Posted on 03/08/2006 7:50:10 AM PST by SmithL
When the story broke that the Bush administration had approved a British-owned company's sale of U.S. port operations to one headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, all hell broke loose.
The company at hand, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, so not only would we be handing over operations of our ports to yet another foreign company, but also to a foreign government. The fact that the deal was approved without the legally authorized 45-day investigation normally required when acquisition by a foreign government and security concerns are involved, certainly doesn't help. Then there was President Bush's claim that he knew nothing about the deal until after it had been approved, which wasn't terribly reassuring.
On top of it all, the original report that only six ports were affected by the deal turned out to be misleading. It is in fact 21 ports that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard. For some reason, much of the media continues to report the lower figure.
The firestorm over the ports deal has exposed a rift on the right and a political opportunity for the left.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
ok fine, we disagree.
I guess I can not see the logic in waiting until we are attacked before implementing common sense defensive measures.
ELp to ELp... :) How did that happen? sorry. I tried responding to someone.
Political oportunists will consistantly disregard all but their greedy ploys and to those who are concerned about America, their actions may appear to be dangerously eratic and illogical. They are selling out America.
Would shutting down every gas station in the U.S. be a "common sense defensive measure"?
No, it was only eight years and six months between the first and second attack on the WTC. Who was in office during that eight years? I alway forget.
We hear all kinds of excuses and, to me, they are all BS. No need to kill anything, people living on the borders and volunteers would gladly do the job as they have for centuries.
I was giving an average.
Would shutting down every gas station in the U.S. be a "common sense defensive measure"?
What presently passes for government does not seem to want the job done.
NO, YOU explain what "directs operations" means.....I need to understand what YOU THINK it means, before I can answer.
Huh?
LOL
Nobody told Clinton about that part. So, it no longer applies, apparently, to tax bills.
Port terminal control was a big deal with COSCO, both before and after 9/11/2001.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590822/posts (scroll down)
If the last six years was a honeymoon for Bush I´d hate to see the marriage.
Write your congressman whether Democrat or Republican and you'll get the same,"we're working on it". As for the President,"must go" as the other poster claimed, he doesn't make law and since he's never vetoed anything, nothing concerning the Mexican border has been proposed to him.
Hint: One word is a verb and the other a noun. Use the traditional English language definitions. That's exactly what I mean. If I must explain something that simple, I'm afraid any explanation would also be, to you, ambiguous.
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.