I like it.
No problem here.
THIS IS CRAZY!!!
I've been a vocal Bushie here at FR.
This one has me stumped! (as well as a couple others.)
What is the Prez thinking?
"So this is where George Bush wants to use his first veto? "
No kidding. Of all the things he should have fought for on behalf of We the People and used his veto power, he fights for a foreign interest.
If thsi was Clinton doing this people would be screaming not supporting the idea.
For those who claim that UAE has been a good friend in the GWOT, remember this:
UAE was one of only 3 govt's to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate gov't.
UAE was also a key shipping point of nuclear weapons components transportation for the whole A.Q.Khan fiasco.
I wonder if Dubya struck a deal with Dubai to build an air or naval base there? After all, it is just a hop, skip and jump across the Strait to Iran. Has he already got the invasion of Iran planned?
But Neal, hasn't anyone told you? If you feel this way, you must be a raaaaaacist.
Rice starts Middle East tour to gain support on Hamas, Iran
I wonder if this situation makes this job a little more difficult
Hm. Such a strange confluence of events in the world these days. Let's see:
1) Iran rushing to develop nuclear weapons.
2) Iranian, Euro-centric Oil Bourse launches end of March
3) Israel states that March is the point of no return
4) U.S. dollar will almost certainly take a hit.
5) Oil prices are still pressured to the upside. Any significant disruption of flow (e.g., mining Hormuz) could move oil between $90 and $100 a barrel. (Gas at $3.50 would be a given)
6) Bush does NOT want to intervene militarily in Iran while Iraq is in flux.
7) Israel has been rendered impotent by fifteen years of acquiesence to "diplomacy". Their future is bleak with a nuclear Iran.
8) China and Iran have struck a massive deal for the Chinese GOVERNMENT (state-owned energy firm) to develop a vast oil field in Iran.
9) UAE vies to buy the rights to operate six major ports in the United States. Congress says "no". Bush basically says he'd sell his mother to the gypsies in order to get the UAE government rights to those ports.
So what does this mean?
1) Iran holds a very powerful hand.
2) The U.S. dollar is vulnerable.
3) Israel is in an extremely bad position.
4) Syria will benefit greatly from a nuclear Iran, and becomes part of a quasi Persian Empire.
5) Shiite-ruled Iraq will join Syria as part of this
quasi Persian Empire.
6) The Saudi Peninsula becomes ripe for Iranian takeover. UAE is a CRITICAL strategic point in this regard - bordered in part by the Strait of Hormuz and a "stone's throw" from Iranian land.
After giving further thought to this matter, it's my opinion that we are entering into a pact with UAE which will guarantee a U.S. base of operations in either Dubai or Abu Dhani, with the expressed intent of containing imperial Iran and protecting the shipping lane of Hormuz.
If I'm correct in this assessment, then it is clear that we have decided not to stand in the way of Iran's nuclear ambitions, but will instead seek to contain their regional aspirations. With the Fed no longer reporting M3, the government is sending a clear signal that "no news is good news". This is like a public corporation just deciding to stop reporting it's balance sheet. It's not a good sign.
There has to be a method to the madness. There's more than meets the eye.
Rush has a brilliant analysis.
Rove has sure called out the Rats on the war. Too funny.
ping
No Neal he's not joking. And he really believes that "Religion of peace" B.S. he keeps spewing.
Yep, let's give these folks our port security. They're our FRIENDS......
The US called off a strike against Osama Bin Laden because members of the UAE royal family were visiting him in Afghanistan.
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
Good arguments both for and against this issue. I believe that, with things being weighted the way they are, we should err on the side of caution. Would we have passed ANY amount of domestic port control over to ANY other country during WWII? Absolutely not.
I think Bush has one other possibility to consider... that his stance on this issue (and his position on several others) is helping to hand the democrats control of the house, senate, and presidency of the United States.
That, my friends, is going to take our country in a far more dangerous direction than giving logistical control of a few ports over to a foreign entity.