Skip to comments.
Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal
AP ALERT
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.
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 1handwashestheother; blahblahblah; botsusingtheracecard; buchananbrigade; bushbotsbluedresses; bushbotscirclewagons; bushclintonbushclint; bushsellout; clownposse; coulterwillexplode; d; dontworrybehappy; downfallofbush; dubaidubaidu; dubaidubya; dusappersinatizzy; eternalevil; failedcivicsclass; gameoverman; globalists; homelandsecurity; homosexual; howlermonkeys; howlinbots; howlinmonkeys; howlinsgang; hysteriatrain; ilovekeywords; jorgealbush; kneejerk; kneepadsstat; libtard; masshysteria; moonbatsonparade; muchadoaboutnothing; newworldorder; nonstory; openborderbushbots; pantiesinabunch; ports; ratpackattack; ratpackdunces; religionofports; surrendermonkeys; texasholdem; treason; uae; vetothisbutnotcfr; waronterror; wppff; wsayswhatmeworry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180, 1,181-1,200 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
To: Mo1
I have pinged you to some factual information, which might help you feel better.
1,161
posted on
02/21/2006 3:21:44 PM PST
by
onyx
(IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
To: finnman69
"US Customs still has complete control over port security." No they don't. Port security has various areas, divisions and dimensions. It is shared by the Coast Guard, Customs and the shipping/maritime company that controls the port. That is what P & O has bid nearly 7 billion dollars to do, control the six eastern sea ports involved in the bid.
But if it makes you sleep better at night, then go on believing the nonsensical notion that the Maritime/shipping companies who are paid to control the port entries really have nothing to do with port security. And you can believe in Peter Pan too.
1,162
posted on
02/21/2006 3:22:26 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
To: Pukin Dog
When Americans wake up to the fact that it wont work, they might begin to look at solutions that have a chance, other than all this reactionary nonsense.Wow! You mean Americans would actually have a say in what the administration and Congress do? (sorry...for some reason I can't resist being sarcastic in response to sarcasm)
And what's wrong with reacting to things that affect our lives? This isn't the military where it's "yours is not to question why; yours is but to do or die."
1,163
posted on
02/21/2006 3:22:36 PM PST
by
arasina
(So there.)
To: antaresequity
Won't even try, except to mention that there are no American companies anywhere that has the expertise or apparent desire to run the port loading and un-loading job (a very big and complex one) and that's a fact. Who might do it? The Brits sold their company to UAE and UAE does the job in several international ports. Just tell us who else can or will do the job. The Chinese? Singapore? South Korea? No one else seems up to the job. Looking for answers here...
To: Flux Capacitor
Ok.......
Too much Adoration Complex for me......
Like the guy, love the way he out-strategies the Lib/Dems at every turn, bu the whole hero worship thing is bit much, doncha think??
To: Brian Mosely
what the Hell is wrong with Bush???? All this harping about protecting the country and he wants to do this? This makes no sense at all...
To: Mo1
A bit, which is why I said I'm skeptical.
One thing I'm confident in, is that most of W's judgements on the War have been right. If what I've read about the port security being the same, meaning run by us and the shots called by us, plus what I've read about this company being the only one to search all containers prior to shipping being true, we don't have a huge problem here as I first thought.
1,167
posted on
02/21/2006 3:24:24 PM PST
by
Lakeshark
(Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
To: Stellar Dendrite
To: clawrence3
"so all this talk about FOREIGN OWNERSHIP is already a red herring." Not really, because Britain (currently doing the job) is our staunchest and closest ally, while the UAE openly support some terrorist groups and have direct involvement in the 9/11 attack.
1,169
posted on
02/21/2006 3:24:50 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
To: Flux Capacitor
It is a better thing to not be as delusional as those who would suggest they influenced the President decisions.
1,170
posted on
02/21/2006 3:24:51 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Mo1
Makes me feel worse. I'm going to research CAIR/DUBAI on Daniel Pipes site.
To: Brian Mosely
W says it's a good thing, so does AG and CJC. Works for me. Those three guys know in their little toes more than I ever will about what is needed to keep our country safe.
To: harrowup
I am greatly saddened he has so lost touch with reality. Time for rehab.Just possibly an exaggeration there.
1,173
posted on
02/21/2006 3:25:37 PM PST
by
beyond the sea
(Alan Simpson: "All you get is controversy, crap, and confusion from the media.")
To: hipaatwo
And sorry for my last post sounding snotty
I'm a bit cranky today .. it's not your fault
1,174
posted on
02/21/2006 3:26:04 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: mtbopfuyn
I am not going to argue, because I don't know.
I understand (and agree) with his general position on borders, although I quibble with several of the details. I've studied the problem extensively, and that is the conclusion I've come to. In addition, his position on illegal immigration has NOT changed from what he ran on. So either you didn't vote for him, or you knew that voted for him anyway.
I don't understand this decision. At this point, I disagree with this decision. But I don't believe he is an idiot, I don't believe he is intent on selling out the country and I trust him that security is his number one concern. So far, he's done well.
That is why I say there must be something I don't know. To say otherwise would be monumentally egotistical. If that means I'm not a conservative so be it...I like to think that I look at things without getting my underclothing in a bunch when I haven't looked at all the particulars.
I have a working opinion, but I refuse to be reactionary and believe these things have a way of working themselves out. I am content to be patient and not make snap judgments. That is all I am saying.
To: harrowup
If he vetoes a bill obstructing the sale he will be impeached by the current congress...On what grounds? And by who?
1,176
posted on
02/21/2006 3:26:32 PM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
To: Terpfen
and operating under US federal law and union rules.Do we have to keep the union rules?
1,177
posted on
02/21/2006 3:26:57 PM PST
by
The_Victor
(If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
To: demlosers
Rush explained it pretty well today. Check out his website for details.
To: Lakeshark
we don't have a huge problem here as I first thoughtNothing will change, imo, only the weather.
1,179
posted on
02/21/2006 3:27:29 PM PST
by
beyond the sea
(Alan Simpson: "All you get is controversy, crap, and confusion from the media.")
To: Mo1
I know your upset, didn't take it personally :)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180, 1,181-1,200 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson