Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CONGRESSIONAL RECOIL FROM LATEST DUBAI TAKEOVER
Sierra Times ^ | 5/4/2006 | Diane Grassi

Posted on 05/04/2006 8:06:30 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy

The silence on Capitol Hill has been deafening.

On April 28, 2006 the White House announced the approval by President George Bush regarding the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) of its recommendation that Dubai International Capital LLC (DIC), a subsidiary of Dubai Holding and a Dubai government owned conglomerate, to assume the U.S. operations of Doncasters Group Ltd.

Just seven weeks prior, there was political posturing, grandstanding and outrage expressed by both political parties in the U.S. Congress when it was revealed, through the U.S. media, that Dubai Ports World, also of Dubai Holding, would takeover the United Kingdom company, Pinisular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), and its port operations of six major East Coast ports. It too had been approved by CFIUS. But now, the American public has heard nary a discouraging word, following this latest transaction.

On December 14, 2005, DIC purchased Doncasters, a privately held United Kingdom-based company, for US$1.24 billion. Doncasters is a leader in international engineering, manufacturing precision components and assemblies for the aerospace industry and military aircraft, components for industrial gas turbine engines used in military tanks, in addition to automotive turbochargers and medical orthopaedic devices. Also, DIC manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.

Presently, Doncasters operates 9 industrial plants located in the U.S., which includes manufacture of turbine fan parts for the U.S. Abrams Battle Tank, and sensitive components for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. The plants are based in Connecticut which has two factories and two in Alabama, with one each in Georgia, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, and South Carolina.

Connecticut and Georgia, however, are locations where manufacture of most of the sensitive technologies takes place. Georgia is home to Ross Catherall U.S. Holdings Inc., owned by Doncasters, which now must divest its interest to DIC. Ross Catherall supplies turbine engine blades for the U.S. Department of Defense and the military’s tanks. In Connecticut, New England Airfoil Products and Doncasters Precision Castings, manufacture precision alloy parts for both aircraft and tank engine parts.

But the national security implications of a foreign entity operating key factories that are Department of Defense suppliers might well have demanded the same call for scrutiny from the Congress as the P&O deal. According to Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY), who launched the immediate outcry for the lack of disclosure from both the Bush administration and CFIUS on the ports deal, stated on April 28th that “There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way, and second, this is a product not a service and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable.”

Schumer’s statement, however, is so transparent that it is now clear to those who were skeptical about the theatrics on Capitol Hill over the ports deal, were more right than they were wrong. For example, the only difference between the CFIUS investigation over the ports and Doncasters deals is that the port deal went through a 30-day investigation, rather than both a 30-day and 45-day review as in the Doncasters deal. The contents of the CFIUS review for the ports deal was revealed but to a handful of Congressional leaders and only subsequent to its recommendation to approve it, due to the outcry to the White House, which was so politically overwhelming.

To date, we do know that the President did distribute some of the classified information on the Doncasters deal to House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and other undisclosed lawmakers on April 28th. Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King (R-NY), also joining Schumer in his relentless criticism over the ports deal, has been brief in his latest statements regarding the Doncasters deal. “This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before.” But the CFIUS review, presided over by the Secretary of the Treasury, remains a secret process by law, accounting to no party or entity, during its review process. And CFIUS need only enjoin appointed underling representatives of 12 government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Representative John Barrow (D-GA) who represents the Congressional district, in which Ross Catherall is located, has a different point of view than his colleagues in New York, however. “We’ll never know if continuing down this path of selling of our national defense industries will end up hurting us in the long run. We all have to draw the line when it comes to selling our national defense establishment. We don’t want to outsource our military industrial complex one piece at a time.”

Barrow was not satisfied with denial of access as to the status of the CFIUS review or any details forthcoming since the deal has been approved by the President and remains unconvinced that American companies could not make the tank components necessary for the tank engines. He recently visited the Doncasters’ facility in Rincon, Georgia, joined by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. “Doncasters was more forthcoming than our government,” Barrow commented, with respect to the proposed deal.

