Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN's Cafferty Highlights Calls for Bush'sImpeachment Over Ports
Media Research ^ | February 22, 2006

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?"


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: cnnhyena; hitandruncafferty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-276 next last
To: Stuart Scott
LOL, you are quoting the Talk show host on MSNBC's Scarborough show, and you know it!

After 9/11 lots of things changed, and especially after how quickly the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were overthrown v ery quickly. Despite your ignorance on this matter, many of these Middle Eastern Countries are more interested in making money than declaring Jihad and its obvious that the UAE is one of them.

61 posted on 02/22/2006 9:25:23 PM PST by MJY1288 (THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
We get Arab support in the WOT not because they like or love us but because they fear us.

The UAE is a very practical, free market country. They realize that working with us benefits them in lots of ways.

62 posted on 02/22/2006 9:25:29 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Commies in left coast ports, Muslims in eastern ports and southern ports, wide open borders north and south. From where I stand I think we're well surrounded, but this impeachment sh!t is really gettin' old.


63 posted on 02/22/2006 9:25:43 PM PST by abigailsmybaby ("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott
Actually, it's how the FFs saw most of the populace.

The more things change, the more they remain the same, dear.

64 posted on 02/22/2006 9:25:54 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott

You haven't been paying attention. This is not just Democrats, I dare say most of the criticism is from Republicans. Republicans like me.


You are right that we are criticizing this port deal, but we are not calling for impeachment like this wack job. I know that you are not thinking that either.


65 posted on 02/22/2006 9:26:08 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott; Howlin

No Stuart, not everyone here was against it. Some silly people decided to see what the facts really were before making up their minds. Imagine that. You know, we always accused the DU types of kneejerking and going on their "feelings" while Conservatives dealt with facts. And as Howlin said, some others who thought your way have now changed as the facts become better known. I hope you will study it some more. Have a good night.


66 posted on 02/22/2006 9:26:44 PM PST by daybreakcoming (If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing8/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-03-23.pdf


67 posted on 02/22/2006 9:27:03 PM PST by Stuart Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott

Thanks, will check it out.


68 posted on 02/22/2006 9:28:02 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Dubai-u's fault--The Port Non-Issue is Hillary's Sistah Soulja moment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

That's extremely rude. The class system at this site is amazing. How long does one have to be coming to this site before their opinion matters?


69 posted on 02/22/2006 9:28:28 PM PST by Stuart Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott
How recent does this have to be? Shortly before 9/11, we were prevented from attacking Bin Laden because UAE officials were visiting him.

That was Clintoon. Clintoon passed at the chance of apprehending OBL three times when OBL's head was offered to Clintoon on a silver platter.

Clintoon governed by push polls, Bush just does what he believes in his heart of hearts is right.

I've read that several places today and I'm pretty sure I remember reading about that in the 9/11 Report.

Then you're reading revisionist history, and I personally wouldn't take stock in the 9/11 Report.

70 posted on 02/22/2006 9:28:33 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott

CCP the source. Nobody is going to take your word for that. And WHO said it, some uninformed yahoo?


71 posted on 02/22/2006 9:29:05 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: lp boonie

Check this out and visit its various links. I know it's a blog, but it links to many credible sites, including the 9/11 Report:

http://www.madcowprod.com/11122004issue.html


73 posted on 02/22/2006 9:29:42 PM PST by Stuart Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott
Shortly before 9/11, we were prevented from attacking Bin Laden because UAE officials were visiting him.

Three years is "shortly before?"

74 posted on 02/22/2006 9:30:04 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pat_SaLagi

Privately owned British company =/= Company owned by a nation with ties to terrorism


75 posted on 02/22/2006 9:30:22 PM PST by Stuart Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
First of all, the president didn't have anything at all to do with the deal.

Secondly, it isn't up to him to stop it.

Thirdly, I suggest that you read up on the facts of this entire matter; right now.

76 posted on 02/22/2006 9:31:13 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Stuart Scott

Okay. I admit it. I wait for Rush to tell me what to think. Once he tells me what to think, I am set for the day.

Rush says the UAE deal is good, so it must be good.

The enemies of Rush will be crushed in the ratings!


77 posted on 02/22/2006 9:31:25 PM PST by nhoward14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #78 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin
I was opposed to this proposal when I first heard about it and posted my objection here on FR. However, as I have learned more about this I see no real problem. It will essentially change little except to place the UAE in ownership of a few port terminals. With all the hoopla though, the President will have a difficult time getting this through without extensive explanation to the public and to the Republicans in Congress. The Dems could care less about national security as they don't even recognize an enemy. They are simply opposed to anything Bush is for.

Also, if Webster's dictionary included a picture of an old fool, Jack Cafferty's picture would be there. His picture would also be found under jacka__.

Muleteam1

79 posted on 02/22/2006 9:32:40 PM PST by Muleteam1 (MEDIA-CRITY - news of low quality and low value and that which assumes consumers are brainless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Just do a search for "uae."


80 posted on 02/22/2006 9:32:43 PM PST by Stuart Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-276 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson