Posted on 02/17/2006 5:46:27 PM PST by Dane
You have no problem with an easily infiltratable Arabian company handling a national security service? Holy moly.
Just because Demos are sponsoring this initiative doesn't mean it's not right. I
I'm appalled that our leaders aren't doing this, but I'm glad SOMEONE IS doing it. I support correct ACTIONS, not labels.
Right, national security concerns...that must have been on page 18 of their 20 page, single spaced list of reasons to oppose the Bush administration.
This grossly understates the poor communication tactics of the Bush administration. Tell me, folks, what are the top three reasons this is being done? bet you can't name one off the top of your head, because there have been none stated...none.
Maybe there's a good reason to award this contract to the country that spawned 9/11, but I can't think of one and I read all the news I possibly can. I think Rice's statement is outright arrogant in its complete disregard for the need to inform the American People.
Payback for some terrorism intelligence or gain from Dubai. We're getting the raw end of that deal - the payment is too high for the services rendered.
I don't know. I mean, if Satan himself came foward and won the Republican nomination, I just might pull the lever for Hill...........nah, I'd just stay home and reload ammo.
That is where you are misinformed. The Bush administration didn't "award" anything. There was an old fashioned bidding war between UAE(DPWorld) and a Singapore port company for P&O and DPWorld won and takes over P&O's existing contracts at the US ports.
Now you may not like it that DPWorld won the bidding and you can debate that, but the talking points that the Bush administration was behind this is untrue.
Okay. But why this? "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she supported the U.S. government decision to approve the deal..."
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Because on it's face the acquisition of P&O by DPWorld is perfectly legal and DPWorld has met all of the regulatory hurdles. The same would have probably been said if the Singapore company had won the bidding for P&O.
Then where was your, hillary's, schumer's, and savage's outrage when a British(foreign) company was operting port terminals. Would you be just as outraged if the Singapore company had won the bidding.
BTW, if you want to direct your anger, why don't you direct it at the P&O shareholders, they are the ones who started all this.
Also check this thread at about reply #300 a person who has much experience working in port terminals, says this whole thing is basically overblown.
"Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York, both Democrats, said they would offer legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations, targeting the $6.8 billion purchase of P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research) by Dubai Ports World."
Good for them since no Republicans had the guts to do it.
Would you like to buy a bridge to Brooklyn? JMO, you fit the marketing profile of such a buyer.
"Would you like to buy a bridge to Brooklyn? JMO, you fit the marketing profile of such a buyer."
What does this mean? I don't think your joke translated well from Arabic into English.
Hey maybe would she hire Ayman Al Zawahiri to replace Porter Goss, Hamas can be our air marshals, Zarqawi can lead Bush's Secret Service detail, and we can release Noriega from jail to head up the DEA.
Why are you so offended that people don't want our ports to be protected by a nation that officially recognized the Taliban?
That ain't gonna happen, but you gotta hand it to hillary and chackie schumer, they know that some will respond to ignorant hyperbole.
The UAE ain't taking over the ports and you know that.
As has been stated many times on these threads, they ain't taking over the ports, and also did the UAE come out against the taliban being overthrown, no they didn't.
I'm offended by people taking hillary/schumer's hyperbole hook, line, and sinker.
Actually I've been saying this was a terrible idea long before I heard Clinton or Schumer mentioned it. And they will be conducting port security, which means they will be responsible for keeping WMD out of our country. The money for 9/11 came through Dubai. The Washinton Times seems to agree with Clinton and Schumer also. A lot of Republicans in Congress are also against the deal.
The conservative Washington Times offered even blunter criticism of the deal.
"Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where Al-Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?" The Washington Times asked in an editorial.
"We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder," the editorial said. "President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/193635/1/.html
I agree. This should not be happening.
You keep trying to make this idiotic point. Let me ask YOU.... when was the last time the Brits tried killing any of us? 1812? When was the last time arabs tried?
Huh, I thought you said before on another thread, my replies were not worth your time.
Well anyway, the points have been made on this thread, the UAE is not taking over the US ports, and that some on FR are very suceptible to hillary/schumer/michael savage hyperbole.
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.