For a president who has never used his Constitutional veto power, this is either very troubling or a misrepresentation.
"There's a mandated process we go through. ... They ought to listen to what I have to say to this. I'll deal with it with a veto," reports Fox News, though other media outlets are not reporting transcripts that contain the veto threat. Here’s the transcript.
I don’t see a veto threat in the transcript, but maybe Bush only threatened the veto in front of Fox News reporters, which wouldn’t surprise me at all and only goes to show the agenda that Fox promotes and the total disdain for the public the Bush administration has.
If Bush did indeed threaten to veto legislation that would prevent the transaction of 6 major ports in the United States from coming under the control of a company from the United Arab Emirates, then I say call his bluff. And anyone that would support the private transaction of 6 American ports to a terrorist supporting state couldn’t possibly be serious about leading a war on terrorism.
The president says that the UAE is cooperating in the war on terror and is our friend. But do we really want a company from an Arab country controlling our port cities with a track record like this:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
- After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
I just wonder what the president considers as our enemy if the UAE is our friend. Given the lack of focus placed on bin Laden I’m assuming he’s not an enemy either. Total shame. I also wonder what would happen if people paid attention to the actions and policies of George Bush and his government.
Tags:
Bush, UAE, Treason
Media:
Bush Defends US Port Deal, US Outsources Homeland Security
2.21.2006
Our Friends?
Posted by Chris at 5:27 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I would certainly like to see some hard facts out there on this and wonder why fox would even report it though knowing what the response from the other side would have to be. This would be the icing on an already burned cake if it were true and no truer reason to impeach the bitch that is in the back pocket of anyone that will make money for his friends.
keep up informed mj.
This scares the crap out of me! I don't understand what he is thinking by doing this! YES... Who does he think our enemies are? Out of all the stupid things this man has done and said... I think this is one of the most STUPID things! I just don't understand. He keeps digging a hole for himself... It seems that the 2 brain cells this man has have caught up with each other and just exploded in more ignorance. I am baffled by this man and his thinking. The whole administration makes me sick!
-shayna
It’s amazing; all of a sudden Liberals are very passionate about national security. Oh, I get it; it’s a golden opportunity to attack President Bush. I’m surprised at the sloppiness and logical inconsistency I find in this most recent post of yours.
First of all, you take every opportunity to pointlessly bash Fox News yet you seem to watching and are certainly citing it a lot. Could it possibly be that Fox is an interesting and worthwhile news outlet? For example, I find CNN to be boring and slanted left and therefore I rarely watch it. You say, “Bush only threatened the veto in front of Fox News reporters, which wouldn’t surprise me at all and only goes to show the agenda that Fox promotes…” which is what? What is this conspiratorial agenda that you imagine Fox news is promoting? In the context of your post it would seem that Fox’s agenda is to make president Bush look bad by reporting a vastly unpopular decision in the case of this veto. Could it be that Fox reported this story because it is newsworthy and therefore are demonstrably not “carrying the water” of the Bush administration?
Then you say, “[this goes to show]…the total disdain for the public the Bush administration has.” Like with the Cheney story I believe your confusing “the public” with “the mainstream media”. That Bush or Cheney might bypass the mainstream media only shows me that they don’t trust them to report a story accurately. After all, you and countless others seem to be able to get your news from Fox and by Bush going to them with a story exclusively (if that’s even what happened) Bush is doing “the public” a service by going through the network that reaches the most people overall. Having something being reported on Fox, the most popular news TV news outlet, is hardly under the radar. I believe that if there is disdain on Bush’s part it is for liberal mainstream media and not “the public” as you say.
