Big schedule today:
12PM: Jeremy Zilber, author of "Why Mommy is a Democrat".
2:00 Bill Gilles from CFACT will be talking about the student-fees issue at the U.
2:30-45 We'll have Karen Efrem from Edwatch re: Mental Health Screening for children.
King is off on assignment today, but he'll be replaced by Generalissimo Duane Patterson, from the Hugh Hewitt show.
Posted by Mitch at February 25, 2006 01:40 PMFounod Ann Coulter Website from a blogger:
RE the Arab port deal...
Before I provide my opinion of the port contract, based on the current data I have reviewed, I want to applaud the level of discussion that I have witnessed on this thread. There are obviously strong points of view on the subject, pro and con. However, everyone seems to be striving to provide actual data, links to pertinent information, and thoughtful review of the material. It is one reason that this is the only forum in which I participate -- the high level of respectful engagement.
That being said, I wanted to weigh in on the conclusions I have come to. I find I must side with wildflower on this matter, as I respect her opinions immensely on matters financial and economic. Additionally, administrations personnel whom I do respect (e.g., Rumsfeld, Rice) have indicated that security issues regarding this transaction have been reasonably addressed.
Now, many of you have a strong opposing point of view, and do present analysis against which it is difficult to argue. I wish simply to describe some of my reasons for coming to the conclusions I did.
A few posters have indicated that the contract does not pass the "smell test". Frankly, I have my own "smell test", and the Democrats and the mainstream, anti-Conservative media do not pass this test. The speed that this firestorm developed raises big red flags for me.
Why is it only now that someone has had an issue with this contract? It has been in the works for 5 months. Consider the news items that have been on the forefront during the past 5 months -- The Alito Hearings, QuailGate, and the improvements in the economy. These events have made the Democrats and/or the MSM look utterly ridiculous and archaic. Suddenly, a grand opportunity to attack Bush/Conservatives/Republicans on national security appears fully developed the weekend after the press hissy fits and hypocritical Democratic allegations of "WH secrecy" post Quail-Gate. And with the Congressional elections looming in November, what better way to hamstring the Republicans in an attempt to win back control of Congress -- aided and abetted by the very willing MSM.
I know a good Conservative segregates politics from national security. However, I do not believe the extreme liberal politicians (such as Shumer and Clinton) do. And it is interesting that they have found a way to appear "right/moderate" on security - a Democrat weak spot. Furthermore, if the deal is quashed, and the UAE is no longer friendly to the US, the US military may lose access to landing areas and regional ports that are critical for the GWOT. Democrats see themselves as gaining anytime the GWOT/Iraq is not going smoothly.
There is an additional matter that concerns me, when it comes to arguments against the port. That is the matter of the unions, which are essentially wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democrats. I must ask myself why the Longshoreman's union is against the deal, besides the stated national security concerns. Apparently, this union recently went on strike because during the busy holiday season last year they didn't want to utilize a bar-code tracking system that would enhance transportation speed and efficiency. This action was very harmful to commerce during a critical time of the year. I must admit, I trust unions very little, and their opposing this deal raises even more red flags for me.
Obviously, the UAE is far from being perfect when it is compared with liberty-loving nations that value individual freedoms. However, overall, the Emirate's attitudes seem to have taken a more positive turn post 9-11. They are heavily involved in the GWOT as an ally to us -- and no small risk to themselves. We rely on the UAE for intelligence, air strips, ports, and other means of assistance. And, as Smartso has indicated in her post, they have proved themselves as an honest partner in trade. We need to respect their positive contributions to America.
Granted, as with most other counties (and the USA is no exception), the UAE has its share of Islamofascist nuts. And because of the UAE's location, they are in close proximity to the tree that generates those nuts. Definitely, there is a justified reason for concern. On the other hand, the UAE need only look at Afghanistan and Iraq to understand the consequences of security breeches at these ports. That should be a powerful incentive for great security.
However, I must say that in certain respects, I trust the UAE more in security matter than the Democrats. The UAE has over 6 billion reasons to be extremely concerned with port security. Yet, as I mentioned earlier, the Democrats have reason to desire set-backs in the GWOT. Consider Al Gore's recent speech in Saudi Arabia, which was repulsively critical of his own country. Then there was Jimmy Carter's statement that torture was occurring at the hands of American soldiers. Then there was Rep. Murtha's call for immediate troop withdrawal. These statements by current and former leaders are played-up in the Middle East, inspiring more anti-American sentiment and threatening to lower the morale of our troops.
