By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.

Frist, R-Tenn., spoke as other lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., and Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said they would offer emergency legislation next week to block the deal ahead of a planned March 2 takeover.

Frist's move comes a day after two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.

"Ensuring the security of New York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World," Pataki said in a statement. "I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them."

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was "very troubled" that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab company's takeover of the operations at the six ports.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The arrangement brought protests from both political parties in Congress and a lawsuit in Florida from a company affected by the takeover.

Public fears that the nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's takeover of six major ports, proved a combustible mix.

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was "unbelievably tone deaf politically." GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said on ABC's "This Week," "It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it."

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.

At least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. H said details of those agreements were secret.

During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a "very extensive process" for reviewing such transactions that "takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security."

------------------------------------

Yet another in a long line of stupid and/or incompetant moves by our president. He is so ineffective and divisive, that he is now almost regularly angering even his staunchest supporters with foolish and heavy-handed decisions. Maybe I'm just being irrational here, but the fact that he thinks this is a good idea makes me mistrust his judgement even further, and I didn't think that was possible. For a man who basically got himself re-elected on the platform of protecting national security to not understand and/or care how bad this could be for our security is frightening, to say the least. I hope that he can see the light now that his own party is so against this. Add this to Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, CIA Leak, NSA Spying, Pre-War intelligence skewing, ridiculous failed Social Security plan, etc., etc. and you get a very clear and frightening pattern of bad decision making. If recognizing this pattern is irrational, than I hope to never regain my wits and start thinking clearly.

This one will be stopped in its tracks, I believe. Bush is only human. He can't be right all the time. He will be overruled on this one, I've no doubt.

I've been surprised that anyone from the left would consider an Arab state as a possible threat. Seems a case of profiling to me, but I'll be glad when this issue is put to rest, as I'm confident it will be.

But not all left-leaners fear Bush's latest "transgression." Proving again that politics make strange bedfellows, here is Jimmy Carter chiming in to agree with Bush. That's right. I said, JIMMY CARTER, FOMM.* That guy! Maybe he's stupid, ineffectual, divisive, incompetent, dumb, idiotic, irrantional, foolish and heavy-handed too. Nahhhhhh.

Former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk:

'The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.' 

The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company.

Susan

* Friend Of Michael Moore

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

http://www.2000revue.com/community/topic.cfm?topicid=472

Stupid move on Bush's part - much like the Miers nomination. And as happened with Miers, real conservatives will stand up and yell about it, and the media will report about how there's a "problem" with the Republican party. Yadayadayada.

The current folks running our ports is a British company. Frnakly, I'm surprised that we don't have an American company running our ports. That would be seem to be better in the long run - forgetting national security for a moment. Too bad Halliburton isn't in that business - could be one more for your list, Dave.

But for those who find profiling to be a terrible thing, it is somewhat confusing. I guess profiling is okay if it's a business? After this maybe we should revisit the issue of profiling at the airports in the name of national security since the left has now agreed that it's okay to do profile businesses from the ME.

Jordan .

A preemptive guess, Jordan, but just a guess. I still have a handful of residual leftie nodules since my transformation, and here's what they're intimating as the real reason:

We aren't profiling. We're just saying NO foreign country should have control of our ports. Plus, you know, what about the dock workers unions? Our distrust of Bush's latest dopey move has NOTHING to do with the fact that these guys are from an Arab country and we'd still be equally angry PASSIONATE if it were France, Germany or even Canada.

Sound reasonable?

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I really do not understand why such backhanded comments are necessary. Lefties are not collectively all idiots, as this comment suggests. Only an idiot would fail to recognize that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks against the U.S. have originated in Arab nations. No one is debating this known fact. How long have I and others been harping on the threat from Iran? Are we anyone on the left? Last time I checked, we are, and Iran is an Arab nation. Snotty comments such as this are meant to infer something else, and very much harken back to the ignorant and ridiculous claims that after 9/11 the democrats wanted to "give therapy" to the terrorists, when in fact the Dems were just as supportive of Bush starting the war as the Reps, given the one-sided picture that was intentionally painted for us all. I am tired of this overworn and inaccurate stereotyping of lefties, and I am no longer going to stand for it. Susan, I think that most lefties understand that profiling is a necessary evil that we must keep in our toolbox, while executing it's benefits with extreme caution and precision. I am for profiling in it's correct forms, and it can be a very slippery slope so it must be reviewed extensively. Being wary of profiling and wanting to keep a vigilant eye on it's uses is no more than having a healthy respect for the balance between civil liberties and national security, a balance we must retain as a healthy and free nation. You cannot make the leap in logic from this healthy and wary caution to alluding to a belief that lefties can't recognize the danger of the extreme elements prevalent in Arab nations without losing alot of credibility, IMO. Believe me, we DO recognize this danger, we would just like to be more RESPONSIBLE in what we do about it. Again, we do not say do nothing, we say do BETTER. It weakens the defense of profiling when it is applied too vigorously, and is seen to be too often missing it's mark. Granted, mistakes will be made as in any other endeavor, but profiling is one tool in particular that must be kept razor sharp, and that is all that we on the left have been saying. Hauling out the lazy stereotypes and generalizations will get us nowhere but ever more divided.

