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 ... 721-740, 741-760, 761-780 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT
CharlesWayne, your arguments are the best I've read on FR in support of the port deal. As I did on another thread this morning, I applaud you for your reasonable and reasoned approach to this discussion.
I have no doubt most, if not all of your points are correct. However, I think you -- and the President, for that matter -- are overlooking one important, powerful element. That is the visceral recoil many, probably most Americans have these days toward most things Muslim and Arab.
We have all lived through wave upon wave of horrors committed by Islamic fanatics. Those images of the WTC crashing down, of Russian schoolchildren being slaughtered, of London subways being bombed, of beheadings, and all the rest of it simply cannot be swept away.
There is no way -- none -- that I can accept this port deal, no matter what entirely rational arguments can be made on its behalf. My distrust of the Muslims is now too deep. My gut screams out NOOO! Even as my heart and mind want to support this President whom I so deeply respect.
Don't you see? There is something much more basic at work here. Something primal that cannot be soothed by a business discussion.
No matter how many layers of management stand between the actual port workers and the UAE government, the fact is that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned the World Trade Center. Those buildings overlooked New York Harbor, and the ashes of those people killed in the buildings spread widely over the port.
Visceral, emotional reactions do matter in a situation like this. Our gut instincts are often better predictors of danger than our rational minds. The idea that an Arab government would have any operational control over port operations anywhere in the U.S., but especially in the Port of New York and New Jersey, just offends and disgusts me profoundly.
Read my current tagline. I may not have the quote precisely right (it might have been sheep and not dog), but Mohammed Atta's terrorist manual did have that instruction. The point? Let us -- the dogs -- sleep undisturbed until the terrorists are ready to slaughter us. Remember that as this port deal is debated.
741
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:15 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
("Do not disturb the dog before the slaughter," Mohammed Atta's terrorist instruction manual)
To: monkeywrench
""It may be part of the war that we "won't see.""
But the problem is we DO see it.
Bush has GOT to take the stand that there are some moderate Arabs out there willing to join with him in the WOT against Al Queda.
That's why he's digging in his heels.
He knows that if he turns the whole Arab world against us, we're vastly outnumbered and the US must become a police state.
Too bad he just can't say that.
742
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:18 PM PST
by
Californiajones
("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
To: onyx
No it is not a first, I have seen lots of diarrhea of the mouth here before.
743
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:18 PM PST
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: Brian Mosely
He needs arab money for his library.
He following the Clinton model, selling out to Arabs for future dough. IMO
744
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:25 PM PST
by
Finalapproach29er
(Americans need to remember Osama's "strong horse" -"weak horse" analogy. Let's stop acting weak.)
To: onyx
Some folks are comparing this to the Harriet Meir's situation. IMHO this is escalating into the "Schiavo" levels. Hold on to your hat!
745
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:35 PM PST
by
tiredoflaundry
(I'll admit it , I'm a Snow Flake !(Snoq) The rest of my tagline redacted by court order.)
To: mariabush
hey, made it to the end, for a second.
746
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:41 PM PST
by
Tulsa Ramjet
("If not now, when")
To: JFC
I noticed. We've been invaded for some time now. Sleeper cells...lol. They more nuisance than anything else, and I ignore them, but they do waste bandwidth I;d rather see used for serious discussion and an airing of facts.
747
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:50 PM PST
by
onyx
(IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
To: Alberta's Child
Technically speaking, you're probably correct about this. However, I suggested yesterday that the governors of those states where the six P&O-operated ports are located could probably do a lot of damage to the deal simply by suggesting that they will make every attempt to terminate P&O's existing contracts upon completion of the sale to the UAE-owned company. I think the legal departments of each of these states will advise their respective Governors that they would risk HUGE lawsuits by meddling in the business affairs of two foreign nations. Anti-trust is a bitch.
748
posted on
02/21/2006 1:52:53 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Pukin Dog
While at the same time, the fact that Arabs operate most of the ports that our Navy Ships dock in when overseas will go right over their heads. Remember a ship called the USS Cole? Thanks for proving my point.
To: sangrila
If they had wanted to send a nuke in to our ports, they could have done so a long time ago.
750
posted on
02/21/2006 1:53:38 PM PST
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: RegulatorCountry
"How many plant closings specifically attributed to CAFTA since passage?"
But it looked good on paper.
751
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:16 PM PST
by
Tulsa Ramjet
("If not now, when")
To: DJ MacWoW
Thanks for that link....troubling inded.
752
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:24 PM PST
by
indcons
To: jimbo123
Another thing- sensitive classified data like "look out for a freighter, Elbonian registry, named Freepsahoy, it may be carrying illegal explosive components and substandard tennis equipment; intercept and inspect; proceed with caution, captain has severe halitosis" would not go to the port.
Coast Guard and Customs would get the tip and would have the responsibility to act on it, and we keep trustworthy people in those posts.
Dockworkers, timekeepers, and port managers would not necessarily be tipped off that a particular ship was being watched, unless it somehow made sense that they did.
753
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:27 PM PST
by
DBrow
To: TheCrusader
Is the President running for a third term????????
754
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:28 PM PST
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: Hildy
Excuse me, but maybe it's because the English and the French are our ALLIES.
Did not know the French had ever been out ally since 1778. But then I may have been wrong as they tossed us out of France and NATO Hq had to move to Mons Belgium and the French pulled out of the military arm of NATO and their missiles in souther France were aimed at ??????? instead of Russia.
To: Pukin Dog
Agree.
There are simply too many folks around here who unnecessarily have dislocated their knee joints.
756
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:39 PM PST
by
verity
(The MSM is comprised of useless eaters)
To: Bikers4Bush
Bush just sounded the death knel for this deal. He can't veto things that happen at the state level. It was foolish of him to make such a statement. Even if he ultimately wins, which I doubt, he will lose significant political face over this. your right. He just sent the party further down the road!! WHAT is in his brain???!!!!!!!
757
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:42 PM PST
by
pollywog
(Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
To: Pukin Dog
To: CharlesWayneCT
Bush won't do the wrong thing just because ignorant people tell him to. Obviously you haven't been paying attention to today's news.
759
posted on
02/21/2006 1:54:47 PM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Explain to us why this has to "be good" for you (or us pubbies)? No. Do your own homework. Google is your friend.
760
posted on
02/21/2006 1:55:23 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740, 741-760, 761-780 ... 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