Posted on 02/22/2006 9:00:17 PM PST by Kaslin
Politicians across the political spectrum are raising their voices against the arrangement which would allow a United Arab Emirates company to manage six U.S. seaports, and on Tuesday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty acted as a rabble-rousing activist as he encouraged his viewers to rise up against any politician who doesn't act to block the deal and he highlighted two viewer e-mails which advocated the impeachment of President Bush over the matter. Cafferty excoriated: "If our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office....Here's the question. What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company with ties to terrorism to run U.S. ports?" Cafferty soon read from one e-mailer who argued that "this deal is nothing short of collusion with a foreign power of unknown intent during wartime. The President should be impeached." And another: "Putting George Bush in charge of our country was a huge mistake, and my fellow citizens finally realize that it was a disaster. Time to impeach this President."
The MRC's Megan McCormack caught the "Cafferty File" about 16 minutes into the 4pm EST hour of the February 21 Situation Room: "Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six U.S. ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House you're not going to do this, and it's about time. No one has said no to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well, this matters, matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get. A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks the terrorists in time won't figure out how to exploit that, than we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads. Which way will we choose? Here's the question. What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company with ties to terrorism to run U.S. ports? E-mail us at CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile."
At 4:58pm EST Cafferty returned with the feedback he got as he read some selected viewer e-mails with the text displayed on screen: "The question, Wolf, is what should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company to operate six U.S. ports. We are getting tons of e-mail. Alan in Silver Springs, Maryland, 'The U.S. Congress must stand tall and united against the administration's plan. They must force the President to withdraw the government's approval.' Em in Barrington, Illinois, 'This deal is nothing short of collusion with a foreign power of unknown intent during wartime. The President should be impeached.' Mike writes, 'This administration has been going in the wrong direction. They've now turned a trot into a mad dash toward oblivion. This C grade President and his cronies are threatening our existence. This port deal must be stopped.' J.R., or excuse me, J.B., Raleigh, North Carolina, 'Jack, give someone enough rope, he'll hang himself. The arrogance of the Bush administration has finally caught up with it, and we're united at last. Putting George Bush in charge of our country was a huge mistake, and my fellow citizens finally realize that it was a disaster. Time to impeach this President.' Eric in Medina, Ohio, 'Congress must act to bar turning port security and operations over to foreign governments or foreign companies. Not merely Arab governments and companies, any foreign authority. American ports must be under the control of our citizens.' And David writes from Hawaii, 'The last time we had a government that was non-responsive to the wishes of the people they governed, we had a revolution.' Wolf?"
Ok, it's a great place to get drunk and laid, so that resolves the national security risks an islamic State owned company working at our eastern seaports poses?
Just a little advice to your Navy friends who enjoy Dubai's bars and loose women so much. Tell them not to marry the woman they're "enjoying" so much over there, or they'll be thrown in prison for the UAE crime of "cross marrying". You'll get the same results if you attempt to proselytise anyone about the Christian faith, jail.
If you love Dubai so much because it's a progressive, fun-filled 'sin city', go live there and tell us all how things are going after six months. But don't try to email anyone, the wonderful "friendly" Dubai government has censured the Internet. And oh, while you're over there maybe you can talk the Big Sheik into recognizing America's real ally over there, Israel. Right now the UAE takes the position of Iran, that Isreal is not a legitimate State.
See Post #154
Oh man...at first I thought you were serious. Very funny.
W plays them like a piano the way he gives them the rope, the branch and a high strung horse!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Yes I can. :-)
Good post. You're the first one I've seen mention that angle.
Welcome to FR.
When's the last time you had your sniffer calibrated?
BWWHHHAHHAHAHHHA
Jack and a few ill-informed FReepers oughta read this: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/uae_purchase_of_american_port_facilities.html
What I find most particularly interesting is why wasn't this "newsworthy" back in November when it began?
It didn't even hit the MSM when Michelle Malkin (and a few others) first started blogging about it.
But as soon as the Saddam tapes are released, it is EVERYWHERE as this huge controversy. Who started it in the MSM? Why, a democratic press release. Perfectly timed, of course. What an amazing coincidence!
I smell a RAT. A big fat RAT. But what's new?
You have it correct and it's business investment.
I particularly love this observation of yours:
"They are ponying up 6.8 Billion Dollars for this contract, and if they wanted to blow up all 6 of these Ports, they could do so far less expensive!!!!!"
Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" has been absolutely excellent the last two nights. He's made certain to note that the UAE and the four others you have mentioned ARE necessary allies in the WOT. I wholeheartedly agree.
I heard just tonight that there are quiet a few details to this deal that we haven't heard yet.
Fonts in front of their face won't stop them from saying it.
I knew that DB... I was teasing you.
That has to be the most ignorant statement I have seen so far, Congrats!
The Port is safe and accommodating, it's not a brothel or a nightclub, the EAU has opened up their Country for us to use their Air Bases and provide excellent security for our Naval Ships while in their Ports. The UAE have provided more support for our Military than any other Arab Nation, they are even training Iraqi forces for us
The knee jerk ill informed reaction by many Conservatives only feed morons like this Cafferty character bogus ammo for a non issue.
By this time next week, there will NOT be any move in Congress to kill this agreement, and most GOP in the Congress will be on board with our President. Already many in the GOP as well as Conservatives in the media have come to understand that this is a non-story. Democrats are looking like knee jerk bigots, and many of them will be changing their tune in the next several days. The UAE will not be OWNING any ports, and will NOT be overseeing the security of any ports. By the way the same UAE company also services our warships in the Middle East....this story has 3 more days left in it.
I think Comment #139 contained a great deal of sense. The whole point of the nationbuilding in Iraq is based on the belief that Arabs are good people in a bad system. The UAE has a better political system than most other Middle Eastern countries. To deny an otherwise qualified UAE company the right to bid on service contracts would be at loggerheads with a fundamental part of US policy and would discredit the talk of democracy-building.
She, you said:
~~~What I find most particularly interesting is why wasn't this "newsworthy" back in November when it began? ~~~~
Check out MinuteGal's post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583821/posts?page=103#103
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.