« Important Gib-blogging notes | Main | Reid, Berkley not liberals -- darnit »



I am suprised no one has pointed out that most port cities are progressive and this could be just one more example of how politics, not threat, is what determines the decision of where to put funds in this administration.

Like me, I suspect, upinreno thinks this administration is capable of anything. But I also think that's the only thing at which Bush and his band of thugs ARE capable. The port issue probably has less to do with letting progressive cities suffer and more to do with the administration's incompetence and corruption. Frankly, none of them is palatable!

Thanks for reporting Hair-do's votes against securing the ports.
I wish the local television personalities and maybe the RJ/Sun scribes read your Gleen, then the "great unwashed" might be brought up to speed and be enlightened about this guy's goofiness.
Ah, but your right with the perception isssue; as Gibbons says, "we have our values".

Go a step beyond, get your hair on fire by downloading a copy of "United Arab Emirates Central Bank & 9/11 Financing" By Iqbal Ismail Hakim, it's available as an ebook download. See who we're giving port control and "security" to. It's all about money, power (more money), and oil (much more money).

Diogenes, where can one download this book/pamphlet, I swear i googled it and it isn't there

I found it here:


If you do want to download the book, be sure to have a ream of dead tree material on hand. The book is approximately 240 pages.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Glean the Gleaner

  • Web lasvegasgleaner.com