Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal

AP ALERT

[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.

[Revel]

Makes it kind of hard for him to explain how safe the parriot act is going make us when he obviously is not interested in our safety.

[nmh]

#552 yes!

She was looking for an issue - now she has one.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don't "trust" them blindly, but some degree of trust, with verification, is necessary even with our adversaries, and certainly with those who would help us.

We can't ask them for help, and then refuse to trust them for no reason.

[Pukin Dog]

Yeah, he's going to hurt them all the way to a veto-proof majority.

[Rockitz]

PS. He is going to have to explain it to pubbies in Congress so at least he can stop the sniping.

[onyx]

Sadly, you're right.

[ruschpa]

I completely... unfortunately it seems as if the WH is completely tone deaf at times. Even if this is a good company, with a good reputation, it seems as if the WH can't this is a loser for them.

If you guys think his polls suck now, just wait until the next ones now.

[isrul]

You can't honestly name one moslem country that is a friend to the U.S.

[onyx]

John Gibson is addressing it now.

[scratcher]

It signed up yesterday to show its ignorance and now I think he/she is stalking you.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Guys and gals. I'm not quite sure what to think of all of this. It seems to me, that if this company has been scrutinized by 7 different arms of the government, and the fact that this company is not involved with the security of the ports, and has been doing this kind of business forever, that at the very least, the Congress should be able to do their own investigation. All that has happened, as I understand it, is that P & O is taking over for another foreign owner. Let's see what happens.

[freeangel]

"he's out, right?"

I've decided that is exactly right. No doubt this whole thing was engineered be the Rove genius. It gives the guys that are up for re-election this year a chance to look like the good guys by trying to save the country's "security". The dems can't take full credit for that as an election issue then. Is that paranoid enough for anyone?

[Madame Dufarge]

I haven't plowed through the whole thread, but this looks interesting. Sorry if it's already been posted.

A Time Bomb for Global Trade

[Lauretij2]

Ports are national security issue. Hell, in wartime I don't mind if we even federalize them completely! Too much at risk! Oh, I see they are rolling out the F35 on schedule too. Aren't they supposed to cancel that according to you??

[onyx]

OMG! He was the first? I'll drop that term from my vocabulary immediately...lol.

[The Old Hoosier]

He can't veto things that happen at the state level.

The idea is that Congress would pass something to block the deal...

[TheCrusader]

"he is against America defending itself from foreign invaders."

"You are off your rocker .."

No, he's probably just one of those "vigilantes" who wants secure borders and ports.

[prairiebreeze]

Which work with foreign companies in foreign ports to inspect our containers before they come here -- the majority being inspected by the UAE DP World company.

In other words, this company that people don't trust to own the company that owns the companies that manage the ports is already responsible for inspecting containers that come into our country, and has been for a while.

Bump to the top, Charles.

[sangrila]

The private sector plays a vital role in the security of this country. If you think that none of the sensitive information in this country makes its way into the private sector then you are ignorant. Maybe we should have the UAE buy our defense contractors and food distributors because the bureaucrats over at DHS are on the trail so we don't have anything to worry about. DHS secures airports, so lets have Saudi Arabia run our baggage screening.You see, the private sector plays no role in national security because that is DHS's job. DHS can do everything.

[CharlesWayneCT]

But they are here now, and some of them are needed, and knowing about them is better than not knowing, and guest worker is better than under the covers.

I can't be against a program that makes sense now, because 6 years from now someone else will call for amnesty. The program I'm supporting now is NOT amnesty. I will oppose making it into amnesty.

But I also oppose the roundup and deportation of every single illegal. I'm not saying that isn't a rational plan -- I see good arguments for doing so. But I think a guest worker program is a better plan, better for the economy, better for security.