More Port stuff

Although the screaming seems to be dieing down ... the ports issue still seems to be steeped in a lot of rhetorical nonsense. There are some facts leaking through in the mess, however.

One of which is the fact that this entire thing started last October. Yes ... that was roughly about the same time that the cartoons associated with the Danish newspapers were first printed. So my remarks there are basically the same as my remarks here ... what is the statute of limitations expiration on outrage related to something like this?

Actually, it might be more important in this case, since if the blowhards (from either side, particularly those opposed) had any objections, why do they lock their jaws until NOW, when the deal is all but done, as opposed to when comments actually would have mattered (or, as the case may turn out, could have avoided the embarassment and insult of having to renege on the deal)?

Note: do not construe these remarks as indicating that, if it is a bad deal, we are somehow honor-bound to complete it ... we should not feel honor-bound to getting ourselves killed. This is akin to the statement (somebody famous ... I don't recall whom) that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact" ... meaning we will not let our desire to fully embrace the Constitution allow our enemies to exploit it and use it to destroy us (kinda like what the idiot democrats want to allow to happen when trying to extend the Constitution to al Queda terrorists).

Clinton hypocrisy

Is anybody but me tuned into how outrageous the junior (both in experience and in intellect) Senator from New York is on this issue. At first she goes off like a lunatic, acting like she is somehow tougher than Bush when it comes to national defense.

Well, I guess we'll just have to ignore how her husband's administration sold out to the Chinese ... for personal gain (not any strategic national security thing) ... turning over not only our ports, but also satellite technology that has helped the Chinese "perfect" their nuclear arsenal just in case they want to destroy our country.

We can have the argument about whether or not UAE is our friend, and whether or not they pose a threat, and whether or not it makes sense to let them operate this port as a private entity ... all valid points of discussion. But the last person on EARTH that should be throwing around accusations of weakness on National Security relative to this situation is the person who was an integral part of an administration that turned over ports to a country with specific plans to destroy the US (and the means to do so) and turned over secrets to allow that country to be better equipped to kill millions of Americans. And all this had nothing to do with creating better relations with that country ... but instead was a direct result of illegal political contributions that country made to their political campaign.

Having said that ... we can even ignore the former activities of The Queen and focus on what is happening today ... where der Schlickmeister is a regular on the Arab speaking circuit ... particularly when it comes to supporting the terrorists (i.e. re-affirming Osama's lines about how evil President Bush and the US are). Nevermind that Algore is even making up bald-faced lies about the US rounding up hundreds of innocent Arabs in this country ... Clinton himself has reaped hundreds of thousands per speech, even in the UAE. He was also apparently active in supporting this exact deal on behalf of Dubai.

So now Hillary is going to stand there and rip Bush on the deal?