Malkin: No More Business as Usual / Bush Digs In (Port Deal)

MichelleMalkin.com ^ | 2-22-06 | Michelle Malkin

[cgk]

BUSH DIGS IN

By

Michelle Malkin

  ·   February 21, 2006 03:50 PM

***video at Expose the Left***

Via Breitbart/AP:

President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

More from Bloomberg News.

Bush says it would "send the wrong message" to the UAE if the deal is delayed. What about the message it sends to Americans who are simply asking for greater assurances that the transfer was reviewed thoroughly by officials without conflicts of interest?

Allah Pundit, less tactful, e-mails: "Has he lost his damned mind?"

Reader Brian L.:

He says he'll veto any congressional effort to stop the deal. Now, he decides to veto something. Not Campaign Finance Reform. Not immense pork barrel spending.

I'd call his bluff if I were a leader in Congress.

Forwarded from a friend who received a note from a congressional staffer:

Well we know what to add to bills that we want the President to veto now.

And Day by Day cartoonist Chris Muir weighs in on Bush's plea to accept the deal "on faith:"

***

[cgk]

Malkin ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Michelle Malkin ping list...

[mfnorman]

i can't wait to see which picture of this hottie is going to be posted on this thread!

[cgk]

Does anyone else get the impression after reading Michelle Malkin over the past week on this deal, and watching President Bush and then Scott McClellan this morning that there are 2 different discussions going on?

[goldstategop]

I agree with Michelle Malkin. The deal doesn't sit well with me and I don't think a country with possible ties to Wahhabi Islam has any business being involved with our ports. They're plenty insecure right now that we don't need to add to the risk. Either the Administration reverses course or Congress will do it for them. They still don't get it at the White House. Someone needs to wake them up.

(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.")

[cgk]

See post #2 :). I include a malkin pic with every ping to her list.

[mfnorman]

your a saint

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

They still don't get it at the White House. Someone needs to wake them up.

Seems like the "War on Terror" ends where commercial interests become involved. It's a pity.

[Dane]

Gee michelle, I'll trust a President who has killed more islamic terrorists, than all other presidents combined, rather than a keyboard commando who thinks she kills islamofascists with keystrokes on a keyboard.

[angkor]

How would you guys have felt if the original bidder - Singaporean company PSA International - had succeeded in its initial bid for P&O?

Did you know that PSA's parent - the Singaporean government - already owned about 5 percent of P&O?

[MyDogAllah]

If FR has Ann Coulter rules, surely we need Michelle Malkin rules, right?

MICHELLE MALKIN RULES:

1. If you even mention the name Michelle Malkin in a post, you must post a pic.

2. Errrr, I don't have a rule number 2 yet.

BTW, about the port issue. I can't understand why President Dubya is siding with an arab-owned, state-funded company and not with the vast majority of Americans. Why waste political capital on... a nothing issue?

PS Did anyone notice that I broke my own rule? That's cuz I don't know how to post pics.

[tomahawk]

We gain WHAT by continuing to back the ports deal?

Say goodbye to the House and Senate.

I hope they override the veto.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

Well, I disagree heartily with Ms. Malkin on her general take regarding the WSJ. In our household, we call it "the best newspaper in the world." But like any newspaper, they can occasionally make a boner, and I agree that this is one.

Re "Chertoff's explanation": I wouldn't trust that man to find his a** with both hands, so I can't put much stock in anything he says. I further agree that *any* deal with the UAE these days should be investigated and vetted extensively, not rubber-stamped. As Ms. Malkin documents, it just hasn't been. And it looks pretty bad that both Bush and Rummy were kept in the dark until this was a done deal, so that if Bush put the kibosh on it at this point, it would make his whole administration look bad.

I think we need to continue to put pressure on our Pres not to let this go through, at least not at this time, without extensive investigation. Better safe than sorry. This is the President's White House comment line number: (202) 456-1111. Or call the toll-free Capitol line at 1-877-762-8762 and ask for the White House.

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

I will agree with Rush here. There is a political tsunami going on and people are being swept away and refusing to think constructively. I am not for or against but I think we should not have a knee jerk reaction

As for the yapping chihuahuas from the other side they are behaving in a manner that is expected of them-- oppose Bush in whatever he does.

[L98Fiero]

"Seems like the "War on Terror" ends where commercial interests become involved. It's a pity."

I was not aware that we had any operations going on against the UAE. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure we have bases there. Maybe we should close those as well.

If anyone can tell me ANYTHING that will change on the ground at these ports, please let me in on it.

[tomahawk]

Given what the Jihadists did to us in NYC and DC, I would expect no less than the killing of Islamic terrorists from any President, Rep. or Dem.

Iran is the big enchilada. We're watching them enrich uranium and putting our hopes in the U.N. and Russia to fix it. It's not going to happen. We are wasting precious time.

[Dane]

BTW, when is michelle going to criticize the part saudi owned Fox news. The network she makes a chuckie schumer bee line to be in front of their cameras.

[cgk]

I haven't expressed an opinion either way except to say I don't understand most of what is being said - and it's all by the "same side".

[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

I was not aware that we had any operations going on against the UAE. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure we have bases there. Maybe we should close those as well.

Something about "those who harbor terrorists" comes to mind, along with "you're with us, or you are against us".

If anyone can tell me ANYTHING that will change on the ground at these ports, please let me in on it.

How do you expect any company to take over those contracts and NOT have the ability to change anything on the ground, to our detriment? Even if 99% of the staff remain the same, the newly imported 1% UAE management has a disproportionately high probability of containing a threat.

[MajorityOfOne]

I agree with Michelle on the WSJ editorial being shifty and disengenuous. This is the second time in a week the WSJ has blown it (see Tunku's depressing Friday take on why the Journal was wussing out on running the Mohammad cartoons).