« It's Not Every Day... | Main | Maybe I was wrong... »

Bush Fulfills "I'm A Uniter, Not A Divider" Pledge

Pity President Bush has forged such a clear bipartisan consensus united in opposition to his administrations approval of the the company responsible for shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates state-owned company.

Bush Shrugs Off Objections to Port Deal - [AP]

..Bush sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York's two senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port on Tuesday, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

This whole episode reeks of the political tone deafness displayed during the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination process...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush Fulfills "I'm A Uniter, Not A Divider" Pledge:

» The Moderate Voice linked with Around The 'Sphere Feb. 22, 2006

» ReidBlog linked with All in the family

» Joust The Facts linked with The Port Security Dilemma

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Senate Leaders Denounce Ports Plan

» basil's blog linked with Picnic 2006-02-22

» Mensa Barbie Welcomes You linked with Debunking Port Myths: VIDEO

» The Editor's Blog linked with Try this port quotes puzzle

Comments (38)

And the walls came a tumbli... (Below threshold)
jp2:

And the walls came a tumblin' down.

And the walls came a tum... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

And the walls came a tumblin' down

And the people who actually run the security at the ports won't really be affected.

Not that they're all that efficient, but this is kind of a lead balloon.

I don't like it.

Just not that worried about it.

Plus, if this turns into a screw up -- we might actually get the people who make it hard for us to have sensible security in our ports to make it possible.

Haha great headline! I hadn... (Below threshold)

Haha great headline! I hadn't thought of the uniter/divider thing. Seems he's finally done it by proposing such a breach of homeland security.

Next on his list of uniting all, returning ownership of the US to England.

I find myself in the awkwar... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I find myself in the awkward position of defending the President on this one. From what I've read, and there's a lot of crap going around on this one so it's not everything, these ports will be managed by Dubai Ports but security is still handled by the CPB and the Maritime Administration. In short we are not turning over security to a foreign state-owned company but letting them handle shipping scheduling for these six ports. So what?

What is happening now is a number of politicians (and others) are protesting this because it is politically expedient in an election year, yet the message that goes out to the world is "we don't trust a single one of you Aye-rabs". These are supposed to be our allies in fighting terrorism, are they not?

However the administration was quite stupid to trot Gonzalez out there to tell us he couldn't tell us anything about the "secret" approval process. God forbid they actually tell us something. But something Bush said today:

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world,"

and I agree. Hey, middle east! We'd like you to trust us to bring our military in there, occupy your neighbors, and tell you how to govern, but if you want to handle some shipping over here under our rules and subject to our law enforcement and border protection scrutiny, forget it! We don't want your kind round here!

Today, former President Jim... (Below threshold)
Chris James:

Today, former President Jimmy Carter proved, definitively, that this proposed port deal is a terrible idea: Carter endorsed the proposed deal.

I find myself agreeing, in ... (Below threshold)

I find myself agreeing, in principle, with MANTIS!!!


SOMEBODY SHOOT ME!!!!!!

Today, former President Jim... (Below threshold)
Chris James:

Today, former President Jimmy Carter proved, definitively, that this proposed port deal is a terrible idea: Carter endorsed the proposed deal.

Its a shame its come down t... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Its a shame its come down to this where we have to choose between insulting one of the more co-operative Middle East nations and Security.

This should have come to light sooner where it could have been stopped without creating such a diplomatic conundrum.

Wizbang subscription notifi... (Below threshold)

Wizbang subscription notification is sending blank emails. Don't know if you all realized this.

This violation of common se... (Below threshold)
Mark:

This violation of common sense should't have reached first base.

Lets vote to have Haliburton take the job.......

This violation of common se... (Below threshold)
Mark:

This violation of common sense should't have reached first base.

Lets vote to have Haliburton take the job.......

FOR THE LAST TIME,,, DEMOCR... (Below threshold)
bill metzger:

FOR THE LAST TIME,,, DEMOCRATS ARE AGAINST THIS PORT DEAL FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS THAN THE PUBBIES. THE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO QUASH THIS WANT TO DO SO BECAUSE THE GOP IS A RACIST PARTY THRU AND THRU... NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY. WE DEMOCRATS HAVE MUCH MORE NOBLE MOTIVES FOR OPPOSING THIS RISKY SCHEME. YES, THERE'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE - BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THE UAE IS NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR LGBTs. WHY SHOULD THEY BE REWARDED WITH THIS LUCRATIVE US GOVERNMENT CONTRACT??? IT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO MIDDLE EASTERN NATIONS. THE MESSAGE THAT IT IS OKEY DOKEY TO CRIMINALIZE LOVE!!! WE PROGRESSIVES URGE RESIDENT BUSH TO TURN OVER ALL US PORT OVERSIGHT TO A MORE MAINSTREAM ENTITY LIKE THE UNITED NATIONS.

