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.
So what does it mean that Dubai gets this deal? Exactly how does it compromise our security? Please be as specific as you can.
Are you responding to my post 135 about "what next, outsourcing NORAD to the Chinese?"
Bush has to come clean.
I would hope that Bush would never make a decision based upon some bogus msm, liberal slanted poll. But when any poll accurately reflects the opinions of the American people who elected him, I would certainly hope he'd pay attention to us. (But you can bet your arse that he listens to those polls taken in hispanic communities as he panders to them for votes. This is why our border security is a joke, he doesn't want to lose hispanic votes).
Personally, I lost my high regard for President Bush when he let Terri Schiavo be starved to death, by claiming "I have no power to help her". A few days later, after she died he said in his speech about the abominable Terri Schiavo injustice:
"It is the duty of the strong to protect the weak".
So went the hypocritical words of the most powerful man on earth, echoing forever into the ears of Terri's greiving family, as they wondered why he couldn't find the courage to stand up and save her.
I predict that you'll end up learning your instincts are sound, and you need to give them the benefit of doubt instead of a political leader you wish was living up to your hopes.
Who is the overweight dike with the beard? Just joking.
agreed, f16fighter is really crackin me up
Go get drunk,newbie.You have my permission.
At this point, I have two concerns:
1) Can we be absolutely certain that our security has not been reduced as a result of this deal. For example, if the port management company were to gain knowledge of specific counter-terrorism methods, and if this knowledge were to be passed over the our emnemies, who might use such knowledge to circumvent out protections, so as to bring some bad stuff in via these ports?
2) This is certainly a political disaster for Bush and the Republicans, which is why the Republican congress critters are running away like scalded dogs, and will likely turn on bush in the interest of their own preservation. I see only downside for the Republicans in giving the Dims and the sycophant MSM a hammer with which to beat them senseless. Why put the party in greater risk of losing seats in November?
Hey, you pickin on my drinking buddies?
(just trying to be a bit funny here, and probably failing miserably!)
Yes, this would be the first time he has ever vetoed anything, and I am at a loss to explain this one.
OK, after listening to various talk shows today I understand that:
1) They're not going to CONTROL port security, they're just going to be leasing berths in the port. Port security is still going to be managed by the Port Authority and the Coast Guard
2) They're not bringing people over from UAE to take the jobs of loading/unloading. Americans will be filling those jobs. U.S. labor laws apply.
3) There is NO U.S. firm that does this sort of thing, and after the Brits let these leases go, they're out of that business, too
4) The company that is taking over has been vetted
5) It's a good thing, economically speaking
6) If they have an economic interest in the ports, they're not going to want to allow anything to happen that would jeopardize their ability to make money there.
But I still don't feel warm and fuzzy about this. I don't believe that Bush would deliberately do something that would put us in jeopardy, but even if the UAE has been a recent ally of ours in the war on terror, LEADERSHIP CHANGES.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. They have a really unique way of being harsh on terrorists. By raising money for them, and then giving that money to them.
Even though Americans control the security at the ports and the UAE company only controls the commercial operations?
Is that the famous "flux capacitor" of Back to the Future?
Yeah, everything past, present, and future was/is/will be "strategery" no matter how, what or when Dubya does it.
No country that consistently polls belief that the US had 9/11 coming, or that we did it ourselves to start a war, should be allowed such access as this. That should include all of the Middle East, excluding Israel but including France.
That's when I lost faith in our ENTIRE government. When an ex probate judge in Florida has more power than the state Gov. congress, senate and the president, then we're left to fend for ourselves.
No, direct involvement as in all their laundered money and fake passports coming from inside the UAE, which was also their base of operations.
The FBI incriminated them in for having ties to al Queada, (as in FINANCING). The Italian anti-terror agency also incriminated the Sheikdom of Dubai as having financial (banking) ties to al Queada. These folks are not your friends.
Be more specific???? Isn't the information we have right now disturbing enough? If it walks like a duck, etc.
Nice try at changing the topic. You didn't challenge any of my assertions though.
Umm. I see. Stop being Americans to please some politicos pocket book and some 3rd world fanatic. Is that what we've come to? Is that what generations of Americans have bled and died for? I thank God I don't live in the same America that some of you think we "must conform" to.
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.