 Not sure why you take "leftist" to mean you, Dave, when you've repeatedly asserted you are not a leftist.  I'm making a generalization, which is a horse of a different color from stereotyping. 

Generalization = It's usually dry during Southern California summers.

Stereotype = Southern Californians are name-dropping shallow wannabees. 

Iran is NOT an Arab nation.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

For those that are confused about the whole Iran is not an Arab Nation thing, here's an article that might help.

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Meanwhile in a related article, those on the other side of the world are suggesting that Americans are bigots for opposing this simply because the UAE is a ME country, and not for security reasons - From Reuters:

Arab Americans see bigotry behind ports uproar
Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:14 PM ET

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arab-Americans contended on Tuesday that bias and bigotry, not security concerns, lay behind the uproar over a deal that would place commercial operations at six U.S. ports in the hands of an Arab company.

The furor centers around the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World, owned by one of the United Arab Emirates, of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. P&O had been running operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia.

Citing what they say are fears of lax security, politicians from both parties called on President George W. Bush to cancel the deal and several began drafting legislation to block it. The issue was also increasingly being aired on conservative talk radio stations and in Internet blogs.

"I find some of the rhetoric being used against this deal shameful and irresponsible. There is bigotry coming out here," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

He said politicians were exploiting fears left over from September 11 to gain advantage in a congressional election year.

"Bush is vulnerable so the Democrats jump on it. The Republicans feel vulnerable so they jump on it. The slogan is, if it's Arab, it's bad. Hammer away," Zogby said.

According to some industry analysts, the change in management would have no real effect on security, which would still be carried out by American workers to international standards. The UAE, whose government owns Dubai Ports World, is an international financial hub and close U.S. ally.

"The Emirates have been very pro-active partners in helping our security. They have a solid track record of cooperation," said Peter Tirschwell, publisher of the Journal of Commerce.

Rabiah Ahmed of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said members of her organization also believed anti-Arab bigotry was driving the debate.

"The perception in the Arab-American community is that this is related to anti-Arab sentiment," she said.

Despite the UAE's close ties to the United States, some critics say lax controls allowed some of the September 11 hijackers to exploit its banking sector to transfer funds to support the attacks. Others have suggested its commercial links with Iran are a cause for worry.

"It is obviously an emotional, political and security issue, but I don't see xenophobia involved in this," said Peter Brookes of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

CHINESE PRECEDENT

The opposition was reminiscent of a similar controversy last year when China National Offshore Oil Company Ltd. tried to purchase Unocal, a U.S. oil services company. The Chinese company ultimately withdrew its offer in the face of fierce political opposition.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham said Americans were not against foreign acquisitions as such but were suspicious when they involved security infrastructure.

"Americans right now want free trade, but when it comes to national security issues, we want to maintain the infrastructure ourselves," he told Fox News Sunday.

"I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," he said.

Daniel Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute said opposition to the Emirates acquisition had more merit than the opposition to the Chinese energy bid.

"Here, there are legitimate questions of port security. Experts have long warned us that U.S. ports could be an entry point for weapons of mass destruction and we can only search one container in every 20 that come in," he said.

But Griswold conceded anti-Arab feelings were also playing a role. "It's obviously part of the mix and there's also some misunderstanding and a lot of political grandstanding going on," he said.

Jordan .

Well, according to Drudge, Bush seems to be holding strong, suggesting that he would veto any legislation that would thwart this deal. His argument published is quite simple - we shouldn't hold ME businesses to a different standard. And in principle I agree with him. In reality, I disagree. A deal like this does suggest that the US is willing to treat other countries fairly, even if their people may support Bin Laden by great lengths.

