54 PMI've been saying it all week, Simon. It's an election year.Right, and with social security, that was a demonstrable, serious and major problem which gets harder to fix with every passing week, as almost anyone with a thurd-grader's grasp of math understands. And yet Bush STILL couldn't get it off the ground. He couldn't get THAT off the ground, and he's going to just, what, cross his fingers that Congress will sit on its hands in light of an issue that may well yield enough bipartisan support to override his veto? Funniest yet, by the way, is Bush's threat to veto. That's right, little George is going to use his veto! The threat would carry more weight if Bush hadn't utterly failed to use his veto in over five years, even on a piece of legislation (see BCRA) he thought was unconstitutional (technically, deriliction of duty), and even on pieces of legislation he'd threatened to veto. He's the little boy who cried "veto," and I suspect Congress will start taking that threat seriously when it happens. Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:54 PMThat Carlson/Stewart moment was the best thing on television since the Bassomatic. P.S. Be sure and watch PBS later this evening. There's the first of several upcoming Monty Python specials on tonight. Each special will focus on one Python and will include some new bits as well as that Python's favorite bits. I think tonight is Cleese, and will include the Ministry of Silly Walks and the Dead Parrot. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:56 PMWhat must I have done in a previous life to be dealt such a cosmic whammy? Reid, I'm sure a few internet searches could probably help suggest ways to free you from your cosmic whammy. Okay...I've had enough amusement for the night...back to grading papers. Simon, he really hasn't threatened the veto very much either. Certainly not this clearly. There have been a few staff leaks that he's thinking maybe he will, possibly. I can't recall any veto threat this firm and direct. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:58 PM"You're on CNN. The show before me is puppets making crank phone calls." I laughed until I hurt. Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 08:59 PMThat Carlson/Stewart moment was the best thing on television since the Bassomatic. I can agree with that...lol. I'll have to look for a link later...I feel like watching it again. Posted by: AR at February 22, 2006 08:59 PMScalia was awfully kind and patient. But I still say nothing in recent memory beats Tucker Carlson haplessly and hopelessly trying to make a straight man out of Jon Stewart. (You rock, Jon.)Jon Stewart is gay?! I never knew that. Regarding the Scalia thing, I'm amused by it, but it's still frustrating that a) this sort of crap is precisely the reason it's so hard to get him onto C-SPAN in the first place, and b) (more importantly) the disruption has completely obscured the subject of the talk. The AP report scarcely mentions what the talk was about, yet whether one agrees with Scalia's view on it or not, the use of foreign law is of immense importance, and I would think that hearing what one of the premier formalists in the legal community had to say about it would be more important to these spotty LaRouche youths - most likely more bloody AOL subscribers, one has to suspect - than making an ass of themselves on CSPAN. Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 09:00 PM Monty Python's Personal Best is on now! (at least in the Central time zone) Tune to your local PBS station unless you are an AOL-based brain-dead, soulless heathen. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 09:01 PMLooks like tonight is Eric Idle, not John Cleese. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 09:02 PMBut what else should he do, Simon? If he really believes this is the right decision, he must defend it, and that obviously entails taking on his own party.That's a fair point. Regarding the veto threat, I'm fairly sure he was serious and direct about vetoing any attempt on Congress part to exercise its &Sect;8 power to "make rules concerning captures on land and water," for example, the McCain amendment. Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 09:05 PM Bush's stance is fascinating: a "pre-9/11" security attitude coupled with a "post-9/11" accountability attitude. Attitudes he worked hard to inculcate are coming back to bite him - and, as Tully notes, to illuminate the NSA issue. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 22, 2006 09:09 PMMethinks you misread me there, Alan, but hey, it's your mileage. I love it! The Greeks are going mad! Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 09:21 PMThank you for that sage advice AR. Cogent and terse....you are pithy with a capital "P". Posted by: Reid at February 22, 2006 09:43 PMIt's wrong to laugh at the jockey interview sketch, isn't it. I'm going to hell now, I'm sure. Hugh Hewitt, no friend of this deal, has an excellent interview with Rear Admiral Craig Bone of the U.S. Coast Guard. He is the director of port security in the Maritime Safety Security and Environmental Protection Directorate at US CG HQ. That is, he's one of the top men in charge of protecting our ports. As they say, read the whole thing. Even examining closely for weasel words normally used by military personnel when publicly supporting their political masters, I see little concern on his part over the security implications of this deal. He provides some good basic facts about what the real implications of this ownership would be at the grunts level. Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 09:48 PMSo many comments, so few worth reading. Some points to ponder... 1) A British firm ran these ports prior to this buyout. Both are foreign companies, but there is an inherant difference between the British and any other country on this earth. Blair was at the speech to the nation on September 14th (date may be off), the emir of UAE was not. 2) I have always been of the opinion that if it makes FOX angry, it's good for the country. 3) Bush didn't even know about this until a few days ago, and his first reaction to the criticism is to yell VETO? There has to be back-story to that. I figure congress just threatened someones payoff... 4) The PRESIDENT, not Congress set foriegn policy. It's Bush's call, not my congress-critters. What does this all mean? I don't know, but I'd rather see all this energy being put to use in Louisiana or Darfur. This seems kind of small compared to some of the stuff going on right now. Wow, one of 'em actually came back and read further comments! Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 09:52 PMMy god! I've always said you could kill 90% of humanity and only get 10% of the intelligence. I think AOL just proved that point. There is only one thing to say at this juncture: Thank you for that sage advice AR. Cogent and terse....you are pithy with a capital "P". Hey! You got the spelling right! That's awesome! Stick with it...you'll get there. Posted by: AR at February 22, 2006 10:26 PMSo by having a pitch-fit against the UAE being administratively respsonible for these ports (note the term administrative) because they are an Arab country...you'll gonna let the TSA, Highway Patrol, et al, start pulling people over and taking people aside and paying extra attention to those who look Arab? Profiling is profiling, but when the Libs don't like it, I guess it's Homeland Security. What a bunch of TV camera wannabes they are. Posted by: realrepublicancirca1854 at February 22, 2006 10:43 PMMaybe we should outsource the running of the White House also. A lot of people have lost lives or jobs by this administration's policies. Perhaps it is time that those working at the White House lose theirs also. I think the president should be hospitalized or impeached. Take your choice.
You're too nice to get hate mail, Pat, but since it's Mardi Gras season, I might throw you some beads if you flash something.... No! No, not that! ARRRRGH! But seriously, folks, W could have saved himself a lot of grief if he'd set himself down with his congressfolks and explained the situation. You know it's bad when Tom DeLay and Bill O'Reilly are both on your case for "selling out the country". (They usually only save that for Democrats.) Part of the reason that they're mad is that they only learned about this situation a couple days ago; they feel like they were blindsided by the administration. And since W is a lame duck anyway, they feel free to take him on. I wish I could have seen the Monty Python special on PBS. I'll have to check the listings. Congraulations, Mathew! You've got the record for most post comments this week! Posted by: Blue Jean at February 22, 2006 10:49 PMInteresting note: A couple of days ago a Cheney post I did also was overrun by AOL wingnuts How do we get off their Blogzone list? Posted by: Bob J Young at February 22, 2006 11:04 PMTruly, Bob, I wouldn't want to get off their list. Yeah, it's a bit distracting, but it's not like it's happened that often. And it gives us some tremendous exposure. For every whacko who does the drive-by posts, there are bound to be at least some number of slightly saner people whose opinion we may actually manage to influence. I think we should relish this sign that we are moving into the bigger leagues of blogs. If the drive-bys stay a problem, we can look at imposing registration requirements or something. Jean, the biggest sign for me that the President was in trouble was when Jimmy Carter came out on his side... P.S. The bead thing is supposed to work the other way around! Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 11:26 PMOur new (and likely onetime) visitors make the Democratic Underground regulars look like centrists. Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 22, 2006 11:51 PMJean, the biggest sign for me that the President was in trouble was when Jimmy Carter came out on his side... Well, yeah, there is that. Carter's not generally known for backing the winning political horse. But W's dwindling defenders can spin it this way; "Look! We've got a Nobel Peace Prize winner on our side!" P.S. The bead thing is supposed to work the other way around! LOL! Hey, Pat, I'm an equal opportunity bead thrower! Posted by: Blue Jean at February 23, 2006 12:03 AMThe AP is now reporting the following:
