Whats with the Dubai ports deal bill? (Vanity)

[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?

[HitmanLV]

I don't disagree with most of what you said, I was just describing what is happening in the political climate. On the political climate, the president has been outwitted and actually looks worse than he did a few weeks ago.

The fact is that the president did not (and indeed, seems pathologically incapable of) articulating a cogent, persuasive argument that gets public support on his side of the issue.

Here is the narrative: Word gets out on the deal - regardless of details, it doesn't pass the smell test of most people. The president immediately says the deal is ok, and will veto any attempt to block it. Then word comes out that he wasn't really briefed on it when he made that threat. That doesn't pass the smell test, either. Political forces align against him on this: not only public opinion but representatives in the House and Senate. At no time was he ahead of the curve on this, and was consistently caught flatfooted and unconvincing.

He never convincingly addressed the basic incongruity of his passion for the war against terror and the idea of Arabs running the ports. forget the details and the facts: that was the perception and he never changed the perception. He came across as out of touch and arrogant.

Interestingly, the democrat depiction of his has always been out of touch and arrogant. Instead of helping himself, he harmed himself. With a smile and a squint.

He never made a persuasive case to the American people. He could have, but he clearly failed.

[Dane]

Because 70% of Americans are against

And the same amount were against the impeachment of clinton. I guess according to you that shouldn't have happened either.

[HitmanLV]

I accurately described the basic dynamic. Do you disagree with my account of the basic dynamic?

[Frank_Discussion]

A WHOLE BUNCH of foreign companies better watch out then, if such legislation based on the polls is consistently applied.

[ClaireSolt]

All year long we have been hearing that noone is above the law and accusations of expansion of executive power. Now, the same Congress acts as if it thinks it is above the law. I believe that has been the issue all along. Congress chaffes at the checks and balances. In this case, what they are doing is patently unconstitutional. The law gives the power to review and Ok a business deal to a committee of agency heads, not the appropriations committee. I hope the UAE sues.

[Frank_Discussion]

That's pollster BS. Not that the actual opposition isn't high, but the poll numbers are manufactured and fed back to us like willing baby birds.

[Dane]

He never made a persuasive case to the American people. He could have, but he clearly failed

Please with the din of misinformation, he never had a chance.

I don't remember the MSM making such a stink when the chicomms took over terminals on west coast ports.

Face it you all(savage fans) went to bed with the MSM and chuckie schumer. I can at least respect myself in the morning.

[JABBERBONK]

It's called political gutlessness.

[HitmanLV]

Look, I said he never made a persuasive case to the American people. That's a statement of fact - he failed to persuade most people.

The reasons are important, but the fact remains he failed. That's not misinformation. If he succeeded he wouldn't be in this jam right now.

If Schumer is right, he is right. He reflects the opinion of more people on this issue than Dubya does. That is also a fact, not misinformation. An inability to cope with that is a problem.

[tennmountainman]

So it's ok if the Bush Administration conducts this deal in secret with no transparrancy or overview by congress. All of it in the dark, but it's not ok for Congress to perform it's oversite of this secret deal?

Show me the minutes of these secret meetings and I might change my mind.

[Dane]

If Schumer is right, he is right. He reflects the opinion of more people on this issue than Dubya does. That is also a fact, not misinformation. An inability to cope with that is a problem.

Actually the problem is that you hop in bed with chuckie schumer, who is against the WOT and used this as cheap political stunt along with the MSM.

[Dane]

So it's ok if the Bush Administration conducts this deal in secret with no transparrancy or overview by congress. All of it in the dark, but it's not ok for Congress to perform it's oversite of this secret deal?

Uh they were follwing a Congressional law, that mandated the discussion of the business transaction be held in secret.

[Indy Pendance]

Come on, can't you post facts? It's getting real old, FR used to be about data and facts, now, 'squinter' and 'arrogant prick' are the standards.

"The Squinter in Chief utterly misplayed this one, lost the PR battle before it began, further cultivated his image as an out of touch, arrogant prick, and our congressional representatives heard that almost all their constituents were against this deal and sticking it to him to make themselves look better."

[tennmountainman]

"And the same amount were against the impeachment of clinton. I guess according to you that shouldn't have happened either."

Clinton impeachment pumped up the Republican base.
Bush's port deal has divided Republicans, just as Harriet Miers.

I'm glad you brought up Clinton. Are u aware that Slick Willie is on the UAE payroll? And that he is advsing UAE on how to get this deal through.
Does that not bother you?

[Frank_Discussion]

"He never convincingly addressed the basic incongruity of his passion for the war against terror and the idea of Arabs running the ports."

What incongruity? THAT is an artificial claim. We, as a nation, were plenty OK with Dubai facilitating our wartime port there. Now we have a gotcha from Hillary and Schumer - think about where the message came from, and that's where it doesn't pass *my* smell test.

The left wants so very badly to put this president on a leash and make him do tricks. In that perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight, perhaps a news conference might have helped, but then you are back to feeding the internal political enemy.

That's what is truly driving me around the bend: this is a successful internal political strike, and people want the president to roll over. All because it doesn't "feel" or "smell" right to some. The Media has gleefully picked up on the blood in the water, which isn't helping.

Meanwhile, we have two allies (UK and UAE) thinking: Are we about to get screwed over?

He made a clear and truthful statement early on, which was essentially buried under a mountain of misinformation and hysteria.

[Dane]

If Schumer is right, he is right.

Also by using your logic, chuckie schumer was right that clinton should have not been impeached on perjury and obstruction of justice, since 70% of the American people were against it.

[HitmanLV]

Some descriptive words aside, that is an accurate depiction of the dynamic.

[HitmanLV]

If Schumer is right, and reflects the values of most americans on the issue, then he is right. No bed hopping.

[Cboldt]

I don't remember the MSM making such a stink when the chicomms took over terminals on west coast ports.

What US terminals do Chinese companies operate?

I root back a few years and found quite an uproar, both in Clinton and GWB's term, as late as 2003, at news of COSCO seeking to obtain rights to operate terminals in the US, and as far as I can tell, COSCO was never permitted to close a deal that gave them terminal operation rights.

That doesn't mean they don't, but I haven't found a specific citation of a Chinese company operating a seaport terminal in the United States.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590822/posts?page=35#35
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590822/posts?page=32#32

[Frank_Discussion]

WTF are you talking about? What "secret meetings"?