Prague Twin

Friday, April 28, 2006

Fool me Once

I guess Bush didn't learn the first time around.

Now, The NY Times reports "Bush Set to Approve Takeover of 9 Military Plants by Dubai"

Will he ever learn?


  • Lou Dobbs was up in arms over this tonight on CNN. With any luck, Dobbs will keep screaming about it, get the base riled up about it, and then Bu$hCo can spend all of next week trying to quell the furor.

    That's what I'm hoping for anyway

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 2:45 AM  

  • That is a really nice logo! Did you make that up? We should design it through and sell t-shirts!

    In this case, I hope not. There are better things to nail him with than this borderline racism against the UAE. We gotta keep our eye on the prize.

    I was for the port deal, as you may know. The only time in my life when I agreed with Bush and Limbaugh. I'm sticking with it based on my own opinion of the Dubai govt.

    My point is, now he should know better.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 10:28 PM  

  • I got the Bu$hCo logo from kvatch at Blognonymous actually. I think i had just finished typing a comment on his site and I used his signature logo.

    I actually was torn by the Dubai deal. I never really worried about the security aspect. I just loved watching GW fight his own base. I realize that some Dems demagogued the issue. I realize I demagogued the issue. But after having national security shoved down our throats in 2002 and 2004, it sure felt good to shove national security back down Bush's, Cheney's, and Rove's throat, demagoguery be damned!

    Ultimately I know the collapse of the Dubai deal may come back to bite us. But damn it felt good to keep Bush on the ropes for another week or so when he thought he was going to be talking up the economy or the war or some other P.R. bullshit.

    You're right about how he should know better than to Okay another Dubai deal. But I guess if we;ve learned anything about these guys over the past couple of years, it's that they never learn anything unless it's connected to public relations. Even then, they sometimes don't get it. And I think this is one of those times.

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 2:08 AM  

  • I don't really support these deals but now I'm wondering. Where were all the people that are up in arms about this when Clinton was allowing weapons technology to be sent to China?

    God Bless America, God Save The Republic

    By Blogger David Schantz, at 10:02 AM  

  • Probably not.

    By Blogger Stephanie, at 10:51 AM  

  • RBE,

    I used the logo on another comment section and felt kind of guilty. Let's ask him about it. Maybe he found it somewhere.

    Anyway, the port deal was a big deal for me. I had just start taking blogging a little more seriously, and the story broke early Monday morning my time, so I knew few people had had a chance to do anything on it. When I heard the words coming out of Schumer's mouth, I just wanted to scream. So I put out a post. Before I had a chance to hear anyone's opinion on it. I got some things wrong, but the basic premise I think holds up.

    The main thing I thought at the time was how they were playing on people's ignorance. Most people in the states don't have any idea what the difference there is between a place like Dubai and a place like say, Yemen, or even Saudi Arabia.

    Having recently been in Dubai, I had been extremely impressed with their attention to security, and how efficient everything was. Like the honorable Robert Kaplan described, coming back to the States from Dubai, feels like traveling to a third-world country. And that is pretty true, in my opinion.

    Here is a country that is dealing with the west openly. It could be a target for terrorism, but an extrodinary effort on their part has thus far prevented this. They own the largest, most efficient port in the world. They have a great stake in maintaining stability in the world. To me, not only was it a good fit, but it would go a long way in bridging the trust gap. There may have been some additional walls of seperation in the operation created in the interest of securtiy, but this is also a plus. Why not develop better security stuctures?

    But the Democrats chose to use this as an opportunity to use Bush's fear tactics against him. As much as he deserves to bear some of the fruit of the climate of fear he has nutured, this undermines the credibility of the left. I can't stand fear mongering, and this was fear mongering that was borderline racism.

    Look, it is the boy who cried wolf. Should I take anything seriously from the Democrats, if they are willing to play on peoples ignorance and fear for political gain? No. I want to know that when the Democrats cry foul, there is something very substantially wrong. I want to know that they are spending their energy working to serve their constituants and not merely to get reelected.

    If you stoop to their level, you are no better.