People can spin this as another example of Bush's ineptness or stupidity, which is fine if yous want to go that route, but there's something else here that I think is important - unlike what has been generalized and suggested for years, the GOP is NOT in lock-step with the administration in all aspects, and have absolutely no problem criticiznig the administration in public when they think Bush's plan is stupid. True blind partisanship is going with someone even with their plan is stupid. I think the Republican base has proven itself at least twice in the past six months that we are not blind when it comes to this administration, as has often been charactereized.  

Jordan .

Haha, it's all James Zogby, isn't it!

Okay, back on topic. Stereotyping versus Generalizing. Yes. Let us lay this to rest (sure!!!!) right now. Otherwise, I may need to begin commenting on stereotyping in the future, which, I assure you, will be a colossal bore.

While Googling "Leftist Views on Profiling," I could not find anything that disputes my claim that the left is GENERALLY SPEAKING anti-profiling and this from such websites as Daily Kos, the Leftist Bible, nor from Ralph "Greenie" Nader's comments. In fact I found it to be easily identifiable as a cause celebre among the GENERAL left.

IF a leftist claims he's for a bit of profiling, here and there, if said leftist finds it to his/her liking, that doesn't disprove the generalization about leftists being anti-profiling.

I mean let's be real.

If I had said "Leftists just love terrorists", that would be a stereotype. It wouldn't be useful. It wouldn't be true. But "Leftists are against racial profiling" is a pretty good statement of fact even if it's not 100%, and I'm sticking with it until such time as the tide turns, which it may should Cartoon Wars come to our shores. Until then, it's generally factual to my way of thinking.

In the same way that saying "Church-going Christians who live in the South are GENERALLY Republicans" is not 100% true but is pretty damn accurate. Some random leftist Southern Baptist in Alabama might get upset by such a generalization, but he shouldn't. It's a generalization and it's generally true.

Most suicide bombers are Muslims. = Generalization
Muslims are suicide bombers. = Stereotype

Most Republicans are anti-abortion. = Generalization, but hey.  I"m a pro-choice Republican.  Do I mind the generalization?  No.  It's true.  Who can mind the truth.

Democrats are pro-abortion. = Stereotype and distortion of the truth. 

Guess the main distinction is a stereotype implies ALL and a generalization implies MOST.

Phew. Am I making any headway here?

While Googling, I found this article from the New Yorker which is pretty long but pretty good.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060206fa_fact

It's about what Pit bulls can teach us about profiling. Here's a quick blurb:

Another word for generalization, though, is “stereotype,” and stereotypes are usually not considered desirable dimensions of our decision-making lives. The process of moving from the specific to the general is both necessary and perilous. A doctor could, with some statistical support, generalize about men of a certain age and weight. But what if generalizing from other traits—such as high blood pressure, family history, and smoking—saved more lives? Behind each generalization is a choice of what factors to leave in and what factors to leave out, and those choices can prove surprisingly complicated. After the attack on Jayden Clairoux, the Ontario government chose to make a generalization about pit bulls. But it could also have chosen to generalize about powerful dogs, or about the kinds of people who own powerful dogs, or about small children, or about back-yard fences—or, indeed, about any number of other things to do with dogs and people and places.

A good point of departure for making such important distinctions and hopefully to avoid any future prickly reactions when I generalize.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I had a dream. I had a dream we wouldn't have to react with such -- ah, to risk stereotyping leftists everywhere -- progressive outrage venom passion, I mean. Here's my comment that so offended upset aroused your passion, Dave.  Just as a recap:

"I've been surprised that anyone from the left would consider an Arab state as a possible threat. Seems a case of profiling to me, but I'll be glad when this issue is put to rest, as I'm confident it will be."

Seems I'm a lot funnier to me than you ever seem to find me. That was funny! It's even funny to "profile" an entire country.

(Now here's the part where I overexplain what I thought was already clear and then you can retort and tell me what I really mean and how obvious it is and then suggest how I might better "defend" myself. Sigh...)

That comment was funny because of the basic truth contained.  Now the humor part comes with SURPRISED and ANYONE. How would it have read if I had written:

"I've been surprised that anyone from the left, outside of wowBOBwow and maybe some other prominent members of the left, would consider an Arab state as a possible threat."

You know it was a glib aside, which I followed up by saying I didn't take too seriously because too many from both sides are against it.  My comment was like something from a Boondocks cartoon when they say, "What day is today?" "Tuesday. Why?" "Just wondering if Dick Cheney has shot anyone today." See that's funny. Dick Cheney doesn't shoot somebody every day. But it's exaggeration for the sake of humor based on the general truth of him having shot someone last week.

