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.
You know, when you're right you're right. Past track records do speak volumes. Do we trust who is for this plan or not?
Tom Dashle, Madeline Albright and Jimmy Cater support it. I may have to reconsider...
When hell freezes over.
I do not always give him a pass-he is not perfect- but he has proven himself on National Security.
No. But there are those who clearly are.
Do you really think this makes me an elitist
No. But there are those who are, and clearly DO think the President is dumb...... and say so repeatedly.
Okay, you think I'm blind and others are following me or I am following someone else.
No, I don't. But there are those who are. There are gangs who roam around here high fiving each other for being more insulting and obnoxious than the next. You're not even close.
I DO, however, think you are very defensive. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to put it on.
I repeat........I am not talking about rational disagreement with this particular decision. I have NO problem with that, because I'm not yet fully behind it, nor may I ever be.
Thanks for the discussion, DoughtyOne. Gotta go....
Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
In other words, the President can stop this only if he can prove both that DP World IS a current security threat to us, AND he can show that existing law wouldn't be able to stop DP World from being a threat.
There is no evidence that ANYBODY considers DP World a security threat. And there is no evidence that existing U.S. law (including the declaration of war) aren't adequate to handle any possible security issues that might arise from the sale.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear that if this is the operative law, Bush was pretty much stuck with this decision.
Note though that he isn't claiming he was forced against his will here, he SAYS this was the RIGHT decision. I'm just pointing out that if he had gone the other way, the Democrats were surely ready to drag out this law and use it to say Bush was simply breaking more laws and should be impeached.
I think Schumer/Clinton had the job of attacking a pro-UAE decision, and I think Kerry/Kennedy would have jumped on an anti-UAE decision along with Dick Durbin who would have pointed out Bush's "racist" assumptions in rejecting the deal.
The nice thing about not having a single leader, and not having to say ANYTHING about anything until after the fact, is that you always have someone to take any position you need. That is the game the Democrats are playing with our national security.
I am going to bottom line it for you - Do you trust President Bush with our National Security or not?
Yes or No.
Possibly two sides of the same coin, ohio.
Elitists love Rhetoricians. Even in their disagreements with Reagan - and they clearly had them - they could and did trust much and forgive much compared to their misunderstanding and distrust of this President.
You are right that some of them think President Bush APPEARS dumb...don't know how many think he IS dumb but they sure see him as appearing dumb, due largely to his lack of rhetorical skills and flourishes. (If he had more of those, he could get away more with marching to the beat of his own drummer, I think.)
In THAT, they agree with the elitist LEFT. Not good company to be in...
The UAE has NO documented current ties to our enemies. I'm not saying we should DISMISS history, but don't pretend the past is the present.
The President's record on national security is well proven. While we may not be able to 'trust' him on spending (LOL! funny one for a conservative), we CAN trust him on his untiring efforts to keep us safe.
(And I have serious problems with people who attack the Commander in Chief during a time of war. It seems fundamentally dangerous to me.....)
I call that elitism.
I don't fall in love with politicians, no matter their political stripe. Pres. Bush is just a man, a man who makes mistakes like the rest of us. If he made the decision on this, it is a bad decision, IMHO, and needs to be corrected.
My wonderful Senator, Dr. Coburn, is having a town-hall meeting today in Broken Arrow and will be discussing this issue. I am unable to attend but have friends who will fill me in later. I look forward to hearing more of his thoughts on the matter.
Your point? We will be looking at this company.
I am not so paranoid as you.
Certainly it did.
I was freaked out at first as well.
No one can tell me that George Bush, the person, can lead our American Military families into war~ as the Commander and Chief~ and then turn around and try to figure out how to make money from having their loved ones die in vain ,and jeopardize the future of the United States of America at the same time.
Nope- I trust that President Bush does not take those combat deaths lightly~ and that is my emotional gage on this.
I have seen the Presidents face when he see a military family member- or he address the troops- and I trust that he is not going to make personal profit off of their backs.
BTW- I was a Democrat at the time, and I had Bill Clinton's number the very second I laid eyes on him.
Bottom line is: Do you trust President Bush on National Security?
Yes or no.
As spoken in Le Grande Nation: "Muet comme un poisson"...Cela va sans dire!
And I corrected myself, which you fail to acknowledge.
True, and ridiculous of them.
I can see why President Bush is compared to Truman, no Elitist or Rhetorician. Another comparison is Eisenhower...not politically, but personal qualities and style (or lack thereof, in terms of rhetoric).
Your post is dead on.
What? Why on earth?
I just question when the average citizen- with no security clearance and no briefings feels they have the information needed to question our Commander and Chief during a time of war.
I am not a submissive kind of person~not a follower of many people, I never have been.
However there are times when I elect a person to lead and then I stay out of their way when they are doing so.
This is one of those times.
I don't need the answers to, or the control of everything under the sun.
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.