hey Neil...... Stupid has no cure but ignorance does. Educate yourself before shooting off your mouth and exposing your shallowness. World trade is above your paygrade. Silence would be thge best policy till the ignorance is remediated.
Good article. Interesting points about the manifests, counters the arguements that "oh, the UAE will not be in a position to subvert security at all".
I;m pretty certain that he won't need to use a veto on this.
I figure that in two or 3 more days, the right will have recovered from there VERY liberal-like knee jerk initially on this issue. They will have re-examined it, and they will come to realize that nothing's really changed, except the name on the check......
The outrage will be gone. Whatever resolution comes up will either barely make it through congress and there will be a veto, but more likely, any resolution will die in committee.
It's about timing now and how quickly it will come about.
Great Britain is not an Islamic Nation.
I would beg to differ here. The British Empire has been taken over by the muzzies long ago. They own most of the property and business throughout.
Boortz is a puutz.
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.
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?
Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583784/posts
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Whether he vetoes depends on the congress.
Even Libertarianism is selective. Imagine that.
bookmarked
I do love that horrible argument about the British running the ports from Bush, or that equally crappy argument about longshoremen from Rush. Good God, what the hell is going through their minds?