Posted on 03/08/2006 5:25:00 PM PST by wingsof liberty
Whats with the timing on this new bill? I thought Dubai Ports World agreed to an open, visible 45 day investigation on wether they should be in charge of some operations at U.S. ports. Thats what politicians agreed to, and now theyre preparing to introduce a bill that would kill the deal, with billions in aid for Iraq, the Gluf Coast, Afghanistan, etc. also attached to it. This way Bush cant veto it without becoming the bad guy. So why are these politicians unwilling to even wait for the investigation to conclude before they pull this? Its as if I went to a bank to apply for a home loan, I am asked to fill out an application and while I am still filling it out, the loan officer tells me I have been turned down. Hows that for logic?
Bush was asked about the deal and initially said it was a good idea and he would veto any congressional attempt to stop it.
Then, word was he didn't know much about the deal.
THEN, his fans insisted that him not knowing much about the deal was, in fact, a good thing. I suppose him not knowing much about something enough that he would veto a popular attempt to block it was an even better thing.
The president lost so much credibility in those 48 hours, it's almost unfathomable.
To me, that's 'flatfooted.'
"CONGRESS wrote the law REQUIRING these transactions be handled EXACTLY as they were in this case."
You are right Congress did write it.
And Congress Is writing another law to stop this deal.
It will soon pass and this deal will be a distant memory
It's incumbent on him to get his message across. That the MSM is against him is a reason for problem getting the message across.
It is not an excuse.
The answers to the questions are
1. Yes.
2. No.
What you offer are reasons for the 'yes' and 'no.' They are not excuses for the failure.
I don't think ANY ports should be operated by non-americans.
Is that realistic? Maybe not. I think Americans were suprised to find that Americans did not operate ports.
I don't think ANY ports should be operated by non-americans.
Is that realistic? Maybe not. I think Americans were suprised to find that Americans did not operate ports.
Then, word was he didn't know much about the deal.
Well the mechanics of the DPWorld approval were Congressionally mandated to be secret.
OMG, a President that actually follows the law, how horrible, but what the hey, you take whatever the media says, hook, line, and sinker.
Because this whole Mt Everest, made from a speck of dirt, has ALWAYS been a red herring! This is just a BASHBUSH scheme, made by Chuckles Schumer, that some GOPers and a lot of FREEPERS fell for.
He couldn't cultivate an image as an aloof, out-of-touch, befuddled president if he tried.
'Ask congress. They are the ones that wrote the laws that allowed for secret meetings, for lower level people to make the decision and for Congress to not have oversite."
You are right about that and I am wrong.
Congress is now writing another law to stop this deal.
It will soon pass and this port deal will be just a bad memory.
1. Yes.
2. No.
What you offer are reasons for the 'yes' and 'no.' They are not excuses for the failure.
What you offer are weasle words. Again I'll ask the question is there a MSM bias against this President.
We rely too heavily on the msm. when it's anti bush, we poo-poo it, when it's for bush we praise it. The media was for it, we were against it, the media was against it, we wer for it. It's a double standard. I've made my decision based upon the facts. Overall it's a good deal, especially, since we'll have friendly relations with the UAE, have a military base, and potentially keep good relations with the arab nations. It's not like we've 'sold' our ports. No one said boo when the saudi's ran similar operations. Or china...
I guess I'm in the camp of building arab relations instead of the nuke 'em all crowd.
I agree, he's been pitiful in that area.
I disagree, he could cultivate an image, he has the wrong people in place.
You stated that "perception" is more important than reality.
If you are in a car accident and your leg is broken, I guess by your logic the doctor treating you should go for the "perception" that your leg is not broken, instead of the reality that it is.
BRAVO!
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.