KUCINICH`08

I know nothing about runnin... (Below threshold)
wyguy:

I know nothing about running ports, nothing about unloading or loading, nothing about port security. I do know Dubya and I trust him. Don't get you shorts in a twist over something we know little about.

I'd like to welcome the Lef... (Below threshold)

I'd like to welcome the Left wing of the Democrat party to the recognition that there IS an enemy out there. It's been more than 4 years since that enemy brought the war to our shores, but better late than never.

How many times in the last ... (Below threshold)

How many times in the last 5 years has Bush really dug in his heels on something? This is very anomalous behavior for him - and I'm wondering if there isn't something pretty damn serious behind it.

Like Wyguy, I'm puzzled but inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Being President means you have a whole flood of information at your fingertips, and I'm thinking that there's something pretty damn important that he knows that's sparking this - and that he can't tell us for whatever reason. (Not that the media would be inclined to report it without a hell of a lot of spin first...)

Wish I knew what it was - but I'm thinking the reason's pretty high up there in importance.

J.

I don't see oposition as an... (Below threshold)
Oh, FTLOG:

I don't see oposition as an anti-Arab stance. The UAE was a base for several 9/11 terrorists and has been an important conduit for delivery of nuclear components to North Korea and Iran.

We attacked and invaded Iraq over dubious ties to Al Qaeda, but we're going to turn over control of our ports to the UAE?

Ask yourself this: How would you feel if Bush signed a deal turning over management of major airports to them?

You can trust him if you want to, but I'd just as soon he have a psych eval!

Let's see:1. Preside... (Below threshold)
kevino:

Let's see:
1. President Bush is not very popular right now.
2. The 2006 elections are coming.
3. The Democrats will try to pin GOP legislators as mindless automatons of Bush:
"If you're against Bush, why vote for X?"
4. Bush makes several bonehead suggestions that the GOP shoots down.
5. The GOP stands on principle (in this case, security) over party loyalty.

Rove is a genius.

By the way, the Harriet Myers nomination was probably a ploy to getting the person he really wanted on the Supreme Court. This could be a bait-and-switch, too.

Hmmm.Here's a clue... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Here's a clue for everyone.

Please identify the last great issue that united both Republicans and Democrats. Now identify if it turned out to be a complete piece of crap.

Campaign finance reform anyone?

You'd think Republicans would learn, that when Democrats become happy, that it's a warning sign that they're doing something really stupid.

Ya, a stupid descision on W... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Ya, a stupid descision on W's part.

What the hell was he thinking when he made the choice and now with his statement about vetoing a bill banning the port management.

Has he totally lost his mind or gone completely tonedeaf politically?

Hmmmm.Ask... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Ask yourself this: How would you feel if Bush signed a deal turning over management of major airports to them?

I wouldn't give a rat's ass because we're not talking about turning over the frigging *security* of those facilities. All a management company does is scheduling. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you really give a damn when and where a ship gets it's sewage system flushed? That's what a port management company does. A port management company doesn't do security, that's the role of Department of Homeland Security. A port management company doesn't do cargo inspections, that's for DHS and customs. A port management company doesn't do ship inspections, that the role of the Coast Guard.

What an idiotic issue.

What I find very curious is that the same group of people who spouted so much nonsense about Trent Lott also did the same for Tom Delay, what was that about innocent until convicted, and now about this crap.

Color me unimpressed by the pundits of the Right.

it is the height of ignoran... (Below threshold)

it is the height of ignorance to compare the Meirs flap to this. Meirs was wholly unqualified to sit on the court, where Dubai Ports has been involved in port managment for decades, and has been servicing the 5th fleet for some time.

The knee-jerk reaction by so many to this deal boggles the mind. And this newfound sense of "security" at our ports is vastly overshadowed by the gaping whole that is our southern border. Alas, there is hardly any discussion by any Senator about that major problem, let alone 1/1000th of the media coverage.

