Connecting the Dots
I don't enjoy listening to Michael Savage-- He's too angry. He does however-- on occasion --make good points, and since he's the only one on during the mad dash to both walk the dog, and get dinner during a 30 minute dinner break, I listen. Like I said, I don't particularly enjoy the Savage Nation, but tonight Michael re-aired an interview [though new to me] he had with the Democratic Senator from New York, the honorable Charles Schumer.
Yesterday I posted a bit on MSM's fixation on the villainous Vice President's not-so-subtle warning to Scooter Libby, while dropping the ball on other more important stories, like handing over management and security of six U.S. ports to a company from Dubai, in the UAE.
Connecting the dots is a relatively new meme in political circles these days. It is increasingly more connected to the War on Terrorism than anything else. Democrats swear that Bush should have used his initial eight and a half months in office to connect the dots and save the Twin Towers and 3,000 lives from the evil Usama bin Laden. Bush claims that connecting the dots is one of his primary roles as Commander in Chief in this long slog we affectionately call the War on Terror.
So lets connect a few dots. Hypothetically of course. Without intelligence, it's all hypothetical anyway....
1) 9/11 exposed critical flaws in our screening and immigration policies.
2) 9/11 exposed critical flaws in areas of intelligence, and the sharing of said intelligence.
3) It soon became glaringly clear that our borders, both north and south, constitute critical exposure to potential terrorist threats.
4) Recently, there have been reports of either, drug runners in Mexican military gear, or the Mexican military itself, in armed clashes with border patrols. Now we learn that the Bush administration is "okay" with the sale and handing over of control of 6 major U.S. ports-- specifically, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans --to Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates firm.
Considering the above dots, this is what I see:
1) With the Mexican and Canadian borders virtually wide open, Terrorist cells have already crossed into the U.S. and infiltrated American society, using Mosque's and the Muslim population as screen, behind which they become all but invisible.
2) Since the New York Times' revelation of a vital tool in the War on Terror, all these illegals have bought up Tracfone's and loaded up on pre-paid minutes.
3) With the purchase of 6 American Ports, Dubai, a nation cozy with the Taliban and Saudi extremists [thank you LawJedi at Liberty Files for the link], allows certain containers to enter the U.S. without inspection. This is quite easily done as the U.S., currently, inspects only 5% of containers that arrive in the U.S.
4) Newly arrived terrorist cells now need only await a truck, laden with weapons and supplies to arrive at a privately owned warehouse in any number of major U.S. cities.
5) With Iran now in open defiance of the IAEA, how long before a nuke enters the U.S. via the senario I've described?
Now, back to Michael Savage and his interview with Chuck Schumer. I can't believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Schumer. The very fact that the Bush administration is okay with this sale is incomprehensible to me. Red Flags went up really quick when China tried to buy a Texas oil company, but this seems to have flown right under the radar.
Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, along with a Republican or two, are taking the lead in trying to block this sale. Doesn't the Bush administration realize there's an election this fall? That there's an election in '08? Just because Bush doesn't have a horse in the next presidential race doesn't mean he can throw caution to wind.
If ever there was a campaign issue that could propel Democrats back into power it's this out-sourcing of American safety and security to a company owned and operated by a nation in bed with islamic extremism.
Republicans cannot win on the issue of national defense/security by supporting this sale. It's bad enough that the President is dropping the ball on this, what makes this situation worse is Democrats appear to be the only ones diving for the ball. Media is too occupied with Cheney's hunting mishap, and the only ones really talking about it are the so-called right-wing radio talkshow hosts. That should be enough to wake a lot of people up, but I'm not so sure about Media-- for the most part they live in their own little world, where little folks like you and me better have an invitation before setting foot in their America.
If the King of Liberals see's the danger in this foolish sale, everyone on the Right needs to sit up and take notice!
Yesterday I posted a bit on MSM's fixation on the villainous Vice President's not-so-subtle warning to Scooter Libby, while dropping the ball on other more important stories, like handing over management and security of six U.S. ports to a company from Dubai, in the UAE.
Connecting the dots is a relatively new meme in political circles these days. It is increasingly more connected to the War on Terrorism than anything else. Democrats swear that Bush should have used his initial eight and a half months in office to connect the dots and save the Twin Towers and 3,000 lives from the evil Usama bin Laden. Bush claims that connecting the dots is one of his primary roles as Commander in Chief in this long slog we affectionately call the War on Terror.
So lets connect a few dots. Hypothetically of course. Without intelligence, it's all hypothetical anyway....
1) 9/11 exposed critical flaws in our screening and immigration policies.
2) 9/11 exposed critical flaws in areas of intelligence, and the sharing of said intelligence.
3) It soon became glaringly clear that our borders, both north and south, constitute critical exposure to potential terrorist threats.
4) Recently, there have been reports of either, drug runners in Mexican military gear, or the Mexican military itself, in armed clashes with border patrols. Now we learn that the Bush administration is "okay" with the sale and handing over of control of 6 major U.S. ports-- specifically, New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans --to Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates firm.
Considering the above dots, this is what I see:
1) With the Mexican and Canadian borders virtually wide open, Terrorist cells have already crossed into the U.S. and infiltrated American society, using Mosque's and the Muslim population as screen, behind which they become all but invisible.
2) Since the New York Times' revelation of a vital tool in the War on Terror, all these illegals have bought up Tracfone's and loaded up on pre-paid minutes.
3) With the purchase of 6 American Ports, Dubai, a nation cozy with the Taliban and Saudi extremists [thank you LawJedi at Liberty Files for the link], allows certain containers to enter the U.S. without inspection. This is quite easily done as the U.S., currently, inspects only 5% of containers that arrive in the U.S.
4) Newly arrived terrorist cells now need only await a truck, laden with weapons and supplies to arrive at a privately owned warehouse in any number of major U.S. cities.
5) With Iran now in open defiance of the IAEA, how long before a nuke enters the U.S. via the senario I've described?
Now, back to Michael Savage and his interview with Chuck Schumer. I can't believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Schumer. The very fact that the Bush administration is okay with this sale is incomprehensible to me. Red Flags went up really quick when China tried to buy a Texas oil company, but this seems to have flown right under the radar.
Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, along with a Republican or two, are taking the lead in trying to block this sale. Doesn't the Bush administration realize there's an election this fall? That there's an election in '08? Just because Bush doesn't have a horse in the next presidential race doesn't mean he can throw caution to wind.
If ever there was a campaign issue that could propel Democrats back into power it's this out-sourcing of American safety and security to a company owned and operated by a nation in bed with islamic extremism.
Republicans cannot win on the issue of national defense/security by supporting this sale. It's bad enough that the President is dropping the ball on this, what makes this situation worse is Democrats appear to be the only ones diving for the ball. Media is too occupied with Cheney's hunting mishap, and the only ones really talking about it are the so-called right-wing radio talkshow hosts. That should be enough to wake a lot of people up, but I'm not so sure about Media-- for the most part they live in their own little world, where little folks like you and me better have an invitation before setting foot in their America.
If the King of Liberals see's the danger in this foolish sale, everyone on the Right needs to sit up and take notice!
from the mind of... Eric | 11:30 PM
4 Comments:
its all very scary, I am amzed everyday by how no one seems to know or care about what is going on.sometimes I think the things going on in euorpe are just a distraction. Now I think I have a post topic...thank you.
I just read all your poerty - It was very beautiful and it was because I can connect to it. maybe only people who can connect to what you say will understand them. I also understand form the outside how sometimes you cant know what to say about someones poems .....you can only read them in silence.
I can't believe EL is actually giving credit to 2 LIBERALS for connecting the dots and working for the betterment of the nation like this!
What gobsmacked me even more was when I read about the results of the Pentagon's quadrenial review. And the budget recently sent to congress shows this same lack of interest in this new era. The entire budget for language and cultural training — $181 million — comes to less than the cost of one F-35. Liberals do have better ideas about how the country's money could be spent.
Liberals join the government because they want it to work. Make America, safer, healthier, wealthier and happier. Liberals see government as a means to an ends. Conservative on the other hand join the governemnt to limit, reduce and shrink the government. They think that if left alone people will reach safety, wealth and happiness without help.
Your surprise is unwarranted, BenT. Have I not said often enough that people should learn to think for themselves? How can I claim intellectual honesty if I don't recognize wisdom from the most unlikeliest of places?
You shouldn't, however, take my agreement with a Liberal as vindication of Liberal Philosophy. Liberalism remains deeply flawed and laden with a corrupt value system... Liberalism seeks to Oppress, Conservatism seeks to Liberate. The fact that reasonable people can be found on both sides of the Ideological Fence merely speaks to individuality, and the lines each man [non-gender] chooses or refuses to cross.
As I commented elsewhere this evening, each of us has a choice to make, and some will choose darkness rather than light. "Better Ideas" often masquerade as Agenda's. The question is: Do these better ideas oppress or liberate? Do they advance toward darkness, or light?
The Universe is, and has always been, Black and White. And from the beginning, it's been Man-- standing between the two --injecting Circumstance, and Shades of Gray.
And in the resulting shadows lay sin.
Post a Comment
<< Home