Post by MARIO on Apr 3, 2006 21:22:06 GMT -8
If only Clinton had been a Republican
By Burt Prelutsky
Apr 4, 2006
The way that so many people, especially politicians, went nuts over the ports deal reminded me once again what a difference party designation makes. One only has to compare how harshly Sam Alito was treated during his confirmation hearings with the way that the ACLU’s chief counsel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sailed through hers.
Getting back to the matter of the ports, I’m still not sure if it was a good idea or a bad one to allow the United Arab Emirates to manage those installations on the east coast. But I’m awfully curious why some of those same people who wanted Bush’s head on a pike weren’t the least bit upset when, during Clinton’s reign, Communist China was granted the authority to manage ports on the west coast. So far as I’m concerned, anybody who believes we have more to fear from Dubai than from Beijing needs a brain transplant.
It was only after Saddam Hussein bought off several nations with his oil-for-food scam, and ignored a kazillion U.N. resolutions, that Bush invaded Iraq. Immediately, the cry went up that he didn’t have a coalition. Afterwards, the complaint was that he lacked an exit strategy. Odd that nobody said “boo” when Clinton unilaterally invaded Somalia; odder still that when he sent troops to Kosovo, promising they’d be home within a year, nobody took him to task when, a few years later, when he left the Oval Office, our forces were still there. That’s some exit strategy.
His liberal critics accuse Bush of being in bed with Halliburton, but Halliburton, you should be aware, did just fine in the 90s when Clinton was minding the store.
You also hear about Bush pandering to Enron. Well, there’s no denying that the sleazebags at Enron donated over $400,000 to the party, and kicked in another $100,000 to help pay for the president’s inauguration. And there’s no getting around the fact that Enron’s chairman stayed at the White House on 11 different occasions. Talk about having access! What’s more, the Export-Inport Bank subsidized Enron to the tune of $600 million in a single transaction.
Clearly, where Enron is concerned, the president has a lot to answer for. But the president we’re talking about happens to be Clinton. Bush, in case you didn’t notice, is the president whose administration has Enron CEO Ken Lay up on charges.
Clinton is the same fellow who had Yasir Arafat as a house guest seemingly every other week, while Bush is the guy who declared the terrorist persona non grata.
His enemies like to charge Bush with being in league with the Saudis, but at least the sheiks provide us with oil. Nary a peep was heard, however, when Clinton handed over military technology to the Red Chinese in exchange for nothing more than campaign contributions.
READ THE REST:
www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=192335&loc=/opinion/columns/BurtPrelutsky/2006/04/04/192335.html
By Burt Prelutsky
Apr 4, 2006
The way that so many people, especially politicians, went nuts over the ports deal reminded me once again what a difference party designation makes. One only has to compare how harshly Sam Alito was treated during his confirmation hearings with the way that the ACLU’s chief counsel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sailed through hers.
Getting back to the matter of the ports, I’m still not sure if it was a good idea or a bad one to allow the United Arab Emirates to manage those installations on the east coast. But I’m awfully curious why some of those same people who wanted Bush’s head on a pike weren’t the least bit upset when, during Clinton’s reign, Communist China was granted the authority to manage ports on the west coast. So far as I’m concerned, anybody who believes we have more to fear from Dubai than from Beijing needs a brain transplant.
It was only after Saddam Hussein bought off several nations with his oil-for-food scam, and ignored a kazillion U.N. resolutions, that Bush invaded Iraq. Immediately, the cry went up that he didn’t have a coalition. Afterwards, the complaint was that he lacked an exit strategy. Odd that nobody said “boo” when Clinton unilaterally invaded Somalia; odder still that when he sent troops to Kosovo, promising they’d be home within a year, nobody took him to task when, a few years later, when he left the Oval Office, our forces were still there. That’s some exit strategy.
His liberal critics accuse Bush of being in bed with Halliburton, but Halliburton, you should be aware, did just fine in the 90s when Clinton was minding the store.
You also hear about Bush pandering to Enron. Well, there’s no denying that the sleazebags at Enron donated over $400,000 to the party, and kicked in another $100,000 to help pay for the president’s inauguration. And there’s no getting around the fact that Enron’s chairman stayed at the White House on 11 different occasions. Talk about having access! What’s more, the Export-Inport Bank subsidized Enron to the tune of $600 million in a single transaction.
Clearly, where Enron is concerned, the president has a lot to answer for. But the president we’re talking about happens to be Clinton. Bush, in case you didn’t notice, is the president whose administration has Enron CEO Ken Lay up on charges.
Clinton is the same fellow who had Yasir Arafat as a house guest seemingly every other week, while Bush is the guy who declared the terrorist persona non grata.
His enemies like to charge Bush with being in league with the Saudis, but at least the sheiks provide us with oil. Nary a peep was heard, however, when Clinton handed over military technology to the Red Chinese in exchange for nothing more than campaign contributions.
READ THE REST:
www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=192335&loc=/opinion/columns/BurtPrelutsky/2006/04/04/192335.html