While everyone seems poised to jump on this issue without doing an inkling of research into the deal, there is hope that cooler heads will prevail. I'm no big Bush supporter, but this assault on this deal reeks of xenophobia. We had no problem when the Brits managed the ports operations, but now we all of the sudden can't trust anyone from the ME? This form of guilt by association is the hallmark of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance

Bush laments yesterday "On... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Bush laments yesterday "One of my concerns, however, is mixed messages. And the message is, it's okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company -- maybe we ought not to deal the same way" Sounds reasonable but since his State of the Union address Bush has been warning us of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which he has wants to make a thing of the past" even though the US imports only 11% of its foreign oil from the Middle East..more from Mexico and Canada..He never talks about American dependence on Canadian or North Sea oil ..Raising constantly the 'Middle East spectre' and blurring the distinctions of nations in that region, he is now hoisted by his own rhetorical petard..I'd say

Actually, ed, I deleted "ex... (Below threshold)
Oh, FTLOG:

Actually, ed, I deleted "except security" because I thought that was a given, since the Port Authorities and Coast Guard will continue handling security.

But, if you think sewage is all port management handles, you're dumber than W. Hiring, scheduling, log-keeping, placement of ships, etc. It isn't all about what's in the ships. Now tell me you'll give them management of the airports!

As for motive, I don't see Bush as self-less enough to sabotage his own reputation (such as it is) in order to make the Congressional Republicans look good...to show that they're willing to stand up to, and publicly disagree with the President on something so important. I just don't see it.

I'm adding to my post above... (Below threshold)

I'm adding to my post above to clarify my position.

Will the Port Debacle wake up Congress to our biggest security flaw?

That being our virutaly unguarded Southern Border?

I've heard some really bizarre comparisons of the Dubai Ports World deal with the Harriet Miers nomination. It is the height of ignorance to compare the Meirs flap to this. Meirs was wholly unqualified to sit on the court, where Dubai Ports has been involved in port management for some time. Who do you think runs the ports that the 5th Fleet routinely pulls into?
The knee-jerk reaction by so many to this deal boggles the mind. And this newfound sense of "security" at our ports is vastly overshadowed by the gaping hole that is our southern border. So while our open borders Congress hems and haws over a port deal, it ignores the single largest security flaw that the nation faces. Alas, there is hardly any discussion by any Senator about that major problem, let alone anything close to 1/1000th of the media coverage. Hell there have been more stories on the Cheney shooting than the massive amounts of incursions by the Mexican military supported coyotes and drug runners to the south or the Arabs posing as Mexicans who are crossing the border.

While everyone seems poised to jump on this issue without doing an inkling of research into the deal, there is hope that cooler heads will prevail. The biggest mistake I continue to hear is that Dubai Ports World will take over Security for the ports, and this is fully incorrect. Coast Guard and Customs have absolute control of the ports security, as well as the Port Master who is more or less the liaison between the Port Management Company and the governmental agencies who oversee all US ports.

I'm no big Bush supporter, but this assault on this deal reeks of xenophobia. We had no problem when the Brits managed the ports operations, but now we all of the sudden can't trust anyone from the Middle East? This form of guilt by association is the hallmark of bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance.

Now if someone wants to raise valid concerns about the deal, do so and drop the emotional response. Words like "common sense" seem appropriate when looking at a deal of this magnitude, yet that same "common sense' is wholly absent when it comes to our border policies.

There are in my view legitimate concerns to be raised over this port deal. UAE has been a valuable ally in the War on Terror to their own detriment, but their banking ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups should send up very large red flags. Still this isn't a nail in the coffin of this deal. The turnover of many US ports to this group is troubling in the fact that it will give them layout, and logistical details of our port systems that would not normally be made public to an outside company, and this is troubling as well.

I for one welcome a review of the deal, and I would like to see more security experts, not Congressmen, Media Pundits, and the rest of the MSM hackery's opinions on this deal. I do not for an instant trust Congress when it comes out so quickly on a deal like this, because its obvious that no one there has had the time to review the deal or its implications. So step back, look it over, analyze and report, but don't jump to conclusions immediately.

Hmmm.But,... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

But, if you think sewage is all port management handles, you're dumber than W. Hiring, scheduling, log-keeping, placement of ships, etc. It isn't all about what's in the ships. Now tell me you'll give them management of the airports!

Don't be an dumbass.

I used the example of sewage to show what was one of the tasks that a port management company does. I've written plenty on this subject in any number of comments so little more reading on your part would have shown this.

The simple fact is that there's nothing that a port management company does that should raise a red flag on this.

JLawson"This is very... (Below threshold)
sabrina:

JLawson
"This is very anomalous behavior for him - and I'm wondering if there isn't something pretty damn serious behind it."

