Salmo g. I know you are a reasonably bright guy...so would you really have had us elect Kerry as CinC? I have lots of issues with W's approach to things. However, I could not for the life of me vote for that imposter, Kerry. I could have voted for Zell Miller, but it wasn't an offered option.
Btw. Give credit where credit is due. Thank the WEA and the NEa for their bit in the stupifying of America.

good to hear sardonicus- i was in the same position when i finally had to say " yeah clinton should be impeached" although i didnt want his opponents to win......maybe this is what our country needed to bring us all together

this is just crazy....to say on one hand we are in iraq to spread democracy (which may have erupted into full blown civil war today)and on the other hand we give control of our ports to a country where the people have no right to vote.............. after we kill this deal we need to remain addamant that ALL US ports be managed by american firms...... think of all the tax money going back to other countries that should be here. when we control all of our ports we will gain more economic strength as well as growth

dubai ports will still pay some local taxes but the majority goes back to dubai- which along with bahrain, is the financial hub of the whole middle east, much like wall street in the usa

one thing that isnt being mentioned is that the Bush admin has taken out huge long term loans to finance our budget shortfalls, from the Saudi's and the financial centers of the middle east and from china who has ben given control of many other ports along with huge control in the Panama canal

Sard,

Thanks, yeah, reasonably bright. Yes, I would have had you vote for Kerry, but not because he's the best possible choice, only the very lessor evil contrasted against Bush. Bush isn't bright, and to the extent he's smart, he's evil smart in a way that is directly contrary to my interests, and I believe, to America's interests. I haven't been kidding when I remark about Bush: there's the Bushes, other rich people, and the help. So that makes about 98% of Americans "the help" to the Bushes point of view.

When it comes to the stupifying of America, the WEA and NEA have very little to do with it compared to the shirking of individual responsibility of millions upon millions of middle of the road Americans who send their poorly equiped children to be educated in public schools. The schools are a small part of the problem. The major problem is the raw material being sent there for an education. The baby boom generation, on average, was born into privilege and blew it in the worst way by begetting the shoddy baby boom echo generation, of which a very significant fraction shows up in public schools undisciplined, unfed or under fed, unclothed or improperly clothed, unloved or under loved, and yet the parents expect the schooly system to do the job they failed at as parents and educate the kids besides. Sorry, that ain't a feasible outcome.

I love to give credit where credit is due.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sardonicus,
It shows where you are coming from that you wingnuts typically refer to the President as the Commander in Chief. ("CinC")

We elect presidents, not CinC's. The President is a civilian. As a means of establishing civilian control of the military the Constitution says the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy.

Unless you are active duty military the President is not your Commander in Chief and he is most emphastically NOT the Commander in Chief of our country. Fortunately we aren't yet at the point where we have a Commander in Chief of the country or of civilians.

KK

I have been listening to the storm and the fury and I believe that this particular deal does not enhance or degrade our security posture. This is a business deal pure and simple. After all, if our battle is with all Arabs, we are going about it in the wrong way - we might as well bring back Slim Pickens and Dr. Strangelove....

However, if this is a business deal we need to examine the parameters of the deal. It would be very instructive to understand how the Dubai company took over the contract. Generally, when ownership changes, contracts get renegotiated. Were there new terms and conditions? Were there new bid proposals? Those should all see the light of day and since we have the Freedom of Information Act, we will be able to examine eventually - why not now? After all, the Admin can't claim National Security issues, right?

The second thing that needs to be examined is the role of Treasury Secy. Snow and Maritime Admin. head Sanborn. This wouldn't be the first time that payola has been used to influence the outcome of a bid process.

If all passes the smell test, Congress should back off. I can never just trust this Admin., they need to prove what is going on and sell the American public on the safety of this transaction. I can't see why the UAE company would be willing to risk all of their Corporate assets by abetting terrorism. We are going to need Arab allies in the battle against jihadism, UAE looks like the best candidate. It looks like they worship the $ just as much (or more) than they worship Mohammed.

