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 sorry, but I don't owe any further explanation to a moron like you who called our President "King George."
Oh, aren't you the dumb one.
*Rolling my eyes*
I do think the prez needs a new PR person tho- this has always been a huge downfall when not campaigning.
I give them all an D on that issue.
Look, I'm not going to argue with you over it, but Rush's tone was exactly as I portrayed it.
His exact words were to the effect, "Now I'm not saying this is a good deal, all I am saying is that there is a negative Tsunami forming here and folks need to lighten up."
The inference was that folks just aren't informed. They can't understand this deal. Why it makes perfect economical sense. Come on folks, back off and take another look.
I sure don't see that as neutral. What if he'd have said...
Look you Bush supporters, "I'm not saying this is a bad deal, all I am saying is that there is a pro tsunami forming here and folks need to learn more about this before they blindly support it."
Nah, sorry, I can't buy into your description. It just doesn't fit in with how his comments sounded from my perspective.
That is an interesting question. Suppose the arab countries decided they wanted to work in concert. They may even see the wisdom of dividing big countries like Iraq into several small regional areas which could govern themselves on local matters. Then they could all join together in a united set of states, with a limited corporate goverment dedicated to broad policy issues such as overall security and interactions with other nations.
It seems clear that this would be a "bad" thing for us, but how could we be against it, if it was something decided by the people in some as-yet-nonexistant "election" process?
Or suppose they simply put themselves together as dictators and appointed one dictator as the supreme ruler. That would be bad as well.
This morning I saw an editorial which called the United Arab Emirites the UAR (I presume the United Arab Republics), I wondered if that was considered interchangeable -- I've also seen the country refered to as "Dubai", and wonder if that is also simply interchangeable of has a different meaning? I realise the company called DP World is fully named Dubai Ports World.
I support the notion that so long as people are free to choose their own government without coersion, that nations abide by international agreements and common law, that they don't seek to harm one another, and that free trade and free movement are maintained, it is hard to object to a democratically elected muslim government, or any other form of government chosen by the people.
However, I see the danger in that. It would be better for us if all nations were secular. But I don't think we have the RIGHT to have everything the way we want it. We should maintain our lead in defense, and be able to protect ourselves and our way of life by force.
And we will be required to do so, at great cost, because our freedom requires that we allow for others to make free choices that aren't in OUR best interests. If not we are simply the world's dictator.
I don't know if this answers your question, or even why you asked.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress. President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
Well that's certainly how you and I see it. We're in lock step on this one.
Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban every time it was sent to him.
When you get right down to the core of it, they think that President Bush is dumb. They don't like that he makes decisions without their sage advice, and contrary to their wise opinions.
He moves on his own, independent of any special interest group or strain of ideology, and this drives the elitists on the right crazy.
Then the blind followers of those elitists mimic them on FR, and call themselves 'purists.'
Just posted on DRUGE: "Bush Didn't Know Arab Tie to Company Until After Deal Was Done"...and that kind of decision sounds Reaganesque to you? < /sarcasm >.
But the tsunami was against it. There was no groundswell FOR it, because most of President Bush's supporters were at best bewildered, and need to find out more information in order to form an opinion.
The tsunami that Rush was talking about was the mindless hysteria as seen on this thread..........and I, frankly, concur, that people needed to calm down.
The voices of reason on either side were drowned out by the shrieks.
I for one, am glad that the shriekers have gone back into hiding and that rational people can discuss the whole thing rationally.........as you are doing.
I wait for the truth...........don't you?
That's impossible.
They should have been more politically astute. However, there are mitigating factors:
The sale was not a surprise. IT was announced globally last year. We may not pay attention, but it wasn't a secret.
The date of the sale's completion was known for months, and is posted on the company's public web site. It has been in investor magazines, in the Wall Street Journal, and other places. It's not a secret.
The U.S. LAW REQUIRES that an INDEPENDENT AGENCY evaluate the deal. Bush is not allowed to control the independent agency. The law intends to take these decisions out of the hands of politicians, and give it to career officials not swayed by politics or partisanship. That law was passed YEARS ago, I believe by democrats, and the republicans have taken no steps to repeal it.
The law requires rightly that the agency do its task in secret. The agency gets to see privileged information to do its job, just like the two companies have been sharing proprietary information over the past few months. All of that is done in secret, because it is competitive information which other port companies would love to see. So the administration wasn't being "SECRETIVE", they were simply following the law as written and on the books (something the democrats insist is a requirement for the executive in MOST cases).