I think you nailed it with that statement. I instinctively feel that this is bad idea - giving "control" of our major ports to a Middle Eastern country while we are actively fighting a war in the Middle East.
But when I think beyond my gut reaction, it doesn't worry me so much as it perplexes me - I wonder also if there isn't a very real, very serious reason why this is not only a good idea, but a necessary one.

I think ultimately, the answer to any question about the war on terror is "Iran". It's where the last 5 years has been leading us.
Look at a map of the Middle East. Now picture where we have our troops located.
We have troops on Iran's Eastern border and the Western border.
Turkey is, I think, a wild card. And is Turkmenistan - neutral? I guess we'll see.
Saudi Arabia - debatably in the throes of their own slow-moving democratic revolution.
While Turkey and Saudi may not like us - you know they don't like the idea of the whack job in Iran with nukes.

But look at the UAE - nice big stretch of coastline in the Persian Gulf facing Iran. Sounds like they could be a very important, strategic ally. It could be not completing this deal could FUBAR that plan and put a big kink in any plans.

I'm no foreign policy/military strategy scholar - so I'd love to hear someone else's opinion on this.

I instinctively feel tha... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I instinctively feel that this is bad idea - giving "control" of our major ports to a Middle Eastern country while we are actively fighting a war in the Middle East.

Oh, good. Instincts. Let's just go with those instead of thinking. You may be surprised to know that the UAE, which is a different country than Iraq by the way, is our ally in this war we are actively fighting in the ME. They offer support such as docking privileges for the Navy in the Persian Gulf.

As for your idea that this deal is being put through in order to have a staging point for a war with Iran, it's ridiculous. First of all, as I said before, the UAE is already an ally in our fight on terrorism and provides support and docking privileges. Second, if we want to attack Iran we can do so from Iraq! It's right next door!

I think ultimately, the answer to any question about the war on terror is "Iran".

I can think of many questions where that is not the answer.

It's where the last 5 years has been leading us.

Do you mean after another 10 years of fighting in Iraq? Because we're a little busy with that right now.

Look at a map of the Middle East. Now picture where we have our troops located.

Because you seem to believe we must surround Iran from every possible angle in order to...what?

Turkey is, I think, a wild card.

Shows how much you know about Turkey. Not only are they a democracy, a member of NATO, and an ally in the war on terror (and in Iraq), they will probably be part of the EU in a few years. How are they a "wild card"?

Saudi Arabia - debatably in the throes of their own slow-moving democratic revolution.

Yeah, and so is China. Give it another 50 years or so. By the way if an authoritarian government allows citizens to vote for candidates selected by that government in powerless local positions, this does not qualify as a "revolution".

But look at the UAE - nice big stretch of coastline in the Persian Gulf facing Iran. Sounds like they could be a very important, strategic ally.

They already are!

I'm no foreign policy/military strategy scholar

Well, at least you admit it. You're on the internet though. Maybe you should, I don't know, use it and learn something?

I must admit I have mixed f... (Below threshold)
Chris:

I must admit I have mixed feelings about this. However, for those who lean toward supporting the deal because they trust Bush, you should be aware that he didn't know anything about the deal until it was signed. He's just defending something his administration did. I'm not sure you should put a whole lot of trust in this particular decision.

Also, according to the NY Times, this law:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

requires a mandatory 45 day investigation for a deal like this when "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government..."

I suspect this deal is far from done, and the administration is going to have egg on its face. The UAE may be perfectly capable of running the ports, and there may be no security issues, but if ever there was a deal where you would circumvent the necessary vetting process, this ain't it.

Wow Mantis - that was entir... (Below threshold)
sabrina:

Wow Mantis - that was entirely rude and uncalled for - nice to know you don't know how to think before you write.
Just so you know, you ass, I'm not against the deal. Which is why I said "when I think beyond my gut reaction" - jackass - I am capable of thinking beyond my instincts. I believe that any company - US or not - should be able to bid on these projects. If this deal, which has been in the works since last year - has been vetted and approved by the right people then I am fine with it. I am also fine with people posing questions about it - something you seem to take issue with. I agreed with your post earlier, so you're being a dickhead to someone who already agrees with you.

As for Turkey - apparently you missed the whole point when they screwed us in the run up to the Iraq war. As I said, wild card. Democracy or not.

Saudi Arabia, as I pointed out, has been experiencing a cry out in their country for democracy. The people are starting to demand it, even if their leaders aren't. That is a step forward. As I said, slow paced and new, but none-the-less a reality that is much farther along than China.

Also, I am aware that UAE is already an ally. Which is why I pointed it out.