Barrow and various other members of the Congress have proposed numerous pieces of legislation, since the ports deal, to provide more transparency between CFIUS and the Congress. This, they believe, would enable more Congressional input as well as oversight on key transactions involving U.S. national security assets and interests. But when and if such legislation will ever be realized remains in question. And the Congress as a governing body does not have a good track record for oversight generally of any legislation it passes, nor does the Congress project commitment in doing so.

The Bush Administration did add some conditions to the agreement with DIC, however. One included that there would be assurances made that there would be no interruption of the supply stream of product, necessary for military operations, especially in a time of war. In addition, all manufacturing is to remain in the U.S. The need for those two agreement amendments alone implies the dangerous precedent being set with foreign entities having control of strategic U.S. assets. The absence of such language in the agreement would have left the flow of supply and the source of manufacture up to Dubai. Yet, the mechanisms in place in the agreement to police such requirements have not been publicly disclosed nor does the public know if the Congress will eventually get access to the agreement’s requirements.

Many U.S. economists project that as long as the U.S. is saddled with an over $800 billion trade deficit as well as being dependent on foreign oil from the Middle East, that more and more U.S. assets, whether strategic or otherwise remain at risk of being sold. While at the moment we do not have any alternatives for direct sources of petroleum, we do have control over which U.S. assets are sold off, keeping in mind the best interests of the American people and the U.S. economy.

But sadly, it appears that the ruckus from Congress over the ports deal not only inflamed the emotions of the American people, with respect to national security being put at risk, but was but a pretense in the name of political expedience. And such equivocation and lack of fortitude from U.S. lawmakers will continue to remain the biggest liability to U.S. national security and for the foreseeable future.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; doncasters; doncastersgroup; donothingcongress; dosomethingcongress; dpworld; dubai; nonotagain; port; sellout; uae; watchmylips
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
"Don't watch what I'm doing over here while you're busy getting (justifiably) angry over the 12 million criminals that have slipped in. I know it doesn't make sense to turn over any part of our nation's security to a muslim nation, but just trust me on this one."

I want my campaign contribution money back!

"Watch my lips! No new oval office manufactured crises.

1 posted on 05/04/2006 8:06:34 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
"Watch my lips! No new oval office manufactured crises.

Oval office? Congress gets yet another pass.

2 posted on 05/04/2006 8:13:16 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

More hysteria and stupidity from the knee jerk bigot squad.


3 posted on 05/04/2006 8:43:00 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party! For people who value slogans, not solutions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Fools or Frauds?
Anyone who spends all their time on Freeper as a supposed "Conservative" whining because the Conservatives Republican glass is only 60% full and actively working to turn over that glass so they can fill it 100% to the brim with Left wing political poison is either a political fool, who is too dumb to realize what they are doing, or a political fraud who is only pretending to be "Conservative". So which is it, fools or frauds?


4 posted on 05/04/2006 8:44:00 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party! For people who value slogans, not solutions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

In 1776, I'm thinking folks like George B and most in Congress would have been hung, or shot...


5 posted on 05/04/2006 8:49:49 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/ Where Is the Outrage at Bush's Dubai Arms Deal? President Bush approved a deal to allow a company from Dubai, the country that was forced to withdraw from the Portgate deal, to take over American plants that make parts for jets and tanks for the United States.

Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, a country that continues to pay money to the families of homicide bombers and to the Hamas terrorist group. It appears to have been protecting Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s for some period of time. America was unable to bomb Osama's hideout because he was meeting with officials of the government of the UAE. That makes it an active supporter of terrorism. It is a threat to national security. Yet President Bush seems eager to bring UAE-based businesses into as many sectors of the economy related to national security as possible. Why?

The President argues that the deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS.) But as we learned during the Portgate deal, CFIUS has only disapproved one deal (by a Chinese company) since it was formed in 1988. The recommendation of CFIUS is essentially meaningless.

Where is the outrage? Where is the coalition that stopped the Portgate deal? Why isn't Congress on this issue, fighting to stop the terrorist government of the UAE from controlling a company that makes such vital military materials for our country? Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a leading opponent of the Portgate deal, has been quoted as saying, "This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before." How is that, Representative King? Dubai is still an active supporter of terrorism. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, "There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way; and second, this is a product not a service, and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable." Of course, he forgets the possibility of sabotaging the product, making it defective, or otherwise undermining the quality so that it will be damaging to our troops in the War on Terror.

