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

Skip to comments.

Bush: Port Deal Collapse Sends Bad Message
Associated Press ^ | March 10, 2006 | LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 03/10/2006 8:26:48 AM PST by indcons

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341 next last
To: Don'tMessWithTexas

I believe that they have a policy of religious toleration which is far more lenient than most Middle Eastern countries.



So they don't kill you or consider you infidelic for not being a muzzie?


201 posted on 03/10/2006 10:33:40 AM PST by trubluolyguy (Islam, Religion of Peace and they'll kill you to prove it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Duncan Hunter in his above statement (and other statements) describes a UAE that doesn't cooperate with the cleanup of terrorist weapons components smuggling activity at Port Dubai.

It directly contradicts what the president -- the CIC in the WOT -- says.

Duncan should actually try to document his charges so he can demonstrate how he knows what he claims is true. Duncan Hunter doesn't document his charges.

Duncan should withdrawn his unsupported charges.

202 posted on 03/10/2006 10:33:45 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

That's what I read. A fine distinction between having money given to support, and receiveing free land and free utilities, but certainly this proves that christians are free to have churches in UAE.


203 posted on 03/10/2006 10:34:17 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
The President must not be seen to be sulking.

The president came out and defended his position at this press conference. That would be the antithesis of "sulking".

204 posted on 03/10/2006 10:35:17 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: commish
I think the WH has a communication problem, no doubt about it. I think that is a completely legitimate complaint. In fact, sometimes it drives me nuts and has gone on too long.

When the press never actually listens, and the people who are supposed to be their allies jump overboard at the first sign of trouble, it makes the job of communicating hard enough. We don't need the WH to make it worse. Any suggestions about how to change the dynamic?

I do think it's time for McClellen to go, but I think the issues are deeper than that. The President can not rely on people/press/congress to do the right thing, so what's next?
205 posted on 03/10/2006 10:37:34 AM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: commish

The WH didn't handle it and it wasn't a "deal". DPW bought the British company. Then there was an automatic process -- secret from the president -- that approved the deal. Going back on it is terrible diplomacy.


206 posted on 03/10/2006 10:37:55 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jw777

No. Feel free to not believe what I wrote. I simply don't have time to search for all the materials anymore, and I don't care if you believe me or not.

Just don't call me a liar unless you have proof that I am wrong. That's all I ask.


207 posted on 03/10/2006 10:38:01 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

What I think and what will happen are 2 different things. The Aramco dealings have not received the high profile in the media as DP World dealings, however. At least recently.


208 posted on 03/10/2006 10:39:42 AM PST by jw777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Valin
You really seem to have your undies in a twist.

Quit your anti-conservative hand-wringing and whining.

We told you this would happen, and tried to prevent the administration from hitting the wall. Red flag after red flag. And the name-calling disparagements and ad hominems against the conservatives who know national security as well or better than those currently in this administration is neither civil nor persuasive. We got expert at parsing the Xlintonisms, they shouldn't have tried doing the same weasel-word evasions at the Coast Guard.

The administration must stop sulking and learn the proper lesson here. The conservatives saved the bacon of this country...yet again. Sure as hell wasn't the "moderates." or "yes men."

The president can actually recover nicely from this debacle if he doesn't sit back and steam over this, but instead takes credit for the "fix." He needs to get in the living rooms of America (which means a night time television appearance) either making a White House Lawn presentation of thanks to the Conservatives (conspicuously leaving out the rats) or just hold a Press Conference. He should ask Congress to investigate reforming the CFIUS process to better ensure that security concerns are properly considered. This makes a positive turn out of a negative. He shows an appropriate deference to the function of the other branch, and a redeeming humility that will endear him to the American people.

W must not be passive. Neither must he appear to be bitter and negative or even disappointed. He needs to be optimistic, thankful, and acknowledge that he learned a lot from this. He should apologize for any "mistaken" implication or inferrences that some discerned that Americans were in fact xenophobic or bigoted. That was unfair. And he should hereby promise that those who spread that defamatory line whether in or out of the administration...would henceforth be rebuked from the top in the future.

Then he could crow how the UAE proved to be a true ally, willing to go the extra mile to ensure our security. They just want to do business with us and help us. This also makes a positive out of a negative, and furthermore, without recrimination, says he was right all along.

Life brings sorrows and joys alike. It is what a man does with them - not what they do to him - that is the true test of his mettle.
--Theodore Roosevelt

209 posted on 03/10/2006 10:39:57 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Just asked for something I thought you might have close at hand as a lot of freepers do. I told you I was unaware of your claim, so, I simply requested what I thought you might have available. I am not in the business of calling anyone a liar. You came across condescending, IMHO. That's all.


210 posted on 03/10/2006 10:41:46 AM PST by jw777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
Nice to know where the UAE sympathizers are getting their talking points. Ignoring Republican legislators, and the 62-2 vote of the Appropriations Committee; the sellouts parrot the rantings of Matein Khalid the Dubai based investment banker. Maybe the radical Islamists are correct in their assumption that many Americans will sell out morality, principle, and sovereignty for cash.
211 posted on 03/10/2006 10:45:34 AM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
That would be the antithesis of "sulking".

In part your are right, that is the equally unproductive "tantrum" phase of rejection. Even more unseemly than sulking!

The hardest lessons to learn are those that are the most obvious.
--Theodore Roosevelt

212 posted on 03/10/2006 10:45:48 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: zook
Like it or not, Hamas runs the Palistinian Authority, a territory recognized by the UN. UAE is not alone in this support. Support for the political wing of Hamas was not sufficient reason to block this deal.

The same could have been said for Saddam Hussain who ran a territory recognised by the UN and had the support of other nations..

213 posted on 03/10/2006 10:46:40 AM PST by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Then he could crow how the UAE proved to be a true ally, willing to go the extra mile to ensure our security. They just want to do business with us and help us. This also makes a positive out of a negative, and furthermore, without recrimination, says he was right all along.

The president could have communicated the realities better and he didn't.

That said, it was the many individuals of this country who reacted without learning the facts. They are the ones ultimately responsible for their countries future.

It is they who are the ultimate failures.

214 posted on 03/10/2006 10:47:15 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
In part your are right, that is the equally unproductive "tantrum" phase of rejection.

Document the sudden burst of rage by the president.

I'll wait for your response.

215 posted on 03/10/2006 10:48:55 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: TexKat

BTW, I got me a cool tagline from the article :)


216 posted on 03/10/2006 10:50:38 AM PST by ARealMothersSonForever (Political troglodyte with a partisan axe to grind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
mr. President, handing control of ports to Middle-Eastern companies/countries which can be easily infiltrated by those who wish to do us great harm ALSO sends a bad message. To US, your employer.

I have stayed out of this debate for the most part, but this kind of idiocy drives me crazy.

For the record: This deal did not hand "control" of any ports to anyone. It transferred the operations of some TERMINALS at some ports to a company from the UAE. Security was and is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and DHS.

People really should read the details of what was proposed before spouting foolishness. I wasn't overly concerned about the deal - foreign airlines, including middle eastern ones, have facilities at all major airports. I don't see how the risk is any greater with this deal than with the airports. Should we deny any Muslim country the right to have an airport terminal in the US?

217 posted on 03/10/2006 10:52:31 AM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Coop

I hope everytime Dems opens their mouths about port security Bush hits them in the head with a shovel.


218 posted on 03/10/2006 10:52:48 AM PST by freema (Proud Marine FRiend, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
Should we deny any Muslim country the right to have an airport terminal in the US?

Gee, let me ask the families of 3000 killed some years ago....

Yes.

219 posted on 03/10/2006 10:55:21 AM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Gee, let me ask the families of 3000 killed some years ago.... Yes.

I know families of the 3000 killed.

You don't speak for them.

220 posted on 03/10/2006 10:57:14 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341 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