Homeland Security GOP-Style – Didn’t the Bin Ladens Have a Bid In?
The continually dysfunctional Wisconsin legislature once again proved its buffoonery while in session today. As we were busy taking up issues that determine whether letters to municipalities have to be certified or not when school district boundaries change (SB 322), we refused to even discuss Assembly Resolution 47 which would allow the legislature to send its thoughts to the U.S. Congress.
You see, this is what has some of us a bit worried.
President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run six major U.S. seaports.
Wait a minute. We’re going to let a company from a country that likely helped launder money for 911-terrorists now guard our seaports? Wow. I guess not only have we forgotten about Bin Laden, but we’ve also forgot about other real threats.
Instead, we continue our quagmire in Iraq, a non-threat.
Well the Wisconsin Republican legislative majority doesn’t want us to rock the boat. We’ll leave that to potential security risks. Assembly Democrats just wanted to make sure we don't have problems in the future with the ports of Milwaukee or Superior, for example.
John Gard, is this your personal official opinion as well? I’m sure a lot of people from NE Wisconsin would love to know.
And for the record, we did decide that a handful of fewer letters in the future do not have to go out when school districts change boundaries. I thought you would be wanting to know.
posted by Mark Pocan @ 4:34 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
So it's OK to "profile" Arabs when it comes to business deals, but not when it comes to fighting terrorism?
Curious...
I guess I never thought I'd see the day when Mark Pocan suggested there were no trustworthy members of a particular ethnic group. Interesting how prejudiced someone can be when it suits their cause - cheap political points against a president of another party.
"guard our ports"???? I thought it was pretty clear that our OWN people (under the Homeland Security umbrella or whatever) will still be "guarding the ports".
Cheap shot, Mark.
I've gotta actually agree with the anonymous cowards on this one Mark. I think the Dems have really taken a cheap shot on this issue. The entire involvement of the UAE in 9/11 is that two of the highjackers were from there and a lot of the money went through a bank there. I don't see that as a country necessarily supportive of terrorism. Saying that a group of Arabs from UAE buying ports is automatically a danger to national security is just prejudice.
Like you've said Mark, get back to the real issues.
Well Eric and "anonymi", here are my thoughts. One, I don't support outsourcing of any jobs with tax dollars to non-U.S. companies. I am not a "Johnny-Come-Lately"; I have a bill in the legislature called the American Jobs Act that does just that with Wisconsin tax dollars. Second, it is not a random accusation against a company or country, but the concern comes from the 911 Commission's report that says there was likely a link between Bid Laden, Al Qaeda and UAE officials. That is worthy of a debate, not an unscrutinized contract. But Republicans (not you Eric) who want to defend Bush and Gard and company no matter what, bend your logic where you can. You will need it this fall.
"One, I don't support outsourcing of any jobs with tax dollars to non-U.S. companies."
1. Not oursourced -- the jobs are staying in our ports. Probably the same union workers, just under new ownership (which was already foreign owned).
2. Why should we critize foreign investment in our country. WE WANT THAT!
Post a Comment
<< Home