And NO it wouldn't surprise me that, as part of the human race, a leftie or two disagree with other leftists. It could be part of what makes the left so fractious these days.  

You may not have heard anyone prominent on the left say "there's no threat to all of us from any Arab nation." Neither did I present that premise. They may feel there is a threat of some smaller dimension from any given Arab nation but it's most likely Bush who they fear and view as a threat. That is my point. And if they do feel a threat from any given Muslim-Arab state, they are also more likely to blame the threat on Bush for starting it with Iraq. So, I see the left has thinking more along the lines of "BUSH is a bigger threat than Arab-Muslim terrorists." Do you disagree with that last statement?

"Bush and Cheney are the TRUE terrorists," which I take to mean that whoever Bush and Cheney claim are the terrorists are actually not the primary threat. After all, there's PNAC, and wiretapping and getting Muslims all inflamed over our support of Israel, our abuses at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the sort of commentary regularly bleated from the left through Michael Moore to Howard Dean to Cindy "mother" Sheehan to Arianna Huffington to Daily Kos to Crooks and Liars and other quaint passionate websites. I'm glad you don't subscribe 100% to that philosophy but check 'em out yourself. I already read those sites every day. I'm not going to select a few pages of quotes for you to ignore. Look yourself. It's prevalent.

Thanks for keeping us updated on your thoughts about Bush though.

In any case, I don't think it's going to be necessary to react too strongly to the port situation because I doubt that's going to happen. If it does, I'm there with you disagreeing with the idea.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm actually against the democrats and with Bush on this issue.

I've been mainly absent from this board lately and the gulf that is here saddens me when I do check up on it.  Good luck wowbobwow, sorry to leave you on your own.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

You must be a blast over Thanksgiving toikey. Okay, so Auntie and I have the same proclivities. Betcha she would've caught the humor just fine. Well, I have a nephew who...

I said the one comment was said in a flippant fashion BUT that I also believe the essence of the statement is true. You don't think it's funny. Or true. Fine. I think I got that. If you want to single out everything I say that doesn't make you smile -- I'm actually losing track as to what this all about anymore -- fine again. Do it. Feels a little like a waste of time. But okay.

You'd have to admit, it seems that I do all the addressing of any concerns/questions/comments you address to me, while my points and questions, unless they pertain to what you want to discuss, are just left hanging.

Is it a case of Dave "calls them as he sees them" because he's got the inside edge on the truth; whereas Susan "calling them as she sees them" is an offense to the collective left, which Dave, in all good conscience, needs to defend? I mean veely...

You know, the Pew study on who's happier -- Dems or Reps; Conservatives or Liberals -- came out again last week and guess what? Republicans and Conservatives are happier. It doesn't matter their respective economic status or the election cycle either. George Will was asked about it on ABC Sunday. He said he thought the reason was that Conservatives are naturally pessimistic. They expect things to go poorly so, when they do, they're not surprised and they're not crestfallen or hysterical about "How could this be?!?!" Maybe as a leftie, optimism gets in the way of a hearty belly laugh over the life's absurdities. I am serious. Please don't jump all over me. I'm thinking out loud, as it were.

Susan

PS Wow, talk about strange bedfellows -- Bush, Carter and Danwhy all weighing in in favor of the Dubai port deal. Surprising. This is the latest. Bush hanging tough.

Bush called reporters at about 2.30 ET aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=
7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-21-16-26-11

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Not so fast Danwhy. You get back here !

Seriously, you and your sense of humor help close the gulf as it were. JVSCant  too.  I like your style going against the grain on the ports issue D.

Dave, you don't have a problem calling people out when you think they are out of bounds, so with respect, I am calling you out because I've seen you do what you've just done in this thread time and time again. You've done with it with me. You've done it with Kelly, and now here.

Someone says something, and you don't like the use of a phrase or a single word (like regurgitation) and then you suddenly seem to get feel totally insulted by the use of a word or phrase. You tell us what we REALLY meant (as if you can read minds) when in fact that may or may not be the case. I know in the times you've done it with me, you were always off base. I know when you did it with Kelly (the "you people" comment) you were again totally off based (and then later proved Kelly's overall point), and now once again, you impose what you want Susan's post to mean when in fact it may never have been written as that.

You can second guess and think that Bush or Rummy is lying all day long, but when any of us here try and respond to you in full when you get "insulted" and then you refuse to accept our reasoning, instead simply throwing it off as something else entirely, not only is it insulting, but you are implying that we are either a) liars, or b) hypocrites, and frankly, Dave, I'm tired of anyone here having to explain themselves to you because you feel insulted by a word or phrase.

There's nothing I can do about it, but I'm going to start calling you on it. Because when you do not accept our comment at face-value it devalues any debate or discussion and puts the discussion into something that is pretty much useless.

I personally strive hard to take all comments in black and white at face value, and never read between the lines. I've run this place for about a decade and I know that the majority of our problems have always been with people reading between the lines instead of taking words at face value. I would strongly encourage you to start taking our comments at face value. YOu don't have to but unless you do, I know I will stop responding to you entirely because I know it's useless to even have a simple discussion because it will only lead to "what will Dave say if I use the wrong word?" When you have to get to the point of finely selecting words so as not to insult you (or someone else) then the whole point of discussion has lost its "fun."

I am in no way angry or upset, but I am seeing an ongoing problem that I am going to mention publicly because this has happened time and time again. I am not speaking as an admin but as a member of this board who has experienced this with you a couple of times.

Take this however you like - read between the lines if you must. I am not trying to censor you or even change you. I am only asking that you accept the words on the screen at face value rather than what you want them to say.

Danwhy - I've noticed you've been gone as of late. Frankly, I don't think the gulf is as wide as we think. I mean, when Bush and Carter can agree on a subject, the gulf isn't as big as we think. So, why do you agree with Bush here?

Jordan .

Double post - but it is the next mornging.  But I found this interesting editorial which sheds a new light (dareisay spotlight) on profiling with this new development. Susan, I think Malkin (a conservative) agrees with you:

They Are All Profilers Now
By Michelle Malkin

For the past several years, I've been condemned as an "extremist" for advocating nationality profiling -- unapologetically applying stricter scrutiny to terror-sponsoring and terror-sympathizing countries in our entrance, immigration and security policies.

Now, mirabile dictu, some of the same Democrats who have routinely lambasted such profiling are rushing to the floors of Congress and in front of TV cameras espousing these very same policies. The impetus: the White House's boneheaded insistence on ramming through a $7 billion deal giving United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over significant operations at six major American ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

Make no mistake. I stand with critics on both sides of the aisle who want to stop the secretive deal transferring operations of our ports to the UAE -- a Middle Eastern government with a spotty record of fighting terrorist plots and terrorist financing. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

From every angle -- political, safety and sovereignty-wise -- Dubai Ports World's business transaction (made possible by an unprecedented $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" that upholds sharia law) looks bad and smells worse.

But there is a teachable moment here that shouldn't be missed. The tone-deafness of the White House is bad. The craven political opportunism of the Democrats is worse.

Listen to Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat: "I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected. And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm."

And Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat: "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

And Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat: "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments." (Jordan's Note - Hillary wrong twice in one quote - it was already run by a British company so there goes the hands of foreign govts, and this has nothing to do with selling ports - if you are going to criticize, at least get your facts straight)

And Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, who said the Dubai company's involvement "is enough to raise a flag -- at least to do a thorough review, at minimum."

I wish these politicians luck in their quest to block the UAE transfer, shed light on the process led by the shadowy Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and join with congressional Republicans to put American security interests first. But as they attempt to do their best Pat Buchanan impressions, let's not forget:

It was Democrats who tried to block Bush administration efforts to impose common-sense citizenship requirements on airport security workers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

It was Democrats who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations; temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.

It was Democrats who secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System -- the Justice Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country.

And just one week ago, it was failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore who was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, attacking the Bush administration's profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal aliens from terror-friendly countries as "terrible abuses."

Perhaps the UAE will be hiring Gore to condemn the "abusive" practices now being championed by his fire-breathing extremist Democrat colleagues?

After all, they are all red flag-raising, threshold-hiking, thorough review-espousing, foreign ownership-banning profilers now.

Jordan .

