Opposing the United Arab Emirates Port Deal Means You Help Terrorists

Posted on | February 24, 2006

I am getting sick and tired of the Bush Administration destroying America. I am not talking about a physical destruction but rather changing the founding principals upon which our nation was founded. Most notably is that of freedom of speech. The whole idea for freedom of speech came from the colonial days when the original thirteen colonies were under the jurisdiction of King George III of England and Parliament. One of the practices was to arrest people critical of how England was treating the colonies such as the taxation policies. The problem is under Bush we have been backsliding back to the pre-Revolutionary War days. While they have to get past the Constitution and the Supreme Court to actually dismantle the right of free speech, this administration seems hell bent on changing it to the point it might as well be abolished.

First there was the practice of creating so-called "Free Speech Zones". These areas were where protestors with messages that did not kiss the ass of the president were forced to go, guaranteed never to be seen by George W. Bush or media outlets covering Bush events, or be arrested. The practice was instituted under former Attorney General John Ashcroft who told the Senate Judiciary Committee that dissenters aide terrorists. Naturally the excuse was security since a terrorist could hide in the crowd or protestors and other such nonsense. Problem was pro-Bush people were allowed to stay so, provided they could get through security checks, a terrorist could have joined the pro-Bush crowds allowed to stay and carry out whatever it was planned. One stated reason too is was that "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured" according to a secret service agent interviewed on NPR. Judges were not buying the reason either. A 65-year-old retired steel worker attended Bush’s visit to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 2002 carrying a sign that said "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us" and was arrested because he refused to move to the so-called "Free Speech Zone" which was a fenced in baseball field a third of a mile away. The man was arrested charged with disorderly conduct but a judge threw out the charge. A South Carolina man had the Justice Department prosecute him for the same reasons after state charges of trespassing were dismissed because state law forbids arresting people for trespassing on public land. US Attorney Strom Thurmond, Jr. stepped in and charged the man with federal crimes.

While the "Free Speech Zone" thing has fallen into disuse, Ashcroft’s original concept of dissent equaling aide to America’s enemies is still holding strong. The line is still used to this vary day, often to attempt to silence critics of Bush’s failed War in Iraq. However I was reading RawStory’s RSS feed and came across an article with a headline that I thought at first was a joke. It stated "Pentagon: Opposing ports deal means terrorists win". The headline was a direct link to an article on CNN.Com about how the company in the United Arab Emirates has agreed to delay its takeover of six US ports while Congress and the Whitehouse work out their issues. I started scanning the article but RawStory was right. There is a quote from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England that pretty much says that criticizing the deal helps terrorists. He says:

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful. They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

Well it is nice to see individuals like Michelle Malkin and Republicans in both the House and Senate being accused of the same thing they have been accusing me of for for years now. In her first post since her blog was shutdown due to a Distributed Denial of Service attack, Michelle posted what I thought was a good list of reasons why the ports deal should be scrutinized more because of security concerns. I guess she has gone from Bush apologist to aiding terrorists. Welcome to the club Michelle!

Blog Links:

Michelle Malkin

External Links:

Filed Under Politics |

Comments

3 Responses to “Opposing the United Arab Emirates Port Deal Means You Help Terrorists”

wally
February 26th, 2006 @ 4:07 am

We has a Nation should have seen this comming after the katrina disaster. I am heart broken and confused on why W did this.
The Angry Fag
February 26th, 2006 @ 10:14 am

Because all W cares about is power and what he has to do to get more and keep what he has.
Handi
March 7th, 2006 @ 7:09 pm

I guess no one misses the irony in the statement “the terrorists wants us become paradoid, distrustul, isolationist…”

These are precisely the attitudes Rove and his political machine have tried to INSTILL in American voters.

Paranoia about liberals and gays, distrustful on anyone who questions King George, and isolationist as in…red state, blue state.

Ironic, indeed.

Some might remember, in the beginning, anyone who protested the war in Viet Nam was a traitor and aiding the enemy. In the end, however, 500,000 strong, could not be denied.

I am ready to go to Washington. Anyone wanna go along?

Handi