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

Skip to comments.

Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill to Stop UAE Port Deal
FOXNews.com ^ | Tuesday, February 21, 2006 | FOXNews.com

Posted on 02/21/2006 12:56:16 PM PST by Jeremiah2911

WASHINGTON — In a rare display of his veto authority President Bush said Tuesday he will put the kibosh on any legislation that attempts to stop the purchase by a United Arab Emirates-owned firm of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs six major U.S. ports.

Breaking a gaping silence during the debate of the purchase by Dubai Ports World, Bush said the deal should go forward and won't jeopardize U.S. security.

Officials from the Cabinet departments that participate in the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which approved the sale last Monday, are appearing in a briefing Tuesday afternoon to defend the process by which CFIUS reviewed and approved the deal.

Officials from the Treasury, Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security will participate.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; bushbots; dhimmialert; homelandsecurity; rino; selloutprez; term2; uae; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-350 next last
To: FreeLuna
I just think this is a knee jerk reaction for everyone to freak out like this

Of course it is.

Nobody seems to be concerned that the same UAE is in charge of the ports that ship the container. So, if they wanted to blow something up, they could have done it when P&O was in charge.

This is much ado about nothing, but the politicos and blogs are frantic that a friendly Muslim nation might actually operate some ports.

Coming so soon after the Muslim riots over the cartoons, it's an understandable reaction. But, silly, nonetheless.

61 posted on 02/21/2006 1:09:17 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mayflower Sister

How many other black-robed bimbos majored in math in college? She went to law school because it was easy.


62 posted on 02/21/2006 1:09:34 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: scottdeus12

Rush has spent hours explaining it, to my satisfaction.

Check out the live thread--maybe that will help or go to his website.


63 posted on 02/21/2006 1:09:49 PM PST by wouldntbprudent (If you can: Contribute more (babies) to the next generation of God-fearing American Patriots!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: TitansAFC

"El Rushbo must've gotten the heads up. This explains a three-hour show on the topic."

Rush is unabashedly a Bush mouthpiece


65 posted on 02/21/2006 1:09:57 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

"El Rushbo must've gotten the heads up. This explains a three-hour show on the topic"

I noticed that too. But I don't care. If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, I don't want that duck watching our ports.


66 posted on 02/21/2006 1:10:18 PM PST by Mayflower Sister (DEMOCRAT: THE PARTY OF COWARDS AND TRAITORS, and I almost forgot... BABY KILLERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jeremiah2911
I can't believe this! Its not good enough to lay wide open our borders to illegal Mexicans and probably al-Quida terrorists.

Now this President is giving al-Quida a special invitation to waltz into the great ports of America with dirty bombs, actual Iranian nukes, nerve gas...name your WMD yall!!

Globalist, free trade REPUBLICANS will be the death of this country!!!
67 posted on 02/21/2006 1:10:47 PM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mancogasuki
No foreign company/country should have control over any part of our national security. Period.Um....the Brits run the ports now, and they don't run the security.
68 posted on 02/21/2006 1:11:01 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Emile

"Sometimes GWB acts like we're in a war, sometimes he seems to be clueless about it. Part of a war is protecting our borders, ports, etc., from enemy infiltration. When is he going to start fighting this part of the war?"

Mostly it just sounds like you definition of who 'the enemy' is is not the same as George Bush's definition of who 'the enemy' is.


69 posted on 02/21/2006 1:11:11 PM PST by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BubbaTheRocketScientist
Would this be his first veto?



Yes, but he threatened to veto any bill which cut back on his prescription drug program.
70 posted on 02/21/2006 1:11:14 PM PST by rob777 (Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mancogasuki
No foreign company/country should have control over any part of our national security.

No foreign country will. The US still controls the security. US union dockworkers will still be working the docks. Nothing changes, except the workers ultimately report to a Dubai business firm.

71 posted on 02/21/2006 1:11:25 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: antaresequity
Are illegals "good for America"

Anyway there are enough Republican LEADERS who do NOT believe this is "good for America", I have never seen party members so adamant to the point of threatening suing him for this.

This is a major outsource that doesn't feel "good for America"!

Wait till November this will definitely show up at the polls!

72 posted on 02/21/2006 1:11:41 PM PST by stopem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jeremiah2911

Five full years to find the conviction to lock horns with Congress. And that conviction is to guarantee the right of business to sell out our basic infrastructure to the highest foreign bidder.


73 posted on 02/21/2006 1:11:44 PM PST by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

You mean like Reagan secured the border?


74 posted on 02/21/2006 1:12:12 PM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger
I'll admit that I don't know much about this issue, nor do I understand what the details of this transcation are. What I do know is that on the face if it, it looks pretty bad.

But, I have a very hard time believing that Bush would stay so strong on defending the country, against all sorts of political and media attacks, and then, let something that could be so threatening slip through. And threaten a veto on top of it?

I disregard all the Democratic posturing, because they are reflexively against everything that Bush does. But, there are some pretty reasonable people who have concerns. I think there's got to be more to the story.

75 posted on 02/21/2006 1:12:26 PM PST by TravisBickle (The War on Terror: Win It There or Fight It Here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: StephenFrancis

You forgot your sarcasm tag!


76 posted on 02/21/2006 1:12:54 PM PST by Bommer (Have you insulted a prophet today? http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/mofactor.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mayflower Sister

It took Rush three hours to explain away all the objections. He didn't need to do that. Most people don't know where to start analyzing either business or national security. He probably didn't change any minds, but it wouldn't matter since most are thinking about this with something else.


77 posted on 02/21/2006 1:13:03 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: StephenFrancis

Welcome to Free Republic, StephenFrancis.


78 posted on 02/21/2006 1:13:14 PM PST by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Stentor

"How? Can you be specific?"

Yes. 9/11. The hijackers used the UAE for financial and operational support. 'nuf said.


79 posted on 02/21/2006 1:13:18 PM PST by Maine For Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AbeKrieger

We have zippo idea if there's a "good reason" for this deal. If the "good reason" becomes known, then I'd wager that whatever strategic benefits we would have gained from the deal will be lost.

It is also entirely possible that the deal is as bad as we think it is.

Just have no way of knowing. That's why it is important to have leaders we can trust.

It appears that many here no longer trust GWB.


80 posted on 02/21/2006 1:13:33 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-350 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