Posted on 02/22/2006 4:24:38 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
The President has threatened to use a VETO on spending bills and the McCain Terrorist amendment. Until he actually uses a VETO Neil's headline point is null and void. It is not unusual for him to make the threat. Only following through would be breaking new ground.
Charles K was on Fox and answered Neil's question as to why the President is insistent on a deal he was unaware of before. While the admin didn't do a good job in preparing the way for the deal, admittedly, given the hysterics we now have a situation where an "ally", note I don't use the term friend, in the WOT is being insulted and shown their alliance in this war will not engender them any difference in treatment than the President of Iran would warrant.
That is bad.
It is bad when you are trying to build democracies in the middle east with Arabs that don't favor terrorism, but don't look at us well either, to react as so many have done. This endangers our national security just as so many fear our ports being endangered. We need allies in the M.E. to win this war.
Had objectors behaved rationally, it might be different. As it is the President is backed into a corner of having to stand in defense of our allies to keep them onboard in this war.
Badly handled all around. Badly communicated to the people by the admin, but as well folks going ballistic has NOT served to give you what you want. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the deal does go through, because once folks on the Capitol realize what a mess they've made of this in their manner of objections, not the objection itself, they will have a certain feeling of obligation to try and salvage relations with the allies they've offended because our national security demands the alliance.
Question, Mr. "InIraq," when did "conservatives" decide to put a price tag on national security? Why "force" an American company to be interested when we could simply raise the bar for admission to bid by increasing the amount we're willing to pay for port operations in order to secure those ports by not hiring cut-rate-security-risks like DPWorld?
You question my conservatism, but the fact is you're saying that as long as the price is low enough, you're fine with Islamists running the ports. I wonder if we could get Al Qaeda to guard our nukes for fifty cents, and if that would be okay with you, too?
Wow, that's convincing. Did you and bert write that together?
I'm still not hearing what the alternative is to this deal. Does the USA have jurisdiction over DPI buying P&O? Sure we can bar them from doing business here, but then what?
.....And your credentials are???....
I am an expert in trade and traded with the GCC for 20 years before my retiremnet. I still deal with international trade on a daily basis especially with containers and traffic.
I have diligently followed the progress of the war since it began in 1991 and see the parts now being played by our GCC allies in assisting our efforts.
I am not a Christian bigot who hates Muslims because of an inability to think.
I have met and conversed with many young American educated Arabs who know the score and are working to make their world a better place. We must not betray them and fearfully hide from the real Alqeada bad guys.
Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583784/posts
Are you still in high school? This kind of stuff is sophomoric.
Actually I was thinking of checking the White House basement for pods.
Your marxist views are not generally seen on a capitalist friendly forum.
How has the objection been irrational, other than the folks on the left who wouldn't profile now are all for it in the case of port operations? I don't think it's irrational at all how the issue has been raised. And I don't understand how a business deal like this is supposed to be offensive--or why we're so supposed to worry about being offensive, when it comes to national security. Dubai doesn't let foreigners run ITS port. Does that offend you?
I will pose to you a question similar to that I posed to MikeinIraq: if the UAE wanted to run Pentagon security contracts, would it be appropriate for us to object to a nearly-done-deal there, or would you worry about being offensive first? If we're in a war on terror, worrying about being 'offensive' should be the last thing on our minds. Here you're worrying chucking a business deal that's not even done will offend the UAE. Iran doesn't do ANY business in the U.S.--in light of its limited support of our MidEast policy, maybe the UAE should be allowed to sell and do business here, but not where national security interests are at stake. Neither should other countries, Britain among them, special relationship be damned.
Last time I checked the UAE isn't the Taliban and they do have a diplomatic mission with Israel so your comment is less than moot, it's irresponsible and insulting to one of our best allies in the ME region.
NEXT!!!!
After you slammed me for not being conservative, I pointed out why this is a wedge issue--it's choosing what you consider conservative philosophy over what I consider more important than mere conservative philosophy, national security.
Now you can't stand seeing that pointed out, and you can't answer the hypo posed to you, so you respond with insult. Sad but all too typical 'convincing' from the globalist GOP. Thanks for playing.
Marxist my ass. You want to allow a government that is not elected by it's people to make profit in our damn country and you call this poster a Marxist?
You're quite the elitist.
I didn't slam you, I asked you....
big difference, but go ahead and have ANOTHER knee-jerk reaction.....
"Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush..."
I have no doubt that the reason this happened initially was ALL legislative sellout. Congress will try to do this kind of thing for its donors again and again. But Bush is standing by it, and that is where he turns himself into the party at fault right now.
I am not a Christian bigot who hates Muslims because of an inability to think.
Yes, stereotyping is just so bad, isn't it?
Of course, you are clearly too intelligent and learned to make that mistake.
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.