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

Skip to comments.

STILLWELL: Bush and the Ports: The Honeymoon Is Over
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/8/6 | Cinnamon Stillwell

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dpworld; ports; presidentbush; stillwell; term2; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: ElPatriota
I think you are pulling my leg.. :)

ok fine, we disagree.

41 posted on 03/08/2006 10:39:32 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget that we are still friends despite our differences!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
That may change and when it does the argument will be present to correlate the two, terrorism and Mexican Border.

I guess I can not see the logic in waiting until we are attacked before implementing common sense defensive measures.

42 posted on 03/08/2006 10:43:37 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota

ELp to ELp... :) How did that happen? sorry. I tried responding to someone.


43 posted on 03/08/2006 10:44:39 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget that we are still friends despite our differences!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota
where is the consistency here!

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.

44 posted on 03/08/2006 10:50:26 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: eskimo
People will drive themselves nuts with all the would have, could have and should haves. Border Security is needed but to kill everything until the one thing is addressed would also not be practical nor would it be anymore security. The whole bureaucracy that you speak of can happen at light speed but history tells us that it won't happen until there is an emergency and it's not all Bush's fault.
45 posted on 03/08/2006 10:52:20 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

Would shutting down every gas station in the U.S. be a "common sense defensive measure"?


46 posted on 03/08/2006 10:55:27 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

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.



47 posted on 03/08/2006 11:02:45 AM PST by msg-84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
Border Security is needed but to kill everything until the one thing is addressed would also not be practical nor would it be anymore security.

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.

48 posted on 03/08/2006 11:05:07 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: msg-84

I was giving an average.


49 posted on 03/08/2006 11:06:55 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: eskimo
If there is enough volunteers to do the job, why is there a problem with the border?
50 posted on 03/08/2006 11:07:27 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

Would shutting down every gas station in the U.S. be a "common sense defensive measure"?


51 posted on 03/08/2006 11:09:51 AM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
If there is enough volunteers to do the job, why is there a problem with the border?

What presently passes for government does not seem to want the job done.

52 posted on 03/08/2006 11:14:30 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

NO, YOU explain what "directs operations" means.....I need to understand what YOU THINK it means, before I can answer.


53 posted on 03/08/2006 11:14:32 AM PST by goodnesswins ( "the left can only take power through deception." (and it seems Hillary & Company are the masters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: clawrence3

Huh?


54 posted on 03/08/2006 11:15:11 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BooksForTheRight.com

LOL


55 posted on 03/08/2006 11:16:20 AM PST by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wasanother
a law can not be enforced retroactively.

Nobody told Clinton about that part. So, it no longer applies, apparently, to tax bills.

56 posted on 03/08/2006 11:16:34 AM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota
Pre 9/11 this would not have been a big deal, after 9/11, it is...

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)

57 posted on 03/08/2006 11:17:23 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If the last six years was a honeymoon for Bush I´d hate to see the marriage.


58 posted on 03/08/2006 11:18:00 AM PST by Americanexpat (A strong democracy through citizen oversight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

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.


59 posted on 03/08/2006 11:21:13 AM PST by Wasanother (Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
NO, YOU explain what "directs operations" means.....I need to understand what YOU THINK it means, before I can answer.

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.

60 posted on 03/08/2006 11:24:21 AM PST by eskimo (Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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