    They seem not to care about public opinion at this point. Why should they? They have 2 years to do the most they can before it is all over. Lame-duck administrations: term limits evil twin.


    I think I understand your position on these things pretty well. I don't think we hold the same view, but yours is consistent. This is why the conservatives who represent a more traditional constituancy get a bit more of a free-pass on this one in my mind. When the liberals from the NY and CA lead the charge, it just makes me cringe. Peace and understanding on one hand, fear on the other.

    With Clinton, I think it is pretty clear that there was tendency to overlook Clinton's dirty dealings. I'm sure though, selling arms to China, and everyone else has been a largely bi-partisan effort.

    You make a good point though, in that arms sales are much more potentially damaging, but it gets overlooked and then everyone freaks out about the port deal.

    That underlines how inappropriate the attacks on Bush over the ports deal really are. Smoke and mirrors. Grasping at straws.


    I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense. What?

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 3:07 PM  

  • David, yes it does amaze what the media will let get by when the Dems are in charge. Do you think anyone here knows about the deal China got under Clinton? Saddly, probably not. Anyone care to guess or research?

    By Anonymous Arch Stanton, at 3:57 PM  

  • Arch,

    Why don't you write something up, and I'll publish it so long as you use credible sources.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 4:01 PM  

  • praguetwin,

    I undersand why you want consistency from Dems on the Dubai issue (or any national security issue). And you're right in what you say. In the best of all possible worlds, neither Dems nor Repubs would demagogue issues of national security. The reality is different, of course. dems have been demagogued for so long on national security that they couldn't control their glee when they got the chance to emagogue the other side. I admit to feeling this way. But you have opened my eyes to the issue and I see why using the Dubai issue to score political points is more harmful in the long run.

    arch stanton,

    I would like to read about the arms deal between the Clinton administration and China. It does not surprise me that it happened. To be frank, I never much trusted the Clintons (still don't) and while I don't think they had Vince Foster murdered or buy into many of the more wingnutty fantasies about the alleged crimes of the Clinton administration, it would not surprise me that Clinton sold arms to China.

    One thing about China: both sides of the political aisle have worked to appease China. As praguetwin says, it's a bipartisan movement to do so., starting w/ Nixon, through Carter, pushed by Bush 1, pushed by Clinton, facilitated by Bush 2.

    Anyway, I hope you print arch stanton's piece on the China/Clinton deal, praguetwin.

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 5:20 PM  

  • Or, it just doesn't matter. It'll be a US Subsidiary, with US (union) workers, US managment, and no problems. Unless of course the Union is letting commie pinko islamofacists join now.

    By Blogger Crazy Politico, at 7:02 PM  

  • RBE,

    I'm glad I could help on this one. It is my firm belief that if we are going to get out of this political mess we are in, we will have to abandon these types of tactics and start looking at issues logically.

    Like Crazy Politico says, "it just doesn't matter. It'll be a US Subsidiary, with US (union) workers, US managment, and no problems. "

    That is my feeling on this one, but knowing what he knows from the Dubai deal, it surprises me that he would go ahead with this.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 12:13 PM  

  • You're right that we should abandon these kind of tactics in order to get out of the political (and economic) mess we're in. Unfortunately, the other side will not abandon these tactics because they work. The American people have been easily swayed by demagoguery on national security issues, flag burning, gay marriage, crime, etc. The media only winks when the GOP goes dirty (i.e., Willie Horton, Swift Boaters)and says "There they go again, chuckle, chuckle." So in order to really get out of this mess we're in, both sides need to abandon these tactics, the American people need to stop rewarding these kinds of tactics, and the American press needs to call a political party on them when they engage in them.

    Unfortunately I don't think any of these things are going to happen any time soon. But as my father (a right-wing paleoconservative who deplores the current the GOP) always says, "You get the kind of government you deserve."

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 1:26 PM  

  • RBE it’s only unfair when the supposedly un-biased objective (cough) media engages in hit jobs like they did on the Dubai ports deal. Just out of curiosity, what did you find dirty about Willie Horton and the Swift Boaters? (sounds like a new band)

    By Anonymous Arch Stanton, at 2:07 PM  

  • The Swift Boat charges were politically motivated, baseless, and hypocritical considering they were used to slime a a genuine Vietnam combat veteran (notice I didn't say "hero") for the benefit of a guy who fought the Vietnam war in Texas/Alabama and another guy who got five deferments because he had other priorities.

