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.
One quick question:
How many people would die and how much damage would be caused by one Hiroshima-sized nuke set off from inside a container aboard a ship in New York harbor??
Just curious.
That is not what has been said, but even it it were, you really think they would care? If they are truly our allies then they would be understanding about the issue.
For example, we are very understanding when the Saudi government has to distance itself from the US since it wouldn't play very well with the general population.
And that would leave us with 535 presidents? LoL!
I have previosuly read his testamoniess before Congress, have you?
Purdy in pink, isn't he?
Snicker all you want, this is a loser and Bush will reverse himself. Just take a look around and see the amount of animosity he has generated in his own base!
I don't get it, of all the big issues to go to the mat on he chooses this one. With this asinine move he has ensured himself lame-duck status for his remaining three years.
Actually you have that backwards.
Whip it into a frenzy, EV. That's won the people you've worked for, so very many elections in the past.
Like when I worked to help elect Bush?
You think this controversy is helping the President and Republicans in general?
"In a visit to the port of Charleston in South Carolina last month, President Bush said he is requesting nearly $2 billion in the next fiscal year's budget proposal for seaport security in the United States"
Well we know where Dubyai got at least 2 billion they needed to purchase our ports.
What base? These are people who have been beating up on him for longer than 7 years.
Eh, I found myself on the side of Jesse Jackson over Terri Schiavo and Pat Buchanon on Miers substively if not in their chosen overall rhetoric, interesting bedfellows don't really determine if this is a good or bad deal. After all, carter is for it.
However, choosing to move beyond mere argeement over nixing the deal into DU rhetoric is beyond respectable. The fact so many have done so damages their arguments against the port sale. That is what I find both pathetic and sad, and what I'm reacting against tonight.
The hysteria and excessive rhetoric have largely prevented a reasoned debate over the matter. Minus a couple of posters on either end that have risen above it as I slowly wade through this thread.
Huh?
Your country isn't letting a Dubai company run execute a commercial contract through your ports because you think we'll use it as a staging platform for terrorist = incredibly asinine foreign policy
That is what this is about. It's the implication that a for-profit company that operates out of ports worldwide can't be trusted not to engage in terrorist activities in the USA because they're arabs.
Duh.
Don't be silly Sink, it ain't likely, but they could, by ammending the constitution, and as long as they got the states to ratify it, it would ne constitutional. In fact the states could do it without the congress by calling for a Constitutinal convention.
Again it is not likely, but not impossible.
On the other hand The President has no such power under the constitution, his only power to abolish the congress, would be by military coup.
What president Bush said today, to me is nothing new. But I guess it wasn't enough to quell the alarmist brigade hellbent on being obfuscated by the facts.
Sure. Either they were ignorant when they voted for them, or they are ignorant now....
OK, I'm just kidding about that. It has nothing to do with who voted for him. There was and probably still is a great misunderstanding of this issue. Even Mark Levin didn't have the facts straight. Arguing a change in policy based on faulty information is what I mean by "ignorant". In other words, I mean it in it's objective sense -- lacking the appropriate knowledge to come to a reasoned conclusion.
When I see people using the correct facts and arguing against the deal, I will debate the issue. We can't debate until we have a common factual basis. I can't argue the deal doesn't effect security when my opponents claim that UAE government officials are going to be controlling the searches of containers at our ports.
Oh you funny Keyster you. You think we don't remember?
"I have previosuly read his testamoniess before Congress, have you?"
No, can you link them?
And Jimmy Carter!
Google Gary's name. There all there.
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.