Posted on 03/09/2006 10:42:42 AM PST by navysealdad
Dubai Ports Worls to divest itself of all American interests
But are they secure? They fostered a lot of the terrorism through harboring the Finsbury Park Mosque ( both the shoe bomber and Moussaoui were nurtured there). The London Underground bombers were from......Britain.
I'm not saying Britain isn't our friend, I'm saying they sometimes have screwed up badly. Do you want screw-ups doing your security?
It's not that, it's the closure of various doors and windows.
But I'm a BAD dhimmi, so how about some proof? What about the western world's WOT? Have the Saudis and Pakistanis killed more AQ than that coalition? Bring numbers.
Amazing! And the antis will treat that fact like cat doo. They'll kick some sand on it and walk away as if it never happened.
Has the steam stopped coming out of Chuckie Schuemer's ears yet?
This was nothing but a Democrat witch hunt, with spineless GOPers piling on. The proof of that, is that Dingy Harry STILL wants to take a vote on this, even though it's finished.
bump
I agree with you. The Administration is naive in how they handle these issues, thinking that they can just do what is best without explanation - either that or they're stupid and don't learn.
And Congress continued to spout falsehoods after facts had been out there for weeks.
Reasonable people can disagree about this deal, after knowing the facts (of course since this kind of thing isn't new, where was their opposition before?)
And in forums like this one, people are bound to get into flame wars, no matter how much information is available. We've done it before and we'll do it again.
But for our elected representatives to leap to conclusions before knowing much of anything about the situation, and then to continue to mischaracterize the issues despite the facts available, that pisses me off. They're protecting their own skins first and foremost, too afraid to leave the herd, and too lazy to do any learning or teaching on the issue. That is not what I want in DC.
"DPW and the illegal immigration/borders issues are not the same."
Granted. But I think a lot of the resentment of Portgate is the same disconnect that the beltway gods have with us out here in the hinterland. We shout, but they don't here.
"The *polls* that showed a *majority* of *adults* against the DPW deal were taken as quickly as possible after 3 days of non-stop lying about takeovers/running security/purchasing US assets. One of the better pollsters, Rasmussen, perhaps, but I really don't recall exactly, even prefaced their published poll on the issue as "our first poll", knowing they would have to back and and reassess after the truth came out."
My impression is that a large majority of Americans is against this deal, just as they are against illegal immigration. Even here on FR, a previous poll asking "Should a state-owned Arab company be allowed to manage six major United States seaports?" yielded 53% no and 33% yes. The current poll, which was initated after the White House went on the offensive, is worded "After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?" The response is currently 49% support and 38% oppose. Not a ringing endorsement on a board that has so many Bush locksteppers.
"I have my own beefs w/the RNC and I have been contributing to individual candidates, rather than the party. Since all our guys seem to have more than enough funds, the spigots haven't dried up. I live in the heartland and I back President Bush. I would never want to be responsible for the donks regaining any majority in either house, let alone the WH."
Like you, I back individual candidates. I refuse to support the RNC. I also do not support Bush generally, though do support him on issues where he takes a conservative stand.
You're right. I believe there is another article on here where UAE is threating to pull everything from us.
Now if that happens what will congress do then?
I think congress deserves for UAE to pull everything and then congress run back with their tail between their legs saying WE'RE SORRY!
Now watch the Dems move the goalposts.
They'll say "we didn't necessarily want the deal killed, we just wanted further review. We were acting on good faith to protect Americans, those Republicans were being racist."
Well, that's true. All countries have to look out for their own best interests, and they will not always coincide with ours.
However, the fact that this particular country (UAE) officially subscribes to an ideology which is radically opposed to us, and in fact is seeking our death throughout its sphere of influence, means that they perhaps should expect to have to provide a little more reassurance. I think many people probably recall the way Turkey bailed on us at the last minute, when we were relying on it.
As I say, I was not automatically opposed to the deal, and I think it should have been examined. (Of course, once I found out that Bill Clinton was heavily involved in it, I will admit that my suspicion level went up.)
Personally I am glad to see a majority of Americans stand up for something whether I agree with them or not.
Next comes borders, I hope.
Good luck with that! After all, the reason Schumer and Hillary were so shrill was because the unions at the New York ports were adamant DPW not take over their port because DPW was going to automate the facilities they were going to be running. Had absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with the union's being unhappy.
I'm so glad to see FReepers supporting the unions!/sarc
Obviously none of those, I wouldn't expect him to be one of the top dogs in the company, just a management intern, or other junior type sent out from the home office. To get him out of Uncle Achmed's hair, but in a way that also provides for him.
And note that they have an Aussie holding company. My understanding was that the arrrangement here would have not been as "arms length" as that.
I suspect what they end up with will be an American management team, which also owns 50+% of the US operation.
BTW, That son of Uncle Achmed might have been the third son from Achmed's fifth fourth wife. And bitter about it. Sort of like Osama bin Ladin , whose mother was a fourth wife of his father, but not his father's last fourth wife.
tickled pink bump
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.