Posted on 02/22/2006 4:34:50 PM PST by johnmecainrino
Bush didn't know because congress mandated for this foreign service group to keep the decisions secret. The group only informs the president if they go to an extended period of review and then reject it. No one on the top white house staff knew. It was done by middle level bueracracy mostly in these agencies. Congress mandated the process by non political and kept secret.
Congress didn't know because it is a federal crime to talk about the specifics of the deal. Again congress mandated it be secret and now they are screaming how bush didn't inform them.
Based on the law congress passed in 1988 Bush couldn't have reversed the deal after it was approved by this committee. The law states that after the deal was approved by the committee bush or the committee can only go back and review the deal if the company lied to them on the application.
On MSNBC right now we are hearing how bush was out of the loop again and all the bs. That was the law. And when I hear congress complaining about the secrecy, damn them they wrote the law that way to protect the propriety of the companies.
Scott McClellan has to be the worst press secretary ever. He didn't even know today that the american unions would still be involved and that homeland security got in the deal to do a background check before anyone can enter the facility that works for the company.
Bush needs to go on national TV primetime to stop the lies. Worst of all a lot of the lies are being spread by peter king who is clueless on the 1988 law that was written. If he is so upset change the law instead of blaming bush for a law congress mandated.
/sarcasm
Thank you for this and your other posts on this issue, which are about facts, the valuing of which I thought made us better than the DUmmies.
Peter King has received thousands of dollars from the longshoreman union.
jampoisie Since Feb 22, 2006
The impeccable warrior will win supremely.
The less impeccable ones will be peddling furiously to avoid the paintbrush of disgrace as the autopsy of this episode is concluded.
If your stomach is turning over the sorry mixture of metaphors you are probably not cut out for mixed martial arts.
Why don't you add some facts to the discussion?
Can you be more specific about this law? Local radio has been talking about it and obviously doesn't know.
Thanks!
How 'bout Iraqi Arabs?
Do you have any more information on this law, like the name of it, or who wrote it?
Need a link to the law please...
Looks like you are ignoring a few facts here, specifically:
1) One can be oppossed to this policy, w/o focusing the "Blame" on Bush. An intellectually honest person would do so.
2) As the article states, Bush's hands were tied by what the law says.
3) The Democrats have always used any opportunity to make Bush look bad, regardless of the facts.
4) True Consevatives (not simply loyal Republican's) base their opposition to some of Bush's policies or actions based on sound principles, not based on misrepresentations of what has occurred.
So why is something that he knew nothing about a couple of days ago suddenly so important that he's picking fightes with his leaders in the House and Senate athreatening the first veto of his administration?
I am for the port deal.
People made a snap judgement against it and now don't want to admit that they should have waited for more information. So now they are stuck defending what they describe as a common sense decision. "I just don't like the idea man, I mean these are Arabs!" I am reassured by the likes of Krauthammer and others who say the deal won't be harmful to our security.
I am unhappy with Frist and others in the GOP who panicked when their UNDER INFORMED constituents jumped to the wrong conclusion that this deal would be dangerous. Well this is more important than sticking to your guns just to be sticking to your guns. And too important for the GOP leadership to assuage thier UNDER ININFORMED constituents by peeling away support for the Administration.
What we need is for the GOP leadership to use this as a teaching moment. If they do and those who just don't want to admit that they jumped to conclusions, stubbornly refuse to admit thier ERROR...then for the good of the country the deal needs to go through anyway.
We don't want Arabs doing our ports! NoWAY!!
Lets see if I can fix that.
good opportunity by the Democrats and rinos to make Bush look bad.
There. That's better.
Thanks for the post. I started out wanting to hear both sides of this argument. What I have found is that those against this have brought forth little more than "I dont want Arabs running nothin" or "Their going to blow to port sky high because their all terrorist". Im firmly on the side of this deal until these guys can bring concrete proof that this is a bad idea.
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.