Bush: Port Deal Collapse Sends Bad Message

Associated Press ^ | March 10, 2006 | LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

[bigeasy_70118]

Where I have I ever said, fighting global terrorism is a snap? If I didn't think it was hard work, I would have voted for Michael Badnarik.

[jimbo123]

When the President threatened a veto, he then owed us an explanation. He gave none and gave us Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter instead. It was a debacle and I hope the President learned from it.

And please stop with the insults.

[Cboldt]

On Eller ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581542/posts?page=701#701
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581542/posts?page=731#731
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593184/posts?page=538#538

[Cboldt]

I also wouldn't read much into the P&O / Maersk deal, wehre improvements were made to facilitate Maersk's business. Liabilities travel with the rights.

[Coop]

Wikipedia excerpt: The Bush Doctrine refers to the set of revised foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

~~~~

The Bush Doctrine is pretty easy to enforce
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593896/posts?page=9#9

You should feel extremely fortunate that a test isn't required to post on this forum.

[Coop]

He gave none

That's false. Please stop with the lies.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[yellowdoghunter]

Because these same "conservatives" think this is a way to "get Bush" which has been their agenda since 2001.

Oh please. I voted for the guy four times. So I guess I am really out to get him.

I hear ya. I get tired of hearing that also. I mean I actually left my house and worked to help get Pres. Bush elected. I wrote letters to the editors, attended my precint meetings, put up signs, etc.....

[bigeasy_70118]

So how come the legislative branch - after the executive branch followed the exact procedure put in place by the legislative branch - then started screaming and took action to stop the deal? Hmmmmm?

Your orignial argument was that it was unconstitutional for the legislative branch to pass a law that dealt with something that was an executive branch function. I replied that it was not and your reply only supports my point.

The regulations that governed the review of the deal were drafted for the Cold War era. Thus, as any true conservative (or sixth grader knows), the legislative branch would be well within their rights to update the law to reflect the realities of the War on Terrorism. Thus, there would be no violation of the constitution.

Conservatism doesn't really seem to be your thing. Might I suggest Scientology?

[sasafras]

The only message it sends is that Bush has no political capitol. Note to Bush time to wake up - seal the borders, eliminate the benefits to illegals and quit handing over America to the special interests and highest bidder. Where does his allegiance lie?

[jw777]

I was not aware of that. Can you substantiate?

[prairiebreeze]

Burning Allies -- and Ourselves

I suspect America will pay a steep price for Congress's rejection of this deal. It sent a message that for all the U.S. rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with allies, America is basically hostile to Arab investment.

Nobody is more surprised than me to see this out of the Washington Post. Spot on, nonetheless.

[Coop]

Your orignial argument was that it was unconstitutional for the legislative branch to pass a law that dealt with something that was an executive branch function.

Nope. Again, thank God tests aren't required...

[jazusamo]

"The White House never addressed the concerns head on. Instead, they sent out paid lobbyists"

Did this revelation come from unnamed sources, real evidence or a vision after an out of body experience?

[bigeasy_70118]

Wikipedia excerpt: The Bush Doctrine refers to the set of revised foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

Dubai was used as a conduit of funds to finance the 9/11 attacks. Is that not harboring terorrists? Or are we making distintcions? If I wanted nuance, I would have voted for Kerry.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

Coop...you might as well give up trying to educate some on this board...some who obviously can't read and comprehend...others who were quick to judgment and now are grasping at straws to justify their former assessment of the situation. Anyone who looks at the deal with any real business sense quickly understands that the only thing that would change is that the longshoremen will be collecting a paycheck from a different entity.. In addition anyone who fails to recognize that the UAE is a valuable and irreplaceable ally in the ME....is really not very bright IMHO.

[Reagan Man]

PresBush has been defiant on this ports issue since the beginning. Threatening to cast his first veto in favor of UAE business concerns, ahead of American interests, has gotten the President a big fat public smackdown. And rightfully so. Even after being proven wrong in the court of public opinion by both the American people and the GOP Congress, Bush has shown a level of arrogance that undermines support and shows poor leadership. This was a bureaucratic blunder from the get-go. Instead of demanding a full inquiry of events from the start, Bush chose to pick a fight with the American people. Obviously, Bush has lost that fight.

[kenth]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593896/posts?page=86#86

If you want to hear more of my plan, just go to my website. - John KeGeorge W. Bush

[Coop]

Is that not harboring terorrists?

Actually, it's not. It would be aiding terrorists. But that also occurred prior to 9/11. Didn't you just try that "sixth-grade" argument about pre- and post-9/11??

And I noticed how you skipped over the rest of #105 - you know, the part where you came off as a buffoon for not even remembering your own post?

[bigeasy_70118]

If you didn't mean that it was unconstitutional for the legislative branch to be "sticking its nose" into an executive function, than your post/premise is a waste of this forum's bandwith. You effectively had no point.