Posted on 02/24/2006 4:57:39 AM PST by When_Penguins_Attack
Not any longer. Rush stated that the UAE wanted to work closely with the EU and the US in shaping the new governement the Palistinians have elected.
LLS
Pruden mentioned what (to me) is the major issue:
"Like every president, George W. wants whatever he says to be taken as the last word, but no president before him, not even Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln, was accorded that kind of deaf, dumb and blind acquiescence to authority. That kind of acquiescence is practically un-American."
I have not taken a position yet on this whole port deal. I'd like to know more about it. I'm not comfortable just taking the President's word for it, regardless of which party the President is part of.
Most of us would probably agree that democracy is not a spectator sport. We shouldn't just be satisfied with a statement that someone else has reviewed the deal and doesn't have a problem with it.
The President has not made a compelling case as to why this is a good deal, why he supports it. Now we know that the senior members (Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Homeland Security) of this committee charged with reviewing foreign acquisitions didn't even know about the deal before it was approved. Doesn't that raise legitimate questions about the thoroughness or top-level supervision of this review? I think so.
Let the record reflect that I have not taken a position on this deal one way or the other. I'd like to take an informed position so I need more information.
Let the record further reflect that I am proud to support President Bush. My family and I pray for him every day, and we have materially supported both of his campaigns. I generally support his initiatives. I'm not sure yet about this one. As much as I support the President, I do not blindly/unquestioningly follow any man.
I am a Washington Times subscriber. Pruden's column is always a must-read. He does a great job. I almost always agree with him and I consider myself to be a true conservative.
Thanks for 'listening'!
21 or six, makes no difference since it only involves commercial port operations and doesn't impact security.
Let me make this as clear for you as I possibly can.
Miers---after weeks of disagreement favor shifted to those dissenting that her confirmation was a good idea. The administration was hard pressed to find anyone that would support the nomination aside from Hugh Hewitt.
Ports- After about a week of furor favor is shifting decidely in favor of the administration's argument and the port sale itself.
You need to realize that all the people that opposed Miers, like myself, are not on your side in this. This is a different issue and a different day, and those that have been hysterical about the sale are losing just judging by the numbers now supporting it or giving the deal a second look in favor.
This isn't like Miers much at all. It's more like Katrina when lies, spin, and misinformation were embraced with Republicans/conservatives running about like their heads had been taken off. And on Katrina, I was with the admin.
I noticed the hype,too. Hey but when a person jumps on the MSM bandwagon without checking out the WHOLE story then that is what takes place.
Don't understand the PRESIDENT. He will survive this and I support him more than ever now. :)
The port sale bothers me, however, what bothers me more is the proposed pilot project of a Mexican government run customs facility in my city. While I'm not against free trade, global trade or whatever I am seriously concerned about the fact that the perimeter of our border is being moved from Laredo to Kansas City. Goods shipped from Asia will not have to stop at Laredo for inspection but will continue to Kansas City. KCSmartport estimate that there will be 600 trucks a day in and out of the West Bottoms area by 2012. While the Mexican government may not appear to be a security threat to my state or my country I question the wisdom of this "historic" arrangement.
One question that's occured to me--will not Ports World also be managing Great Britain's ports? Apparently, the British government has checked this out as well and also sees no significant risk in the deal.
The ports are not being sold.
Yes, but you don't necessarily have to sell them your ports either.
Good post.....at least you are making an argument and I respect your opinions (unlike some others). Let us see where this goes; I will be the first to admit if I am wrong.
Same with Australia where they already have operations.
Sorry for the mistake. I'll take more care next time.
Pinging the howlingist, doggiest of them all: Dane.
Watch with amazement as he turns on Wes Pruden.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
I don't know anything about that program.
Actually it should read, Due to the lack of leadership in the Republican party and within the Conservatives, the Democrats plan to turn the party and the Conservatives against the president was extremely effective.
Even though, the whole truth was not told and what information was given was skewed the Conservatives jumped on the MSM bandwagon while the Democrats gleefully pat themselves on the back and toasted each other for a well laid plan that the Conservatives fell for hook, line and sinker.
Click your ruby red slippers three times Dorothy, and you will have national security.
As in the Harriett Miers nomination, I believe that all of the facts were not presented to President Bush. Let's bring them out, in public, then go from there.
IMHO, that's the stance that Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin are advocating, as well.
Better get ready for work...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.