Here's one side: Warrant-less wiretaps that violate our Fourth Amendment Rights; where supposedly they are only monitoring conversations that involve an overseas connection.
Here's the other: Letting an Arabian Company run our ports; necessitating more overseas discourse with possible telephone conversations between domestic and arabic speaking people.
Q No, I'm sorry, the ports issue.I have a litany of questions for the W, Rove and Co:
THE PRESIDENT: It's not a political issue.
Q But there clearly are members of your own party who will go to the mat against you on this.
THE PRESIDENT: It's not a political issue.
Q Why are you -- to make this, to have this fight?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't view it as a fight. I view it as me saying to people what I think is right, the right policy.
Q What's the larger message that you're conveying by sticking to this UAE contract, by saying that you're not going to budge on this, or you don't want to change policy?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a process in place where we analyze -- where the government analyzes many, many business transactions, to make sure they meet national security concerns. And I'm sure if you -- careful review, this process yielded a result that said, yes, a deal should go forward.
One of my concerns, however, is mixed messages. And the message is, it's okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company -- maybe we ought not to deal the same way. It's a mixed message. You put interesting words in your question, but I just view -- my job is to do what I think is right for the country. I don't intend to have a fight. If there's a fight, there is one, but nor do I view this as a political issue.
Q I say it because you said you'd be willing to use the veto on it.
THE PRESIDENT: I would. That's one of the tools the President has to indicate to the legislative branch his intentions. A veto doesn't mean fight, or politics, it's just one of the tools I've got. I say veto, by the way, quite frequently in messages to Congress.
A) Which is the right approach to protecting our borders from terrorists?
B) Which "solution" provides a bigger win-win situation for Americans?
C) Might they not have tried to find an American Company to run our ports?
D) My goodness, if we can federalize the TSA, can't we federalize the ports?
E) Is their any good to come out of either approach?
Incidentially, here's where the irony unfolds for me:
The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward.Isn't this the same man who asked us to trust him about his WMD assessment as the reason to invade Iraq? Right.
3 comments:
Seems to confirm my long-held notion that it's Rich vs. Poor more than anything else. You got money? Welcome to the club! Ah, don't worry about the fucking citizens. We've got those fools in our back pockets. BTW, just put my cut in one of them shipping containers and I'll have the secret service pick it up at the Baltimore docks.
Why did he jump on this veto deal so fast yet he wasn't in the loop until the past few days, according to what they're saying now. What's his cut of the deal?
UAE 1, Homeland Security 0
The irony in awarding port managment to a company in the UAE is that they would do a better job of guarding USA ports from terrorists than Homeland Security would. How many Homeland Security employees would recognize the word 'Bomb' written on a shipping container in Arabic?
We should be offshoring all Homeland Security to the lowest bidder. Think Katrina! No one could do it worse.
'Many hands make light work.' 'Don't put all your eggs in one basket.' Etc., etc..
Prior to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security we had many responders to disasters, some of which might be able to respond to the next one. Now we have consolidated all responders into one agency where, if it doesn't work, nothing works. DHS was and is a huge mistake. Bush at first opposed the formation of DHS. Then he embraced it, and like everything else he touches it turned to sh*t. Now Bush is talking 'veto' on Congress overturning the UAE contract. Prediction (if it comes to a veto): flip-flop, he won't veto.
Post a Comment