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.

[ohioWfan]

I understand now.

You are fundamentally uneducated.

President Clinton vetoed the PBA bill, and President Bush SIGNED it.

Get back to me when you've extricated yourself from your abject ignorance. Until then, stop posting lies and slander against this President.

[Mo1]

ALL HAIL KING GEORGE!

You gave yourself away

[verity]

[ohioWfan]

ALL HAIL KING GEORGE!

I take back anything nice I've ever said about you, chris.

You are a complete moron.

Go find some accurate information, do some serious reading, and don't post again until you stop making a fool of yourself.

(Just some motherly advice from an educated adult to an ill-informed youth).

[DoNotDivide]

nopardons: "Since you know almost NOTHING about ANYTHING, please show use just how much you claim to know and PROVE that "the House of Saud forced Bush into embracing THE ROADMAP to Disaster"; whatever the bloody hell THAT incoherent gibberish is supposed to mean."


Adel Al Jubeir, paid House of Saud PR mouthpiece

PBS's "Frontline" program 'The House of Saud':

Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/etc/script.html

ADEL AL JUBEIR: And at that point, the crown prince sent a very powerful message to the president, "It is obvious that you have decided to support Sharon, irrespective of what the consequences are to American policy or to your interests or to the interests of your friends. You're a sovereign country. You can do whatever you want. We are now in a position where we have to take actions that serve our interests without any regard to how they may affect your interests."

ADEL AL JUBEIR: And within 24 hours, we had a response from the president to the crown prince, in which the president laid out his vision for the Middle East: two states, shared Jerusalem, just settlement of the refugee issue, in very clear terms. And he said, "But we can only do that if we can stop the violence." The crown prince responded to the president and said, "This is a positive step, and you need to articulate this publicly." And the president agreed to do so two or three days before September 11th.

Note that Bush chose the "Roadmap", after threats from the House of Saud 2 or 3 days before Sept. 11th, 2001.

From: http://english.people.com.cn/200111/25/eng20011125_85275.shtml

He said that before September 11, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, who has been running the day-to-day affairs of the world's largest oil exporter since King Fahd suffered a stroke in 1995, sent a letter to U.S. President George W. Bush, explaining that the bilateral relations between the two allies "are at a crossroad" since the U.S. "is not ready to move ahead in finding a successful solution to the Middle East conflict."

The prince also said that President Bush had shown readiness to discuss with Saudi plans to revive the Middle East peace process after he received the "strongly worded letter."

But, I thought that bush had finally made up his mind and announced it publicly in June of 2002, not hastily a few days for 9/11/01?

The "road map" for peace is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proposed by a "quartet" of international entities: the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations. The principles of the plan were first outlined by U.S. President George W. Bush in a speech on June 24, 2002, in which he called for an independent Palestinian state living side by side with the Israeli state in peace. Bush was the first U.S. President to explicitly call for such a Palestinian state. Bush's phrase "road map" later became a popular synonym of the word "plan" in many other contexts.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Roadmap-for-peace

[brownsfan]

"There are cultural difference throughout the world. Americans, like it or not, must conform to the concerns of the countries if they want to do business there."

That sounds like such liberal drivel I want to vomit.
There are things that are cultural that we can respect, and things that are not worthy of respect. You're telling me that me being over there to keep a conflict from affecting the Saudis still didn't make me worthy of touching their soil?!
You know, bomb belts are cultural now too. Where do you stop?

There was a time you had to kow tow to deal with the Asians. And it was taken into our vernacular that it's a point of honor to NOT kow tow.

I disrespect your opinion, and your intellectual honesty.

[ohioWfan]

These trolls aren't too bright, are they?

Hey Mo..........did you hear that xlinton signed the PBA bill and Bush didn't?? ROFLOL!

[chris1]

I have to check on that, but I strictly remember at least the marriage bill.

You see, you can feel like you are being loyal, etc etc, but to who? To what?

Your loyalty should be to the interests of this country, not a man.

Having an Arab Government owned company take over management of the ports without any explanation whatsoever is kind of serious don't you think????

Were this Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, would you be taking the same positions you are on this? Of course not.

Remember, and keep repeating this to yourself:

"RATS bad, GOP good." As far as I am concerned, both parties need strict scrutiny all the time and should never be trusted without verification and complete openess.

[brownsfan]

"Again, there are going to be no changes in anyone who unloads anything coming into our country. "

And there will be no muslims with intimate access as to our security policies and procedures, right?

[Mo1]

did you hear that xlinton signed the PBA bill and Bush didn't?? ROFLOL!

I have to admit .. that's the first I've heard that one

And a real stretch if you ask me

[Lakeshark]

Found this article this morning, it's a great read and helpful in understanding the ports issue. Copy and paste this into your browser and enjoy:

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/02/emirate_of_duba.html

[chris1]

I looked up the PBA issue. You were right on that, I confused it with something else. However, I was right about the marriage bill.

The politicians love the average American getting crazy over some of these issues because it masks the larger issues taking place all under the radar.

[chris1]

I confused it with something else, but was correct on the issue of the marriage bill.

[ohioWfan]

I was right on PBA, and I'm right on the vast chasm of difference between the two men.

You can draw all sorts of parallels in what they may have done because they were both Presidents. You could draw the same parallels between xlinton and Reagan.

But you CANNOT say that there is NO difference. It is a deep and fundamental untruth that makes you look small and stupid every time you say it.

No rational person on earth will take you seriously, on either side of the discussion, if you continue to say that the two men are the same.

You just make a fool of yourself.

And as for the King George idiocy. Most people will know that you are a DU troll when you say garbage like that.

There are enough trolls around here. IF..........and I say that again.........IF you are a legitimate freeper, why are you so stupid as to let your hatred, yes hatred, for President Bush make you say such indefensible, emotional things? Be responsible, chris.

[meandog]

pray that there is a pill for what you've got...

And I pray that you live up to your "handle" and puke up the Kool Aid that the Bush administration has gotten you to swallow...
Look, TWO of the 9/11 hijackers were U.A.E. nationals and much of the $$$ for Mohammad Atta and his rag-headed bundle of buddies came from that country. And just how do you think it would have gone over if FDR would have proposed that the nation of, say, Austria (then aligned to Der Fuhrer) control the Panama Canal during WWII?
We are at war, sir, and I personally will not be satisfied until someday, somehow, someway we change the culture of the anachronistic Arab sheikdoms (and destroy their gutter religion the same way we did to Emperor-worshiping Japan) and having our enemies at our feet--even if it takes popping the "big potato" over Mecca and Medina.

[ohioWfan]

But, if you have a fundamental understanding of who the two men ARE, you will know that clinton did ANYTHING but defend marriage, and Bush has strengthened and supported marriage in hundreds of ways.

It is a completely stupid and wrong argument, that has no basis in reality, chris. C'mon, chris. Start to think!

[Hildy]

Yes, yes...I (we) overreacted. It's just a reflex action now when you hear an Arab Country is involved. Sorry all..I'm going to trust Bush on this one...hopefully, in the long run, it'll prove a wise decision and payoff. You have to admit it sounded bad in the beginning....

[xzins]

We've already got that.

China runs some of our other ports. They don't even pretend to be friendly to us, and they ARE nuclear already.

[Mo1]

Clinton couldn't even defend his own marriage

[ohioWfan]

I can't believe that anyone on this forum is comparing Clinton and Bush on marriage, and saying Clinton was better.

What has happened to FR, Mo? Where do these people come from??............there are flocks of them swooping down to devour all sense of reason!

And these same guys are making fun of US! Oy!!