Posted on 03/01/2006 9:05:38 PM PST by stand4somethin
The stakes are too high, and the nobility of our effort is too great. Kill the deal, Mr. President.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Duplicate thread.
*Sigh*
I agree, but many are willing to lose the Congress over this deal that the American people will never support and which it looks like we're selling sensitive operations to a country that is knee deep in supporting terrorist groups.
"I agree, but many are willing to lose the Congress over this deal.."
If we do it is because people like you keep spreading the DNC/Hillary lying points. Your hatred of Islam has taken over whatever common sense you had.
I for one am glad to see the National Review and Bill Buckley standing with us in opposition to this port deal. It's one thing for neocons to snipe at freepers who don't toe the party line, or radio talk show hosts. When they turn their globalist guns on NR and Buckley, they take aim at the bedrock on which this movement was founded.
Pride goeth before destruction... this one's in the can. If you really want to give our ports to these losers it will come back to bite you politically (we all know this was a PR fumblebuck by the Admin). It won't matter to me because It looks to me like the US could use a little Hillary time... we obviously haven't hit the bottom of the barrel yet.
When the argument becomes "we have too many more important things to get bogged down in a political fight", the opponents have lost the war.
Even if they win the battle. Decisions should be made on the merits, not on the calculation of political costs.
Do the right thing, regardless of how many people scream about it.
NR does fall into the political trap from time to time. They went overboard on Miers before they had the facts, but they lucked out that while most of the "facts" were proven wrong, she did turn out to have a problem with demonstrating her capabilities, so she had to resign -- but because of NR and others it looked like she was run out for not being 'conservative' enough, which wasn't the truth but was what many tried to do on our own side.
Meanwhile Buckley is saying we've lost Iraq, if so the port deal is a minor squabble -- but I disagree with him.
NR makes the mistake of assuming that approval of a company takeover should be subject to political whims -- which is precisely what the law was made to avoid. Should the president fall for this "advice", he would be doing the very thing the democrats accuse him of constantly -- violating the law for political reasons.
and don't think for a SECOND the democrats don't have a major campaign prepared JUST WAITING for him to fall for the trap.
This isn't a "National Review" editorial, it's Bill Bennett posted AT National Review.
His argument once again confuses management of "ports" with management of "terminals", and he argues that a finding based on the law that a deal doesn't effect security should instead be made based on the "message" of "rewarding" a non-democratic government with a "port deal".
When in fact it is simply a finding that there is no credible security impact to the purchase of one foreign company by another foreign company. That is all the law calls for, it is all the law allows.
We are NOT brokering a deal with UAE to run our ports. If we were, I suppose some of these arguments would have merit.
But we are not involved in this deal at all -- we are simply ensuring that a sale of a company does not hurt our security. We are not, and should not, be making stockholders of the world who own P&O beholden to the political machinations of democrats trying to win elections.
To do so would put in doubt our country's support of free market principles, the rule of law, and give credence to other countries that we traditionally fight over such blatant interference in the markets we say are good for the world.
I support the review of all sales of companies doing business in this country to ensure there is no security impact.
I support congress actually taking an interest in oversight of the executive, but resent congress's assumption of wrongdoing and overreaching meddling when it has no information necessary to make decisions yet.
And I oppose the concept of making political decisions contrary to law simply to mollify ignorant people who have been lied to about the deal and are making emotional responses based on that false information.
I agree with you, but I believe according to the FR poll, we are outnumbered two to one. The administration is faced with the awful task of balancing globalized trade with national security, and this board is sharply divided as to where the line is. Personally, I want all of our key infrastructure owned and managed by Americans.
Emotional responses "mistrust" are perfectly valid when dealing with Muslims who are allowed deceit (taqquya) by their religion. Mistrust always has an emotional component. In this case the mistrust is well-placed based on experience.
Egalitarianism at all costs can be quite foolish. There are times when discrimination is called for.
Europe opened her borders, provided housing, education and medical care and in return has burning banlieues.
The Italian govt. with the blessings of Pope Paul VI allowed the biggest mosque on the continent to be built in Rome and in return got Imams preaching suicide bombing and hatred to Jews and Christians.
It is typical of Muslims to be back-stabbing allies, to both fight terrorism and aid it. It is even typical of religious fanatics to go to strip joints and drink booze before crashing planes into skyscrapers. It is typical for fat cat sheiks to mourn the dead New Yorkers and in the same breath offer millions while suggesting that those dead New Yorkers had it coming to them.
Can Christian churches be built in Dubai? Can a Hindu man marry a Muslim there?
Emotional response? Terror is an emotion. So is trust. Trust is earned not bought and sold. Normally the goodwill is taken for granted and only cold numbers are scrutinized to see if a deal is worth it. But you pretend cold-number rationality to prove that these Arabs can be trusted? Why should that even be necessary? What are you afraid of? Terror? And you honestly think that can be checked? Have you read the material in the mosques? Have you watched Al Jazeera? Have you noticed how the Ummah behaves throughout the world? Do you really think these people are honest allies or even honorable enemies?
The American people, more than any other people in the world are famous for their horse sense... and they have spoken.
Please bear in mind that we are talking about people who have no qualms about praising suicide bombers. Who see nothing wrong about Lady Hamas rejoicing and being rewarded with money (and a shoo-in election to high office) for the murderous suicide of three of her children.
Trust. Emotion. You can put all the spin you want, but Muslims cannot be trusted. Their first allegience is to the Ummah. Why do you suppose that no non-Muslims are allowed to Medina and the Mecca... Why are terrorists allowed in but not charity workers? Because the Muslims think that the best of ours is not worth the worst of theirs.