And yes, it is just a wee bit strategically important to have your enemy boxed in on a couple sides. That might be some clue as to the importance of having our troops already staged in the Middle East to east and west of Iran. That, frankly, should be a no-brainer, but I guess not for you.

Every damn move we have made since 9/11 has had strategic reasoning - Iraq and Afghanistan are not stand alone wars. They are battles in the larger war. And yes, I'll bet your sorry ass that a lot of the strategic planning in Iraq and Afghanistan had a little something to do with a future conflict with Iran. I'm sorry for you if you can't see that.

As for your comment about using the internet to learn something, I actually did do research before posting. Which is why I'm so easily able to dismiss your addlebrained comments. Seems you could learn to do a little thinking before posting.

Bush I think has made a pos... (Below threshold)
David:

Bush I think has made a possible "fatal" error in his judgement of this deal. This could cost the GOP at the voting booth this year.I just don't believe the average American is gonna except this at all.

What I take issue with is p... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What I take issue with is people who seem to get all excited at the prospect of invading more countries, especially when they are unfamiliar with the area they are talking about, as you clearly are.

This something not being di... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

This something not being discussed in these comments or on most news shows, but reveals a lot about the deal.

http://www.pww.org/article/view/2616/1/130/
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-02-16T214038Z_01_N16375949_RTRIDST_0_SECURITY-USA-DUBAI.XML

To sum it up, John Snow receives money from DP World. Oh and John Snow, as Sec of Treasury, was the head of the committee that approved this deal. You all know there had to be some cronyism involved with the Bushies.

Sean : Do you bother to rea... (Below threshold)
JD:

Sean : Do you bother to read the links that you post on here ? If you had bothered to do so, you would have noted that neither one of the linked articles shows that Sec. Snow receives money from DP World. In fact, all they show is that the company he used to be Chairman of sold its port assets to DP World A YEAR AFTER SEC. SNOW HAD LEFT THE COMPANY !

Do you own homework before posting some leftwing drivel spewed by media matters, brock, or wherever you picked up your talking point of the day.

I find it remarkably strange and eerie that mantis has been making some sense recently. Is somebody posting under his name ?

Chris : Please explain to u... (Below threshold)
JD:

Chris : Please explain to us how the regulatory vetting process was circumvented.

By all accounts, this has been in the works since November of last year. The media may have been left out of the loop, and Sen. Schumer may have been left out of the loop, but that does not mean that there has been an insufficient level of oversight.

Absolutely nowhere did I sa... (Below threshold)
sabrina:

Absolutely nowhere did I say or imply I was excited about going to war with more countries. There you go again, making assumptions whose only basis is your preconceived notions.

Never, ever have I been excited about this war or any other. And I certainly hope that the world can find a way to deal with Iran without putting any of our or any other countries soldiers in harms way.

Thinking about potential scenarios is not hoping for war. Where you do you come up with this crap?

JD: Do the math. Snow got ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

JD: Do the math. Snow got pension payments from CSX, they were bought out by DPW, so now he gets money from DPW.

Are you really that dumb, or just so narrow-minded that you still think Bush et al incapable of corruption?

If you haven't yet realized that this type of behavior is the standard MO for the current Republican party, just quit now and leave politics the rest of us.

You want some hard evidence... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

You want some hard evidence:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N99999987_2003.pdf

The most recent personal financial disclosure form (that I could find). Check page 10 and notice that Snow still accounted for income from CSX from a deferred compensation plan (which may have been a one-time payment) for $5-25 million and a CSX pension trust plan (which, forgive me but, I am assuming is not one-time) for $500,000 - 1 million. If you can find hard evidence that he no longer receives that pension trust plan income, then I will concede my argument.

JDAgain, I'm not b... (Below threshold)
Chris:

JD

Again, I'm not blasting the deal. I think there's a lot we don't know about it, but I distrust Bush enough that I certainly wouldn't fall back on "Gee, I'm sure he knows what's best." Especially since Scott McClellan says the President first learned about the deal when the news hit the press a few days ago.

Anyway, to answer your question, this NY Times article
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22port.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

raises some questions, particularly in these grafs:
"Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."

Like I say, there's probably times when it's OK to make the decision to skip the 45 day review. From a political standpoint, if nothing else, this doesn't seem to be one of those times.

And I have to say, the constrant refrain that Dubai Ports World won't be handling security really isn't that comforting. I freely admit that I know nothing about port operations, but my intuition is that a company running a port would develop enough knowledge about port security to know how to circumvent it, particularly since our ports don't seem to be particularly secure in the first place.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy