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?"
Your whole post was gross, so I only picked the most grievous errors. But since you asked....there are 39 nation who currently don't recognize Israel including Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, most Arab nations, and much of Africa. On the flip side, the PLO actually did recognize Israel. Would you argue we suspend trade with all those other nations and support trade with the PLO? And oh by the way, the company that would run our ports currently does regular business with Israel.
"When you were in Dubai and read their newspapers, you saw Israel being referred to as the "zionist entity"."
No. I didn't. In fact, there was much debate about whether the UAE would support a Israeli trade office in Dubai.
"You saw a totally bigotted and biased government that outlaws "cross marriages" and Christian prosylatizing of any kind."
Many foreign governments have bigoted and anti-Christian policies. Did you support doing business with South Africa 20 years ago? Or is your outrage selective?
"You saw a government who refused entry to any person carrying an Israeli passport."
Um...they don't recognize Israel. Why would they recognize their passports?
As for the rest of your laundry list...it isn't even original and I responded to it the first time a poster shoved it at me. Here was my response then...
"- The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan"
It was also one of the first countries to allow us to operate from its airfields against Afghanistan and Iraq. Our NATO ally to the north of Iraq (Turkey) wasn't nearly so cooperative.
"- The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia."
So has Europe.
"- According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system. "
As well as Swiss, German and US accounts. Maybe we should stop trading with Switzerland.
"- After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts."
But they also reported that they were. And have you seen the list of terrorist accounts that stretch all over the world including places like Germany, England, Hong Kong, Canada, and the United States? Nice list you have there, but it becomes irrelevant when you look at the whole picture.
Where do you get your stuff? Micheal Savage?
"Someone should "pound some sense" into YOUR head!"
Is that a threat? You don't impress me pal.
"Condi will NOT be the '08 GOP presidential candidate! She has NEVER run for elected office, she has repeatedly said that she does NOT want to be president, and you are delusional, if you really believe that she can be made to run."
So what? She wouldn't be the first person who changed her mind. And polls indicate she is a good choice both among Repubs and the general public. Neither Eisenhower nor Hillery Clinton held an elected office before getting elected. Its not an issue anymore. Ask Schwarzenegger.
"The president had NOTHING whatsoever, to do with this deal."
Then he should have done the intelligent thing and disowned it instead of digging in his heels over this. But Bush II only looks intelligent when you compare him to Algore and John Kerry - and that doesn't say much, does it?
" It was a fete accompli LAST NOVEMBER! Nobody was screaming about it, back then."
Nobody knew about it back then.
"A British company has been running these ports for a very long time, yet it is only now, that the screams about a non-American company is going to ( sic) run these ports."
Probably AGAIN because nobody knew about it. I have a problem with ANY foreign company running our ports - and so do MOST Americans. They are OUR ports WE should run them. ESPECIALLY now. Having an ARAB company run them just magnified the threat.
"Brits and Americans WILL be running it, even when the UAE takes over the Brit company, and American military WILL still be running the security."
But there will be Arabs with their feet in the door of American ports - and I don't like them or their involvement here - PERIOD.
"You really believe that the Dems would allow it to "all blow away", once the president says 1,000 mea culpas, over something that was CONGRESS' venue?"
No. But they would just be blowing in the wind over something that had no more traction than the Cheny incident and it would make them look even more foolish.
"The president happens to be right about this and YOU and the rest of you hysterics, are damned dead wrong and are posting without knowing and understanding ANY of the facts."
The President is dead wrong. Our ports shouldn't be run by foreign nationals - period. and Arabs are the very worse foreign nationals to run them. I oppose the selling of America to foreigners.
And I and the majority of my fellow "hysterical" Republicans will be paying the price for the President's intransigence and dedication to internationalism in 2006 and 2008. And the majority of "hysterical" American independents will be contributing towards that price with their votes - unless the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillery which I don't think they are.
Damn!...U beat me to it!...LOL..I like how u think!
I may not "impress" you, but you don't "impress" anyone but yourself.
I am NOT your "pal".
Polls shmolls...........Condi isn't going to run for president and no matter what you post and/or dream about, her attitude isn't going to change.
She has never run for any elected office and would not do well running for the highest elected position of the land, on a first try! Many people would NOT vote for her because 1) she is a woman 2) she is a black GOPer 3) she has no experience at all, for such a position 4) XXXXXXXXXXXXX ( fill in the blanks with all of the anti-Condi post found on FR and then some).
The ONLY previously unelected to any office American presidents in the past 150 years, or more, have been Generals. And they weren't very good at being president.
Hillary Clinton is president? WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN?
Neither Grant nor Ike ran for elected office prior to running for president, but Grant won the Civil War ( that's how he was billed, when he ran ) and Ike won WW II. WHAT WAR DID CONDI RUN AND WHEN WAS SHE MADE A GENERAL?
The port deal happens to be a CIVIL sector, NOT a government sector deal. The CONGRESS, NOT the president, had the say so. And this went through LAST NOVEMBER without so much as a sneezed. Perhaps YOU should start wondering just WHY it's been blown out of all proportion now; ya think?
THE CONGRESS KNEW ABOUT IT, LAST NOVEMBER; SO DID MICHELLE MALKIN AND THOSE WHO READ HER COLUMN! Is that "nobody", or just you and the rest of us?
Just because YOU don't know something, doesn't mean that 1) it is a hidden fact 2) there is anything wrong with it!
Lots of American ports have been and ARE still run by foreign companies. Americans don't want to do it. I don't know why, but they don't! Perhaps it has something to do with the damned CORRUPT longshoremen union and the fact that it has been MAFIA run for close to a century.
Okay, so you "don't like it"......you don't know anything at all about it, so why should anyone care that you don't like it? Do you like the fact that the longshoremen have used these very ports, for at least the past 70 years, as their own fifedom? I don't, neither have lots of people, but that hasn't stopped it.
The Dems and GOPers who are siding with them are all doing this bloviating for political reasons and NO (!), the president bending over and caving on this, would exacerbate the situation and make things far worse for him and by extension, ALL Republicans!
Your claim that the president only looks intelligent, when compared to Kerry and Gore is quite telling. He IS an intelligent man; unlike you. And if you stay hone or vote fringe in '06 and '08, because of this tempest in a teapot, or for any other reason, then Kerry and Gore are Einsteins, compared to you!
BTW: You do realize that the ports will still be under U.S. control, don't you?
heh heh heh, good one.
CNN has been playing the WTC attack video.
I can't remember the last time I saw it aired, must be years.
I think they wanted to impeach him because Jenna had a few drinks......... and because he wouldn't meet with Mother Sheehan at the ranch.
;-)
Very interesting thought.
Thanks for that, and your screen name is great.
;-)
If they had a chance they would impeach him for going to the bath room
Civil War in Iraq.......today?
CC
Politically, this issue is radioactive for the Bush administration. No matter how wonderful the UAE may be. Just like Harriet Miers was a wonderful person. It's beside the point.
Exactly. We're going to have to put up with cartoon simplifications by the Donks till January 2009, unfortunately.
Cafferty is another CNN joke, only trailing the Wolfman and Amanpore.
You may be right. We very well may be paying a price on future election days, but in my opinion, only if G.W.'s actions on this are indeed perceived as "intransigence and dedication to internationalism". And if the old media has its way, that could very well be the case.
People don't want to impeach the President. They want to recall the President. There is a big difference. Of course, there is no mechanism to recall a President.
Not everything you don't like is a crime. People who bloviate about impeaching the President over policy questions just wind up looking foolish.
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.