Allowing Dubai to manufacture arms for us is at least as dangerous as allowing it to run our ports. Unfortunately, it seems as if the political leaders who helped stop the Portgate deal were just posturing.

6 posted on 05/04/2006 9:11:51 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/

Where Is the Outrage at Bush's Dubai Arms Deal?

President Bush approved a deal to allow a company from Dubai, the country that was forced to withdraw from the Portgate deal, to take over American plants that make parts for jets and tanks for the United States.

Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, a country that continues to pay money to the families of homicide bombers and to the Hamas terrorist group. It appears to have been protecting Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s for some period of time. America was unable to bomb Osama's hideout because he was meeting with officials of the government of the UAE. That makes it an active supporter of terrorism. It is a threat to national security. Yet President Bush seems eager to bring UAE-based businesses into as many sectors of the economy related to national security as possible. Why?

The President argues that the deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS.) But as we learned during the Portgate deal, CFIUS has only disapproved one deal (by a Chinese company) since it was formed in 1988. The recommendation of CFIUS is essentially meaningless.

Where is the outrage? Where is the coalition that stopped the Portgate deal? Why isn't Congress on this issue, fighting to stop the terrorist government of the UAE from controlling a company that makes such vital military materials for our country? Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a leading opponent of the Portgate deal, has been quoted as saying, "This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before." How is that, Representative King? Dubai is still an active supporter of terrorism. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, "There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way; and second, this is a product not a service, and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable." Of course, he forgets the possibility of sabotaging the product, making it defective, or otherwise undermining the quality so that it will be damaging to our troops in the War on Terror.

Allowing Dubai to manufacture arms for us is at least as dangerous as allowing it to run our ports. Unfortunately, it seems as if the political leaders who helped stop the Portgate deal were just posturing.

7 posted on 05/04/2006 9:12:30 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
So which is it, fools or frauds?

I believe there are more "moderates" (those who stand for nothing but straddle the center line) than conservatives in the Republican Party. Therefore, I think the glass is about 35% full. Sixty-five percent is quite a leap.

As far as spreading venomous poison and being a political fool, I believe there are enough doing that in our elite Political Class as it is.

Do you really want muslims to be in charge of ANY security in the United States?

Do you truly want 12 million illegal, gullible illiterates (numbers being steadily increased as we discourse)clogging our arteries?

Should we just sit back and allow things to "take their course" until we are suffocated?

It is not I, sir or madam, that pretends to be conservative.

8 posted on 05/04/2006 9:14:07 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Where is the outrage?

Indeed.

Some like johnny (above) want us to assume a fetal position and take it like a true "conservative." Otherwise, according to him, we are whining fools who poison the water trough of the GOP.

9 posted on 05/04/2006 9:16:57 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Name calling begins in the 3rd post.


10 posted on 05/04/2006 9:17:16 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Gee I am sorry you have an irrational fear and hate of Muslims. We have a good chunk of our navy in ports in Dubai. Dubai provides the security for those ships. Want to explain to me why THAT is ok but having ownership on a parent company that has a subsidiary that makes stuff is some sort of National Security Crises?

Curious how the flame bots that go nuclear anytime the words Islam or Muslim come up fail completely to recognized the fact that that vast bulk of the people doing the fighting and dying for US in the War on Terror are Arab Muslims.

Amazing how rabidly arrogant the American Know Nothings, who never even been outside their own trailer park much less the country, are about the rest of the world. They are proof positive that ignorance is NOT bliss.

11 posted on 05/04/2006 9:19:08 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party! For people who value slogans, not solutions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I agree, what is going on? Why is it OK for foriegn goverments to buy private Enterprises here in the USA. It is out ragious that we are selling private companies to foriegn government. What's next, are we going to sell Boeing to AirBus.


12 posted on 05/04/2006 9:27:21 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You can insult any who disagree with you until your cows come home; nevertheless, you're as wrong as you can be.

Deep down you probably know that but because it appears that you have an axe to grind you will continue to grind away.

I see nothing patriotic or intelligent in your insults and rantings and I do indeed have an irrational fear and HATE of muslims and what their garbage religion teaches.

13 posted on 05/04/2006 9:27:36 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Is not Dubai owned by the UAE, is it not a government owned company?


14 posted on 05/04/2006 9:29:33 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Run away and hide under your bed Fredie. The rest of us will save you butt despite your paranoia.


15 posted on 05/04/2006 9:30:29 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The Democrat Party! For people who value slogans, not solutions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Follow the money. The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics.


16 posted on 05/04/2006 9:31:18 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

Very well said!


17 posted on 05/04/2006 9:42:04 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
The ports deal had 0% to do with security

Taht is not true. It had a lot to do with security. Allowing a nation that is an active supporter of terrorism to control our ports (and thus to control the manifests) would have been extremely dangerous.

18 posted on 05/04/2006 9:52:36 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Johnnie, you sweet talker! Still the flatterer, but no one will share your tent?
Too baaaaaaad . . . . .


19 posted on 05/04/2006 9:56:21 AM PDT by tumblindice (Glad you like our country. It's really flattering. Now.......... go home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
I can only shake my head over this. But this stuff is happening because the RATS have sold us out down the river decades ago in so many ways.

Environmentalist blockades preventing us from drilling for our own resources, banning development of nuclear power. The behind the scenes weakening of our sovereignty, of our constitution in favor of world government run by the unelected elite in the UN.

We are in debt, and because of that assets were sold, and will be resold, and sold again on the open world market. Perhaps if we didn't spend so much of our capitol on foriegn oil, developed our own energy resources instead we would be able to buy some of them back.

I don't think there is much Bush CAN do other than to do what he did, put conditions on this legitimate sale of a company. It's up to our lawmakers to define protections for sensitive operations such as military manufacture and supply, especially guarding secrets of manufacturing we don't want getting out of the country. Why didn't congress do this before? It's good thing Bush saw the need for conditions.

It's wrong to think we make all of our military equipment here in the USA. In fact we import a great deal of it. Aircraft parts are made at several Canadian plants for example. We MUST however ensure that critical components and secrets do not fall into the wrong hands, or can be restricted in any way that could jeopardize our defense and strike capabilities. We do live in a capitalist system, and we must allow legitimate business to be conducted. Just as long as it doesn't effect our military capabilities and secrets, or allow any of it to fall into enemy hands.

20 posted on 05/04/2006 10:00:40 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TBP; FerdieMurphy
Where Is the Outrage at Bush's Dubai Arms Deal? President Bush approved a deal to allow a company from Dubai, the country that was forced to withdraw from the Portgate deal, to take over American plants that make parts for jets and tanks for the United States.

Bush did not approve any deal between companies. That is done between the owners and stockholders. Neither CFIUS nor congress saw the purchase as a threat to national security so therefore he did not veto the deal on that basis and neither did congress disapprove on that basis. The president does not run around making deals for companies. Actually he did nothing but accept the findings of CFIUS and congress.

21 posted on 05/04/2006 10:01:56 AM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Representative John Barrow [said]..... “We’ll never know if continuing down this path of selling of our national defense industries will end up hurting us in the long run. We all have to draw the line when it comes to selling our national defense establishment. We don’t want to outsource our military industrial complex one piece at a time.”

He's right. I don't give a flying [insert word] what country is buying our defense contractors, its not good.

22 posted on 05/04/2006 10:07:35 AM PDT by ozoneliar ("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -T.J.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Carefull infidel, don't snuggle up too close to your Muslim pals, you may loose your head.

The only reason we can park our ships in the ports of Dubai is because we protect them from other Muslims who would not think twice about sinking those ships.

If they weren't in fear of them, they most certainly wouldn't be our chummy pals. We are only a nessesary evil for them at the moment, and that could very easily change.

23 posted on 05/04/2006 10:11:55 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: antisocial

"Name calling begins in the 3rd post."

Yes, and we should ignore this type of poster. FR only has a few of these kind of people on it and we only make it worse by responding to them. They like to make trouble, so ignoring them is the best thing to do. We should do the some with the other name callers that, I am sure, you are aware of. They start fights every time they post and we help them by responding.