    And the Willie Horton ad was a not so subtle racist message. You'll remember the revolving door in the ad with all the black convicts being let out of jail?

    Listen, both ads worked, so more power to you, arch stanton. But they certainly weren't issue driven. They were pushing people's fear buttons. That's cool. LBJ did it to Goldwater. Both sides do it. The current crop of GOPers do it better than Dems, so maybe I'm just jealous.

    All that aside, it is hard to defend the Wille Horton and SBV ads as anything other than underhanded politics.

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 4:22 PM  

  • In politics what isn’t politically motivated? And in what way were the SBV claims baseless? As I recall it was the SBV that actually made Kerry rescind his claim that he was in Cambodia. And why is telling the truth about someone a “Slime”?

    I just watched the Willie Horton ad and I didn’t see any revolving door. I think either there were two ads and I only saw the one, or you are mistaken as to its subtle racist agenda.

    I would like it if you would review the SBV site and find the Willie Horton ad and review it as well. I don’t find either of these very illuminating ads/organizations underhanded whatsoever. The truth is the truth.

    By Anonymous Arch Stanton, at 2:06 AM  

  • I distinctly remember a revolving door in one of the ads in which prsioners (mostly black) were being freed from prison. You tell me that's not pushing a racist message?

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 3:21 AM  

  • arch stanton,

    I forget to mention in my last comment, I would be willing to read your piece about Clinton/China. Why don't you start your own blog and put it up or take praguetwin up on his offer to print it here?

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 3:25 AM  

  • I'm going to back up RBE on this one. I distinctly remember a revolving door as well. It was kind of a sepia down-shot, and the door was embedded into a prison wall.

    There were at least two versions of the commecial that I saw at the time.

    See Arch, I'm not the only one who wants you to start your own blog!


    I hear you man. I just thought that the left had a responsibility to be above it. I guess they had been trying and getting their asses handed to them in election after election.

    Funny thing, a ultra-liberal friend of mine says the same thing as your father. I don't think of it as an absolute, but there is a lot of truth in it.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 4:01 AM  

  • RBE & P.T. Well, the one I watched can be found at "The living room candidate" and it clearly has no revolving door, can anyone find for me the version that has the fabled revolving door? Certainly if one is going to hang his hat on one little aspect of this ad, it should at least be proved.

    RBE I will do a piece on the Clinton China thing and post at a latter date. I am a stickler for detail and want it right. I hope my efforts will not fall on deaf ears.

    Did you go to the SBVT site? I'd be curious to see how you refute them.

    By Anonymous Arch Stanton, at 5:14 AM  

  • Go here to see the revolving door. You will have to scroll down the videos, but it is prety easy to find since it is called "revolving door." It is not a Willie Horton ad, but they were being run at the same time, I'm sure often back to back.

    Unfortunately for RBE, the prisoners are mostly white which actually does not reflect the reality of any prison in America (except maybe "Club Fed"). Sorry RBE. Funny how we rember things. I distictly remember a prison wall, and not a fence, but at least I got the sepia right.

    The truth is the truth, Arch. To bad Dukakis didn't have the balls to outline how many tens of thousands were killed and kidnapped under Bush's watch by CIA agents and proxy US forces in Central and South America.

    Hey, the truth is the truth, and sometimes it hurts. Just ask your boy "Duke." Oh, I'm sorry, did you not vote for him?

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 9:36 AM  

  • OK, so now that the revolving door myth has been dispelled, can anyone tell me his or her major problem with the SBVT?

    PT, why don’t you outline for me how the "tens of thousands" were killed and kidnapped under Bush's watch by CIA agents and proxy US forces in Central and South America. When your done with that outline, could you do an essay on the gratitude that the peoples of Central and South America have for Americas intervention there?

    Who is Duke? Please tell me you are not talking about David Duke, because if you are you have stooped too low.

