Monday, March 13, 2006

Interesting Poll.


Christie said...

That is so so sad. This administration has done everything it can to create an irrational fear of Arabs and Muslims in this nation and now they have to deal with it. We are destroying a relationship with not only one of our best allies in the Middle East but any chance we have of ever appearing as a fair and non-racist nation to those we would most like to adopt our values.

It is scary how little foresight this administration has. We know what the moral of this story is. Do you think they and their supporters know yet?

Mike said...

Taken as a whole, they may be one of our best allies in the region, but there are members of the royal family who certain aren't, and their governmental structure and over-reliance on familial relationships makes me want to be cautious about this deal.

Especially given how much the Republican party has ignored port security.

cleek said...

I cannot see the port controversy being a result of anything other than racism, which is sad. We definitely need to be making friends in the Arab world rather than enemies, but I also do not believe that any state run/owned company should be in charge of any of our ports. The point of contention for me is not that it's an Arab owned corporation, but rather that it's a state owned corporation.

Oh, and I know of at least a few supporters of Bush that believe that the controversy is all because of the quasi-evil liberal Democrats

Mike said...

I'm confused, dude. You say racism is the only explanation for the controversy, then give a very good, non-racist reason to oppose the port deal.

Certainly some folks are upset for racist reasons (Arab = bad), and others are willing to fan those flames in order to hurt Bush politically. While I do admit to a bit of schadenfreude at watching the Republicans get hoisted by their own petard, my own reasons for opposing the port deal are as follows:

1. It would slightly widen an already gaping hole in our national defense, and make it harder to close that hole.

2. It would further enrich several groups of people who have, in my opinion, made more than enough money screwing up our country.

jeffrey said...

I voted for Barry Bonds.

Christie said...

I hate to say this, but I think my huband is completely wrong on this matter. I do not support Bush, but I do think that the deal should have gone through. It had been thoroughly investigated. Also:

1. The company would be a financial manager and have nothing to do with how security is run at the port.

2. One of the reasons I have little patience for Republicans is their tendency to generalize everything and forget that individuals are involved. We should not take a page out of their book.

3. This is taking attention away from the truly legitimate problems with this administration. Forget this one piddling deal and think about the war we are fighting on false pretenses, the tax cuts for the rich and services cuts for the poor, the dwindling support for public education, the dissappearing middle class....and on and on.

Mike said...

After Christie deftly refuted all my points as we were getting dressed yesterday morning, I've gotta admit she's right. Not only that, but she also got me to agree with Billie's point that the controversy is the result of racism.

Not on the part of Democrats as much as on the part of the media, who have ignored all talk of port security for years, not to mention all the other examples of the Bush administration's demonstrable unseriouslness about national security, only to finally start talking about it now that he's making a business deal with Arabs.

Although I'm still convinced that the deal is going through because it enriches friends of the administration, not because it's good for America.