Skip to comments.
Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal
AP ALERT
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.
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 1handwashestheother; blahblahblah; botsusingtheracecard; buchananbrigade; bushbotsbluedresses; bushbotscirclewagons; bushclintonbushclint; bushsellout; clownposse; coulterwillexplode; d; dontworrybehappy; downfallofbush; dubaidubaidu; dubaidubya; dusappersinatizzy; eternalevil; failedcivicsclass; gameoverman; globalists; homelandsecurity; homosexual; howlermonkeys; howlinbots; howlinmonkeys; howlinsgang; hysteriatrain; ilovekeywords; jorgealbush; kneejerk; kneepadsstat; libtard; masshysteria; moonbatsonparade; muchadoaboutnothing; newworldorder; nonstory; openborderbushbots; pantiesinabunch; ports; ratpackattack; ratpackdunces; religionofports; surrendermonkeys; texasholdem; treason; uae; vetothisbutnotcfr; waronterror; wppff; wsayswhatmeworry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640, 641-660, 661-680 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
To: Esther Ruth
I was listening to that, too. Until then I hadn't realized that this controversy could be reduced to simple economics- but then, unlike Rush I don't have a self-awarded degree in economics. Maybe I need to golf more.
641
posted on
02/21/2006 1:38:49 PM PST
by
Pelham
("Borders? We don' need no stinking borders!")
To: Pukin Dog
Me too. So very proud, and in some cases, surprised and disgusted.
642
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:03 PM PST
by
onyx
(IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
To: tcrlaf
You know, instinct, something does not smell right here. Pre 9-11, this was not an issue. After 9-11, it is an issue. I always thought that "when" a nuclear device explodes in this country, it would be just like that, via a container (we all know it's almost impossible to check everything 100 percent). It just does not feel right having the Saudis (all all Arabs), connected in some way to something so critical as the handling of our ports. They should belong to the US. I just feel that way.
643
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:11 PM PST
by
ElPatriota
(Let's not forget that we are still friends despite our differences!)
To: Brian Mosely
What a dumb decision. Bush is really out of touch.
644
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:19 PM PST
by
nikola
To: Brian Mosely
Bottom line for me is that after listing to a lot of facts and opinion's, even tho, I am no lemming, I trust the President to do the right thing on this issue.
645
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:30 PM PST
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: section9
Chris, you're right as usual.
This was a gift to the Democrats.
The Republicans' image as the national security party has now been sullied, and is sullied more by the veto threat.
Dems' chances taking power in '06 and '08 are now materially enhanced.
The Administration is politically deaf and dumb.
646
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:31 PM PST
by
tomahawk
(Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
To: Pukin Dog
I think you will find the Supreme Court looking poorly upon any legislation which suggests that foreigners from a country largely made up of white-skinned people can make deals in the U.S., where those of brown-skin cannot.I believe our congress and our courts have an obligation to restrict billion dollar deals (millions more in bribes) that may jeopardize our national security.
Currently we are at war with the nation of islam's extremists aka the war on terror. To date, walking down the street amongst them we can't determine one from the other and it has absolutely nothing to do with skin color.
The one thing I do know is that we best limit their access to our strategic ports of entry until the war with SOME muslims is over.
647
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:35 PM PST
by
takenoprisoner
(Afterall, American ports run by muslims is a good thing right?)
To: cripplecreek
So I've elected a king?
Your sounding like the duers. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything... per my mom
648
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:46 PM PST
by
JFC
(W, I am with YA)
To: flair2000
conservatives don't fall into a blind, robotic allegiance to a Republican prez
That's because we answer to a higher calling: God, culture, and general way of life.
649
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:53 PM PST
by
Tulsa Ramjet
("If not now, when")
To: Mo1
Could it do more harm than a couple of wmd's coming into U.S. ports and being used against American citizens?
650
posted on
02/21/2006 1:39:54 PM PST
by
isrul
To: antaresequity
Perhaps not so much for staging facilities as for other types of cooperation in the WOT and as some type of negotiated 'compensation' for the likely damage Dubai will recieve if Iran does suicide-esque missile and terror attacks against our allies adjacent to them. Extremely likely that in talks with them in preparation for going after Iran they brought this deal up as being very important to them and important to insure their continued and future support in the WOT. This deal didn't occur in a vacuum.
To: smith288
Must be a mistake! Isn't that on a tropical island? LOL.
652
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:06 PM PST
by
onyx
(IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
To: feinswinesuksass
"I have friends from Dubai & they are wonderful people. They call themselves "bad muslims" as they don't really practice their religion...." The perfect cover for an Arab muslim terrorist working at port security wearing Western clothing and drinking beer. "Hey, trust me with port security, I'm a bad muslim".
This kind of 'logic' is deadly.
653
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:16 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
To: meandog
You let UAE run our ports I really don't want to ruin your rant, but you should at least TRY to be factual; they've BEEN running our ports.
Where have YOU been?
I'm not for Shrub
Careful; your agenda is showing. Can't let that happen, can we?
654
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:20 PM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
To: spectre
Congress can make a veto-proof law that renders any port sale to the UAE null and void.
So, do not count on the finality of this deal.
655
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:20 PM PST
by
new yorker 77
(Conservatives who eat their own are a liberal's best friend.)
To: meandog
"I'm not for Shrub out-sourcing this critical security issue to another country, even if it is the most ardent American friend we ever had! Still supporting McCain?
To: Brian Mosely
Harriette Meiers to the N'th power....
657
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:24 PM PST
by
clintonh8r
(If you don't support the mission you don't support the troops. Period.)
To: Brian Mosely
any chance GWB has made a back door deal with UAE in terms of cooperation in War on Terror etc....with terms to facilitate this sale if they agree? Just a thought.
658
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:41 PM PST
by
jw777
To: clawrence3
We'll see soon enough, won't we?
659
posted on
02/21/2006 1:40:48 PM PST
by
relent_less
(Strategy for Iraq: Win the War...Win the Peace!)
To: CharlesWayneCT
We can't have a rational discussion until everybody has the actual facts.Your post is #608; they've had the facts for 600 posts; can't you see the difference? :-)
660
posted on
02/21/2006 1:41:02 PM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640, 641-660, 661-680 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson