The journey from there to here

The Dubai ports deal has pointed out an amazing inconsistency among the left. Maybe they should have a little powwow and get their stories straight rather than rely on talking points to guide them in policy making decisions.

You see, since September 12, 2001, the liberals among us have insisted that Islam is a "religion of peace", and that we shouldn't consider terrorist extremists as representatives of Islam. Over the last couple of years they've taken it upon themselves to relabel the terrorists "freedom fighters", and insist that, if only we were more understanding, more accommodating, they wouldn't be so bent on blowing us to smithereens.

But the liberals are apparently not guided by the mantra of common sense as much as they are the mantra of "hate Bush". In the same spirit of ideological partisanship that saw them reverse themselves from a position of demanding that social security was in crisis to that of utter denial when the Republicans presented a solution to the problem, they now insist that EVERY Islamic government is to be feared by the American people, regardless of how cooperative they have been with our efforts to bring terrorists to justice. They forget that it is the UAE who allows us to maintain strategic bases within their borders, at their own personal peril from middle eastern governments and entities that oppose our very existence in that part of the globe. They forget that it was the UAE who handed over the mastermind behind the bombing of the USS Cole and who has worked to help us apprehend terrorists in the middle east, providing us with intelligence that we, as westerners, would be unlikely to obtain without their cooperation, again, at their own personal peril. They will point to the fact that 2 of the 19 9/11 hijackers hailed from the UAE, as if that were somehow representative of the ideology of that nation's government. All that matters is the simple rule of thumb that if Bush supports it, they must be against it.

They have even defied the fact that one of their own iconic figures, Jimmy Carter, ENDORSES the deal. All that matters to them is their antipathy towards the Bush administration.

It would stand to reason that if Islam were truly the "religion of peace", we would not only want to do business with them, we would practically INSIST upon it. After all, who better to do business with than an ally dedicated to pacifism, to peaceful cooperation? Dubai would seem the perfect "marriage partner" in this deal, even better than Britain, whose historical imperialism would prevent them from being considered a "peaceful ally", even though they have shown themselves to be a consistent ally of the United States. The fact is, the liberals KNOW that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and they KNOW the dangerous consequences if somehow extremist elements of Islam are in control of our ports. Their hatred of Bush just gives them a convenient out to opposing the ports deal without owning up to that fact.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 09, 2006
Nice to see you jumping on the liberal bashing bandwagon about this deal.

Who is actually blocking this deal from going through Gideon? Who is actually keeping us from doing business with the "Religion of Peace"? Liberals?
on Mar 09, 2006

Who is actually keeping us from doing business with the "Religion of Peace"? Liberals?

Both liberals and conservatives, davad. But the conservatives who voted against the ports deal have remained consistent to their position, no matter how misguided it may be. The liberals, on the other hand, have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace while working to block the ports deal. While I think the decision to block the ports deal is HORRIBLY misguided, I find the actions of the liberals to be FAR MORE appalling than those of the conservatives.

I am not on any "bandwagon", davad. I have remained consistent with what I have said on this blog: That we MUST do business with legitimate businesses from these countries, or we run the risk of polarizing the moderate Islamists out of desperation. As I said on another thread about this, if you take away a person's legitimate means of earning a living, they will turn to illegitimate means. ALWAYS.

on Mar 09, 2006
yet another tired, tiresome and flawed (based on your observation about good ol iconic jimma carter) attempt to diminish a legitimate concern by insisting those who disapprove are nothing more than robots driven by some sorta precisely coordinated campaign.

you're putting words in our mouths (which requires you yourself to perpetuate a very flimsy party line), neglecting to acknowledge the number of bush's team who have a problem with the dpw deal and totally ignoring the fact the left has proven beyond a doubt its inability to organize a sunday school picnic.

i'm opposed to the deal because i don't believe seaports, airports, railway depots, bus stations or border stations should be operated by companies owned by nation states other than our own. i fully realize this is about terminals not the entire port and the coast guard will continue to be responsible for overall security.

for me--and i doubt i'm unique in this--it has nothing to do with muslims or the phantom arab 'race'. it's not an indictment of any religion (altho it becomes very clear near the end of your post we differ on that) but disdain for what appears to be just one more sleazy example of people in power feathering their nests in anticipation of leaving office Link ; sadly, it's one that is a gamble and just may leave us less rather than more secure on down the road.

perhaps we're better off without any more post-911 thinking.
on Mar 09, 2006
eaports, airports, railway depots, bus stations or border stations


tommy lee jones just called me to say i seem to have left dollhouses, chickenhouses, whitehouses and outhouses outa the litany.
on Mar 09, 2006
Both liberals and conservatives, davad. But the conservatives who voted against the ports deal have remained consistent to their position, no matter how misguided it may be. The liberals, on the other hand, have insisted that Islam is a religion of peace while working to block the ports deal. While I think the decision to block the ports deal is HORRIBLY misguided, I find the actions of the liberals to be FAR MORE appalling than those of the conservatives.


Exactly what actions are you appalled by? What liberal specifically is being inconsistent? Is there a liberal in office who goes about ranting about Islam being a religion of peace that has voted against the deal?
on Mar 09, 2006

neglecting to acknowledge the number of bush's team who have a problem with the dpw deal

kingbee,

I will readily acknowledge them. But those individuals AREN'T the ones insisting Islam is a "religion of peace"! Right wingers are pretty traditional isolationists, while many liberals are associated with the "Open borders" movement, and their action on this issue smacks of partisanship and hypocrisy. It is NOT consistent with ANY of the ideals they have expressed elsewhere. Granted, not all libs support the open borders movement, but most DO profess that Islam is a religion of peace. It's a compelling question as to why, then, they won't allow us to do business with an Islamic country that has consistently proven itself our ally.

My question is simple: Are we engaged in a war on terror or a war on Islam? While I detest even the "war on terror" rhetoric, this is an important distinction to make. If we effectively boycott arab nations from doing business with us, we are effectively declaring war on Islam, something that is unwise and misguided.

If this were about a sale from a US owned company to Dubai, I would have greater reservation. In fact, I don't believe ANY foreign interests should be operating our ports, friendly or not, in an ideal setting. But because we have allowed other foreign interests to control our ports, then shutting Dubai out of the deal smacks of discrimination.

on Mar 09, 2006

Is there a liberal in office who goes about ranting about Islam being a religion of peace that has voted against the deal?

I would have to research to find the ones in office. But I can point you to SEVERAL bloggers on this site and within the media who have ranted about Islam being a religion of peace and yet have decried the deal. If you want a place to start, start with everyone's buddy the good old col.

on Mar 09, 2006
once again, to me it's not important which foreign nation owns the corporation...only that it's owned by a foreign nation.

you're the one insisting it's anti-islam discrimination. i don't think of dubai nor the uae as being an islamic state so much as i do 'money can buy ya anything there' kinda place.

rather than insisting on letting foreign governments operate our terminals by proxy in some sorta goofy attempt at fairness, why not get behind the movement to outlaw that kinda operation altogether?
on Mar 09, 2006
if you think about it for even a moment you may recall i'm hardly gonna be supportive of engaging in this sorta business with any religion...whethor of peace or anything else.
on Mar 09, 2006

once again, to me it's not important which foreign nation owns the corporation...only that it's owned by a foreign nation.

See, and THAT stance I appreciate, kingbee. You and I actually agree 100% there. But if we're going to kick Dubai out, kick EVERYONE out! What set this off, however, was a recent article by you know who insisting that we should nix the ports deal because of the involvement of 2 Dubai natives in 9/11, among other things. He was not the only liberal voice on this, but his article stands out pretty strongly. If we're going to nix the ports deal for any reason, it should be the same reason we nix ports deals for other countries.

While I have not verified this, I have heard some individuals say that China owns some of our ports. I'm FAR more concerned about the possibility China might own some of our ports than I am about Dubai.

on Mar 09, 2006
It all comes down to polling.  It use to be politics.  Just last year it was ok to be a bigot if the targeted audience was a white christian.  Today, based upon polling, it is ok to be a bigot as long as the target is an arab muslim.  They talk the talk, but so far, they have yet to take the first step in walking the walk.
on Mar 09, 2006

That we MUST do business with legitimate businesses from these countries, or we run the risk of polarizing the moderate Islamists out of desperation.


These Arab businesses are rich, greedy bastards who would rather make a deal with satan than be loyal to their own people and religion.

In other words, they are people we can live with.
on Mar 09, 2006

These Arab businesses are rich, greedy bastards who would rather make a deal with satan than be loyal to their own people and religion.

In other words, they are people we can live with.

Yep!

on Mar 09, 2006
While I have not verified this, I have heard some individuals say that China owns some of our ports. I'm FAR more concerned about the possibility China might own some of our ports than I am about Dubai.


Here Link
And Here Link
And Here Link

It looks like the China Overseas Shipping Company tried to lease the port, but that action was blocked by Congress in 1998.
At least that's my 5 minute take..

on Mar 09, 2006

While I have not verified this, I have heard some individuals say that China owns some of our ports. I'm FAR more concerned about the possibility China might own some of our ports than I am about Dubai.

Here I am being a stickler again, but no one owns ports.  They manage terminals, and yes China manages some in long Beach.

3 Pages1 2 3