You go on to say, “And anyone that would support the private transaction of 6 American ports to a terrorist supporting state couldn’t possibly be serious about leading a war on terrorism.” Hold on a second, that doesn’t sound very politically correct of you. You wouldn’t be “discriminating” against Arabs would you? Seems to me that everyone, Democrats, Republicans, and the Bush Administration are all in a difficult position over this. The latter two risk schism and as for Democrats, in order to be against awarding this contract to Arabs they will have to abandon the ever-present and insipid position of being anti-discrimination and politically correct. Hilary Clinton, the opportunist political chameleon that she is, won’t think twice before abandoning the tenants of anti discrimination political correctness in order to appear moving to the right of Bush on National Security, but some of you other liberals I would have thought to be well…more open minded and principled. Really, is it not blatant discrimination to be against working with the most benign Arab country on the planet (OAE has been referred to as the Hong Kong of the Middle East) simply because they are Arabs? Because the facts painting the OAE as a “terrorist supporting state” are very weak so far. The first “damming” fact you cite is the easiest one to dismiss. You say, “The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.” Yes, The UAE was one of the countries that recognized the Taliban. Was, as in the past tense. Japan was the enemy to America but what do you know, times have changed. And as for harboring Al Qeada supporters (not something you address but I have heard it elsewhere as evidence that the OAE are terror supporters), the current country that runs this shipping operation, England, has Al Queada supporters in its midst, should we then therefore cease all trade operations with them? Of course not. You say, “The UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.” Wow, you mean there are countries that do not fully cooperate with American Efforts in the war on terror? I suppose we should cut of all diplomatic ties and cease trading with countries that do not cooperate fully. That would mean…well almost every country other than Great Britain and Israel. Certainly France, Germany, Russia, Spain and others have been less than cooperative with our terrorist tracking maneuvers. Gee, what’s the most noticeable difference between the OAE and these other countries that have been less than helpful? Answer: They are Arabs. So in the end, you will have to reconcile that fact that you are against this proposal by Bush because of a racial or at least cultural bias.
As for me, I haven’t heard enough evidence yet to decide on this matter but I am open minded enough not to be against it on the basis of an Anti-Arab sentiment. I just love this double standard than exists vis a vis politically correctness. If I’m against indiscriminately awarding student visas to Arab nations, for example, I get to be called a racist, but liberals just get to toss over board those pesky things called principles if it means seizing an opportunity to attack Bush. Like in the case of Hilary, it seems as though the order of the day for liberals is, “by any means necessary”, traditional liberal principles of open mindedness and tolerance be damned.
Correction: when I say OAE I mean UAE, sorry. I was rushing to post a comment but I am not rushing to judgement on the overall issue (as almost everyone else seems to be).
I have questions about the deal, just as any sane, rational person would have. I do think it's important to look at what exactly Dubai Ports World would be in charge of, as well as their track record post-9/11. I'm not at all trivializing their past history, which should definitely give the administration a reason to make sure that there is a complete and thorough vetting process before the deal is officially made final. I've read conflicting accounts about how thorough that process was initially, and I hope Bush explains that.
I'm ok with the deal under certain conditions (one of which I mentioned above). I posted on this on my own blog. There are convincing arguments on both sides, but I think this time the President is right. Now...could he do a better job selling this to us? Absolutely.
Here's
what I said about it on my blog if you are interested. :) The best post I've read on this from someone supporting the port deal is here.
These arguments made sense to me, but maybe they won't convince you. That's ok. I'm just providing the links. You decide what to do with the information. :)
Lisa, thanks for the visit and thanks for the sanity of your comment. I do disagree that the president is right about this. Seeing how the president found out about the deal around the same time I did and that Rumsfeld found out even later, not to mention that former secretary of homeland security Tom Ridge is also against the deal, I'm not sure I can support anything even remotely close to allowing a country with significant links to terrorists to have control over six of our ports.
Dubai obviously has greater links to bin Laden and al Qaeda than Saddam ever did. And if the slightest link to terrorism was enough to warrant the invasion of Iraq, then I don't see how the even greater links of Dubai to terrorist support would call for anything less. If we invaded Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and our government concluded also had no links to al Qaeda, how could we possibly allow Dubai, a country from which two of the 9/11 hijackers came from and a country with much greater links to al Qaeda have control over our ports?
I will check out your links, and I'm sure I'll be back at your site. It's so much better than mine :)
Thanks again.
Post a Comment