Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 921-940941-960961-980 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
To: markedman
This is supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

What the hell does that mean in the context of this discussion?

941 posted on 02/21/2006 2:22:38 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 879 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Politically, it's a TONE DEAF deal.

JMO, onyx, whenever I hear this is "Tone Deaf", it reminds me of the "republican" who first stated it.

JMO, one shouldn't criticize being deaf on anything especially when one is essentially deaf at taking a picture.

942 posted on 02/21/2006 2:22:41 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Because in Establishment Republican minds, making money trumps all else. Including national security. How Clintonian

I'm afraid you are right. I reluctantly came to the same conclusion about two years ago. That was about the time that the "rehabilitation" of the Xlintons went full-steam ahead.

And they continue. Sandy Hamburglar got off with a slap on the wrist, and countless other actions have tarnished the administration.

943 posted on 02/21/2006 2:22:43 PM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW; Howlin; Alberta's Child
Thanks for the links. So this is a story that was reported late last year, but on 2/11/06 the AP reports an update, and adds this commentary in the first sentence:

...leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.

That line seems to sum up the basis for much of the knee-jerk opposition. Since the United States is a country with ties to the Oklahoma City bomber, I guess they're also against a US company operating the ports?

Not that I'm endorsing this deal, but I do wonder who went to the AP and suggested framing the story this way. Maybe the Dems simply got lucky with a story ripe for political exploitation, but I doubt that.

944 posted on 02/21/2006 2:22:48 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Sabramerican

Imagine the negative ads the 'Rats will run in November against Republicans who support the port turnover. It's just insane that Bush and his advisors are giving the 'Rats this opening. Kill the deal now.


945 posted on 02/21/2006 2:22:49 PM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely

i know that i'm taking the minority view on this matter but i just can't buy into the argument that because terrorist come from this part of the world that want to own these ports that that disqualifies them from owning them. if that's the logic for denying someone to own something here in America then that would disqualify even an American company from owning these ports. We have a father-son on trial in Lodi, CA for planning terrorists activity. We just arrested three people in Ohio today for planning terrorists activities. That's just to name a couple. I'm sorry but i just can't buy into this guilty by association mentality.


946 posted on 02/21/2006 2:22:50 PM PST by mfnorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet

Some speculate about a "secret plan". I see no evidence of such, nor does it make sense. This was a private business transaction between two companies, and it would be quite a stretch to think the U.S. was manipulating world markets to that degree.

I don't think there needs to be a secret plan. Like it or not, Bush believes we need nations on our side, and when they ARE on our side, he wants PROOF that they are not before he stabs them in the back.

As he said, step up and explain why an Arab company is by its very nature unworthy of the trust we placed in the same company when it was a british company publicly owned by stockholders.

I haven't seen anyone explain it without appeal to the "all muslims are bad, all muslims hate us, we can't trust muslims". All this might be true (I don't believe it), but we can't operate on that assumption. We need partners, and UAE is a good partner to us based on evidence.


947 posted on 02/21/2006 2:23:08 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
And Peter King.

At least Pataki has never pretended to be anything more than a dopey, dim-witted "Blue" state governor. Peter King is supposed to be the chairman of the House committee on homeland security!

948 posted on 02/21/2006 2:24:39 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: Brian Mosely

I'm afraid Bush will hurt himeself and the GOP on this one.


949 posted on 02/21/2006 2:24:55 PM PST by auggy ( http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Howlin; Mo1; Peach; Miss Marple; A Citizen Reporter; All


Thank you, Charles. May I have your permission to cut and paste your comments about 1000 times?


950 posted on 02/21/2006 2:24:58 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
...your comments don't reflect well on your knowledge of foreign contribution to this nation.

Ditto yours.

951 posted on 02/21/2006 2:25:20 PM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 901 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
The only secret plan involved making sure that the Democrats jumped on the issue.
952 posted on 02/21/2006 2:26:10 PM PST by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 947 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
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.

Interesting point.

He's really in a Catch-22, since he really can't explain this logic publicly. This is one of those where we're just going to have to trust him and hope to God he hasn't misplaced his trust in Dubai.

953 posted on 02/21/2006 2:26:11 PM PST by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

...a voice of reason...thank you


954 posted on 02/21/2006 2:26:29 PM PST by mystery-ak (Army Wife and Mother.....toughest job in the military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 918 | View Replies]

To: Oliver Optic

You're exactly right about the poor timing of the veto threat. If a president is going to distinguish his administration by going 5 years without a veto, he could have certainly picked a better time to menacingly wave the veto pen.


955 posted on 02/21/2006 2:26:33 PM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

I hope you'll be addressing this tonight. I'd love to hear your take.


956 posted on 02/21/2006 2:27:06 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

"As he said, step up and explain why an Arab company is by its very nature unworthy of the trust we placed in the same company when it was a british company publicly owned by stockholders."

I think the point of all the conservative howling, is that even if the UAE comes in and does a masterful first couple of years running the ports, what happens when Port Master Sharik's brother-in-law, that just got kicked out of Dubai Univerisity, and has cut a deal to bring in a plutonium weapon on container 2A1134, labeled "Chinese Plastic DogSh*t", and then, well...there you go.

I think this thread has exhausted its use unless something else is revealed.


957 posted on 02/21/2006 2:27:08 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 947 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
Without public pressure a US oil company would have been sold to China.

The "public pressure" surrounding that story was about as idiotic as anything I've seen on this one.

958 posted on 02/21/2006 2:27:14 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
"Six out of the seven are fairly repressive. Dubai, on the other hand, is a totally different story. Don't judge Dubai by the actions of the UAE."

All six of the islamic states they have confederated with are typical, repressive Arab muslim states, but since Dubai has some Western style commerce and fashions that makes them completely trustworthy allies. Are you interested in buying a bridge in New York, I can sell it cheap.

959 posted on 02/21/2006 2:27:20 PM PST by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi; CharlesWayneCT

Don't leave before you have read this post. It's most excellent:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582942/posts?page=918#918


960 posted on 02/21/2006 2:27:47 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 921-940941-960961-980 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson