Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I see first I was riving a car, then a truck. Agreeing with Hannity has left me bamboozled.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe STPH---I used to E Sean maybe 3 or 4 years ago and told him he was the sharpest blade on the airways. In the last couple years though, he's done the Ann Coulter thing with the overwhelming hubris. I really think if a person NEVER sees the possibility that he or she may be wrong, there is something wrong with that person. Even I've made maybe a mistake or threee?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder A Port Authority sues to stop the deal and Chertoff denies bribe. Oy. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/port.security/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/02/24/port.security/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Turns out a lot of this really could have been avoided had Homeland Security stuck to their guns and followed procedures. The story in this link is troubling, to say the least. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I think the reason you see more Rep's questioning this ( including me) is it hits a little closer to home...it is not only security, but jobs - 2 hot buttons at once. I also agree with CCJ - it didn't make me feel better GW said he didn't know about it...that made it much worse for me
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I heard an NPR report the other might that explained that the system really isn't designed to involve the President. That said, the UAE has now specifically requested that the deal be scrutinized in more detail by DHS and Congress. Good for them. It shows that they know how to handle public concern better than G. W. "I'll veto any bill" Bush.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Yeah Tig that veto any bill was too much hubris and might have blown his last bit of self proclaimed political capital he had left. Who the heck is advising him?
Originally Posted By ecdc For those who insist this is much ado about nothing, you might want to pass the word onto to some key Republicans who disagree: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0</a>,9171,1167757-1,00.html
Originally Posted By Beaumandy This is much to do about nothing and there is no security risk... at least this is what the Coast Guard says. Since when do libs care about security anyway?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe You've been away Beau but I've been hammering the fact that we do have to do this deal as this is the best and most secure we're going to get. I did play 5 holes today but stopped and came in as it's 31 degrees now. We're expecting 4/6 inches of the white stuff tomorrow. Did you have a chance to play?
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Since when do libs care about security anyway?>> Um... if by "libs" you mean most of Congress and 5 of the 6 Governors in the affected states, then the answer would be that they started caring when it became clear that the president doesn't care about security. <<Damn, where's Rush for my talking points. LOL>> Looks like you found them, eh?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe FYI--My friend of 10 or so years, the Democratic U.S. Congressman of 12 years or so? came into the office and we were having a blast talking about this stuff. I think if MOST of the people of WE here got together tete a tete it would be much more cordial as I understand that Beau, for instance, just says what a lot of people think but don't have the courage to say in public. This friend of mine ran for Gov of Mass about 10 years ago (primary only as he lost there) and in private you get the REAL story about Reagan, Carter, everyone. It's one thing to intellectualize about this stuff, but its another when this guy hung out with the big boys>Congresspeople--It is fascinating to get the inside stuff.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I don't see how telling the UAE to go screw themselves helps us. We need all the friends we can get in that part of the world and the UAE has been a big help in the war on terror. In fact, Dubai would be a great place for a Disney park. Since I am the most anti muslim guy on here it seems funny that I am the one having to argue to give this deal a chance. The Coast Guard TODAY said the Port Deal isn't a Security Risk. In a statement, the Coast Guard said the assessment was part of a broader classified Coast Guard analysis that concluded that DP World's pending takeover "in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in (continental United States) ports."
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau--I don't think people realize that Tiger Woods just played in a big golf tournament there as did many pros as it is arguably the safest place in the mideast. They are our best friends as I've said over and over and if we reject them, we're screwed.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Then I'm happy that the various agencies are looking at it. Initially the Coast Guard wasn't satisfied that it wouldn't pose a risk. That's all I want - public review and disclosure of the deal other than "trust us".
Originally Posted By Beaumandy It doesn't suck to be Tiger Woods Joe. He got paid millions just to show up at Dubai and tee it up.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't see how telling the UAE to go screw themselves helps us.<< We haven't done that. Some people want to ensure that we're well aware of what will result if this deal goes through. You could also look at this as a big positive -- at last, port security is becoming a front-burner issue for folks on both sides of the aisle. If the case is sufficently made that this deal increases port security, or at least doesn't make it any worse, then opposition will fade. If it reveals increased risk, then it ought to be stopped. We'll see. >>Since I am the most anti muslim guy on here it seems funny that I am the one having to argue to give this deal a chance.<< Only because your unswerving loyalty to the GOP is greater than your dislike of muslims. You can't bring yourself to ever question President Bush on anything. If this had gone down during a Kerry presidency, hooooo boy.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy LOL K2man... you have a point if Kerry was doing this one. But I would try and see all the details involved. Like STPH said, Hannity is on the other side of this and I don't agree with him. I think the port deal is just another political tool people are trying to use against the president. The amount of misinformation regarding this story is unreal.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm fine with calls to take a closer look at the deal. Mark Levin over at NRO, whose opinion I very much respect, has been saying such things. But as Beaumandy says, there is a considerable amount of misinformation being bandied about by critics of the UAW port deal. So much so that's it's difficult to believe it's being done because of legitimate questions of security. It looks a lot more like rank partisianship.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe C tigger has the rational approach that should be the norm> just public review and disclosure. If George doesn't go along with that Beau and Doug, the elephants are gonnas by this Nov. let alone 08!
