And also my "tin foil" point, maybe that saudi shiek who owns part of Fox News is mad that the UAE is diversifying and progressing, while the saudi's shiek "kingdom" is mired in wahabbist regression.
Now Fox News giving prominent coverage of chuckie schumer's statement.
You're the one who believes the invasion from Mexico is a perfectly legitimate business deal.
Don't get to excited over what the sportscaster says.
Actually, the Saudi leader owns 5% of FNC's parent company Newscorp. Dubai owns 100% of DP World. Are you one of DP World's lobbyists?
You need to watch grown-up programs if you want the straight skinny. Imus is off today but C-SPAN is going to discuss this subject for the next half hour or so.
Go play in the traffic.
We heard all your blathering BS on the subject last night already:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1581900/posts
Don't you have better things to do...like rolling out the red carpet for another 1,000,000 illegal invaders at the Mexican Border?
Really, do you see nothing perverse about this idea?
I thought this would be a serious thread, not someone equating the 5% ownership of Fox to supervising six seaports during war time. I'll steer clear of threads by this poster in the future as a waste of time.
Is there anything Bush does that you won't defend, Dane?
The sell should be blocked.
David Bass, DC Public Affairs Consultant, is apparently the spokesperson from the WH on this ports issue. He is about as inarticulate as hClinton off script.
He is hem-hawing and can't form a single defensive sentence. [Reminds me of the WH 'defense' of the Miers nomination.]
"Kilmeade is really pushing the hillary/schumer/peter king talking points(lie) that DPWorld is going to take over security, when they are not"
What do you know that the rest of us don't? The mere fact that a UAE company is getting involved in six American seaports is enough to scrap the deal.
Perhaps the right course of argument is that if the UAE makes this deal, we must immediately cancel all contracts with any part of this firm and kick them out of our ports.
Somehow I suspect that the next argument will be that a contract is a contract, and we can't kick them out of our ports. Yes, we can, and we must.
I've asked these questions on a couple other threads and haven't gotten any answers:
What happens when this deal doesn't go through? Is the current owner forced to operate at a loss? Or rather, will they simply close up shop? Will the ports be operated at taxpayer expense? Are Hillary! and Schumer going to use Chinese campaign funds to buy them? Should we have a FReepathon and buy them ourselves?
I'm sure if we can find an American buyer this'll all be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Since FNC moved to the left, I stopped watching.
Isn't the point that a state owned company from a muslim country would be in control of anything in America? The fact that six of our shipping ports would be in such a company's hands seems to have missed you.
Fox may have gotten the security issue wrong but that's not the main issue, if in fact, Fox is wrong.
It's disappointing that it takes the liberals to get the national security issues of the port operations to the American people.
Since you brought it up, Brian, E.D., and Ronde decided to hit on NBC for somehow making the men's 1Km speed-skating race into something of a "Black vs. White" thing. I did not see it that way at all.
The spin from the Left, flying in the face of all facts, is that this is a continuation of the Bush administration policy of selling off bits and pieces of America for profit - national security be damned.
Of course, there is not a shred of truth to this.
This is a multi-national business deal. Did the British concern (P&O) take some sort of loyalty oath before "we" allowed them to do a private deal with the previous lease-holder? Did they offer us any guarantee that no Islamist would ever be elected to their Board of Directors?
Further, do we have any right to tell a private concern (P&O) to whom they may or may not sell their interests or assets?
If you don't like foreign governments having access to the day-to-day operations of our ports, then write a law barring all foreign concerns from having such access. Or change the review process to include examining the deal through strict security filters, instead of purely fiscal ones.
Hey, I live about three minutes from one of the ports in question (Howland Hook), so I have a vested interest (as do all Americans, regardless of where they live) in this issue. But let common sense prevail - you cannot shut out the UAE without shutting out all foreign investment in our ports.
And that, I believe, is what we shoud be screaming about. Don't think for a minute that Clinton and Schumer are not going to make this about Bush - and that is misplaced blame, so typical of the Left.
What's with your jihad against FOX news?