Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.
Harriet Miers taught me that. And apparently the WH hasn't learned a damn thing from that fiasco.
"At least it is not like WW II and the mafia or the Communist are not in charge of the ports."
what would be the difference? If Whabbis managing the ports during the War On Terror is, under the rules, innocuous (as some are saying) then it should have been perfectly fine for the KGB to manage the ports 35 years ago.
The world is either going crazy or getting stupid.
There isn't a terrorist alive that wouldn't be rubbing his palms in glee at the prospect of arabs managing the ports.
Isn't this "strange bedfellows"??
Using that old lefty trick of playing the race card to defend insane policies.
Great, so we are blackmailed into doing whatever the Arab street wants.
Sounded like it to me.
same same same
"It's complicated."
No, what's complicated is that if we blow up an insurgent town with 'collateral damage', its legal. But if we capture them, its human rights, and according to the world, we rot in hell. And as Capt Willard said, its like giving out speeding tickets at the indianapolis 500.
He's our resident joker.
dont forget about the leftist tactics used during the miers debate ie those opposed were "sexist"
I think the turnover of the bases in panama was a much bigger deal than the turnover of the canal itself.
Why don't you Bush bashers take the lead on this? Oh wait, you already have. Hence the hysterical reaction.
"dont forget about the leftist tactics used during the miers debate ie those opposed were "sexist""
Our own Howlin said the same.
If this is the issue that catapults Hillary into the White House, we deserve our destruction at her hands. Keep some perspective. As I see it right now, the real danger is Bush losing his political position if his veto is overridden by Congress. He's risking his entire fortune on one issue, an issue that to me seems overblown. Maybe there's more to it, but right now all I see is hand-wringing and speculation.
Tahlak in favour of appearance money
By Alaric Gomes, Staff Reporter
Dubai: Tournament Director for Dubai Open Championships, Salah Tahlak, has justified the payment of appearance money to top players at the Dubai Tennis Championships.
"It is money well spent and a perfect return on investment for Dubai," Tahlak told Gulf News. "Top players on the Tours draw crowds. These are marquee players. Having them adds to the profile of the event," Tahlak said.
"Players like Agassi, Navratilova and Sharapova have this appeal. Therefore, we don't have problems paying them appearance money," Tahlak shrugged.
Tahlak, however clarified that not all players get the same amount. "The top 10 players normally do. The payment is more like a Persian carpet, each one has a different pricing," Tahlak stated.
"There's nothing great in players being paid, it's a normal thing. Tournaments pay the top players to come and play? all except the Grand Slams," he added.
Case in point
As a case in point, the tournament director illustrated how the staged match between Agassi and Roger Federer on top of the Burj Al Arab brought attention to Dubai. "That stunt was valued at $9.5 million (Dh35 million), while the marketing and public relations returns for the entire event was pinned at $24.5 million," Tahlak disclosed. "This is sound return on the investments."
The profile of tennis in the UAE is set to climb after Tahlak was named an officials on the Dubai Sports Committee headed by Shaikh Hamdan Bin Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum.
"We need to review the sport here. We need to attract more people and be able to sustain the interest of those who are already playing tennis," Tahlak stated.
He admitted his immediate priorities include sponsorship, marketing and the sustainence of the UAE women in the sport.
"Players like Agassi, Navratilova and Sharapova have this appeal. Therefore, we don't have problems paying them appearance money."
You were wrong on Meirs, you are wrong on this.
Were it not for the pressure we put on the White House to drop her, she probably would have floated through and everyone be forced to settle for mediocrity.
Instead, we got the right result.
Because no company in the United States does this kind of contract or work. Maybe Halliburton?
There's a big difference when you are in opposition, and when you are governing. When you are not in power, you don't have to compromise. When you are in power, you have to.
One world order!
Well they've got to get the Union together...
I wonder if this is how some of the Southerners felt in 1860,only on a smaller scale of course.One last fight for Independence could be around the corner...
A conservative playing the muslim race card.
Well, I'm pretty sure the admin isn't overly concerned with Israel, except to force them to give up land for (no) peace.
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.