24 posted on 05/04/2006 10:18:25 AM PDT by VOATNOW1 (Ignore the trolls. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: antisocial

Infamous, shreiking CAPS begin in the 11th.


25 posted on 05/04/2006 10:18:30 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

All other arguments aside, basing a good portion of the fleet in that part of the world in Dubai,is tactical stupidity of the first order.

You don't put blue water navy in a situation where it has to run narrow straits in order to get out to the open ocean. John Paul Jones and Lord Nelson must be spinning in their graves. Bad things happen to navies in narrow waters.



26 posted on 05/04/2006 10:30:36 AM PDT by coladirienzi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; FerdieMurphy; Iscool; TBP
Gee I am sorry you have an irrational fear and hate of Muslims.

I am sorry you have a blind trust of those who fly planes into our buildings and military headquarters and behead people. Perhaps that will be some comfort to you when you, or your descendants, are forced to your knees and the hooded ones start chanting Allah is great as they start to saw your head off.

Oh that's right. Only 10% are "extreme". Assuming for a minute that is true, that makes a 100 million or so of the murdering SOBS's running around. Yet somehow I am a rascist because I am just a tad bit concerned about them.

27 posted on 05/04/2006 10:40:52 AM PDT by MattinNJ (Allen/Pawlenty in 08-play the map.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Okay so are you equally concerned about the port facilities on the West Coast run by the Red Chinese? If you are so shocked about Dubai Ports World where is your outrage over the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia. They run 9 port terminals on the east coast.

You are being used by a group of politician pandering to the stevedore unions. Congratulations.

28 posted on 05/04/2006 11:19:53 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
fail completely to recognized the fact that that vast bulk of the people doing the fighting and dying for US in the War on Terror are Arab Muslims.

There is no one dying in Arabia for Americans...Plenty of Americans have died for them tho...Unless you are suggesting this so-called war is for the benefit of George Bush and the Republican Party and you...That could very well be...

29 posted on 05/04/2006 11:47:15 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
Dubya seems to be going to great lengths to alienate more and more Americans, and undermine his leadership & credibility. Can't wait to see his incongruous smiles, strange stream-of-conciousness speech, and odd squints when a democrat controlled house impeaches his arse and keeps him busy while a war against Islamic terrorism continues.
30 posted on 05/04/2006 11:49:42 AM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
Follow the money. The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics.

Isn't that funny...Most of the country was against the deal...Know what??? Most of the country doesn't belong to a union...Guess you know what you're talking about...

31 posted on 05/04/2006 11:50:06 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

UAE are the ones that are the bigoted and antisemitic Hamas-funders.


32 posted on 05/04/2006 11:52:32 AM PDT by Flavius Josephus (Nationalism is not a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
American Know Nothings, who never even been outside their own trailer park

Yeah, you can teach us a lot about racism and bigotry.

33 posted on 05/04/2006 11:54:09 AM PDT by Flavius Josephus (Nationalism is not a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
I am equally, if not more so, concerned about the Chicomms. The Chinese are highly competent and are doing a brilliant job of spreading their tentacles. I trust the Saudi's, the Dubain's etc... as far as I can throw them.

My opposition has nothing to do with supporting the unions as I am a free market capitalist and consider the unions an artificial barrier to that economic school of thought. How would you label me? Did you ever leave room for the possibility that there are conservatives out there who oppose the deal from strictly a national security point of view?

34 posted on 05/04/2006 11:55:55 AM PDT by MattinNJ (Allen/Pawlenty in 08-play the map.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
In fact we import a great deal of it. Aircraft parts are made at several Canadian plants for example.

So what are we supposed to do if we have to go to war with Canada? They'll pwn us.

35 posted on 05/04/2006 11:56:18 AM PDT by Flavius Josephus (Nationalism is not a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV
Can't wait to see his incongruous smiles, strange stream-of-conciousness speech, and odd squints when a democrat controlled house impeaches his arse

Heh. That will be entertaining, no matter which side of the aisle you're on.

36 posted on 05/04/2006 11:58:50 AM PDT by Flavius Josephus (Nationalism is not a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy
It is not I, sir or madam, that pretends to be conservative.

