Posted on 02/22/2006 3:54:45 AM PST by LouAvul
Guess I was confusing Singapore with Jakarta.
this is a loose, loose situation for 'W'....he needs to pick his battles and IMHO this aint one of 'em.
You make valid points. I'm not saying GW should make policy with the polls as sole criterion.
As someone who has been in public relations for the past 25 years, I can say that one cannot simply say, "Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!"
Whomever the POTUS has as his PR people/advisors need to be canned. Because this is a public relations nightmare.
If nothing else, it is giving the Rats a platform. And in politics, perception is everything.
Well, we cannot ATTACK IRAN from Singapore. How blind have people become?
It's coming, WWIII. Bush knows it, everyone that needs to know within our government knows it, and yet the sheeple are led aroung by clintoon, schumer, and the msm. Amazing!
LLS
No your facts are wrong. The 45 day review is required only if a company doesn't pass the inital 30 day review and this one passed fine.
Facts are important on this one.
President Bush is not a law breaker.
We don't need the UAE in order to attack Iran.
PS. And if we did, it could be occupied in about two days, maybe three.
I don't dispute your points. But my money is on a veto override. And it'll be all because Bush is an arrogant non-communicative SOB. Harriet Miers redux.
This ammendment makes the 45-day mandatory, not optional:
Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
The friedship of the UAE is so strategically important that we need to have them overseeing some of our major ports.
We agree on WWIII, anyway.
My prediction is that some kind of further review will take place. During that time, conservatives will become more educated about what leasing a terminal involves and will be mollifed. Thus, no override will be needed.
That too!
Too late!
Although I am still not convinced this deal represents a true threat to security when the emotion is stripped from it and it is viewed dispassionately, I also see no way for Bush to persuade the American public to his position. This is the election issue democrats have been praying and sacrificing to their sick and twisted god for, and they will ride it with all their energy from now through November.
We can live without Dubai's controlling our ports. We cannot survive a resurgent democrat majority in Congress and a Hillary presidential win in 2008. Frist and Hastert have got to get out ahead of this and stay out ahead of it and rally the Republicans in the Senate and the House to lead the effort to defeat it. We cannot concede the larger and more important battle to the democrats.
I think you might mean that as sarcasm, but the friendship of the UAE is really not all that strategically important. I am not saying that we should dismiss the UAE or reject their friendship, but simply that it's not true that the UAE is particularly important. it's a convenience of course, as it's always more convenient for someone to be a friend rather than a foe, but we could get along just fine even if the UAE was our mortal enemy (which wouldn't be an especially wise move on their part).
Thanks for the info.
I'm not sure that the is controlled by Dubai. I have heard that 50% of the company is Dutch-owned.
We did not get out of the Cold War undamaged. Much of the roots of the Islamic War were established during the cold War, and yes, we mightily facilitated the rise of Islamism by aiding the Afghans against the Russians. That aid was really the final blow that ended the Soviet empire and now we are dealing with the fallout. I don't think we could have avoided that development and the long years of Bush I who had a sharp shortsighted worldview and then the fop Clinton prevented that problem being dealt with in any sort of timely fashion. Clinton or BI could have cut the Islamists off at the knees with minimal effort but BI had no vision and Clinton had no concept of anything beyond his imediate personal needs.
Who is/was Alitto?
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.