I AM CONFUSED UAE port deal

MarkIIVT · 02-21-2006, 03:52 PM

Now let me get this straight, The President wants this deal to go through,in spite of the part of "you are either with us or against us" in the war on terror.

Is that right?

And the Governors from both parties think this is a very bad deal too. So do the Senators and Representatives from both parties.

Is that right? That would be ... BIPARTISIAN!
(He is a uniter and not a divider

)

NOw who comes to the defense of the President? None other than former President Carter (who bagged on him at the CSK funeral and consistently says Bush lies[

])! What did Carter have to say? He said that he thought President Bush would not let it go through if he hadn't checked it out. He would not let it happen since he is up on national security!?!?!?!

Is that right?? IF President Carter thinks it is a good idea it is probably a good bet it is NOT the thing to do!!

And NOW I have to agree with Senator Shumer of NY??

Is that right??

James B · 02-21-2006, 06:31 PM

The truth is this deal will have zero to do with port security. Thatjob will remain with the Coast Guard and Homeland security. This is a deal for ownership of part of the companiy that operates the six ports. Security is no part of the deal. Many have leaped without thinking. The fact is , like it or not, many foriegn countries own businesses here. They are buying this from the British. Both are allies in the war on terror. You can hardly condem all the people of a country because two bad eggs may have been involved in 911. We still do business with all the countries whos citizens were part of that crime.

Deleted User · 02-22-2006, 06:17 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

kevin1 · 02-22-2006, 10:54 AM

Only one nationality needs to be having anything to do with our ports:
AMERICANS

DougMD · 02-22-2006, 07:20 PM

The only control the owner will have is in hiring US workers to operate the cranes, who are subject to strict background checks.The deal was okayed by our intelligence agencies, who knowmore about threats ofnational security than us budweiser joes on this forum.

gobbler afflicted · 02-22-2006, 09:29 PM

I just find it very strange that The press Sec. said that Bush didnt even know the UAE owned the company that took over the ports, yet as soon as he found out, he threatens to veto any bill aimed to block it?

If he was unaware, doesnt it seem like he would have an inquiery into it before strongly defending it?

kevin1 · 02-23-2006, 06:01 AM

I find it stranger still that he's defending the decision to give any foreign owned company any form of control over our ports . Shut down several ports and the economic impact can be devastating .

Deleted User · 02-23-2006, 06:19 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

Aught Six · 02-23-2006, 11:46 AM

I've already countered all of the points being made against this DPW deal in the Okay Fundies, still think Bush is strong on terror?(http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1436338) thread. However, I see than all of the opponents have moved themselves and their bogus information,speculation, and emotionally charged rhetoric into other spin-off threads.

I've given the facts, and I'm not going to repeat myself. I invite everyone to enter the linked thread and read for themselves. A lot of people here are spewing all kinds of drivel on this matter.

DougMD · 02-23-2006, 12:12 PM

C'mon Aught, don't confuse the Bush haters withFACTS!

As for the bogus argument of learning our security techniques, etc. Funny how it didn't matter to liberalsto blab to the world about the wiretaps and tip off terrorists about how we were listening in on their calls!