This decision will come to haunt America. Look at Turkey. As soon as they go religious, out come the wildly successful block buster movies portraying Americans and Jews as coldblooded murderers. This from America's erstwhile "staunch" ally.
It's always the same. Trust to the Muslims is taken as a sign of weakness... and that is precisely what it is.
Money money money... is not trust trust trust. If the object of the deal is sensitive, you just politely say "No thank you."
If people can blow up their own children in murderous suicide, that is, if they cannot not rise en masse in utter horror then there is nothing backstabbingly horrible that they cannot do. I wouldn't even be surprised if Bin Laden is involved in the deal. Absurd? Maybe. But you never know do you... there's that lingering doubt, that gnawing suspicion.
Americans are the most trusting people in the world. That's their beauty. Everybody gets a chance, starts out with a clean slate. It hurts the very soul of America to be mistrustful. This is the glory of America... and leave it to the Muslims to turn it into a weakness.
They are spreaders of discord, on every issue: "do we publish the cartoons or don't we?" "Do we start up selective, vaguely racist immigration or don't we?" "Do we trust them to run our ports or don't we?"
It'll always be like that. Until Taqquya becomes truth, until hudna becomes real and honest compromise, until the Dalai Lama and the Pope can visit Mecca and Medina, until Muslims can integrate seamlessly, until the day they can join the rest of humanity and end wars instead of fomenting them in every single place in the world where they are in contact with non-Muslims... and do all of the above effortlessly... as effortlessly as the civilized world says no to suicide bombing and recoils in horror at the likes of Lady Hamas, then the wise leader says: "Thank you, you are perhaps welcome to sail into our ports, but not to own and operate them."
It is not simply my "belief" that this is all it boils down to. It is in fact what the legal playing field IS, as a matter of fact and law.
The law that permits us to have ANY say at all in this transaction put specific limits on what criteria can be used to interfere in a business deal. Those criteria are ALL related to security, and do NOT provide any mechanism for evaluating the political systems, religious beliefs, or past transgressions of the countries in which companies are based or by whom they are owned.
If the ownership or location of a company raises a security threat, a deal can be rejected. We couldn't reject a deal because the new company gave money to democrats.
If the company gave money to terrorists, that would be considered a security consideration. If the country was found to still harbor terrorists, or support terrorism, that would be a factor in security.
The appropriate non-political people in our government, 17 agencies worth, reviewed all aspects of this deal, and unanimously found that, with certain promises from the new company, there were no questions about security involved.
We have evidence now that questions WERE asked (for example, we have seen the Coast Guard questions that were evaluated) and we know that those questions were answered to the satisfaction of the people who are responsible for our security -- who had access to information you and I will never see.
We also know that virtually every interview with people involved in port security indicates that those poeple most closely involved in security see no security issues with the port.
It is both disengenous of you, and insulting, to suggest that proponents were motivated simply by greed or blind loyalty to the President. Saying so after the last two weeks reveals a profound lack of understanding on your part of the issues involved, since proponents (actually not proponents, most of us are simply NOT OPPONENTS, which means we are agnostic and will allow the companies to decide what to do) have been providing factual information from day one regarding the reasons for their position on the deal, and none of them have argued that Bush should get whatever he wants, or that we should approve the deal because it will make US money.
Because in fact there is NOTHING economically that benefits the U.S. in this deal. We aren't selling anything, we get no money from the deal, our leases are already signed and guaranteed in either case. The only benefits the U.S. gets are the general good that comes from NOT INTERFERING for political reasons in a business transaction, which makes other companies more willing to trust that we will keep our word and follow our own laws.
And there is nothing to "support Bush" with regarding this either. Bush didn't make a political decision that P&O should sell to DP World. Bush didn't even KNOW about the details of the sale, or the decision of the administration, until it was already decided -- because that is how the law requires it to be.
If there was a clear security issue to this, I would have no problem calling my representatives and urging them to hold off the deal until those matters are resolved.
Heck, I don't even mind that the pressure caused the company to adjust it's plans so that the U.S. terminal leases are kept at arm's length while a full review is held and congress gets a chance at oversite. I do believe that if people in congress with real concerns had simply approached the President we could have gotten here without making half the arab world think we were back-stabbing two-timers who would renege on our word in an instant if it got us a few percent in an opinion poll.
So I will say in conclusion: If any substantial number of the opponents in our own party, after 2 weeks of having the facts of the matter presented, still believe the only argument FOR the deal is greed and loyalty, we DO have a bigger problem with the party -- because conservatives have always been the ones who actually debate the issues, and act according to principle, not politics.
I understand and have sympathy with those who have an emotional response to this deal.
But we don't act according to that emotion, our country is based on the rule of law, and we act according the the law as it is written, not based on emotion.
The law doesn't ask about "trust", it says a deal can be rejected if there are credible security issues. Not possible issues in the future, real issues now.
That's good to know - next time I will remember 4 hours - thanks.
When I see Bubba Clinon, Jimmy Carter and Madeline NotSoBright pushing for this deal all Conservatives should be concerned.
"When I see Bubba Clinon, Jimmy Carter and Madeline NotSoBright pushing for this deal all Conservatives should be concerned."
The lefties are only on this because they want Pres. Bush to fry. He bumbled into this one and they know it. Believe me it pains me that they are agreeing with me here. President Bush has been strong on security... people respect that. This ports deal partially gives his strongest suit over to the dems. Thats why it won't fly. Now if he pushes it... for prides sake... sorry for him. Of course he's not running again so I guess I should say sorry for us conservatives as we watch the heinous commercials claiming the dems are "tough on security."
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.