Thanks for your comments, and I can appreciate your position, but forgive me if I have a hard time seeing you as impartial on this subject. I feel that many times here when I speak my mind and pull no punches, I get a team of conservatives ganging up and shouting me down. I like all you guys, it's just that I feel that Susan in particular has a very irritating and flippant way of dismissing views that she doesn't share, and it pisses me off, and I'm tired of lefties being routinely characterized as being soft in the head. I do not attack conservatives as a whole, I judge then individually, but I swear Susan forms her opinions on ALL lefties based solely on the worst of our bumper stickers. What about Susan saying that dislike for Bush is irrational? That's just willfully failing to recognize very legitimate grievances that even his staunchest supporters have to acknowledge are formed from rational opinions on real tangible issues. I welcome you keeping me in check if you see fit to do so, but it's hard to feel like there is impartiality when four of you at once come at me, and your characterizations of past events I do not agree with. Since you want to dredge it up, that "you people" comment WAS very insulting, and really couldn't be taken any other way. If I was having a discusssion with you and referred to conservatives dismissively as "you people" within the context of vehement disagreement, you're telling me you wouldn't find that a little unnecessary and insulting? Give me a break. I don't know why the conservative around here often feel the need to constantly reinforce each other, but it sends a message that I think discourages lefties to speak up at times. Take that for what you will, but I assure that I am not alone in this perception. Granted, this could be quite unintentional, and my first impulse is to feel that it is, but it makes myself and others wonder all the same. Anyway, I am sorry if I've upset anyone, but I retract nothing and still feel the exact same way about Susan's treating lefties as stupid children that don't know what's good for them. You know, I disagree with most political views that you and Susan and other conservatives hold, but I do respect them as rationally formed sensible opinions, even if I strongly disagree. I have respect for the intellect and insight that brought you to those conclusions, because I believe that political affiliation is no measure of intellect or rationality. Susan seems to feel that if you don't like Bush, there is something wrong with your reasoning, and I feel that this is unfair, and conversely I do not fault a persons intellect or decision making if they like Bush. Take note that I do not play with stereotypes and generalization, and am willing to take the time to listen and understand the other side from individuals. I see not much of this in Susan, and it irritates me. How she makes me feel may be unpleasant for you, but I'm not going to lie or diminish my opinions to make you happy. So, in conclusion, I again welcome your opinions, but try to forgive me if I seem a little suspicious at times, as I feel that certain loose alliances tend to influence things a bit, especially in the area of politics. We live in a very politically divided and touchy climate in this country these days, and it affects all apsects of life, this board included. One thing I promise you is that I will always listen to your views, and try hard to take them to heart. I am sorry again if I've upset anyone truly, but these are upsetting times we are going through. I know it can get frustrating when your president is being so constantly attacked, and here I am this harping angry guy who won't let up with posting very negative articles about the administration, but I truly feel that they are crooked, and they get alot of in my view unwarranted favorable lip service around here, and I want to help keep a balance that reflects the entire spectrum of opinion on this administration.

Quote by wowBOBwow:

I welcome you keeping me in check if you see fit to do so, but it's hard to feel like there is impartiality when four of you at once come at me, and your characterizations of past events I do not agree with.

First and foremost, DO NOT put me in this category. Ever since you ripped me a new one from the you people comment, I stayed away from this thread, and will continue to do so, but because I don't want Jordan accused of just "sticking up for his woman" I feel it necessary to respond myself.

Quote by wowBOBwow:

Since you want to dredge it up, that "you people" comment WAS very insulting, and really couldn't be taken any other way. If I was having a discusssion with you and referred to conservatives dismissively as "you people" within the context of vehement disagreement, you're telling me you wouldn't find that a little unnecessary and insulting?

 
I will answer this question first. NO, I WOULDN'T, because frankly I have thick enough skin to realize that you (and it is in the singular, since you are talking about you saying it) aren't singling out one person and thinking we're the devil. But you know what, that's ok. You go on thinking that I really wouldn't take it as insulting.

I remember saying the same thing to you about you being in Iraq and you hearing all the negative rather than the good, and you ripped me yet another hole becuase you said I shouldn't assume would you would do. Well you know what? It's the same thing here. Don't assume that you know me and what I think.

I've said my peace and I'm off to other parts of this board where people know me for me rather than assuming that I stand for something else.

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

The ever irritating,

Susan (the girl can't help it)

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Again, Dave, even in your reply, you are imposing certain ideas in my post taht were not there.

You said: "How she makes me feel may be unpleasant for you, but I'm not going to lie or diminish my opinions to make you happy."

