February 21, 2006
DOWNLOAD – .WMV
The Right Track linked with Sending the Right Message
Political Satire Fake News - The Nose On Your Face linked with Top 9 Decisions That Would Be (Possibly) Worse Than Putting The UAE In Charge Of Our Port Security...
Confederate Yankee linked with Color Blind...
Independent Conservative linked with Bush Does Not Get It. But Congress Better!...
A Blog For All linked with No Safe Harbor From Swirling Controversy...
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog linked with Global War on Terror Watch: Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist to Offer Bill Halting U.S. Port Deal
The Cigar Intelligence Agency linked with Bush threatens veto...
Peat Bog linked with Thank You Mr. Bush For Being Above Politics When It Comes To National Security
Amy Proctor linked with Nabbing Terrorists and Opening the Ports...
Michelle Malkin linked with BUSH DIGS IN...
Conservative Musings linked with Ports and Bush...
36 Responses to “Bush Won’t Budge: Keeping Port Deal (VIDEO)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
7:30 pm [ Quote ]
At least he sticks to his guns. This is going to get interesting; the battle lines aren’t very well defined. Never thought I’d see Dubya and Carter facing off against GOP govs and Hillary.
7:57 pm [ Quote ]
Ports and Bush…
So much has already been said by so many, that what few words I have will be a drop in a real large bucket. I find myself leaning against President Bush on this one. Yes, I understand his point that…
8:12 pm [ Quote ]
This is completely insane. We would be turning our port security information over to the muslims that want us all dead. I love our President but I love my nation more.
Write to your Senators now and get this killed. Before the Mooslums smuggle in a bomb, to please Allah of course.
WTF is Bush thinking? Oh wait I forgot, Muslims pooring over our open mexican borders too… Time to step up and protect us W!
8:41 pm [ Quote ]
BUSH DIGS IN…
***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…...
9:07 pm [ Quote ]
Nabbing Terrorists and Opening the Ports…
WhatÂ’s fully confusing is that the usual politically sure fire way of determining which side of an issue to take has been obliterated: Democrats suddenly care about national security in a convincing way, and without directly criticising the Presiden….
9:10 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Why is everyone ripping the President for saying he won’t change his mind about the Port/UAE thing and that he’ll veto any attempt by Congress to intervene?? This is Bush at his best! Sure, the politics of the UAE thing looks bad (Arabs running our ports???), but Bush is convinced that this is not a danger to our country and who can really accuse him of not keeping the National Security of our country in mind in every decision he makes? And the first person to mention Tora Bora gets a punch right into the nose for being stupid… [...]
9:12 pm [ Quote ]
I’m so relieved to finally see some Republican leadership coming to their collective senses about this administration.
They don’t want to continue aid to Palestine because Hamas will be the ruling party, but they are willing to turn vital port security over to a country that actually has demonstrable ties to Al Queda? And STILL nothing has been done about the sieve we have masquerading as border security.
Someone again remind me how this makes us safer, and particularly how this equates with the already tired mantra of a “post 9/11 mindset.”
9:21 pm [ Quote ]
How insulting to ask anyone especially dockworkers to work for an Arab company! How about nixing the deal based on morale. Is it all always about money? Sell out to the highest bidder? What the hell is America anyway anymore. What can we put our pride in? Something is deffinately wrong here. Let’s take a lesson from Bermuda. They limit everything based on logic.
9:27 pm [ Quote ]
Bush threatens veto…
Via Bloomberg.com: President George W. Bush said a Dubai company’s bid to manage six major U.S. ports should go forward, threatening to veto legislation that blocks the transaction because of security concerns. ``After careful review by our government…
9:32 pm [ Quote ]
Has anyone considered what will happen when the UAE company is denied this contract? Would or would not this encourage even greater anti-American hatred in the Muslim world that we are anti-Arab and anti-Muslim?
This may be a bad idea, but since this company is not in charge of security at the ports and is only a port management company with a good record around the world and have been vetted by our intelligence services and approved by Great Britain, I think there is a greater risk denying them the contract than if we allowed it and had strict oversight!
9:40 pm [ Quote ]
“Has anyone considered what will happen when the UAE company is denied this contract? Would or would not this encourage even greater anti-American hatred in the Muslim world that we are anti-Arab and anti-Muslim?”
This is nothing when compared to the images of Iraqis in US detention or the cartoons that have spawned so much anger at the West. I’d personally rather not see any more US money flowing into states that have had and likely still have ties to terrorist organizations and groups willing to harm innocent civilians.
I also have doubts about the security review that went on to approve this company – the law requires that the review is done in at least 45 days before the deal approved, but the deal was approved unanimously in much less than that after being proposed. It was rubber stamped by the Defesne Dept even though Rumsfeld willingly admitted that as of a couple of days ago he had not even heard of this deal.
In any case, if a terrorist group infiltrates or recruits Arab workers for this company that are based in US ports, well, nothing good would obviously come out of that. It’d be much harder for such infiltration to take place if we let a European or an American or even a freakin Chinese firm manage our ports.
9:45 pm [ Quote ]
And on top of that, what about the border? Here is an explanation of one possible reason why neither party will do anything about the border with Mexio.
10:06 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Michelle Malkin has BUSH DIGS IN ***video at Expose the Left*** [...]
10:18 pm [ Quote ]
No Safe Harbor From Swirling Controversy…
Some of that is political posturing, but as I’ve repeatedly noted, my concern is that a thorough review would have included information requests from the local law enforcement agencies involved in port protection, but that wasn’t apparently done….
10:34 pm [ Quote ]
What happened to American’s being the world leaders, innovators, the best of the best? Well, according to the Bush Administration, the average American is not worth jack shit.
In fact the average American and American Corporation are so inept and incompetent, that the Bush Aministration has decided that no American or American Corporation can administer the security of American ports
Is’nt Bush and the Administration always telling us how they are the only ones who can protect us from another attack?
Well, if that’s true, why are they outsourcing security?
10:34 pm [ Quote ]
“..Has anyone considered what will happen when the UAE company is denied this contract? Would or would not this encourage even greater anti-American hatred in the Muslim world that we are anti-Arab and anti-Muslim?” Boo Hoo. We are! And we should be. Why help them grow and be richer?
11:33 pm [ Quote ]
No one has ALL the facts with this deal. UAE will ONLY be managing the terminals. Not the ports. The unions (that really scares me worst), Coast Guard, Homeland Security and the Port Authorities will still have overall control. The UAE will only be off loading and loading the containers. That’s it
! We all did a big OLE knee jerk on this one. GW has got it right. If you don’t believe me…talk to a dock worker or anyone who knows the “ins” and “outs” on how the docks are managed.
11:36 pm [ Quote ]
Is it too much to agree to a round of investigations, as both parties are asking for? If the deal is as sound as the Administration are claiming, what possible cause can they have not to agree. Hurting the feelings of the UAE and holding this up a few weeks is simply not a good enough reason I’m afraid.
Hate to say it but this is exactly the kind of issue that could destroy the Republicans in the mid terms if its not handled properly.
12:06 am [ Quote ]
Bush Does Not Get It. But Congress Better!...
Republican President George W. Bush is threatening to use a veto to stop legislative attempts to block turning over management of 6 American ports to a company run by the United Arab Emirates. (Dubai Ports World is buying London based P&O.) You…
12:09 am [ Quote ]
Color Blind…
“...not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963 “I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it’s okay for a…...
12:34 am [ Quote ]
I don’t understand what all the fuss is about—isn’t this the free market? If the UAE have money to put into our sluggish economy, we might as well let them lacking demonstrable proof that they have ties to terrorist organizations. I mean, if you’re going to be a good conservative or libertarian, you should let investment capital flow unhindered by the trappings of government. Hey, we can let the Saudis run passport control if their business model seems more efficient, because, as this administration held, Osama was just a black sheep, an errant rogue, not representative of the oil-drunk elites that run that country (or this one). Charter a special jet for our UAE friends, and certainly don’t subject them to any insulting or traumatic inquiries by the FBI. I’m sure the Kato people will back me up when I say, we need the money more than the governmentality. Besides, if they have money invested here, they would never bomb and kill us—just like the Nazi capitalists in WWII. Besides which, if we allow the government to step in and protect us from phenomena like outsourcing or excessive external investment in the domestic economy, we would be acting like those evil union-grubbing Democrats. I think I speak for us all when I say I’d rather have burned alive in the WTC than do something that Hilary Clinton would support.
3:03 am [ Quote ]
I’m most worried about the $6.8 BILLION were sending over there. Where does that go? I don’t think they could actually get a nuke to the US but they could get small arms and other weapons to Israel, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Even though Bush is weak on borders, we should worry more about the money.
7:34 am [ Quote ]
Top 9 Decisions That Would Be (Possibly) Worse Than Putting The UAE In Charge Of Our Port Security…
9. Making Ted Kennedy the head counselor at an alcohol rehabilitation center for adolescent girls (Editor’s Note: I know the Ted Kennedy/drinking/sex thing has been done ad nauseum, but it just does not feel like a Top 9 list…
11:09 am [ Quote ]
Hey, I’m getting a 404 Not Found error.
11:09 am [ Quote ]
Hey, I’m getting a 404 Not Found error when I try and download the video.
11:36 am [ Quote ]
mark: “Even though Bush is weak on borders, we should worry more about the money.”
Really? This company is owned by the UAE government. shouldn’t you be more worried about this government being toppled and one hostile to the US taking over? It happened in Palestine, why couldn’t it happen here?
11:46 am [ Quote ]
My question is:
Where does the Witch Hunt end?
Think about it for a moment:
A British company “controlled our ports” before potentially selling it off to the UAE. That’s funny because I distinctly remember the Coast Guard and National Guard being the defenders of our ports during this time, not the British Royal Navy. Its not like we’re going to have UAE ships guarding the harbor, everything still has to get through the US Coast Guard and any other American import/export authorities.
Second, we can’t all jump the gun and say “Arab = EVIL!” We’ve been doing that for quite some time and it’d be nice if for once we showed a gesture of some minute level of trust to the Arab world.
Look at Iraq, last I checked, just because we kicked Saddam out Iraq didn’t suddenly become “not Arab” or “not Muslim”. If we can foster some semblance of trust from the Iraqi’s, why not try it with the UAE?
11:46 am [ Quote ]
I thought at first what the hell is GW doing this was last week.Now after much debate on both sides I am leaning in his direction.What country does not have terrorist?Rush yesterday pointed out that the the UAE seems to be quite a modern economy while most Arab countries have a tough time with change because of conflicts with the Koran.If everything mentioned by the Bush adm. is true then why not?
12:32 pm [ Quote ]
Let me think about his.
How about we let a Muslim terrorism funding nation have access to our ports so they can have further access to our Nation’s security import information.
Better yet since Carter and CAIR approve it must be a good idea.
Or how about using a time machine to allow the Nazis and Japs running our ports during WWII.
Nuff said.
1:09 pm [ Quote ]
[...] I’m sure by now that you’ve noted the fracas erupting in Washington over a Dubai-based company running six of our country’s largest port terminals. Malkin, Captain’s Quarters, and Expose the Left, amongst others, have covered the story. [...]
1:35 pm [ Quote ]
“He became aware of it over the last several days,” McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, “That’s correct.”
If that IS true out of Scotty’s mouth, then doesn’t that make Bush about the biggest dumb-ass the world has EVER seen as a president? I mean THINK about it. The ports in your country are SOLD off to the UAE and YOU have NO clue until AFTER it’s done.
1:59 pm [ Quote ]
Considering the White House and the DoD were required by law to sign off on this deal and Rumsfeld and Bush have both claimed they did not know about this deal until a “few days ago”, one has to ask the question “WHAT THE F%$K IS GOING ON AT THE TOP?”
2:20 pm [ Quote ]
HELLO:
Can I remind everyone that we are in an election year. Bush is not up for re-election but every Rebublican congressman is and they are in a difficult position with an unpopular President in their party.
Bush is floating this politically embarrassing idea of the ports management to give Republican congressmen the opportuntity to do two very popular things with the electorate at the moment:
Be highly critical of the President and look strong on national security.
This is a stragedy to keep seats in Congress, nothing more.
This year Bush will probably back off from the ports deal and every Republican in the House will look like a hero for standing up to Bush and protecting our borders (and get re-elected).
Thank you Mr. Rove.
4:02 pm [ Quote ]
“Considering the White House and the DoD were required by law to sign off on this deal and Rumsfeld and Bush have both claimed they did not know about this deal until a “few days ago?, one has to ask the question “WHAT THE F%$K IS GOING ON AT THE TOP??”
This is simply a matter of understanding the system of government. We have a gigantic bureaucracy in place that forms committees and subcommitees to do the groundwork for the investigation before submitting thier reports to the guys at the top. In other words, the grunts at the DOD were compiling information and had all the facts long before Rumsfeld and Bush had the papers in hand. Next to nothing happens at the top levels that hasn’t already been researched thouroughly at the lower levels.
And technically speaking, this is a transfer from a British company to a UAE company. We’re effectively just a 3rd effected party in this deal and in most contracts we would only be made aware of the change, much less have any input on it.
9:07 pm [ Quote ]
“And technically speaking, this is a transfer from a British company to a UAE company. We’re effectively just a 3rd effected party in this deal and in most contracts we would only be made aware of the change, much less have any input on it.”
Go free market! We should have no say whatsoever over who ships large, oversized packages into our ports and post offices. Privatize them all! Give them to our “trustworthy friends” the Iraqis
Since we’ve been greeted as liberators, perhaps they would be so kind as to sit on our airstrips and be our friends … ?
“Rush yesterday pointed out that the the UAE seems to be quite a modern economy while most Arab countries have a tough time with change because of conflicts with the Koran.If everything mentioned by the Bush adm. is true then why not?”
That’s what I say. I mean, how could Bush have known that countries in which the business/state elites harbor terrorists within their own families (ie Saudis, Yemenis, etc) would attack us? We may have trained them with the Pakis in the 1980s, but there’s just no way they’ll turn around and attack us for money and “anti-imperialist” prestige in the Muslim world. That would never happen. If they’re friends of Bush, like the Bin Laudins, then they’re friends of mine.
“This year Bush will probably back off from the ports deal and every Republican in the House will look like a hero for standing up to Bush and protecting our borders (and get re-elected).”
This is the only person with any iota of intelligence posting here. If the rest of us were running things, this country would be engulfed in flames.
7:15 am [ Quote ]
Hello Ian,
You know what sends mixed signals to our arab allies, 98 dead arabs in US custody. That sends a mixed signal. Also the dolt didn’t have a clue about the port deals until 2 days ago. Apparently, giving control of our ports to a company controlled by a government with proven financial and logistical ties to Bin Laden isn’t worthy of the presidents time. Truly unbelievable. Ian, you and your kind really need to start questioning this administrations motives. Blindly following these people is blindingly stupid.