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 mean that point about you not knowing the difference between Dubai and Yemen? Damn, don't make it EASY for me!
Were it not for the intense pressure re: the Meirs mess, she probably would have just floated through.
We did a service by pressuring the White House on Meirs.
These bots are just amazing. They want us to shut up and sit down and take the plunger right up the back side every time by GWB & Co.
He won't veto any spending bills, but he'll veto something that protects our port security. He's such a joke...
Sorry, I started the impeachment stuff, because if the opponents of this deal are so certain that Bush is selling out our security, he should be impeached.
Of course he shouldn't, but if you can't trust the President when he says he carefully analysed an issue and did what was best from a security standpoint, then he has to be removed. Because if he got this wrong after careful analysis, he can't be trusted with the military or anything else. And if he lied about being careful, he can't be trusted either.
I guess Bush upped the ante, although many here seemed to hope he would come out and say that he was ignorant about security, but now that the public pointed it out to him he agreed with them. Like that would be better.
I think this has become a defining issue. Either we have to come around to agreeing with Bush, or we have to remove him. Because he clearly thinks this is the right decision, and if he turns out to be clearly wrong he can't be trusted.
IF the republicans overrule Bush, the message will be that Bush cannot be trusted with security, and we will lose the next election. Because if we can't be trusted with security, why would anybody vote for us -- it certainly isn't because of our fiscal conservatism.....
And since the people against this have no rational basis for their fears, just muslim-bashing, arab fear, and trite statements about "terororist havens", I find their arguments unpersuasive.
But I'm always opened to a factual presentation. Sean just went through a bunch of pre-9/11 info, which I find meaningless -- I wouldn't trust our OWN COUNTRY to run this based on pre-9/11 information. the UAE is a lot different now.
"And we should never let companies from the Middle East own flight schools in the U.S.,"
Exactly, and besides that, the total course would only focus on flying straight and turning. Not exactly a flight officer quality education.
You're an idiot. You do not have the facts, and I'll wager you have no clue as to the authority over the ports.
I don't give a damn if you rave endlessly on, just don't bother posting to me about your whining. Reading your posts is a total waste of my time, Junior.
They're probably in the short running to pick up our "surplus" F-117As (they're headed to the boneyard by 2008).
"But it looked good on paper."
Not to us "NAFTA-fatigued" Tarheels, it didn't. It took some serious arm-twisting and last-minute backroom dealing to get passage. It's going to cost Robin Hayes his career. She doesn't seem to realize it yet, but Sue Myrick's not going to be too terribly electable either.
The acquisition of P&O Ports by DPW was announced last fall. I found out about it from an article in The Journal of Commerce.
Anyone in the U.S. government who waited until February of 2006 to express their "concern" over this acquisition is nothing more than an opportunistic, pandering @sshole. And that goes for members of both political parties, too.
At least they didn't sell it to the People's Republic of Massachusets.
IMO .. we are taking one heck of a gamble with this port deal
Well it's going to be even easier now. Anyone who wants an Arab country linked terrorism, 9-11, and nuclear weapons proliferation acting as our port operators is out of their mind. Anyone who believes this is a good idea is either making money on the deal or brainwashed.
Yes. Foreign companies do U.S. military contracts, using U.S. subsidiaries with US cleared employees.
Why is Bush so hell bent on this? I don't get it. Is there some underlying thing going on here that we don't know about???? IMO, this is a HUGE mistake.
Yes, and I've got more than just an impression of that now.
There goes that Bushbot fantasy.
9/11 changed everything. American ports should be managed by American companies
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.