Finally, we would be in more of a position to persuade the UAE to accept Israel, make needed reforms, and promote capitalism if we engage them in honest trade and business. They are not perfect, but there are few truly free nations on this planet. Exporting our freedoms through trade seems wise, because I think the USA cannot always afford the military option in guaranteeing human rights and freedoms.
Therefore, for all these reasons, I find myself inclined to support the port deal. I think the White House has been very foolish in how it has handled this matter, and has made many critical mistakes. I do think a Congressional review would be prudent, because of the lack of foresight of the committee that approved the plan. The UAE representatives also need to get in front of Americans and explain how they will allay our reasonable security concerns.
I also think that should the port deal be completed, there should be a panel, comprised only of military and security experts, that stringently review the security matters associated with these six ports annually. Additionally, this would be a grand opportunity to develop effective plans to enhance overall port security in this country.
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts
Posted by: Scott at February 25, 2006 05:56 PMI am looking שש בש forward to hear ששבש from you soon, my friend.
Missed you a lot. שש-בש
Jacob Alexander - Namibia.
http://sws.athost.net/swc/
http://sws.athost.net/wm/
http://sws.athost.net/wgm/
http://sws.athost.net/caw/
http://sws.athost.net/wd/
http://sws.athost.net/wcs/
http://sws.athost.net/wls/
http://sws.athost.net/wps/
http://sws.athost.net/wscp/
http://sws.athost.net/wbp/
http://sws.athost.net/wsp/
http://sws.athost.net/wlp/
http://sws.athost.net/wtp/
http://sws.athost.net/wrh/
http://sws.athost.net/wfc/
http://sws.athost.net/wsf/
http://sws.athost.net/ms/
http://sws.athost.net/ls/
http://sws.athost.net/ds/
http://sws.athost.net/hs/
http://sws.athost.net/ss/
http://sws.athost.net/lms/
http://sws.athost.net/fs/
http://sws.athost.net/has/
http://rew.athost.net/dh/
http://rew.athost.net/drh/
http://rew.athost.net/ddh/
http://rew.athost.net/dih/
http://rew.athost.net/ch/
http://rew.athost.net/cho/
http://rew.athost.net/dch/
http://rew.athost.net/rh/
http://rew.athost.net/rch/
http://rew.athost.net/rlvh/
http://rew.athost.net/wrh/
http://rew.athost.net/gh/
http://rew.athost.net/wh/
http://rew.athost.net/lvh/
http://rew.athost.net/chh/
http://rew.athost.net/lh/
http://rew.athost.net/hlh/
http://rew.athost.net/ph/
http://rew.athost.net/hh/
http://rew.athost.net/bgmf/
http://rew.athost.net/cgci/
http://rew.athost.net/cugci/
http://rew.athost.net/bgci/
http://rew.athost.net/gm/
http://rew.athost.net/gsc/
http://rew.athost.net/gcf/
http://rew.athost.net/gs/
http://rew.athost.net/gw/
http://rew.athost.net/gsh/
http://rew.athost.net/gp/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/accupril/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/accutane/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/aciphex/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/actonel/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/actos/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/adalat/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/alavert/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/albuterol/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/aldactone/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/aldara/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/alendronate/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/allopurinol/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/altace/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/amaryl/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/amitriptyline/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/amlodipine/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/amoxil/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/anafranil/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/androgel/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/aricept/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/arimidex/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/atacand/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/atenolol/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/atorvastatin/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/atropine/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/atrovent/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/augmentin/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/avalide/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/avandia/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/avapro/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/avodart/
http://fpa.athost.net/a/azithromycin/
http://fpa.athost.net/cw/
http://fpa.athost.net/clubwear/
http://fpa.athost.net/wc/
http://fpa.athost.net/ds/
http://fpa.athost.net/dsh/
http://fpa.athost.net/dsu/
http://fpa.athost.net/dh/
http://fpa.athost.net/dp/
http://fpa.athost.net/dsc/
http://fpa.athost.net/dis/
http://fpa.athost.net/dtb/
http://fpa.athost.net/dib/
http://fpa.athost.net/ddb/
http://fpa.athost.net/tb/
http://fpa.athost.net/ctb/
http://fpa.athost.net/ltb/
http://fpa.athost.net/ditb/
http://fpa.athost.net/mb/
http://fpa.athost.net/mmb/
http://fpa.athost.net/lmb/
http://fpa.athost.net/smb/
http://fpa.athost.net/wfb/
Thanks for taking casino in arizona [url=http://flash.45.kg/blya/casino-in-arizona.html]casino in arizona[/url] http://flash.45.kg/blya/casino-in-arizona.html
Posted by: Kaylee at October 25, 2006 09:49 AMuncle incest incest mom son
Posted by: Qafqoimnc at October 31, 2006 12:41 AM