I never asked you to lie or diminish your opinions and where in the hell you got that from I don't know except trying to think that I am somehow trying to change the way you respond. I can't help but use the regurgitation as an example - the last thing in my mind when I wrote that was a negative connotation. I also can think of a time in which you responded to something Kelly or I said as if we were trying to censor you, and you got all upset about it, and said that if that's the way we were going to be you would jsut leave, and then some of the people that would normally agree with you, told you that you were out of line in your comments. This was a couple of years ago but I remember it still. This has happened numerous times, and it always ends with the same result, and none of it is ever good. I don't want to see people hurt and I don't want to see you continually insulted by people's comments. This really has nothing to do with making "me" happy - I'm happy anyway - but has to do with trying to stop a problem before it gets too out of hand and someone gets hurt.

So to stress - I am not trying to censor your ideas - I am asking that you at least give people the benefit of the doubt here instead of going after them as if you are a mind reader and that you are the only one who knows what some statement meant. When someone explains their point and you shrug it off as spin (as you have done with me), or implyining that someone is insincere (as you have done with me, Susan and Kelly), it's not only rude but smells a lot like you are suggesting they/we are either liars or hypocrites (again, I'm not trying to read between the lines but that is often how it comes across). I don't call you on it because I don't want to read between the liens, and attack you as a result - I let it go, but now I am bringing it up.

As I said back then, maybe Kelly's choice of "you people" might not have been the best words, but the overall point was extremely valid, and then you later proved her point by your latter comments. For the record I don't care if you said "you people" in referencing Conservatives. I've seen you say that Conservatives who can't see what you see are blind - might as well have said, "You people are blind" or "what is wrong with you people - are you blind?" I don't care and I can look beyond that. Now if someone starts suggesting or implying that I am a racist (as Gavin did), I will stand up and not ignore that. When someone starts blanketing Christianity as if all Christians think alike then I will say something. But in politics, for the most part (generally), Conservatives all believe teh same principles, as do Liberals, so blanketing statements are much easier to use when it comes to politics. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule (your gun politics for example) but there is something to be said when the majority of the left are agaisnt guns (unless they are libertarians). I saw a recent T-shirt that said, "99% of Democrats give the rest a bad name." Replace Democrats with Republicans (doesn't matter) but it still makes the same point - in general 99% of a party believe certain ways, and there's a small percent that does not. The fact of the matter - the majority (dare I say 95%) of the left are against any semblance of profiling unless it's for affirmative action. Just because 5% doesn't agree does not diminish the overall point.

And I have seen you use stereotypes and generalization, but rarely. I remember once calling you on it in fact and you responded with "Well, that's what the political leaders are saying" which was very true but you made it out that all Conservatives were thinking like that. I complained that you should be responding to what we say not what others are saying (or at least offer the context). Your explanation was fair enough (this is what they are saying, plus this is a "public" place so "I should be able to respond" to their rhetoric), but at first reading, it was very much a stereotype or generalization (whichever you want to choose). I don't have any examples right off the top of my head because I usually ignore stereotyopes and generalizations, but I know I've seen you do this very thing a little bit. Granted, not often, which is why I don't remember examples. So I will give you props for your lack of using stereotypes. You do do a great job with that but I will start calling you on it when I see it.

I'm sorry but "a team of conservatives"? Let's see, Susan and I are almost the only ones to often reply to your comments so I'm not sure if that necessarily is a team. Raymond doesn't always post, and Jem is gone, and now Kelly has decided to avoid these discussions because of the "you people" issue. I reemmber hearing this from another member many years ago who wanted me to remove the Politics section, or at least kick off certain users. In my experience most people avoid politics because it is too touchy - it takes an extremely thick skin and to be on top of your game every day. It's not for everyone, and if peoople avoid this arena because they are worried of how they will be retreated, then my apologies. But we gotta reemmber - there's about 200 registered members on this baord right now, and probably only 10-20% would agree with me or any other Conservative. IT wouldn't take much for a bunch on the other side to gang up on us few Conservatives. I encourage it. I would love for that to happen. But it requires a thick skin and being able to let water roll of your back and I don't think most are willing nor able to handle it. Granted, if no Righties were here then this place would be hopping with discussion about the evilness of the Bush admin, etc (take a look at any leftist or rightie blog or forum), but if that was the case, then that only suggests that "some" on the left only get involved when they feel their beleifs can get reinforced which isn't any fun, IMO.

Now granted, Susan has a way with words (and I'm sure she'll admit to that), but I remember a time in which you said that Susan made you think and you respected her, etc (I can get those quotes if you like) - this was in the same you people thread as a matter of fact if memory serves me right. So I don't know what happened there, but something I guess did.

This idea that Conservatives feel the need to reinforce each other is just ridiculous - I'm sorry it is, IMO. I've been fairly quiet lately for the most part except in a few areas. I'm not trying to reinforce anyone nor am I doing much Bush defending at this point. All I want is something more than "Bush lied" rhetoric that goes to the meat of issues rather than the rhetorical tasty sauce. Granted you MIGHT think that is the meat, and I'll grant you that, but I think there's more than that type of commentary. Example - this port issue - there's more here than another example of "Bush's incompetence." Yeah, that might be one facet, but there's much more than that too. Seriously - here's something you and I agree with, but I think you and I will have very different opinions as to why and what happened. That gulf is now smaller all of a sudden. Years ago, I was the only Conservative and often went up against a handful on the left all by my lonesome. Trust me, I personally don't need reinforcement, and I hightly doubt anyone else on the right does either.

You also said: "Susan seems to feel that if you don't like Bush, there is something wrong with your reasoning, and I feel that this is unfair, and conversely I do not fault a persons intellect or decision making if they like Bush. "

I almost choked on my Dr. Pepper when I read this. How many times have I read your posts that involved how Conservatives are blinded; how they have their head in teh sand; etc. Granted they may not be questioning a peson's intelliect, but it sure is questioning their decision-making. This is basic debate. Rip apart the other argument and then show why you are right. If that means putting into question someone's reasoning, it's legit even. Maybe if we were all more willing to do that and explain why that reasoning is wrong, we might be able to close that gap that Danwhy mentioned above.

You went on to say: "...and am willing to take the time to listen and understand the other side from individuals."

Again, for the most part I agree, but there has been plenty of times in which your simple response to me has been basically, "You're just spinning." Fine, if you think so, but if you shrug off my response as spin, it sure isn't taking the time to listen and understand.

I'm not asking you to make me happy - I am asking that we may all benefit if you (and anyone else for that matter) quit reading between the lines and imposing your meaning on words that may not have been intended for that meaning. IT would also benefit all of us (including Susan) to reduce our jokes and potentially qustionable words, and high level of rhetoric. Because we can't see faces, it's often hard to tell what someone is truly intending. I agree, and yes, Susan's words can sometimes come across strong - but for the love of God - so do yours sometimes! You probably don't realize it because in your mind, you are just offering "balance." I've never said anything because I learend a long time ago that asking someone to decrease their choice of words to be impossible, but I don't think it's much to ask if we stop reading words where they may not be intended. The majority of personal problems on this board has almost always been about problems with people reading between the lines and implying something that may or may not have been there.

You ended with: "I know it can get frustrating when your president is being so constantly attacked, and here I am this harping angry guy who won't let up with posting very negative articles about the administration, but I truly feel that they are crooked, and they get alot of in my view unwarranted favorable lip service around here, and I want to help keep a balance that reflects the entire spectrum of opinion on this administration."

Of course things can get frustrating, but I never get frustrated with people's beliefs or the attacks, I get frustrated when you hear the same thing over and over. That's fine if you want to do that, Dave - post a new story and call Rummy a liar but as you probably ahve noticed, you are getting fewer and fewer replies to those type of posts because we've been there and done that. You may find that it "balances" out the favorable lip service, but you'll also note that the "Conservative" team has actually reduced it's rah-rah Bush rhetoric because we (at least for me) realize that there's no point anymore. We can only look at issues and events and see what's going on there, and as the election gets closer, my focus will be moer about the election and less about some of this other stuff.

I don't want to go around and round on this. I've said my peace, and I hope I've clarified my comments somewhat if it needed to be.

I ask for two things that can be applied to all aspects of this board (not just in this forum) - no reading between the lines, and a more defined level of discussion that leaves nothing up for interepration (something I know I also need to work on). I'm trying the latter since the "you" vs "yous" debacle. These are two things that ALL members can adopt to help improve everyone's exerpience. It's not asking people to change their opinions, or their thoughts, and not about censorship. You can ignore this advice - that's fine - there's nothign wrong with doing it - but one day at some point, something bad may happen, and I don't want to see people hurt. I personally and other mods have dealt enough with hurt feelings on this board - it's always going to happen - but I'm trying to be proactive and stop a potential problem before it gets out of control. Call it a pre-emptive strike if you will.

Fianlly - Dave, if this is  between you and Susan, then my apologies for racheting this up. I am simply trying to put an end to something before it gets out of hand. But if this is truly between you and SUsan - you should've respond privately to her isntead of making it public. And as you once told me - this is a public board.

Jordan .