No, Bush's history demonstrates a propensity for making incredibly bad decisions. Oh and how noble to conside national security AFTER we really need it. Closing the barn door after the horse gets out. No, it absolutely is. You just think it's not because you confide in Bush so deeply that you believe you couldn't possibly be mistaken. How can you say you don't have all the 'facts,' go on to say you trust the decision beause of who made it, then say it's not blind faith? That's pretty much the definition of 'blind faith.' Good point. Politicians never strike back-room deals. Bloody murder, eh? Take close look at this thread. The W fans are a lot more worked up than I am. If I were to get riled up by this, it would be over the fact that while we should be working to distance ourselves from Middle Easterners, we're getting further in kahoots with them. But quite honestly, I'm not surprised. They've been stroking the raggies for decades. That's right, I keep forgetting that dissenters can't possibly think for themselves. Is that another lesson that Sean Hannity taught you? Don't be so consumed with angst, it may help you gain some rationale.
I've tried to stay out of this, but after thinking about it a little bit, it seems to me like its a lose-lose situation. From what I understand, this UAE-owned company bought out the British company that previously ran the ports. In buying out that company, they take control of its operations, one of which is managing U.S. ports. In Bush's eyes, preventing this company from taking over control sends a horrible message to the Middle East - especially when we're trying to give them a favorable impression of the U.S. - that we're all racist bigots and think that every Arab is a terrorist or a threat to this country. On the flip side, he pisses off the American people because they don't trust our port system being run by a country who's alleged to have had financial ties to the 9/11 attacks, which, in my opinion, seems like a pretty reasonable concern. In a post 9/11 world, some level of vigilance needs to be maintained. I'm sure that there are a lot of facets of the deal that we do not yet know, but in all honesty, given Bush's responsibility of doing everything he can to protect Americans, I don't think he would make a decision like this without having the comfort of knowing that he is not putting Americans at risk with this deal. I'm not necessarily defending the whole thing (I was pretty shocked when I first read about it), but rather giving a different perspective on it. Like I said earlier, though, it looks like a lose-lose situation.
Here's a novel idea. Just give us your opinion and quit trying to run down an opposing view. I didn't bother reading your response because I don't feel like getting into a pissing match.
i have been trying to coach contained chaos out of always getting into pissing matches, but it won't take.
I play down to my opponents, boys. I'd give you my opinion on it if I really gave a damn. Until that happens, you'll just have to settle for my opinion on sheepish mentality and irrational faith.
the fact you're anti-bush everything just makes you a sheep of a different color. just a jon stewart crony who thinks he has his own ideas when in fact is as bad or worse than those he opposes. the fact the so-called bush fans in this thread can agree or disagree on his policy clearly shows theyre not blind fans at all. well maybe sabanfan.
I was just wondering if new information had been released today that had changed your viewpoint. We'll find out over the next few weeks and months more than we ever wanted to know I'm sure. I do believe it was a bit outlandish for Bush to speak out about a possible veto to any legislation though. He could have presented some of the reasons for his support of the deal rather than take such an antagonistic approach. However, he knows what will Congress be doing and he's taking the offensive first I suppose.
He's got a superiority complex and cannot understand why people don't always agree with him. I've seen hundreds of his type come and go over the years. They generally jump around from company to company because they simply know more that the ones who run the business. I often feel the powers that be are wrong but I'm paid to do my job not theirs so I do it and in turn there's a check deposited to my account every 2 weeks. People like CC cannot keep quiet so they move on. He'll learn eventually. He'll be successful only if he runs his own company.
I agree that it was not wise, at least politically, to say "trust me on this" and expect Congress to capitulate. Several of his own party are proposing a moratorium until they have a chance to "study" the situation and ensure that all is as suggested. I don't have a problem with that and, in all likelihood, Bush will go along with it in order to avoid a battle with his own party. Unfortunately, the Kennedys, Pelosis and Kerrygores of the world will seize this as another chance to inflict some political damage and the entire process will wallow in the mud. From what I hear, the UAE, including Dubai are solid allies in the war on terror and Bush does not want to insult them by changing bidding laws simply because they are Arabs. It's a ticklish situation, for sure and it will be interesting to see how everything plays out. By the way, the Dubai company will manage the ports but they will not be in charge of security, as I understand the situation.
The problem is not necessarily the UAE government, it's the people who live there and may be employed by this company. Many of their citizens hate us, and you have to wonder how difficult it will be for them to infiltrate this company and do harm to us from the Dubai headquarters. Our ports are extremely vulnerable these days. We only check about 5% of all cargo coming into our ports. It's true this company will only manage port operations and not security, but it makes me very concerned knowing this company employs people who want to kill us. I think this will only add to the burden of securing our ports. On a side not, I am getting a kick out of all those liberals complaining about this. They generally oppose racial profiling of any kind, but that is exactly what they are doing with this company. Too bad they don't want us to treat all arabs in this country like they are treating this company.
