Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal

AP ALERT

[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.

[EternalVigilance]

However, it's not how I judge what is going on.

All I see 'going on' is this administration getting its rear end handed to it by Hillary and Chuckie...

[Gelato]

I had to see it 15 times before I could believe that a "conservative" candidate could possibly be an advocate for reparations.

I'm sorry you feel that way toward Ronald Reagan, our most conservative president.

President Ronald Reagan signs the 1988 bill for reparations to Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II. He is flanked by Congressman Robert T. Matsui and other key sponsors of the bill.

[EternalVigilance]

Yep.

[binkdeville]

I still don't like this whole idea..Something more to this . It just doesn't sit right with me .

[itsahoot]

So you'd just rather not ever win, right?

I saw a great bumper sticker for you the other day....

I am the Boss because
my wife said I could be.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Fine, but our leaders are not doing backroom deals, and there is no dollar gain.

We are NOT selling anything. The U.S. had NOTHING to do with this deal.

A foreign company is buying another foreign company. We simply analysed that sale and determined that our security would not be effected by the sale.

It is interesting watching the replay of Neal Cavuto's program -- all the guys there are intimitatly familiar with UAE and the companies and all of them agree this is an absurd argument. Maybe that is Bush's big mistake, looking at this as a common-sense business deal rather than seeing how the democrats could turn it into a political attack.

One guy pointed out that the British company is selling because they don't want to invest any more money in security, while the DP World company has promised millions in new spending on security. So it could make us all safer.

[RushCrush]

Lordy

[Soul Seeker]

Well, perhaps I can bring clarity to one aspect at least.

Being a Republican typically means you support the advancement of the growth of the Party. You embrace the platform generally agreed upon by the Majority of your party. If the President is of the Republican Party, with some deference to him/her. It's as simple as that.

It is why I am not a member of a political Party.

I go issue by issue, man or woman pitted against man or woman. Idealogy vs ideology. I understand the platform of a politiacl party is subject to the polling winds of a nation, and so no bitterness in that respect if I don't see eye to eye with the "party". Bitterness only arises when the "party" pledges and wins election on specifics, then abandons the specifics in the course of the term they won. When promises are broken, I do not respond well. This doesn't mean they are beholden to the same campaign platform in their next election, only the term in which they won by using it.

As to your posting habits, as you will it. I've posted through more heated arguments than this deal. The most contentious of my short term was Shiavo.

On this issue, I find no fault with anyone opposing this deal or supporting it provided they have factual arguments. My only problem centers around the manner of debate, not that there is disagreement on the deal itself. Nothing wrong with hashing it out, pros and cons. The debate itself can be good.

[Howlin]

I find it ironic hearing you say that. I won't go into the reasons why here.

Well, you've made some kind of insinuation with that remark.

Why stop now? Let's have it or take back that insinuation.

[DoNotDivide]

Actually, Bush has come down for reparations. Only, he's making Israel pay the price and it's to the Philistines, under threat from the House of Saud.

So, yes, Bush is reparationist.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"All I see 'going on' is this administration getting its rear end handed to it by Hillary and Chuckie...

OH really? And who is the Senator from Illinois?

[itsahoot]

Basically, if the prez and congress are held by the same party, the veto is used the least (kennedy, carter, bush)

Name one President that never vetoed anything and your argument will gain weight.

[You Dirty Rats]

All I see 'going on' is this administration getting its rear end handed to it by Hillary and Chuckie...

Then explain Justice Alito to me. Or Chief Justice Roberts. Or Ambassador Bolton. Or Circuit Court Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen.

[antaresequity]

Don't be such a Bush lock stepper...

Sniffing around on the web I did find this interesting tidbit of info on UAE...

• Foreign Affairs: The UAE and Iran continue to dispute the ownership of three islands, Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb Islands, which are strategically located in the Strait of Hormuz. All three islands were effectively occupied by Iranian troops in 1992. The Mubarak field, which is located six miles off Abu Musa, has been producing oil and associated natural gas since 1974. In 1995, the Iranian Foreign Ministry claimed that the islands are "an inseparable part of Iran." Iran rejected a 1996 proposal by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for the dispute to be resolved by the International Court of Justice, an option supported by the UAE. In early 1996, Iran took further moves to strengthen its hold on the disputed islands. These actions included starting up a power plant on Greater Tunb, opening an airport on Abu Musa, and announcing plans for construction of a new port on Abu Musa. In the dispute, the UAE has received strong support from the GCC, the United Nations, and the United States. Although Iran remains a continuing concern for officials in Abu Dhabi, they have chosen not to escalate the territorial dispute. Iran is one of Dubai’s major trading partners, accounting for 20 percent to 30 percent of Dubai’s business.

It would seem that being joined at the hip with UAE would by proxy allow us to concurrently solve two issues should it come to blows with Iran...I will let you fill in the blanks...but as a hint...I would bet that any move on Iranian nuclear capability might also include an ancillary 'hammer' on them and return control for these 'disputed' islands and 'gold' underneath them...to the UAE...

My beef with the admin is that they don't call it as it is...its not rocket science...see the enemy...know th enemy...kill the enemy...

I grow weary of the the calculated obfuscation that seems to be so natural to this administration...quit beating around the bush and give us the straight skinny...

Why the hell should I have to dig dig dig to try and put the pieces together?

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Maybe that is Bush's big mistake, looking at this as a common-sense business deal rather than seeing how the democrats could turn it into a political attack.

I agree with that.

[onyx]

DO TRY to follow the thread. This is NOT about President Reagan. I don't appreciate your snarky post and cheap shot one bit.

[EternalVigilance]

OH really? And who is the Senator from Illinois?

The one the RINOs did everything in their power to elect, of course.

[RushCrush]

I find your comments sooo....squishy. And so foreign.

I'm surprised you've survived on this site.

[DoNotDivide]

The U.S. had NOTHING to do with this deal.





You can't possibly be posting that with a straight face.

There hasn't been a deal regarding America that has had more high-level, super-secret scrutiny from the WH Cabinet level than this port-grab by an Islamic nation.

[BigSkyFreeper]

After having seen the condition of the southern border, that assurance doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...sorry.

I'd be less confident in the fact that NM and AZ have Dummies for Governors. The Governors of TX and CA have at least made attempts to turn that southern spigot off.

Like I said, Democrats don't give a rip about national security. Senator Schumer, and Governor's Richardson, and Napolitano are all doing it for re-elective purposes.