Now, let's not get carried away here. I agree with the rest of you that something stinks about this whole thing. I am on record as saying that I don't agree with many things that Bush does, but there is no denying that he was the lesser of two evils. Bush may not be personally responsible for this, but he is sitting back and allowing it to happen. This is wrong in so many different ways that it should be obvious. Oh well, like someone else said earlier, take good pictures martin.
I agree with you all the way. Let's not go nuts here. Bush is not my dream pres. either but as compared to Kerry it was a no brainer. If anyone thinks things would be much better in terms of our safety or what we are doing with terrorism, they don't have much knowledge of how politics works in our world.
Kerry and Bush are owned by largely the same interests. I doubt much would be different, other than my gag reflex would get more of a workout if Kerry was President.
Can't argue with most of that. Which is exactly why I responded with that to his "It was a no brainer decision." Anyways, back to trying hard to support W.
The buck stops on one desk. He's either in charge and responsible for his administrations actions . . . or he's not in control. Tough, but it's the name of the game. Neither Bush nor Kerry were made of presidential timber. Things have got to get better in 2008 or we are in deep kim-chee. This port business will be as unpopular as his stand on immigration and privitizing social security. The republican congressmen facing 2006 elections will not go out on a limb for a lame duck president. They are already joining proposed legislation to oppose this decision. Big business may pay for election campaigns, but they can't summon enough votes to win unless the citizens are really naive. And they are wising up fast. LSUCraig just said that Bush was not his dream president. :wink:
Yes, Red I did. He was never my 1st choice but Reagan couldn't run again and was not feeling well anyway at the time. I agree. Bush has to know how this looks even if it means nothing to our port security. All I want is for him or any president to follow the original addage........"If you harbor, support, fund in any way terrorist organizations then you sir are a terrorist. We will then find you and defeat you." Follow that in every way and we can't go wrong. And yes, that means not letting any Arab country run our ports.........that should be obvious. I'm anxious to hear Bush answer questions on this at some point........he should have already if he FULLY supports it. If he does, tell us why. If not dump it now.
Here's a good quote from soem Arab: The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice. ''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.'' Yes it is what you have to deal with. When you fly planes into buildings, yes this is what you have to deal with.
