I'm Confused Again
President Bush and company are catching hell for the sea port fiasco.
While I agree that the criticism is warranted, I cannot help but wonder why the American people (especially the Democrats) are not giving him a big 'ol pat on the back. Isn't he simply following the lead of former Vice-President Algore by trying to strengthen the bond between the United States and the Middle Eastern countries? I would think that he (the President) would be commended for adhering to the policies of our truly elected President by widening "the channels of friendship and mutual understanding".
Will someone please enlighten me on this seemingly odd twist of public reaction?
posted by TinyElvis @ 8:52 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Me To.
Don't you think 9/11, as the President is fond of saying, changed things? This isn't just a mid-east company, but a state run one.
I don't see how a comparison to pre-9/11 foreign policy holds water. The game done changed.
You may counter that Clinton-Gore foreign policy led to 9/11. Fine...that's a separate debate.
I was referring to comments made by Algore last week.
Wow...you've managed to use this fiasco, which is entirely of this administration's own making, and work in a shot against a Democrat who hasn't been relevant in 6 years.
Amazing.
I'm now convined that if W were caught with his pants down in a closet with a 10 year old boy you'd somehow make it about Howard Gary Hart's indiscretions in the 1980s.
hey anonymous,doesn't matter how long algore has been irrelevant, do you think it's ok for anyone, any time to go to a foreign country and criticize America? That was the point,,don't you ever get it or can't you read...
What is this, Stalinist USSR? Citizens can't criticize their government? Who cares? This story barely made a blip in the national media.
Implying that this guy making these statements hurts U.S. military morale/security, national pride, or whatever is preposterous.
"This story barely made a blip in the national media."
Exactly. Gore's comments barely made a blip.
President Bush is doing nothing more than what Algore (the same Algore that really "won" the election) called for but it's making a HUGE blip in the national media.
Can you detect any bias there?
First of all, you're assuming that Gore's vague suggestion to improve relations necessarily includes giving control of major ports to a UAE state owned corp.
Second, you're choosing to ignore the fact that Bush is the PRESIDENT, Gore has been out of the public eye [largely] for six years. Anything involving Bush is necessarily a bigger story, as it should be. Were Gore in office and Bush wandering the political wilderness, Gore would be in the crosshairs under these facts.
Third, the bias argument is tough to swallow. This is largely being driven by the right, by his own base. Since it's a GOP Congress, all he has to do is get the faithful on board and this veto talk goes away.
Finally, Al Gore is as relevant to all this as Bob Dole, and his words should carry little weight with anyone. I know that the Cons like to play the victim, but I'm having a hard time believing that mean old "Algore", as you like to call him, has bruised your patriotism.
I'll let someone else have the last word now.
Post a Comment
<< Home