Bush on ports
Why isn't this on Al Jazeerah? BUSH: Well, there's a difference — well, there's a difference between somebody who has made up their mind regardless of the facts, and the facts, and so I want to hear what — again, I want to see the same facts presented to the Congress, and — but the 45-day period is a, is a good opportunity for people to find out the facts.
I do want, when people start paying attention to this, the facts, one is ask the question whether or not, you know, doing business with this company is going to jeopardize the security of the United States, first. And secondly, if not, what kind of signal does it send to say it's OK for a British company but not OK for an Arab company to manage this port, when in fact, this same company manages ports all around the world?
Here we are trying to put a coalition of the willing together to protect America, to win the war on terror, and I would ask the critics and the people who are skeptical, "What kind of signal does it send to our friends in the Arab world, people who are joining us in the war on terror, people who want to fight off the terrorists, to say it's OK for one company from one country to be able to have this management contract but not you?"
And I also want to remind people that in the year 2000, prior to my arrival in Washington, D.C., our country sold F-16s to the very country from which this company comes from. In other words, there had been a security analysis done on whether or not the UAE, for example, is a valid ally and our valued ally and — but, anyway, look, I can understand people's concerns, and our job is to address them.
Read the whole thing. It's very interesting!
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 2/28/2006 07:52:00 PM
4 Comments:
It's because non-muslims don't trust Muslims - plain and simple. No matter what, there is that doubt either at the forefront or back of people's minds - one just can't help feeling this way these days. And quite frankly, I don't really think most Muslims trust other Muslims.
Joanne
I have to admit, the way the press came out with it first....it was presented in a way that Joseph Goebel would've been proud about. Within 24 hours you could find that #1 they weren't owning the port,#2 didn't have control of the port, and #3 weren't in charge of the security of the port. I still hear democrats saying "owning our ports"! It's really crazy that everyone is so upset over who it is who tells the incoming ships which dock to pull up to and unload upon, isn't it? BTW, was anyone aware that a Chinese company runs some of our west coast(USA) ports? They took over in 1997 I believe? The other thing is that if the cargo is coming from most of the rest of the world, either/or are controling those ports too so what exactly is the problem except face time on TV for the senators? It is 2006, right?
It's because the damn sandmonkey's have some sort of weird plan to rule the world.
1. Start blogs.
2. Be reasonable.
3. Be funny.
4. Take over the country port by port. Then they will join up with the japanese to destroy the american economy. It will still function a little, just as long as we pay out oriental masters. (like that Americans, Oriental for Japan and our Oriental heritage. A little Durant for you:)
"Well, there's a difference — well, there's a difference between somebody who has made up their mind regardless of the facts"
I'll just throw this comment out there, and you decide whether it makes sense or not...
I think we're seeing a smokescreen here, a way to bite back at the executive because certain decisions of his are losing popular support, not to mention creating growing unease within sectors of the government. Oh, and there's something about the balance sheet--human lives and a little money too.
The port fracas is disquised political payback for the chaos, toll, bad foreign PR, you name it, anything that can be stuck on the W. With Iraq teetering on the brink, it's not going to be pretty.
Post a Comment
<< Home