Posted on 02/22/2006 1:42:25 PM PST by southernnorthcarolina
For the 700th time, P&O is a private company, and British. DPWorld is a STATE-OWNED company, and Arab, and friendly to many of our enemies in the WOT. In fact, we passed on a chance to take out OBL because the royals who own this company were dining with him, and we decided we shouldn't kill them, too.
At this point, I can't say exactly what it is they do. Supporters tend to minimize the involvement to a point where it seems all UAE will do is cash checks we will send to them and not actually do anything. Certainly nothing that could be harmful in any way.
I think it is a fair question to ask what exactly UAE will be doing and in what manner it will interact with any other entity involved with these ports. And is whatever they will be doing actually worth he money they will be getting?
I think it is absolutely stunning that, literally overnight, we are seeing so many Bush defenders suddenly trying to portray themselves as defenders of Islam while calling the other half racist. Thanks for the wedge issue, Bush.
"I guess that means she voted for CAFTA, and if she had voted against it would have been a tie and another expensive trade agreement wouldn't be bringing the third world a little closer to home."
No, she flew into NC on Air Force One with President Bush to talk up CAFTA. She was the only certainty, with everyone else being a firm "hell no" right up until all the eleventh-hour arm twisting. And so, Robin Hayes, not Sue Myrick, got the dubious pleasure of being the tie-breaker.
Don't shoot the messenger. I stated no opinion on Rep. Myrick's letter. I am being fair and balanced here. I report, you decide. LOL.
Sounds like some Congress Critters want to stop ALL foreign-ownership of ports, etc. For this specific deal, I imagine Congress could try to do something before March 2nd deadline - after that, it will be challenged as an illegal bill of attainer - race or not.
We passed on that chance BEFORE 9/11, correct?
Is she related to that whackjob Howard Dean?
But after the embassy bombings.
We knew who he was. And they were dining with him. At his (ahem) hunting camp.
"Selling the ports is a travesty but this classless letter doesn't reflect well on Myrick."
She's probably hoping and praying that Bush's polls remain low through November--because if she needs him to campaign for her in October, she's going to discover that he has other commitments.
Think carefully before burning your bridges.
Now, all of a sudden, Mr. Defense Attorney is suddenly down on Arabs? You Democrats want us out of Gitmo, to shut down Abu Ghraib, but, opportunistically, you now are concerned about port security?
Way to go Sue!
Apparently an ommission of the < /sarcasm> tag?
UAE is the best friend of our US Navy fleet in the Persian Gulf. This Arabophobia disease spread by Chuck the Schmuck on the Michael Savage Show.
Cheers,
OLA
Maybe she will run for president. She's got my vote. I think I willsend her some flowers and thank her for having the guts to stand against this tyranny.
Lets see now, the Red Chinese run the logistic operations on most of the Kalifornia ports? "Foreign owned." What about all the foreign shipping companies that send and operate in the US? Are they being properly vetted for security reasons too?
Oh, I can't wait to see the anti-shipping legislation on this. \sarcasm
Let Halliburton run the ports.
I think this CongressCritter maybe up your alley?
That would send the moonbats through the roof! Which is fine with me - sending the moonbats to the moon. :)
Oh, I can't wait to see the anti-shipping legislation on this. \sarcasm
Actually the legislation exists already, the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) was a port security response to 9/11.
IMHO, the 'Rats & MSM have hijacked the news cycle to keep the headlines free of Saddam's videotapes verifying production/possession of WMD.
Cheers,
OLA
This is the best post on this subject yet, thank you.
When peoples' allegiance to a leader becomes so blindly rigid and inflexible I think that's a frightening event. I have defended President Bush literally hundreds of times on FR threads, but I will not support him on this assinine, divisive, and potentially dangerous deal with the UAE.
The President is defending this thing with his life, calling the Senate 'biased' and threatening to use his veto power for the very first time. (Wish he would have chosen a more important issue for that distinction). His spokesman said he didn't even know about the UAE deal four days ago. If it's so darn unimportant to him that he doesn't even need to be informed about it, then why the fortress defense of it? Is catering to islam important enough to divide the Republican party over?
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.