So it looks like there may have been a little quid pro quo on this deal all along. Still, the Administration should have had the sense to see dropping this without laying some groundwork was bad to be viewed poorly. Seems like Karl Rove has been off his game lately. Posted by: Scotch Drinker at February 23, 2006 12:12 AM This has to have been one of the most entertaining threads I have seen on Centerfield-- and I'm an AOL user going on ten years now! Awesome! But I think Jean's quote hits the proverbial nail on the head: But seriously, folks, W could have saved himself a lot of grief if he'd set himself down with his congressfolks and explained the situation. . . . Part of the reason that they're mad is that they only learned about this situation a couple days ago; they feel like they were blindsided by the administration. I think that's absolutely right. Most of them found out about the issue not when the decision was made, not even when it aired on the news networks, but when their constituents started flooding their offices with angry phone calls demanding to know why the President was "selling" US ports to an Arab country "affiliated" with the jihadists. Had he met with Congressional leaders ahead of time, it's possible they might have actually been informed that the US isn't "selling" anything to anyone-- a British company that has control over the "commercial operations" of a few ports has now been sold to a UAE company. Their staff might have been prepared to answer the questions calmly and accurately, and defuse the crisis. Instead, Americans are reacting precisely as Al Gore's speech suggested last week: that Americans are jingoistic, nativistic de facto racists who hate and discriminate against Arab people. (And ironically, many of the people who defended Gore's speech are leading this charge!) That's not a fair characterization of the American people, but it's definitely how much of the Arab world perceives us. I suppose it's possible that the Bush Administration itself didn't realize what a storm this would cause. And I suppose it's also possible that even if he had informed Congress, that they still would have chosen to misrepresent the issue for their political gain-- I mean, by now any Congressman who thinks that we're selling control over our port security to the UAE has to be either stupid or deliberately misrepresenting the facts. But to not even try...? Posted by: Bobby at February 23, 2006 12:43 AMI should preface this by explaining that I am an AOL user, and that my language may well insult your group's intellect. Read at you own risk. W should have given a heads-up. This would have saved him pain, Congress pain, and your blog pain. But he still prefers to use a bully stance with almost every item that gets negative attention. It's sad that a boy from Texas never learned the "more flies with honey than vinegar" adage. Virtually all of this administration's problems are due to this political tactic. I thought that his recent willingness to let the UN deal with the Iranian situation for a bit meant that he was "growing". But this looks like he's sliding back into his old habit. (just so you guys know, I'm aware of the grammatical error in that last sentence, but I couldn't disappoint and disprove your theory that determining IQ doesn't need a test, just a quick poll of your ISP). Posted by: S at February 23, 2006 02:22 AMI came to this site hoping to find people who welcome newcomers and read what they have to say. Jen, if you look back at my first post addressed to our new visitors, I think you will find a sincere welcome, combined with a very polite request that our new visitors respect our traditions of polite, calm, reasoned debate without much cursing, etc. When you have a visitor to your home, don't you expect him or her to wipe their feet on the mat before coming in? To not spit in the soup you've spent all day making? Imagine a tour bus stopped in front of your house and 40 or 50 tourists got off and barged on in, ignoring your polite requests to wipe their feet, putting their greasy hands all over your nice furniture and walls and paintings. Wouldn't you be just a little perturbed? Would you probably make some generalizations about the tour company who dropped them off, even if 3 or 4 or 5 of the tourists were actually perfectly nice people who did pay attention to the house rules? I understand your frustration at being lumped in with all those other people simply by sharing the same internet provider, and if you feel personally insulted by it, we apologize. We welcome all newcomers who come in goodwill. But to be very blunt, we do not consider comments like this: "Anyone who voted for this dim bulb President and his crooked, lieing, underhanded, string pulling Vice Pres. should be ashamed of them self!!!!! to have been made in goodwill by a person seeking a community of discussion. Certainly we are