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.
Ever shop at Wal Mart? Ever gotten a bank loan? Ever admired the Harrier jet? Do you like Pizza? I could ask you a thousand other questions like those.
Please calm down. I don't think you are a racist, but your comments don't reflect well on your knowledge of foreign contribution to this nation.
Haa! Maybe I'll have to drop by and see if you are all by your lonesome.
:^P
I am in complete agreement with your post!
Bush is not signing anything over. The deal was made outside the Administration and it has nothing to do with turning over security.
Security is still handled by the DHC and the USCG as it always has.
The UAE will handle the business management portion only, which has no part in what is loaded or unloaded into the containers. They merely oversee the management part of the operation.
Outside of your usual knee-jerk logic, try to arm yourself with facts first. It will help you to come across as being at least somewhat intelligent.
Don't forget, ever slept in a local motel..... or dry cleaners, or nail salon
Follow the money................
Can you imagine where Rush would be if it were Clinton trying to pull this stunt?
Dubai: The first UAE human rights organisation has been formally licensed, creating a precedent in the country.
The Emirates Human Rights Association (EHRA) was legalised on February 18, in the Ministry of Social Affairs decision No 8 for 2006. Gulf News reported earlier this month that the Social Affairs Ministry had approved EHRA's establishment, but had not formally signed it into law.
Mohammad Al Duhaim, EHRA member, and former ambassador, said the 32 current EHRA members were pleased with the decision.
I have too, but on THIS scale?
I see you're still just as big a smart-ass as you've always been.
Just because you and yours are too intellectually lazy to learn the facts of this deal, does not mean the rest of us are like you.
I know I am probably the first one here to say it, but it needs said; I don't think Bush will get re-elected in 08'
lol
Possibly that lucrative $1M speakers fee he's hoping to collect post-presidency?
Actually, I'm guessing he's trying to award an "ally" in the WOT. He has to walk a narrow line in convincing the Muslim world that this is a War on Terror as opposed to a War on Islam and maintaining national security.
No. But if they build them in the Caribbean as quickly as they build them in China, there are probably a dozen of them there right now!
Bush, welcome to being the new Jimmy Carter.
Those who wanted to wait for all the information in the Miers case were proven correct. The jump-the-gun crowd caused us no ends of trouble, and are still a source of comfort to the democrats who love to point out how the conservatives stabbed Miers in the back because they were afraid of her positions.
But Bush held firm. And eventually, we learned that she was NOT ready for the post -- after she answered her questionaire, and the committee sent it back with a failing grade. She then resigned because it was clear she wasn't ready, and it would have been the same whether or not people attacked her for no reason for things that weren't true.
Facts are useful, and you should wait for the facts. It is certainly true that if you simply chose a side without facts, you sometimes get it right -- but if you do, it's by pure dumb luck.
If there are any real FACTS which support your position on this issue, I feel confident that the facts will come out, will be persuasive, and the right decision will be made.
But it is clear now that the opponents are basing their opposition on fear, innuendo, bigotry, and ignorance of the facts.
I have yet to see an opponent make a substantial post in opposition without including at least one glaring mistatement of the facts (like "outsourcing security", or "UAE is a pro-terrorist country").
If we could get everybody educated on the facts, I believe there is a debate to be had, and I think there is a law that could be passed which would improve our security and give the President the power he needs to void the leases if REAL security issues come up. But we are nowhere near that point.
Bush won't veto any spending, but he pulls this veto threat out of his hat for this?
You must be doing everything right!
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.