Posted on 02/24/2006 4:57:39 AM PST by When_Penguins_Attack
I disagree with your assessment that no one cares about the ports issue. My husband is apolitical, (gotta love him), and he likes to post to woodworking sites, his hobby. He says there are many off topic comments about this issue and the general consensus is that UAE should not get control of the ports, or at least it merits more than a rubber stamp. Some long time Bush fans are also losing faith in W, and this will rub off in a bad way on the party.
As was stated before we are not selling our ports.!!!!!!
Bob Dole is the most Establishment Republican around.
That's true.
But I don't presume we should abandon trying to educate people in the middle, do we? Let's see: there is 25% of population who are Bush hating wing of the Left and 35% of conservatives. All the rest claim to be in the middle. I would not put a bet based on the polls, but they DO give some information. In this case is that there is a 20-30% swing in public opinion. The left has an advantage of having MSM on their side, so its is an uphill battle for conservatives, but it is a battle worth fighting.
Nobody can withstand being compared to Churchill, but we should not forget that he was fighting fascism with actions AND the words, and in his case, its hard to tell which was more important.
I knew they'd show up.
If Ronald Reagan himself was critical of Your Glorious Leader, you'd turn on the Gipper.
I hate cults of personality.
All very valid.
I normally agree entirely with Wes Pruden. Here I don't. The UAE is literally next door to Iran, with which we have a deadly serious dispute about nukes and against which we are probably going to have to take some really serious military action sooner than later. The UAE has consistently supported our military actions in the Persian Gulf. If we find it necessary to take military action against Iran its support will be essential. Indeed, I would not be at all surprised if Bush has already been discussing such activity with UAE representatives. Doing this port deal is a very good way to lock in that alliance and enable us to protect ourselves against the growing Iranian nuclear threat.
I initially thought the port deal was a terribly bad idea. However, I changed my mind on seeing some posts here and thinking about the strategic implications I've discussed above.
I'll leave Oz up to you folks. I'll hang my hat on General Franks...he has real knowledge and no political agenda.
Do a google search "mexican customs facility". Or go to www.kcsmartport.com.
You mean the way some people are quick to forget that DP World and Dubai are critical elements in the logistics support for our troops fighting the war? Or how we trust them to provide services and support for the largest contingent of U.S. Navy vessels outside the U.S...including our European so-called friends?
@@@@
What you wrote so clearly should be obvious to every politician and rational thinker. What you wrote is the very reason that CFIUS participants did not see red flags when asked to vet the sale of the port operations to DPW.
They already are looking after our security interests in a major way! I really am despairing at the shortsighted reactions to having this company involved in some American ports.
I am convinced that the major objections started with the waterfront unions, who do not want an employer noted for modernization and efficiency.
Yep many of them are already drinking their Koolaid.
I don't mind calm discussion, but talking with these people is tantamount to trying to talk to a spoiled 5 year old that has been told no.
If the UAE deal is such a good deal for America, then do your best to convince me of it. Preferably without losing your temper.
Perhaps.
But he did cause Communism to collapse.
And I think that counts for something.
It did start from the labor unions, spread to slick chucky schumer and the Bush is all evil crowd were quick to adopt it as their own cause of the week.
Selling them, leasing terminals, whatever--all the confusion over the nature of this deal underscores the point I was really trying to make. We don't know enough about this deal to decide whether it makes sense or not. Why not "slow the train down" until we know more about it? That, to me, is the issue. As I said before, I haven't decided whether I support the deal or not. I'm trying to take an informed position and I don't know enough about it yet. I care enough about my country and its security to give this deal some serious consideration. There's nothing wrong with that.
'THE' Republican Leader [George W. Bush] does believe in his principles [vs. power] and that is why he is constantly under some kind of attack.
Pretty broad brush there, huh Laz? Are you saying the only possible motivation for supporting the deal is bush-botism?
Full disclosure: I haven't taken sides in this yet, because I don't like to spout off in subject matters I know nothing about.
But either FR has a lot of global shipping magnates and port administrators (with a few longshoremen thrown in), or a lot of people (on both sides) are spouting off about things they know little about.
It was like Kerry trying to run as a "war hero": He was damned if he did, because it only reinforced the notion that there is a war out there, and damned if he didn't because then only one guy was "fighting" the war, Bush.
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.