Port Update: Bush Will Veto

  • Thread starter Thread starter TPJCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TPJCatholic

Guest
Foxnews just reported that President Bush has warned Congress that he will veto any legislation that they pass to stop the Port deal to the Arabs.

Amazing. I have been a supporter of Bush…yet I have lost patience. 😦
 
From: drudgereport.com/

**Bush called the pool back at about 2.30 to issue a very strong defense of port deal… MORE… On port deal he said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the united states was sending “mixed signals” by going after a company from the middle east when nothing was said when a british company was in charge. Lawmakers, he said, must “step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.” Bush, sporting the air force one fight jacket and a tie, was very forceful when he delivered the statement… I don’t view it as a political fight," Bush said. MORE… **

Hint to our President: The explanation is 911 and the war on terror that he is waging.
 
This deal stinks and I am really starting to wonder what is going on. It makes no sense at all…none.
 
I haven’t formed an opinion on the port deal - but I find it interesting that he is threatening a veto, and will be even more interested if he actually does. To my knowledge, Bush has never vetoed anything (please do correct me if I’m wrong).
 
Philip,

I think you can tell where I am coming from. I find it ridiculous that Bush is threatening his own party and I think it is waaay beyond ridiculous that Bush constantly comes to the citizens of this nation about the war on terror, and yet we are supposed to give a 6.8 billion dollar deal to UAE? It makes no sense. London should not have had it either…not one other then our own nation.
 
Hopefully the bill will past with the necessary margin to over ride a veto.

I do not think any foreign government should be given security control over US ports. This company they want to hand this off to is owned and run by the UAE government.

While I do generally support President Bush, this is one bone headed idea and this statement of his reminds me of the kid who decides to take his ball and bat home with him becuase he was picked last to pay.
 
ByzCath,

I agree. I also smell something dirty about all this.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Philip,

I think you can tell where I am coming from. I find it ridiculous that Bush is threatening his own party and I think it is waaay beyond ridiculous that Bush constantly comes to the citizens of this nation about the war on terror, and yet we are supposed to give a 6.8 billion dollar deal to UAE? It makes no sense. London should not have had it either…not one other then our own nation.
Click to expand...
I do…I’m not entirely sure I agree, because I don’t know exactly what the right policy viz. globalization, and the increasing ownership of national resources by trans-global corporations should be. Large corporatations have no allegiance to any nation’s interest, just to their stockholders, and that strikes me as potentially problmatic (and not just on ports). At the same time, though, I’m not an economic isolationist…my views of globalizaton are still evolving.

Anyway, at the very least it’s interesting, politically, that Bush is threatening a veto, especially in light of the criticisms one often hears that his first loyalty is to corporate interests.
 
Philip,

I agree that we live in a global economy. Yet, to have ports and airports and things like that run by only ouyr citizens, does not take away from the global economy. I am no isolationalist.

This move plays into the critism that Bush is a corporate supporter.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I do not think any foreign government should be given security control over US ports. This company they want to hand this off to is owned and run by the UAE government.
Click to expand...
They are not being given control over US ports. They are being given control of administering some terminals inside these ports. Many foreign countries operate terminals in our ports. The reports which erroneously say that the UAE will be given the ports are misleading at best. China even has control of some terminals inside the USA. It’s a fact of international trade and we do not be needing to tell one of our few Arab allies that we are too good to do business with them. The United States does tons of business with the UAE… They have been pretty good trading partners for us and I think many Americans just don’t know what the UAE is like. The UAE is not like the rest of the mideast where their standard of living is bordering on poverty… in fact many UAE residents have incomes comparable to Americans. There are tons of Westerners which live peacefully in the UAE too. It is a major business hub. In my opinion, the bandwagon which is jumping on the President over the UAE is doing so out of ignorance because they classify all Arabic countries as supporters of terrorism and terrorists. The UAE is one of the best allies we could have in the middle east and we don’t want to make them bitter over this deal by telling them that we are too good for them.
 
Semper,

No other nation should have this deal and London should never have been in it either. It is not racist…it just is stupid to leave such work to non-Americans.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Semper,

No other nation should have this deal and London should never have been in it either. It is not racist…it just is stupid to leave such work to non-Americans.
Click to expand...
TPJ,

Terminals are where receiving ships dock and unload their goods. They are not bringing Arabs in to administer the ports, Dubai Ports World is simply purchasing the British company which is currently administering these terminals. In fact, most major corporations in Dubai are ran by Western expatriates. Lots and lots of companies setup shop in the UAE and Dubai because of their 0% income tax. I do not see the need for all of the hysteria over this deal. If we are going to be hysterical over this, then let’s not be hypocritical and let China continue to operate terminals inside US ports. It’s a fact of international trade. There are US companies which operate terminals all over the world to receive their ships and trade. I don’t see the big deal. It’s just more scare tacticts used to bash the President and make him sound incompetent. We do billions of dollars of trade with the UAE and we cannot be hypocritical because it will sound like we are being hypocritical to the Arabs who are currently allies. I’d say that having China operate terminals inside the United States is more of a security threat than having Dubai Ports World. This isn’t about stopping terrorism, it is about bullying the Pres.
 
