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?
"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."
CONGRESS wrote the law REQUIRING these transactions be handled EXACTLY as they were in this case.
Take it up with Congress if you don't like it. President Bush's administration handled this deal according to the LAW. Refernece Judge Andrew Napalitano.
LLS
Looking back on it, the impeachment should not have happened.
Interesting story, COSCO's terminal...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/23/BUGESHCVK01.DTL
"Most terminal operators at U.S. ports are foreign companies and some are owned in part by foreign governments.
APL, which manages terminals in Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle and Alaska, is owned by the NOL Group, which is majority owned by the Singapore government.
The Chinese government owns part of a company that operates a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
That company, Cosco Container Lines, a division of China Cosco, caused a stir similar to the current one back in 1998.
Cosco ships had been calling on the Port of Long Beach for many years, using a public terminal. In the late 1990s, it wanted to build its own terminal at the former Long Beach Naval Station, says Howard Finkel, a senior vice president with Cosco.
The deal raised national-security concerns and Congress passed a bill that effectively scuttled it.
A few years later, other tenants at the port vacated space and Cosco was able to build its own terminal, says Art Wong, public information office for the Port of Long Beach.
That terminal is operated by a joint venture between Cosco and a U.S. company, Stevedoring Services of America. "Cosco is the majority lease holder with 51 percent, says Wong."
Stevedoring Services of America is mostly a Democrat Party donor. Patty Murray's husband is big deal in the company.
Yep...and that concept has very nearly nothing to do with the deal theoretically being debated.
Does anyone on FR seriously doubt that his image really really stinks lately?
And guess what the MSM image is also way down(lower ratings and circulation), yet you take their "news' as gospel.
Yep, but it helped cultivate the public perception about the deal. Bush utterly failed to convince people otherwise.
When communication fails, responsibility is more wisely placed with the communicator and not on the audience.
If it's not based upon informed decision making, it's worse than useless.
While any one poll is suspect, the story across several polls (and in this case, all of the major ones) is that Dubya's popularity is very low, and showing low signs of life.
Dismiss the polls at your own peril. They accurately reflect an unpopular president.
Well gee then you are saying that 95% of FR was wrong.
I can't believe anyone would support handing our ports to a country infiltrated by Al Qaeda.
Well gee, Clinton wasn't removed and remains a popular president. FR was, on balance, wrong on pushing for impeachment and removal.
And live by them at your own peril, like your hero Clinton.
Thank you. That is actually useful information - something sorely lacking on most of these Dubai threads.
Saudi Arabia owns and operates terminals in U.S. ports. In the case where the NY/NJ Port Authority is suing, right next to the one P&O owns...and yet they haven't even complained.
"But that would require thought and the Whine All The time Choir has demonstrated over the years political bigotry and ignorance is much more to their liking then THINKING."
I believe you are accusing me of thinking here. I thought this sounded bad at first, but decided to get plenty of facts before deciding what I would do.
I have got plenty of facts against UAE. They have, or at least, had terrorists in their nation. Also, there has been funding of terrorists in their nation.
I have heard no facts against the company that wants to buy this management. None.
If I was to follow the model above where a company can not manage our ports because there have been terrorists within their nation, or funding of terrorists within their nation, we better not have any US firms take over because we have had, and probably still do have, terrorists within our borders. We had, and may still have funding of terrorism here.
We also should have kicked out the British firm right after 7/7. Obviously they had terrorists in their country also. We could not let the deal go to any company in Russia, India, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we defineately do not want our ports run by any Israeli firm. We know how many terrorists have been in their nation.
I guess, according to some here, the only thing to do is close the ports.
I see other options here, like work with those who have worked with us in the past.
Hmm if he has such coat tails his hand picked successor should have won in 2000 by a landslide(which didn't happen due to sites like FR).
Clinton isn't my hero, I never voted for him, and I was a vocal critic of him.
I'll beleive Gen. Tommy Franks who calls the UAE a good ally.
I do, and I appreciate your reasoned response.
"It's about him being a remarkably poor leader."
I disagree about him being a poor leader, he's been stellar in Afghanstan and Iraq.
His screw ups are his inability to communicate. They should be out there 24/7 against the lib media. That by far is his biggest screwup. And that medipharm program. I once heard a great president has 3-4 issues throughout his presidency. He should have tackled immigration. I guess at the time, he didn't think it was a big deal. He'll go down in history as a good president, not great, probably in the middle of the pack, better than i42 for sure, because i42 got us in this mess. He could have been great if he stuck to national security, including immigration. His main priorities should have been, wot, immigration, media, and economy.
The liberal rule for 60 years is important to me for on reason, it shows a pattern, set forth by our founders, change takes a LONG time, and the dems had a LONG time in power. It's going to take us a long time to fix it. If we can.
If it's any consolation, my friends and family who aren't politically savvy see how Bush is being unfairly trashed in the media. But, the elections will tell.
Now, isn't this better than all the platitudes? Thanks for reasoning. We need to get FR back on course. We can have reasoned debates. After all, we're all pretty much into the bottom line, less government.
This was an issue that needed to be discussed, but in an intellectually honest way. We never got past the hyperbolic rhetoric of "control of ports". Unbelievable.
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.