all aware that not all AOL users act the same as some of the worst examples of knee-jerk reactionism we've seen on this thread so far. The comment from S just above yours is a fine comment, and we would be delighted if the two of you stuck around. Understand that we've worked very hard here, quite a number of us, to learn to debate each other without resorting to partisan knee-jerking, mindless profanity, ad hominem attacks, etc. Posted by: PatHMV at February 23, 2006 08:35 AMS, your last comment stands in marked contrast to your first, which began "I cannot believe Bush's insanity" and concluded "What a moroon", with a middle filled with suggestions such as "I thought that Buch would end social programs, etc.". This is a partisan attack on President Bush, not a reasoned argument against this particular policy. There is no way for someone who disagrees with you to respond to that other than something on the order of "oh, yeah? So's your mama!" Your last comment is both calmer and more focused. As I disagree with it, I can calmly point out that perhaps Congressmen, even when not given a "heads-up" should be mature and patient enough to ask about the facts before ranting about it and saying things like "Hell no". I would also point out that the deal is either good or bad independent of hurt feelings by members of Congress or the public. Yes, one catches more flies with honey, but I, at least, would prefer that our Congressmen be thoughtful enough to vote for things on their merits, not their personal taste for honey or vinegar. But then, I'm an eternal optimist. Posted by: PatHMV at February 23, 2006 08:45 AMGee, Jen, did you go upstream and read what those sweet and considerate newcomers had to say? What Pat said. This is an open forum for rational discussion, not an angst dump. No, we don't generally "welcome" people who drop by to use the threads as emotional port-a-potties. If that's the AOL definition of "goodwill," remind me to avoid the higher forms of proper AOL decorum and neighborliness. They might not wash out. Bobby, since I defended Gore, and you just admitted he was right, I'm in good shape, right? :-) Especially since I've declined to issue any uninformed screeds and have said that there's no proof yet that we nned to be especially concerned about this. Let me echo Pat in saying that all AOL visitors who wish to engage in thoughful discussion are welcome to stay. And I also agree that we can handle the pain of the static if it means we get more thoughtful visitors along with them. Personally, I find the most thoughtless kneejerk reactions amusing, since the only other alternative is despair over people's propensity to get scared and immediately form a negative opinion without bothering to examine the relevant factual details. Or notice when media coverage such as what we've seen so far largely fails to provide these relevant factual details. I feel the likelihood that these relevant factual details will gain center stage seems especially low right now. We're witnessing a very widespread visceral fear response on the part of most people. The simple one or two sentence description of this story, devoid of details, has apparently frightened and appalled at least 9 out of 10 americans (if unscientific web news polls are any judge, and I think they are relatively on target.) So what we have right now is a public opinion held by an overwhelming majority of Americans, and that opinion is NOT founded on rational examination of the issue in any detail. It's based on a visceral response of FEAR, fear that many of our major ports are going to be completely controlled by foreign muslims and indeed a foreign muslim government. Are we going to be able to talk the cats out of the trees? I kinda doubt it. I expect that this deal ends up being substantially revised or even scuttled. The bare minimum is that the government will end up paying a bunch more people to stand around and watch other people. This will be done so that those most afraid can go back to pretending that such measures keep us safe. Even though all they really do is make us maybe a tiny bit safer, but still wide open to attacks from clever, stealthy, well-organized, determined terrorists, should such groups happen to actually exist in any substantial numbers here in the U.S. IMO, it's a simple fact of American life that we are far too vast and far too open a country for us to be able to prevent a determined and creative lunatic or band of lunatics from finding some way to wreak havoc in the dead of the night. No one wants to face THAT though. That's kooky talk. Posted by: bk at February 23, 2006 09:36 AMGetting back to the original issue. While a bit simplistic, I do not have a problem with Rep Myrick's letter. Not being protectionist, there are certain functions that I think need to be in control of US companies. The fact that part of the agreement allows Dubia Port World to keep documents pertaining to their operations out of the US and away from US investigations is severely troublesome to me. I have problem with Non-US entities period. It has been a long