Semper Fi:
They are not being given control over US ports. They are being given control of administering some terminals inside these ports. Many foreign countries operate terminals in our ports. The reports which erroneously say that the UAE will be given the ports are misleading at best. China even has control of some terminals inside the USA. It’s a fact of international trade and we do not be needing to tell one of our few Arab allies that we are too good to do business with them. The United States does tons of business with the UAE… They have been pretty good trading partners for us and I think many Americans just don’t know what the UAE is like. The UAE is not like the rest of the mideast where their standard of living is bordering on poverty… in fact many UAE residents have incomes comparable to Americans. There are tons of Westerners which live peacefully in the UAE too. It is a major business hub. In my opinion, the bandwagon which is jumping on the President over the UAE is doing so out of ignorance because they classify all Arabic countries as supporters of terrorism and terrorists. The UAE is one of the best allies we could have in the middle east and we don’t want to make them bitter over this deal by telling them that we are too good for them.
Click to expand...
Technically, I think you are right and I understand all this, really.

But I still think that the right thing to do, in a time of war against an Arab extremeist enemy, is to not hand over any part of port operations to an Arab country. Especially one belonging to a corporation in the UAE, whose banks funneled money to fund 911, and who harbored 911 hijackers, unbeknownest to them :rolleyes: .

There were so many ways Bush could have gotten out of this without raising concerns about “profiling” or “racism” or whatever other political correct nonsense he apparently was trying to avoid. I would be saying the same thing if we were at war with, let’s say, Norway. It’s unfortunate we let ourselves get into bed with any country in regards to our safety and port authority, but that’s neither here nor there. We have to face the issue at hand.

IMHO this administration is so absolutely, completely, inept in relating to the average American that I just hope they haven’t lost us the election in '08. My gut is that this will have more of an impact later than the Bush cronies think.

I’m sad to say this as a Republican convert, but I’m fed up and through being his apologist. :mad:
 
40.png
Jennifer123:
Technically, I think you are right and I understand all this, really.

But I still think that the right thing to do, in a time of war against an Arab extremeist enemy, is to not hand over any part of port operations to an Arab country. Especially one belonging to a corporation in the UAE, whose banks funneled money to fund 911, and who harbored 911 hijackers, unbeknownest to them :rolleyes: .

There were so many ways Bush could have gotten out of this without raising concerns about “profiling” or “racism” or whatever other political correct nonsense he apparently was trying to avoid. I would be saying the same thing if we were at war with, let’s say, Norway. It’s unfortunate we let ourselves get into bed with any country in regards to our safety and port authority, but that’s neither here nor there. We have to face the issue at hand.

IMHO this administration is so absolutely, completely, inept in relating to the average American that I just hope they haven’t lost us the election in '08. My gut is that this will have more of an impact later than the Bush cronies think.

I’m sad to say this as a Republican convert, but I’m fed up and through being his apologist. :mad:
Click to expand...
Jennifer,

I have been to Dubai when I was going to South Africa and stayed there for a week. My South African friend’s father runs a charter jet company in Dubai and he is an Irish Catholic and where’s his crucifix all the time. I would not be afraid at all to live in Dubai. In fact, the majority population in Dubai is Western Europeans and American businessmen. Just because some people abuse the system does not mean that we need to classify all people in the UAE as supporters of terrorism or their government as supporters of terrorism. If the UAE did, they would lose their respoect in the international community. I don’t believe it’s correct to say that they ‘harbored’ terrorists either. Terrorists may have been stationed there, but they were stationed in Canada too. Should we stop doing business with Canada because lots of the terrorists came from there?
 
semper,

I am a huge supporter of Bush. Yet, no amount of spinning can make this deal seem sound to me. I agree China should not be in our ports either, not should London, not the UAE. We should not have such things be owned or controled, or managed by anyone but ourselves and frankly I was naive about all of this until now. I suspect a great many other people feel duped at this point…all that talk by Bush about the war on terror…sheeesh.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
semper,

I am a huge supporter of Bush. Yet, no amount of spinning can make this deal seem sound to me. I agree China should not be in our ports either, not should London, not the UAE. We should not have such things be owned or controled, or managed by anyone but ourselves and frankly I was naive about all of this until now. I suspect a great many other people feel duped at this point…all that talk by Bush about the war on terror…sheeesh.
Click to expand...
You just have to ask yourself one question. If this is such a big deal, then where was Congress’ outrage in '04 when this deal was completed?
 
semper,

In 04 the american citizens did not know what was going on with the deal…now they do and they are mad about it. So, as ususual our politicians are taking the issue up.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
I am a huge supporter of Bush…all that talk by Bush about the war on terror…sheeesh.
Click to expand...
So, I am assuming that you are no longer a supporter of Bush and that that particular lever is not longer in your repertoire.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
semper,

In 04 the american citizens did not know what was going on with the deal…now they do and they are mad about it. So, as ususual our politicians are taking the issue up.
Click to expand...
The deal has been known to Congress since at least '04. So, where was their outrage then?
 
Semper Fi:
The deal has been known to Congress since at least '04. So, where was their outrage then?
Click to expand...
Looks like you’re gonna get a whole lot of evasion on this one, semper. My :twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top