Bush Says Ports Deal Will Stand

yahoo ^ | 2-22-06

[manonfire]

Mcain supports the prez on this one while just about everyone else doesn't...uhhhhhh...This should backfire on all the hypocrites/dems/libs/repubs...Flat out racist looking to all the world to see...Pretty embarissing..Folks need to read between the lines...

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush has said he will veto any legislation that will stop the port deal. This is one time when the congress can probably over-ride a veto.

If that happens Republicans have handed Democrats an issue to run on in 08. As it is they have none.

Why not contract out the management of Washington? Maybe Hugo Chavez would be interested.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush has said he will veto any legislation that will stop the port deal. This is one time when the congress can probably over-ride a veto.

If that happens Republicans have handed Democrats an issue to run on in 08. As it is they have none.

Why not contract out the management of Washington? Maybe Hugo Chavez would be interested.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush has said he will veto any legislation that will stop the port deal. This is one time when the congress can probably over-ride a veto.

If that happens Republicans have handed Democrats an issue to run on in 08. As it is they have none.

Why not contract out the management of Washington? Maybe Hugo Chavez would be interested.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush has said he will veto any legislation that will stop the port deal. This is one time when the congress can probably over-ride a veto.

If that happens Republicans have handed Democrats an issue to run on in 08. As it is they have none.

Why not contract out the management of Washington? Maybe Hugo Chavez would be interested.

[R.W.Ratikal]

President Bush has said he will veto any legislation that will stop the port deal. This is one time when the congress can probably over-ride a veto.

If that happens Republicans have handed Democrats an issue to run on in 08. As it is they have none.

Why not contract out the management of Washington? Maybe Hugo Chavez would be interested.

[Ace of Spades]

He's going to use his first veto on *this*? Is he a ringer? Seriously, is he a Democratic plant, meant to make our party look ridiculous?

[LibLieSlayer]

A look at the map, and a study of the geopolitical realities would force one to come to the opposite conclusion.

I am supposed to distrust Bush, Rummy, JCoS, Pentagon, and 4 Fed Departments, but I am supposed to take the gospel from insiders such as yourself. No thanks.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

It was not a back room deal. It was vetted, in the Press as early as October of last year, and NO other companies wanted to do it. Just keep watching this thing a few more days. Many will regret words that will not so easily be forgotten. I am not speaking of you, however.

LLS

[Lazamataz]

Bush Says Ports Deal Will Stand

Of course it will. He and his BigBiz cronies stand to benefit.

The Bush Administration is merely the Clinton Administration with cleaner rugs.

[AntiGuv]

I have heard that 50% of the company is Dutch-owned.

You heard wrong. DP World is state-owned by the royal family of Dubai. The chairman is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem who directly represents the crown prince Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

[cvq3842]

The Straits of Hormuz angle is just about the only concept I've heard that makes sense. Even still, at this point the politics of the situation are pretty clear, if nothing else. It will take an awful lot of convincing to get security-conscious Republicans to Bush's side. I don't know if he can, or should. (The Democrats are merely naysayers and aren't worth the trouble of thinking about or dealing with any more than necessary. If Bush had scuttled this deal, I have little doubt that the Dems would argue that Bush was "profiling" and "alienating the world" once again.) The fact that Jimmy Carter is presently the only "prominent politician" to support this is not a good sign.

Bush & Co. are smart people. They will find a way to satisfy both the UAE and the American public. They have to.

My gut reaction is that this is a very bad idea. If Gore or Kerry had proposed this I would be extremely concerned. Yes, I trust Bush a whole not more then either of them (character matters!), but I still have to be honest. I want him to be right, and to be doing the right thing. But security issues are Bush's strength and I think that whenever he is tagged as "weak" on that issue, either rightly or wrongly (Katrina, immigration, the ports) he suffers greatly, and so does our cause. Again, assuming just for the moment that the ports deal enhances, rather than weakens, our security and geopolitical position, it's a fact (like it or not) that in our system of government it's very hard to get this far out of line with the people. Certainly the last thing folks want to hear is that we need to deal with the UAE in order to strengthen our position for a probably inevitable attack on Iran. Again, it is quite possible that such an attack is the right thing to do, even though possibly unpopular. We don't want to react once we're attacked and a city is gone, and we can't advocate governing by polls.

But it's a real concern.

Rambling? Maybe. It's early. :)

[veronica]

After listening to lots of analysis last night and this AM, I am more against this deal than I was yesterday.

I understand the arguments that the ragheads won't control security.

Not entirely true. They won't control security per se, but they will have knowledge of the security set-up. Arabs unloading cargo at these vital ports??? PU-LEEZE....

[AntiGuv]

A look at the map, and a study of the geopolitical realities would force one to come to the opposite conclusion.

No, it wouldn't. A look at the map would find that our military facilities in the Persian Gulf are not in the United Arab Emirates and a study of geopolitical realities would confirm that the UAE is of token consequence to any military operations we might conduct in the Persian Gulf.

[AntiGuv]

I am supposed to distrust Bush, Rummy, JCoS, Pentagon, and 4 Fed Departments, but I am supposed to take the gospel from insiders such as yourself.

And what on earth are you babbling about here? I haven't told you to distrust anyone and if I had any advice to give you it would be for you to educate yourself before the next time you feel the impulse to sound ignorant.

[Psalm 73]

"This is the way I saw it from about day 3 after the nomination...."

Sorry - there is nothing I have seen or heard that has ever led me to believe that Miss Harriet's nomination was part of a master plan.
Too many variables to calculate this as part of a master plan from the git-go.
A brilliant rescue of a blunder seems more realistic.

Hey - any other Freepers out there who thought the whole Miers thing was calculated from the very beginning to turn out this way in its entirety?

[Barney Gumble]

"the issue is the potential or theory that an Arab/Muslim corporation would, in time, update and replace the existing management and supervisory positions with individuals of like origin and faith"

Exactly. Even if the UAE company personell are squeaky clean today, it could easily be infiltrated by Jihadists ONCE the see that the UAE has access to American ports.

The UAE doesn't even recogonize Israel. What have they done exactly to earn my trust?

I'm just waiting for the Bushbots to tell me how wonderful the deal is or how its some grand Machevillian scheme.

[expat_panama]

...I also see no way for Bush to persuade the American public to his position....

That's what Rush has been saying and that's what I was thinking --until this morning.  Today I see an open debate on the freerepublic with the thinking people either saying they don't know (yet) or saying the deal is good.  I'd have expected the issue to be taken over by the nuke-Mecca crowd, but evidently they're becoming a dieing breed.

This is reason for hope.

[sinkspur]

But it makes no sense to fly in the face of such opposition.

Of course it does. What is the Arab world to think when a country that is working with the US in the war on terror is forced out of a contract simply because it is an Arab country?

The American public has been stampeded into a position by opportunistic Democrats who are using this purely for political purposes, and cowardly Republicans who are afraid the Democrats are getting to their right on national security.

Bush, meanwhile, tries to keep the lines of communication open with Arab countries that want to work with us.

Not knowing how this port deal actually works, the public is stuck on stupid.

[AntiGuv]

The Straits of Hormuz angle is just about the only concept I've heard that makes sense.

Well, except that the Strait of Hormuz is controlled by Oman, opposite Iran.