We all know that if Clinton had done the very same as Bush with ports

[cantstandbush]

the military would have arrested him by now and we would have had our first overthrow of government since the Revolution. How much more is America going to take of this jutterly immoral regime?

[orion9941]

1. But Bush didn't have a blow job.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. Oh? He is just a lot more secretive about it.

But then - who in their right mind would want to give him a BJ?

[Atlas Mugged]

3. Bush couldtn't get a BJ if he wanted one

He has "impotent" written all over him in large, indelible letters. In his case, "actions" speak louder than "erections".

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. I guess that would explain the "bike" thing.

Overcompensation?

I don't know - I have no feeling for that guy at all. It is like he is just an empty shell.

[INdemo]

7. You dont know that for sure

* and Condi seem awful close

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. We would have had thousands of Republican voters on the White House lawn

with a noose in hand and picking the highest tree.

[bubba j]

6. Hmm...

First post, so go easy or rip me a new one, your decision.

Does anybody else see a double standard?


On the one hand, how many believe that a middle eastern country was responsible for 9-11?

If yes, then I understand you concerns, if not, why then are you worried about a company based in the middle east running our ports?

This is a fundamental question, in my mind. And I don't see how we can have it both ways.

[myrna minx]

8. Osama bin Laden and his minions attacked us on 9/11.

We went after him as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan. We took our sights off if him for our unjust war in Iraq. UAE was his home to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. UAE has been linked to money laundering for terrorists. How is this a double standard? Dems have been screaming for years that we need to have protected ports, yet this has been consistently ignored by the Bushies. Why on earth would we give the security of our ports to a country who has laundered money for terrorists? Seems like a no brainer to me.Why on earth should any foreign entity, regardless if it is the UAE, be protecting our ports? Why shouldn't the USA be responsible for protecting our ports? Welcome to DU.

On edit--I feel that your premise is false. It wasn't just some middle eastern country--like it is generic. We were attacked by bin Laden who was protected by the Taliban. Money was laundered through the UAE for terrorists consumption. Why should be allow them to load our boats? :crazy:

[rkc3]

9. Just imagine what bush would be doing if he weren't

Tough on Terra.

[bubba j]

10. Premise false?

Thanks for the reply.

Did not intend a false premise. I am just not comfortable with the idea that because OBL and a couple of hijackers were from UAE, or because some money routed thru that country, that we can paint the whole country with one brush.

It just Seems a little racist to me, and I am still sorting out my feelings and what I believe about 9-11.

Peace.

[myrna minx]

13. I hope you didn't think I was attacking you.

Let me ask you this. did you think that our attacking Afghanistan was racist? I don't and I'm one of the biggest bleeding hearts around. We were attacked and we had the right to capture those who attacked us. The UAE has many legitimate businesses, that isn't the point. Saudi Arabia was home to most of the hijackers, yet they own a large amount of the USA. It just seems rather counter intuitive to have another country, regardless of who it is, be responsible for the inspections of the cargo that will come into the USA. Our ports are extremely vulnerable, therefore why would we want to out source this process to anyone, let alone a country who has laundered money for terrorists? This is an American responsibility IMHO. :hi:


On edit--the reason that I called your premise false was that we weren't attacked by "some" middle eastern country or any 'ole middle eastern country. We have allies in the middle east. We were attacked by OBL who was protected by the Taliban. This is specific, not a generic broad brush. :hi:

[myrna minx]

14. You may find this discussion interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x479483

It seems to address some of your concerns...Again Welcome. :hi:

[MrBenchley]

11. Hell, the right wing even made up a "scandal" like that....

Here are the imbeciles at Newsmax beating their meat over it....

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/5/80227

You might recall that shitbag Dan Burton discovering to his surprise at a Congressional "hearing" that there were Chinese people living in Panama...most of whom had been there for many generations....

[Joe Fields]

12. Agreed, but the problem is with "perception"

A majority of Americans "perceive bush as being tough on terrorism. We know nothing could be further from the truth.

[leftofthedial]

15. what we all know is that Clinton would be attacked no matter what he did

and king george will be defended no matter what he does

[porphyrian]

16. You're right, but please don't feed republican Clinton obsessions...

...by comparing anything that's happening now to those eight years. There really is no comparison, except perhaps as a "before and after."

[midnight]

17. I love the word jutterly.

I looked it up in the dictionary-jut,to extend beyond. But did not find jutterly. But I agree. Everyday I look on here to see if this President will be impeached.