Posted on 02/22/2006 5:41:07 PM PST by quidnunc
Republicans, who usually have the good sense to avoid fratricide, are engaged in perhaps the most vicious intramural squabble of the Bush presidency over the deal allowing Dubai Ports World to control operations at several major U.S. seaports. The controversy ignited in an instant and has now involved virtually every prominent Republican in Washington and a bunch of Republican governors near the affected ports.
-snip-
Congressional leaders are feeling cranky and neglected. Bush is always doing stuff without telling them, and they're always grumbling he doesn't recognize that they're up for re-election this year. So, it probably feels very satisfying to push back at him for a change. And their opposition also seems like smart politics, at least superficially. …
Those political calculations may make sense for today, but in the long term, this fight will harm the GOP. Republicans can't distance themselves from Bush on security issues. He's not only the head of their party; he's the commander in chief. By pouncing on this issue so quickly and joining Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, Republican leaders send a global message: They don't trust Bush. They don't trust him enough to even wait to understand the facts of the deal. They don't trust him enough to even worry that they might have their facts wrong and wind up embarrassed.
-snip-
The squabble will also irritate the president. He's tired of congressional second-guessing—especially in a case like this where GOP leaders willfully refuse to acknowledge the complexity of global diplomacy and the value of global capitalism. You don't hear the deal's critics explaining who exactly will control port security if not Dubai Ports World. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
You open borders types are perfectly willing to import the violence and lawlessness of the Mexican border areas just so you can have cheap labor.
Just as you are willing to turn American port facilities over to a culture that hates us just for the bottom line.
Guys watch what you say, DU is eating this up
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x495854
President Bush and the UAE shouldn't be blasted for following current law.
Are we supposed to sit quiet on a national security issue ?
Face it. Bush has scored an 'own' goal.
They have the capitol, but not the desire.
Hell no, but the last thing you want is to provide entertainment to a bunch of crazy liberals.
And how does that conflict with my statement that conservatives don't trust Dubya? If you disagreed with the Miers nomination because you personally know her, you think you are better informed than Dubya, or you have more right to make that decision then the President...I doubt any response I make will change your mind.
I opposed Miers and didn't do so to gain independence.
I've read your posts many times Soul Seeker and I've agreed with many of them. I have a great deal of respect for your logic and writing abilities. I'm perfect comfortable admitting I am human and therefore prone to human mistakes. So if I believe you are wrong, it doesn't mean I think you are dumb, evil, or an animal. Perhaps you simply came to different conclusion then I did. Perhaps my brush was too broad, but since Miers wasn't even given an opportunity to make her case I don't know how you can say you have a solid argument.
This is an issue that splits patriotic conservatives from WSJ corporate one worlders and servile bushbots. We most definitely should have this out. And we will be stronger for it.
If we line up behind Bush on this like good little bushbots we will be lemmings marching over a cliff.
Thanks for your reasonable and logical post. It's amazing to me that so many people decided to go the knee-jerk route on this issue rather than find out some facts about it.
It's funny that the Democrats cried for more security yet started whining that there should be no racial profiling. Now, many of them who want to appear strong on security in an election year are shouting to keep the A-rabs from owing the contract to operate the ports. And some Republicans who can't be bothered to learn more about the issue are jumping right on the bandwagon with them. I guess in some cases even we Republicans eat our own young.
Good!
Maybe they'll have to explain why, all of a sudden, their in favor of profiling. I want them to tell me why OBL is no longer the only threat. I really want to hear their reason why we should isolate portions of this region rather than embrace and corporate with them.
ILW.COM - immigration news: Rep. Tancredo Introduces Guest Worker Program Legislation
Tom Tancredo with be disappointed to lose your next $5 campaign donation. Thank you so much for playing.
First, the Mexicans are not a terrorist problem. A crime problem? Sure. But cheap labor is awfully nice to have. Otherwise I would have the cut the back acre MYSELF, and clean the gutters, plant, trim the shrubs, fertilize, etc.
Oh, and paint and do the petty carpentry, iron the clothes, clean the house, etc. In France, it is the Poles. In America, it is the Latinos. It is good to have cheap labor. Life is better with servants, especially when they are cheap.
Of course, we could do away with all of that by closing the borders in Europe and the USA. But I think I probably would not invite in some Beur from Bondy or some black from Harlem to do these jobs in my house. Seems risky to let in people who are going to case the joint. Poles and Latinos are good respectable Catholic folks, on either side of the pond. They're cheap and they work hard. This is good.
Second, the ports are not going to be "turned over" to anybody. The ports will still be sitting there, in the USA. They will still be part of the USA. They will still have American government security: same as now. They will still have American unionized dockworkers doing everything: same as now.
You don't plow a field by turning it over in your mind, and you don't plant a bomb by looking at a port facility from afar and saying "I own that!" Even if the Dubai company was owned by Osama Bin Laden, he's still not going to own the Coast Guard and cops who patrol the port, and he's not going to be able to replace American stevedores on the docks with boatloads of Arabs.
Thank you for your response. I was under the impression that this kind of information was "out there" somewhere and have been looking for it so I could make an informed decision.
Child, apparently you can't read.
Tancredo was for setting limits on an existing program, NOT creating one.
I used to be mad, when Republicans would not counter allegations from the left and meet their rhetoric with facts, perhaps I was asking too much. It seems we are just as agile with the rhetoric, instead of debating the questions based on the presentation of facts.
Tell me some more what upstanding pillars of the community MS-13 are. Tell me some more about why the jails of the Southwest and California are packed with all those wonderful, noble, illegals. Tell me some more about how the Mexican government will be able to call on a "Mexican Lobby" in American to manipulate American politics 10 years from now. Your personal desire for cheap labor is at the direct expense of the American people and American sovereignty.
Don't be dense.
Putting Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court was like making a first year intern Chief of Thoracic Surgery at Mount Sinai. It was a matter of public record that she did not have the expert knowledge required for the job. And the job requires expert knowledge, not being Bush's buddy.
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.