The ownership of the ports is public knowledge, as are the leases and the security and the locations and just about everything else there is to know. Most people have no clue, but that's because nobody ever made them care before. You know about this now because SOMEONE decided to make it a big deal, even though there was absolutely NOTHING known monday that wasn't known last wednesday.
The actual results of the independent agency audit were completed and published LAST week. All port operations were informed last week. Governor Erlich acknowledged this morning that his director of the Baltimore port was kept informed of the situation, received the final report last week, and had reported to Erlich that the deal looked fine to him. The same report was given to EVERY port manager, and I would presume they all had to report to their respective state agencies LAST WEEK. So if you just found out this week, it's because NONE OF THEM thought there was anything to care about here.
SO, What changed between Last Wednesday and This Monday?
Two democrat senators held a news conference and DENOUNCED THE DEAL. The Media picked up the democrat talking points signal and splashed the news all over the nation. IT became a big deal because the democrats signalled to the media that it needed to be a big deal.
And the Republicans in power, because they are mostly scared cowardly politicians who couldn't find their own butts to wipe themselves, (sorry about that, couldn't resist) went into full panic mode and jumped without the slightest clue as to what the real facts were.
Bush SHOULD have anticipated that republicans were stupid cowards, and that democrats were duplicitous opportunists, and the media was the democrat's lapdog.
But to them, this must has looked like just one of hundreds of deals that are made every year, that all go through this rather mundane process, evaluated by an independent agency that Bush has no real control over, making a purely fact-based decision without political considerations -- as it was meant to do by LAW.
And with DHS already holding contracts and a close relationship with both the country AND the company, there was no security concern to be raised -- we already trust DP World to oversee the inspection of containers in foreign ports before they are shipped to our country.
So they were blindsided again because they run the country like a business, making sound business decisions without regard to the political climate. At least he realised quickly the trouble, and stepped out forcefully. Threatening a veto should have made it obvious to the republicans that they had to stop being scared and step up to the reality of the situation.
My point was that Clinton, the dirtball slimebag, traitor, etc, signed the marriage bill.
All the slogans and campaign fuss in 2004 has amounted to what???? Squat.
The cultural issues are used every election year to rally supporters and usually nothing is done thereafter.
From AP wire covering WH daily briefing:
...while Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.
"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."
Exactly! The only thing worth discussion here is whether you trust *THIS* president to fight for our National Security or you do not.
The Dems are not tough on National Security in fact they hand it away for a song.
BUT President Bush has a record- are you telling me we should be suspicious of President Bush along the same vein as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton?
People are going to bring up Immigration I know- and I agree that the Immigration platform is poor- but it is a PLATFORM- there are no laws yet (so how do we know what that is all about)- so we have more illegals- YES that stinks- BUT have we had another terrorist attack here? (how do we know the two do not play together?)
People we are at war- and there has been NO terrorist attack here since 9-11.... Hmmm.. Interesting.
Why are people so hysterical about? Get a backbone people and stand up ,for heaven sakes. Do you, who are trashing President Bush, really think he is going to allow our troops to die fighitng for our National Security and then hand over our National security to line his own pockets?
People are selling our President down the river and they have NO idea what is really going on.
If y~all are such great war strategists get a job with the administration- or go join the ranks of the Dems to tear this country to sheds opposing it..
If people really believe politicians are *all the same*...
Then what the heck are we all doing here? Perhaps many people are here because they cant find a better place to hang out.
I'm going to respond to this post rather than the other in which you made some nice comments. I'm not trying to zero in to pick on you, but you raise some issues I'd like to address.
Do you really think I am paralllel to those on the left who look down on this President? I have supported conservatives and conservative causes since I was eighteen years of age, some 37 years ago. Why would I have a vested interest in talking down this President if he were acting in conservative ways> I support him openly when I can. I take him to task when I can't. This time I can't.
When you get right down to the core of it, we don't think he's dumb. What we do ponder, is what would posess him to do what he is doing. Why has he taken the tact he has with regard to education spending, overall budget spending, borders, immigration from terrorist states and a number of other issues? We may not be sages, but it doesn't take a sage to disagree on some of these matters.
If it weren't for some of these blatantly poor decsions that have been evidenced, I wouldn't be as inclined to disagree with him on other issues. On this issue I must. Do you really think this makes me an elitist. Why are you so eager to pigeon hole me and others who have come down on this issue in objection?
Okay, you think I'm blind and others are following me or I am following someone else. Well, thanks. I guess I couldn't have formed an informed opinion on my own. That's nice to know.
Sorry, but you and I will have to disagree on this one.
Nailed it right on the head!! Thanks!
That's not what you said; you were very empahtic that a bill he signed about partial birth abortion was before the Supreme Court right now.
Nice try though.
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.