Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Here is an interesting letter,I wonder why the press never said anything about it...

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060119NajimlettertoCasey.pdf

Its a letter from an Iraqi mayor to the commander of the 3rd ACR.

This is another thing that the press wont report because it shows the good side of the war.

I suggest everyone read it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Here is an interesting letter,I wonder why the press never said anything about it...

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060119NajimlettertoCasey.pdf

Its a letter from an Iraqi mayor to the commander of the 3rd ACR.

This is another thing that the press wont report because it shows the good side of the war.

I suggest everyone read it.

It seems the press has said something about it.....

0 Replies

Intresting article on the 3 stooges of the Deocratic party

0 Replies

Yeah, the Democrats seem to have a distinct lack of prominent and prolific politicians of both intellectual prowess and political smarts. I'd love to see an alternative to Hillary for '08, but as of yet I cant really come up with any names. The names that are polled for are either depressing (Gore, Kerry - or those "three stooges", for that matter) or rather unknown or probably too young (Obama, Warner, Bayh).

0 Replies

Republican "Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a committee chairman, told The [Washington] Post, "This is probably the worst administration ever in getting Congress's opinion on anything."

link

0 Replies

I'm really wondering, why no-one bothers about Inchcape Shipping Services - this Dubai company provides piloting, tug and stevedoring services in 12 US ports as well as even security services to the US Navy: corporate website.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'm really wondering, why no-one bothers about Inchcape Shipping Services - this Dubai company provides piloting, tug and stevedoring services in 12 US ports as well as even security services to the US Navy: corporate website.

Good point Walter. I wonder if Congress is going to end up with very embarrassing fallout from the terminal deal. Are they now going to quit governing and start managing each and every business deal with foreign countries? How about UAE airlines arrangements flying in and out of the U.S? This is only the tip of the iceberg.

0 Replies

Some speculate that Congress saved the President's bacon on the port deal but there is also a weird turn of events. The Democrats all this time have blasted Bush for alienating the Arab world instead of building cooperation and coalitions.

Now we have this issue in which the Democrats are on the side of those who appear to have turned racist in their opposition to Arab ownership of the port management. And the President is the one pushing coalition building and cooperation with Arab allies.

Isn't this fun?

0 Replies

Many republicans a party to this as well.

0 Replies

So this is now a question of Arab ownership and not about security?
(And some Republicans are now Democrats? :wink: )

0 Replies

No, the Arab ownership is the purported issue of security.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Many republicans a party to this as well.

The GOP was instrumental in killing the deal, yes. But they weren't the ones blasting the President for alienating Arabs.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:
Many republicans a party to this as well.

The GOP was instrumental in killing the deal, yes. But they weren't the ones blasting the President for alienating Arabs.

True, but they're every bit as guilty of playing on Joe Citizen's ignorance by climbing on the bigotry bandwagon for political gain. Popular hate-mongering is a sorry substitute for political vision.

I hope (without much hope) that those responsible are punished rather than rewarded for such a shameless tactic. I place more blame on the GOP, since the President could easily override the shameless bigotry with their support. By now; one must expect the majority of Democrats to oppose anything Bush supports, so it is truly at the feet of the shameless Republicans who abandoned scruples for political gain. Absent the popular political hate-mongering; I doubt this deal would even have been much of a story. It should have been regarded as just business. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
okie wrote:
Many republicans a party to this as well.

The GOP was instrumental in killing the deal, yes. But they weren't the ones blasting the President for alienating Arabs.
True, but they're every bit as guilty of playing on Joe Citizen's ignorance by climbing on the bigotry bandwagon for political gain. Popular hate-mongering is a sorry substitute for political vision.

I hope (without much hope) that those responsible are punished rather than rewarded for such a shameless tactic. I place more blame on the GOP, since the President could easily override the shameless bigotry with their support. By now; one must expect the majority of Democrats to oppose anything Bush supports, so it is truly at the feet of the shameless Republicans who abandoned scruples for political gain. Absent the popular political hate-mongering; I doubt this deal would even have been much of a story. It should have been regarded as just business.

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here, Bill. You think the port deal should have gone through then? It is opposition to it that you are considering to be bigotry?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here, Bill. You think the port deal should have gone through then?

Foxfyre wrote:

It is opposition to it that you are considering to be bigotry?

Sort of. I think the opposition mostly existed for the political gain to be had via capitalizing on popular bigotry. I doubt many of the players are actually so bigoted; but that does nothing to make the tactic less shameful. Nor does it effect the outcome which IMO is a step backwards for the United States.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from here, Bill. You think the port deal should have gone through then?

Foxfyre wrote:
It is opposition to it that you are considering to be bigotry?
Sort of. I think the opposition mostly existed for the political gain to be had via capitalizing on popular bigotry. I doubt many of the players are actually so bigoted; but that does nothing to make the tactic less shameful. Nor does it effect the outcome which IMO is a step backwards for the United States.

Perhaps. I never quite made up my mind on this one. Earlier in the thread I was keeping a running list of who was for it and who was against it. Impressive names on both sides. Bush for it. Hillary against it. Limbaugh for it. Hannity against it. Carter for it. Most of A2K against it. Bill Clinton helped the Arabs with advice even while his spokesman said Clinton was opposed to state owned businesses owning the ports.
According to the polls, 83% of Americans were against it.

All this is to say that there were mostly other factors rather than bigotry for it, I think.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush, Democrats Restate Anti-Terror Strategies
by Scott Ott

.

0 Replies

US evangelicals warn Republicans
By Jamie Coomarasamy
BBC News, Washington

Prominent leaders from the Christian right have warned Republicans they must do more to advance conservative values ahead of the US mid-term elections.

Their message to Congress, controlled by Republicans, is "must do better".

Support from about a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as evangelicals was a factor in President George W Bush's two election victories.

The Republicans will need to keep them onboard if they are to retain control of Congress in November.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that apart from confirming two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, "core values voters" did not feel that Congress was advancing their interests.

The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.

And while this was not quite a call to arms, it will cause concern in Republican circles in the run-up to the mid-terms.

Exit polls suggested that more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians voted for President Bush in 2004.

But according to a recent opinion poll, the number of them who want Republicans to retain their Congressional majority is not much above 50%.

0 Replies

I think the so-called "Christian right" has expressed a majority consensus on such issues as overturning Roe V Wade or banning same-sex marriage, etc.. I do not believe these issues have been deal breakers when it comes to electing public officials, etc. as the 'Christian right' has also voted for pro-choice and gay friendly candidates.

However much the Left wishes to portray Christians as one-issue fanatics, history does not support that.

The so-called "Christian Right" and a whole lot of other Republicans do mostly share an appreciation for conservative principles, and they vote for the candidate they feel most shares their values in that regard. On several issues, not all, Reagan conservatives have been disappointed, even dismayed, in the performance of the current Congress and administration.

It is not unlikely that the GOP will pay dearly at the polls for failure to stay the course on conservative values. The only thing that will save them is the Democrats putting up the same kind of candidates they have been promoting lately. As bad as the GOP has been, many conservatives could see the alternative as worse.

Where is a (not nutty) Ross Perot when we really need him?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Where is a (not nutty) Ross Perot when we really need him?

Amen darlin. I backed a nutty one and would do so again over any other candidate I've seen since I was old enough to vote. 2 Bush's and a Clinton don't add up to one Ross. Now are we going to fix it, or are we just going to talk about it?

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know