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.
I'm not worried about today .. it's the future that concerns me
Bush won't be preisdent forever
why doesnt bush also consider allowing UAE personnel to provide security for mrs bush while he is at it ?
Imbalance of trade, it's our specialty...
Done - Thanks for the link.
He's lost me too, and on a host of other related issues, such as no border control, illegal alien invasion, pushing for illegal alien amnesty, and PC limitations and rules of engagement on our military.
Feinstein: Ports 'ought to be governmentally operated'
Associated PressSAN DIEGO - U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday it was fortunate that California's major ports are run differently than the six big ports on the East and Gulf coasts embroiled in controversy over whether their shipping operations should be taken over by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
"My reaction is that it is a mistake to let ports be privately owned, period," the California Democrat said during a news conference in San Diego.
Feinstein was asked her view on the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World. Approved by the Bush administration and expected to be completed soon, it would put Dubai Ports in charge of shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia
Feinstein said she was familiar with port operations because of her nine years as mayor of San Francisco.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/13929392.htm
Wait a minute. I have completely changed my mind.
I say that we have the folks who run the US Post Office run our ports. That way we can be SURE that we are safe!!! I mean, those folks run a tight ship, right? /sarc
Why would he? They're not going to be providing port security either.
If your argument is that we should bend the law and international trade agreements to cancel lease deals signed in good faith simply because doing so is politically popular, I can't argue with you on that regard.
I can only be thankful that the President does not share your view of political opportunism over sound policy. Because it is only by chance that what is politically popular would also be what is best for our future.
I have beem busy gathering information on this deal all day.
Well, you are very fair and intellectually honest, so I accept your point also.
This thread and other reactions clearly show that many people who are objecting to this deal do so on the basis that you can't trust Muslims -- UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
Dubai IS trusted by the US Military. That's a basic fact. That emirate is a highly-respected one in political, military and business circles. It's very unlike Iran or Suadi Arabia or Syria or Iraq under Saddam. We need to have good relations with respectable, trustworthy people and countries -- of any religious persuasion.
Islam has a cancer within it right now - Islamofascism. Anyone who thinks our country or even a united West can cure this cancer without enlisting good-hearted Muslims to fight it is delusional. UAE is a friend. Jordan is a friend. Iran and Syria are not. The last thing we need to do is humiliate our friends by killing a perfectly good deal between a British Firm and a Dubai one. If the French pulled something like this on us without good reason (and they have), we'd be furious, and rightly so.
I repeat what I said earlier -- if someone can make a case that this deal harms our security, make it and I'll be all for killing it. Otherwise I'll trust GWB on national security over UpChucky and Hillary.
Alberta's Child and Pukin Dog seem to be well up to speed on this issue.
I've learned a great deal from them, and I've already admitted to Alberta's Child that we don't see eye-to-eye on alot of things around here.
Can I get some specifics on that? links?? thanks
Can you say UNIONS???
Remember what? I supported George W. Bush in one primary and two general elections. Even things like this, and a hundred other disagreements I have with him on policy, don't make me regret it, either, since the alternatives were incredibly bad.
But none of that changes the fact that this controversy is horrible for Republicans.
Do you disagree?
Actually, considering the number of employees they have and the amount of mail they handle, they do run a pretty tight ship sport.
Well, well, well. By all means, let's create a whole new government bureaucracy. Government is so efficient you know.
ROTFLMAO! Apparently you have never visited a post office or sent/received mail in a large metropolitan area!
Fits right in with what Corzine is doing. This my FRiends is what I think it's all about! This is why the Dem's are having fits, it's not security it's UNION driven.
Hey FF
Remember what we were discussing earlier??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583018/posts?page=451#451
well .. go read post #2305
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.