Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

But was that because it was blasphemous, or because it was a shitty movie?

Simple yes or no question. Are the following weapons of mass destruction?

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

Shit, that's easy: NO.1) Those are materials which could be used in WMDs.
2) Those are materials which were known and under UN oversight, or (in a few cases) old discarded materials which were not known to Sadddam, or small weapons contructed by forces having nothing to do with Saddam after our invasion was complete using materials previously mentioned, and so could not possibly have been the WMDs that Bush and Co were referring to.
3) Bush himself has admitted that no WMDs were found and has moved on to blame intel failures, so his answer would be NO.I forgot to mention that in my reality Bush has admitted that no WMDs were found and has moved on to blame intel failures. What's it like where you are?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Uranium for power plants? Sarin so degraded that the two GI's who got a faceful of it were back to their regular duties the next day?No, I wouldn't say those are WMD's.

Wrong.You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest.Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality.This message has been edited by Tal, 03-03-2006 09:53 AM

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

I got it! I got it! Bizarro world, right? Heheheh.Explain how those materials were not what I said they were, and why you believe Bush is saying WMDs (the ones he was discussing for invasion) were found.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Tal, there's absolutely nothing honest about you. You're a liar. Probably a disgrace to your uniform, if we can even believe that you wear one.How much mass destruction did any of these things cause? How much more likely was it that they would fall into terrorist hands after the invasion than before?Saddam was controlled. That's what the evidence says. He had re-admitted the inspectors but we invaded anyway. We've got memos all over the place laying out clearly the Administration's knowing plan to decieve the American people into supporting the war. And just like Democrats predicted, it's developed into civil war.

See, what you're supposed to do now, if you had any interest in debate, or in salvaging your position, is to rebut with more detailed information that supports your case.You'd answer their direct questions.But you didn't do any of those things. (You never do)From where I'm standing, you just let them win.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 01:01 PM

That is totally outside the bounds of debate here at EvC and a personal attack on a poster. Your posting privileges have been suspended.

---

This was something you felt you had to edit in? Interesting. Does that last line come from somewhere? It seems out of character for you.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

It's a paraphrase of "nattering nabobs of negativism", which is how Spiro Agnew referred to the press.Because when suggesting that accusations against the executive branch are unfounded, Agnew is apparently a... good choice for quoting?

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I think Agnew's all they've got.(Thank you for yet another hearty laugh.)

---

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

Tal And yet you took the time off your busy schedule to reply so kindly to them. Bravo soldier.

Eventually a large body of the Congress including Reps came together to question the ports deal which Bush supported. They were ready to pass legislation that would end its possibility and Bush threatened a veto. Ultimately the UAE decided to cede control to US owned companies.Intriguingly Bush's reaction to this has been to damn the decision of congress and as such the will of the american people. He has argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation in allowing a foreign nation (its not just a foreign company as he likes to spin it) to control our ports, particularly one in a relatively unstable part of the world, and with less transparency and intel capabilities.Indeed, in trying to defend his own position, he is arguing as if it was just a paranoid race based decision, which will doom business relations between the US and MidEast companies. Isn't that exactly what a president should not be doing at this time? Shouldn't the president be trying to smooth over any issues this might cause instead of inflaming passions against the US, particularly by painting americans as anti-arab?I am firmly in support of MidEast companies doing business with the US, but even I saw there was a legitimate question here. It doesn't seem to help matters for a president to pretend there was none, and use his air time to perhaps create the prophecy he has set out. And somehow argue a position that we should let whomever run whatever they want within the US, even some of the most vital spots, or we are somehow being unfair. That is not a good president... uhm, I mean precedent.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I hesitate posting this, as it might cause a topic derailment. My "bolds".The same President that "argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation" in the situation, as he led the U.S. into the current Iraq war. If only Congress had then had the backbone to question that situation.Moose