time concern for me. The fact that Dubia Port World is a UAE government owned and operated, a country who has had close ties to Bin Laden, is a bigger concern for me security wise then any threat that Iraq may have been. The President has too cozy a relationship with the Middle Eastern regiems for my liking. I do not trust any middle eastern country in an area that could relate to our security. I don't trust China either. As I said before, my pure feeling is that ports are US operated. Is it discrimination against Arab countries, hell yes. I just feel that the whole area is heading for a major change and not a good one. For the saftey of this country, we must start insulating ourselves from this region. US port security is a no-brainer for me. That is why I agree with Hell no! Posted by: Jim M at February 23, 2006 10:12 AMI should add, I know they have nothing to do directly with port security. However, owning and operating the operation allows a better knowledge of where weaknesses in existing security operations are. This is where I see the danger. Controlling the shipping operations makes smuggling easier to hide from authorities. Will they do it, I do not know. I worry more about our "friends" in the "war on terror" then our enemies these days. I know where the enemies stand. I do not know how committed our "friends" are. Posted by: Jim M at February 23, 2006 10:24 AMWhat I find funniest about this is that the AOLers who are most upset about the ports thing are implicitly endorsing the proposition that this site should ban anyone with an AOL-originating IP address. Posted by: Joshua at February 23, 2006 10:50 AMRight. LMAO. We can't compromise our blog security and integrity by allowing posts by anyone who might be ignorant or intemperate. The safest thing to do is just assume the worst about each and every one of them, and ban them from the site. ROTFL. Posted by: bk at February 23, 2006 11:11 AMAnybody else notice that AOL and UAE are both 3-letter acronyms? Hmmm... We must impeach that idiot Mathew for opening this thread for comments and allowing it to be taken over by those AOL-devils! Who does he think he is, a King? As Bugs Bunny said, "what a moroon!" What did he know about this AOL link, and when did he know it? Doesn't he know that the people on the ground don't want this? DICK Cheney must be pulling his strings. We now return to our regularly scheduled ravings. And remember: i am an aol user and we are the epitome intellect so i say once again go to fucking hellPosted by: PatHMV at February 23, 2006 11:28 AM Wowweee!! I saw 110 comments when I got here and thought something must be wrong. I don't go to too many blogs, really only three, including this one. I never knew how good the blogs I visited were until I saw the barrage of mindless comments, which I assume are typical of the bad blogs out there. Why bother posting such drivel? I don't get it. Posted by: WHQ at February 23, 2006 11:36 AMBrian, Very funny. I'm not admitting that Gore was right, at all. I just must not have articulated myself clearly. I still think his decision to state that America had "indiscriminately" rounded up Arabs and was guilty of horrific abuses was an gross exaggeration and very misleading. And I personally found it offensive. However, what the Arab world took out of that was "proof" that Americans are indeed bigoted racists and discriminatory against the Arab people-- here was Gore telling them what they more or less had always wanted to believe, anyway. And when you couple that with the knee-jerk reaction against allowing a UAE company to run commercial operations in our ports, it's not hard for this to serve as a confirmation in their mind that we indeed are behaving precisely as Gore stated and they believe. But, again, that does not mean I think Gore is right. Far from it, as a matter of fact. Posted by: Bobby at February 23, 2006 11:53 AMWHQ--we got linked by an AOL news page, which led to an avalanche of drive-by rants (and a few more thoughtful readers). Those worth reading will be back, the drive-bys have already dumped their loads. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 12:36 PMTully, when I wrote "I don't get it" I was referring to the motivation for posting the kind of mindless rants that showed up today. I picked up the AOL thing from the comments. I just don't see what anyone could get out of typing "Bush is an idiot!" after someone else just typed "Bush is a MORON!", which of course followed "I HATE Bush!" I kind of think he is an idiot, but if I were to put my opinion of him in writing, I would try to go into a little more detail in an effort to engage in a worthwhile discussion. Imagine phone sex involving two people saying "I like sex" to each other over and over again. Posted by: WHQ at February 23, 2006 12:49 PMThis is horrible. These letters reflect the worst impulses in America--and they seem to blur any distinction between right and left. It's just mindless stupidity. Posted by: Marc at February 23, 2006 01:13 PMBobby, I was mostly just kidding. And I agree with you that the knee-jerk reactions of some Americans to Portgate suggest that we are far from xenophobia-free, but that even still, there's "Dubai running our ports scares us witless" xenophobia, and then there's "kill the infidels" zenophobia. It's an important substantive difference, IMO. Posted by: bk at February 23, 2006 01:22 PMAfter painfully reading these posts from other members of the voting (and breeding) public...I can see how much work Centrist are truly facing. Posted by: tce71 at February 23, 2006 01:25 PMImagine phone sex involving two people saying "I like sex" to each other over and over again. Now I have to go see the doctor to have my ears numbed. A least it wasn't a visual.... The drive-by rant is the internet equivalent of spray-paint grafitti. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 01:29 PMBrian, even still, there's "Dubai running our ports scares us witless" xenophobia, and then there's "kill the infidels" zenophobia. It's an important substantive difference, IMO. That's exactly right. And no matter how badly the xenophobes are making us look on this issue-- and reflexively opposing something on mistaken grounds simply because of the nationality in question is bad-- it's still a far cry from "indiscriminately" rounding up Arabs and abusing them... which is what Gore said we were doing. Posted by: Bobby at February 23, 2006 02:20 PMBobby, I'll stick by my contention that its quite common for people to say "indiscriminately" when what they actually mean is "less discriminately than I believe to be appropriate by my standards." Indeed, as I thought about it more, I think it may well be the predominant usage. Spend a little time mulling that over, and see if you don't find people saying it when what they mean is that "these standards are not high enough for my sensibilities..." After all, the alternative is to think that Al Gore really believes that its possible to "indiscriminately discriminate," as it were. We both know that's not possible. So I continue to think that the criticism can only be reasonably interpreted to mean that Al Gore thinks we've been less sensitive than we should have been in prioritizing security. But we can agree to disagree, I've no need or desire to re-fight. I don't think Gore cited many good examples of grossly indiscriminate practices, and like I said before, I think he was primarily @ss-kissing the audience, no more. Oh, and I've previously conceded that Gore is a (starts with a P and ends with a -UD). That HAS to count for something Bobby, doesn't it? :-) Posted by: bk at February 23, 2006 03:15 PMThere you go again AR, AKA Mr. Spellcheck. You keep it up and your going to pith me off. Posted by: Reid at February 23, 2006 06:58 PMCool! An indication of wit! Gee, Reid, if you only knew what we've gone through in three years to promote intelligent and rational examination of issues around here...wing rant we can get anywhere. You don't score a hat trick on this site until you manage to get accused of shilling for both sides with the same post. When all you did was detail the known facts. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 08:16 PMMaybe I was venting Tully? I can and will discuss both sides of most issues and will even change my mind now and then. Tell AR that I really can spell the word "common". Honest. I will try and do a better job of proofing my posts in the future. I have never been in this place before but I do enjoy thoughtful debate and discussion so how about a learners permit? As for politics, the ex Gov of Virginia, Warner, seems like my kind of leader. Would you consider him to be in the center? Posted by: Reid at February 23, 2006 08:55 PMI have never been in this place before but I do enjoy thoughtful debate and discussion so how about a learners permit? You may be in just the right place. Poke around and read some. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2006 10:03 PMYeah. Tully can you get Reid a red cap and a speedo? [you'll only get that if you saw Steve Zissou and the Life Aquatic] Posted by: bk at February 24, 2006 10:31 AMPlease, no Speedo. I work on South Beach now and then and have seen way too many on men who should know better. By the way, they often call me Speedo, but my real name is Mister Earl. (you'll only get that if you have heard of the Cadillacs) No Speedos! Once you've seen Ted Kennedy in a Speedo, you never want to see another one.... I liked Life Aquatic. Odd film, dragged in spots, really coulda benefitted from some tighter editing. But I liked it. Quirky and inside, kind of a fictional character study of Murray himself. By himself. Posted by: Tully at February 26, 2006 11:39 AMNo Speedos! Once you've seen Ted Kennedy in a Speedo, you never want to see another one.... I liked Life Aquatic. Odd film, dragged in spots, really coulda benefitted from some tighter editing. But I liked it. Quirky and inside, kind of a fictional character study of Murray himself. By himself. Posted by: Tully at February 26, 2006 11:40 AMKarlik4 Posted by: Karlik1 at March 7, 2006 04:50 AM |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
