Wheatever the merits of the deal, it's like rolling the banana-split cart into the gastric-bypass patient recovery room for lunch. It pleases no one, tests everyone's purpose, and aggravates the intitial condition.
If that seems stupid, what I mean is that the struggles of the past few years have wounded everyone, and offerring up the imaginary or real potential of more-of-the-same was not good politics.
I know, it's a Harriet Miers moment.
Look at the map and you'll see why the UAE should get the deal. For splashing in The Gulf and keeping the Straits of Hormuz open, there's no better spot except Oman. It's a spike in the eye of Iran. But this is what should have been said from the beginning. It's tactical. Pick up the G*d D**n scimitar and start waving it in their effing faces.
But I'm tired of Bush's administration of extremes and mania to be right a generation down the road. Leadership consists of pretending to be right sometimes in the present tense. Bush left it to us to throw ourselves into the breach to defend positions that give the enemy symbolic superiority whether they win or not. It reminds me of Vietnam, and I don't want to start kicking that thing around.
Rhod, your take is very interesting, per usual. And you hit some nails on the head that I hadn't thought of, too. Great stuff.
It is horrible politics. But I don't want to steal my own thunder here. Hey ... where's Charlie? I need to listen to Rush to see what I think about this.
I posted on it. I stayed away from how politically stupid the administration's decision is a far as splitting conservatives and enabling the Dems to attack on the right - all to have the approval scuttled (I suspect) in the end.
Rhod touches on a great point that I did not address, but which has been nagging me, and that is: how can the President sell that we are engaged in a long term existential struggle that is worth all the sacrifice, but not really change anything? This ports approval was reviewed in a business as usual manner (no apparant discussion of forbidding all foreign companies from handing port functions - something that wouldn't be irrational after 9/11). Along this line, I have been troubled that the President did not demand an increase the Army and Marines right after 9/11. Think of what message that would have sent:
1. (for domestic consumption) 9/11 was and act of war and we are at war.
2. (for international consumption) Do not turn our attantion to you and do not rry to tie us down (cuz there is more than enough heat to go around).
And aside form messages - it would have given us a real strategic reserve.
Missed opportunities.
Cruise,
Interesting. I think, too, that a call for a larger Army and Marine Corps would have been approved right after 9/11.
It seems that the world is changing faster and more dramatically than politicians, even the best of them, can keep up.
To conservatives, this shouldn't be a surprise.
Gents:
I mentioned VN as a means to explain the way the battles on the margins (the port thing, FISA, etc.) are being granted symbolically to The Left by this administration, and not necessarily the...but wait!
Waging a war, claiming that it's a long-term affair, no significant increases in active-duty soldiers, Marines, etc., tax cuts, uncontrolled spending for dubious social programs, the collective brain of the left glowing like the metal on the edge of the night (that's for you 70's types)...and that's just for starters.
Suddenly its The Great Society, and pick your year. I'm writing a post that would set me on fire if it was written by Charlie...our Charlie, not Charlies I've know in SEA, but if I can put together a specious argument like this, so can any lefty dimwit. And they do.
PERPENDICULAR AXIS THEOREM:
The moment of inertia of a plane area about an axis normal to the plane is equal to the sum of the moments of inertia about any two mutually perpendicular axes lying in the plane and passing through the given axis.
The above is the definition of PA theorem. Which makes sense.
It agrees with all mathematical arguments.
This port deal does not.
To me this is like putting the Japanese in charge of Pearl Harbor in September 1941.,, or is it.
However, according to a lot of heavyweights I respect, and General Tommy Franks is one of them, he has no problem with it.
On the other hand all of a sudden we are to believe that Rodham-Clinton, Schumer, and the rest of those 'nitwits' are now the 'Tip of the Spear' in the fight on the war on terror? The funny thing about this is a couple ports on the left coast are run by the 'chi-coms', thanks to BJ Clinton, in one of his deals for campaign contributions,, this of course is conveniently overlooked by the leftist media and the democrats.
This anti Port deal is all about Unions, and the deficrats know it they just won't admit it. So it is disguised as a flag waving exercise for the left and to make Bush look like a buffoon. They couldn't care less about the security of this country.
Anyone following these Anti-Americans for the past 3 years would logically have to ask themselves ,,, what am I missing here. All of a sudden they are concerned about National Security when a few short months ago they were worried about... No plan in Iraq, We can't win the war, Victory is no solution,... these are the same people ?
It don't scowl.
I trust Bush, and he would NOT make any deal with a foreign country that would be detrimental to the United States.(PERIOD)
Oh and DC, I see Vince Young scored a 6, on the wonderlic test. There is something seriously wrong with our educational system too.
More important than any port deal was the deal that came out of the weekend....
Commenting by HaloScan