    By Anonymous Arch Stanton, at 5:30 PM  

  • I'm not the one with the problem with the SBVT. If they want to spend money, and people want to give it to them, that is their right. Just so long as what they spew is the truth considering who they are trying to destroy. Public officials have a right to protection under slander laws because the cost is so great. If someone ruins my reputation, well, I might have to move, but then I'm fine. Not the same for a senator.

    I'll work on that outline for you.

    You can do the essay on the gratitude of the Central American masses towards Bush I and the CIA. It would be a great first post for your blog.

    Randy "Duke" Cunningham is your illustrious Senator, who I'm assuming you voted for because he has an "R" next to his name. I'll bet you didn't know he liked gambling and hookers when you did though, so you are forgiven.

    Please, have a look here for a brief synopsis of the wall of shame. Yes, there are some Democrats on the list, but they are going to have to get busy if they want to even hold a candle to the GOP in terms of criminal enterprise. I guess they expect that to be handed to them on a platter as well. Damn lazy liberals.

    And while we are on the subject, DeLay is going down, my friend. And it is not because of unjustified partisan attacks (I mean please, the democrats are going after him simply because he made it his life's goal to destroy them. How unfair is that?) It is because there was a full on criminal enterprise being run out of his office, and even if he didn't know, well, it is on his watch, so to speak. (Please, he knew).

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 5:54 PM  

  • I guess I did conflate the Willie Horton ad with the prison ad, but there's no doubt in my mind that Lee Atwater knew EXACTLY what buttons he was pushing in people's heads by running both ads at the same time. The not-so-subtle message was, vote for Dukakis and violent black criminals like Willie Horton are going to rape and murder your women folk.

    Interestingly enough, Al Gore was actually the first candidate to run a Wille Horton-type ad against Dukakis (I'm not sure if Horton was referenced in the Gore ad or if just the prison release prgoram was referenced.) So Atwater was just picking up somebody else's ad campaign and making it his own.

    As for the Swift Boaters, (a site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center and referenced by Dick Cheney in his debate w/ John Edwards in the 2004 VP debate) has plenty of evidence refuting the SBV's allegations against Kerry.

    The SBV smears were politically motivated, funded by GOP operatives/cronies with ties to Rove's noise machine, and were developed to fill up all that air time during the summer of 2004 when the cable networks ahd nothing to run. The entire campaign had Rovian ratfucking written all over it and it worked. It's fine. Kerry was an awful candidate, he didn't defend himself against those attacks very well at all, and by doing so he played right into Rove's/Bush's hands. I have since come to believe that the best thing that could've happened to Dems and the country was for Kerry to lose. Now Americans have been given a chance to see the Bush Iraq policy, fiscal policy, environmental policy, and domestic policies taken to their logical conclusions. Judging by the 32%-36% approval Bush is receiving in all the major polls in the last four months, people don't much like those policies.

    And you know what's funny? Many conservatives don't like the Bush policies much either. I'm a fan of the American Conservative magazine because many of the writers there don't drink the Kool Aid when it comes to the Bush administration (I remember a time when the people at National Review were sychophants to power either, but that's a while ago now.) They think Bush is "tax cut and spend," big government Wilsonian and they don't like it.

    My Dad's an old John Bircher who has voted the Conservative line in NY every year, loves Ronald Reagan and still thinks Barry Goldwater should be added to Mount Rushmore and he despises George W. Bush, mostly because he fears Bush's authoritarian policies are undermining the Constitution (ie., the NSA domestic spying program, Gitmo, the rendering programs, etc.) He's also disgusted by the administration's exposure of a CIA agent for political reasons. But my Dad's an old-time conservative who believes honesty, integrity, and adherence to the Constitution are the most important values a president can have.

    Unfortunately outside of a few honest conservatives like Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan, many in the conservative movement have sold out their conservative principles and become complete shills for the preznit (at least until his poll numbers fell into the low 30's!)

    BTW, I will absolutely give your Clinton/China piece a fair hearing. As I have said before, I am predisposed to believe negative things about Clinton. Maybe my dad rubbed off on my there!

    By Blogger reality-based educator, at 12:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home