Sorry Salmo g. I didn't mean to offend. I meant the comment on your intelligence as a compliment. And I agree that as long as the parents in our society consider the schools babysitters and abdicate their responsibitlies as parents we will continue to have problems with the public school system.
Hey suckersnagger, W is my CinC, he is also POTUS, and he is the chief executive of the USA. You have heard of the executive branch, right? Those psuedonyms all fit way better than the juvenile tags you and some like you would hang on him.

Bush is one smart cookie. Look how he manipulated libs and cons to agree on something.

Sardonicus, if you get a warm and fuzzy feeling by calling Bush your CinC, your great leader or whatever, go for it.

The problem with this CinC thing is that the Bu****es are claiming that Bush can do just about any damn thing he wants because of powers inherent in his role as CinC.

The intent of our founding fathers, as embodied in the Constitution, President as CinC of the military, was to ensure civilian control of the military.

To claim that Bush's role as CinC feeds back to gives him whatever powers as President he deems necessary is illogical as well as perverting the Constitution. It's to claim that the Constitution provides for military dictatorship when the Presdident decides that's necessary.

Of course we know that Bush regards the Constitution as being nothing but a "goddamned piece of paper" anyway.

I don't believe Bush or any other president should have a carte blanche to govern the country. We have 3 elements of governance and all should be involved in their respective areas of action. However, in times of war there are some special circumstances at work. Do you Suckersnagger have any question about our being at war since 911? You and I may disagree on the conduct of some facets of the struggle, but the fact remains 'we are at war.'The non-issue of NSA listening to overseas telecons is simply political muckraking in my opinion. Too bad they weren't listening prior to 911.

Sardonicus, no we are not at war. Anymore than we were in Korea, or Vietnam. Is the war on drugs a real shooting war? It's convienent for Bush to use the term "war" so he can get what he wants. 9-11 was horrable, but it was a terrorist act. Not an act of war. Is Palistine and Israil at war? Bush dosn't think so.

Gosh does that mean what Lt. Calley did in My Lai was just an act of terrorism? Not at war in the "UN police action" in Korea? Not at war in Viet Nam? Tell that to the guys that didn't make it. Third planet of what sun BW?

Sard,

No offense taken. I should have thanked you for the compliment.

Are we at war when the Congress has not issued a declaration of war? The Prez and Congress authorize military actions all the time without the window dressing of a formal declaration of war, the last of which was WWII.

Declared or not, we persued military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq that look very much like war to those involved. In that sense, the US is engaged in war.

The "war on terrorism," however, is straight out political BS, pretty much the same as the "war on drugs." Unless and until terrorism can be correlated specifically with one or more politically organized governmental unit(s), it's not a war. Terrorism is a criminal action, not a war action, when it isn't carried out by governments of nations. Fighting terrorism then, is a police type activity, since we're not fighting against a terrorist government of a nation or nations.

And let's not confuse fighting terrorism with the war we begat in Iraq. At this point in Iraq, it's hard to say what we've got. We started a war by invading the country, but that was over in a few days. It appears that what we have now is an unsuccessful occupation of a foreign land. Unsuccessful inasmuch as soon as we pop off a few insurgents, more Iraqis and other Arabs join the insurgency to replace them. "Staying the course" is a stupid game plan, a stupid war plan, and a stupid occupation plan.

Sorry Sard, but your boys Team Bush are really Team Dunderheads, who cannot seem to produce a useful thought or plan in the realm of foreign affairs. Much as I detested Nixon, at least he had Kissinger, who might be useful in ending a situation like this.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Rant all you want, Fact is these were not called wars. You said it yourself "UN police action" IT was made very clear to my dad that he was not in a war in Korea.

Same in Vietnam, sure felt like one. But politicans at the time called it something else. The fact that you think they were wars kind of sets you at odds with conservitives of the time. Suggest you ask them what planet they are on.

My son is very well aware that what he has been doing in Afganistan is NOT fighting a war also.