Excellent post, but I fear its wasted on spam artists, especially those who save their most vitriolic spittle-flecked criticisms for 'fellow' conservatives.

37 posted on 05/04/2006 12:00:49 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Flavius Josephus

That's certainly true.


38 posted on 05/04/2006 12:01:14 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics.

Congratulations! You win the grand prize!

The union politics was played by the Democrats; the Republicans were cowed by the Democrats.

39 posted on 05/04/2006 12:04:05 PM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Isn't that funny...Most of the country was against the deal...Know what??? Most of the country doesn't belong to a union...Guess you know what you're talking about...

Why isn't the country opposed to this deal?

Here's a hint: the country was whipped into a frenzy by a huckster (Chuck Schumer), aided and abetted by the terminally stupid Peter King, who managed to tap an Arab xenophobia.

Perhaps the country is ashamed of itself, or it has shifted its xenophobia toward Mexicans.

40 posted on 05/04/2006 12:10:43 PM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: sinkspur
When a hawk (yeah right) like Schumer comes out against the deal on national security reasons things start to smell fishy.

This is the same guy that prefers open borders, no wiretapping for terrorists, closing Gitmo, etc.

42 posted on 05/04/2006 12:39:45 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Why isn't the country opposed to this deal?

I don't know about the rest of the country but I didn't hear about it til the day it was signed over to the terrorists...Apparently our Prez and Congress kept the secret from us...

43 posted on 05/04/2006 3:38:17 PM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TR8
well, face it people, it looks like George Bush is working actively AGAINST the American people however he can: Dubai, illegal aliens to start...

LOL!! A noob signs up, and all he's done is trash Bush.

DU getting boring for ya???

44 posted on 05/04/2006 3:44:34 PM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I don't know about the rest of the country but I didn't hear about it til the day it was signed over to the terrorists...Apparently our Prez and Congress kept the secret from us...

This Doncasters deal has been in the WSJ and other publications for three months; it was mentioned with the Dubai ports deal as "the next big issue coming down the road."

The fact is, Dubai was slapped down from the port terminals by union-loving Democrats and craven, pandering Republicans who tapped into a nasty nativist streak.

45 posted on 05/04/2006 3:47:17 PM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

THIS is the extent of the outrage? No Sean Vannity and Michael Slavage rants? No spittle flecked bloggers? No Chuckie Schumer?


46 posted on 05/04/2006 3:49:59 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
"Amazing how rabidly arrogant the American Know Nothings, who never even been outside their own trailer park much less the country, are about the rest of the world. They are proof positive that ignorance is NOT bliss."

...said the Republican Party to its base.

47 posted on 05/04/2006 3:51:53 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (George Allen's conservatism is as ephemeral as his virtual fence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
THIS is the extent of the outrage? No Sean Vannity and Michael Slavage rants? No spittle flecked bloggers? No Chuckie Schumer?

Yep. Nothing but whimpers and sputters.

Even "do not dub me shapka brohman" (or whatever his name is) is too bored to ping the known universe so he can harrumph.

48 posted on 05/04/2006 3:58:00 PM PDT by sinkspur ( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

I don't think it's irrational to have a 'fear' of someone or something based on objective facts on record and available to all. It is perfectly reasonable that a minority behaving in an erratic, inhumane and violent way reflects on the majority. In 1940 only a minority of Germans were involved in the holocaust of the concentration camps. Surely we should have had German companies building our subs.


49 posted on 05/04/2006 4:02:58 PM PDT by ArmyTeach (NOT ON MY WATCH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"I don't know about the rest of the country but I didn't hear about it til the day it was signed over to the terrorists...Apparently our Prez and Congress kept the secret from us..."

Heyyy, Iscool. Last time I saw your name on FR you were doubting that only one company submitted a bid for the turbine blades Doncasters makes. When I proved that was the case, you never even bothered to respond. Now you are claiming the President and Congress have kept this whole deal secret. It should be incredibly clear now that you really don't know the facts concerning this issue. And now that it is becoming clear how badly (and easily) you were manipulated by the likes of Schumer and our media over the Dubai ports deal, you don't even have what it takes to admit you've been used. Well guess what...you've been used.

50 posted on 05/04/2006 8:25:34 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson