FORUM POLL :Is Bush right to give the government of UAE access to our ports?

[MODU]

Americans should run American ports.  Not a British company.  And not the government of the UAE.

That might be true, but if the American companies cannot outbid the foreign companies, the port athorities have the right to award their contracts to the foreign company.

[© tweed]

Americans should run American ports.  Not a British company.  And not the government of the UAE.

That might be true, but if the American companies cannot outbid the foreign companies, the port athorities have the right to award their contracts to the foreign company.

Port authorities should be nationalised

[J-Mann]

No.

I find Bush's position on this hard to understand, especially given that he didn't know about this until over the weekend, a significant amount of time after the interagency committee put together to review the deal had approved it.  Plus, Bush said today that, "people don't need to worry about security."  That's the complete opposite of what he and his administration have been telling us for 4+ years, regardless of the context the quote was in (broad or specific to this instance).  As much as I hate to think it (since it's usually ambulance chasers who say such things), I have a feeling there's money to be made for a Bush crony somewhere in this whole scheme.

It seems rather contradictory of Bush to be touring the country this week, advocating less reliance on oil because so much of it, "comes from unstable parts of the world," and from countries that, "don't agree with our policies."  But we'll turn around and hand one of those very same Arab countries six of our seaports.

I have no problem seeing an Arab company purchase one of our ports, provided that said company is privately owned and from a nation that has a long, firm and trusted history with the United States.  We're talking about a state-owned company from a country whose allegiance has been ambiguous even since 9/11, despite being such a "good ally" in the War on Terror.

I find it unfathomable that Bush and the administration would be playing the race card on this one.  This isn't about racism; it's about security, and when a president who has dedicated much of his time in office to preaching protection of the homeland suddenly OKs the sale of some of our most vulnerable entrances to a state-owned Arab company without batting an eye, we have every right to be suspicious.

[Alcon]

Yes (R), I trust him.

I think an important distinction should be made between trusting and blindly assuming someone is right.

[MODU]

Plus, Bush said today that, "people don't need to worry about security."  That's the complete opposite of what he and his administration have been telling us for 4+ years, regardless of the context the quote was in (broad or specific to this instance). 

I'm still trying to find the actual text where that comes from.  $2.00 says that he had a qualifying sentance following that one-liner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not statistically significant, but the fraction opposed on here (61%) is a fair amount less than that of Americans as a whole (70%). The forum is more pro-terrorist than the country as a whole.

[Ebowed]

It's not statistically significant, but the fraction opposed on here (61%) is a fair amount less than that of Americans as a whole (70%). The forum is more pro-terrorist than the country as a whole.

Well, at least the number of freedom fighters on the forum is still above 50%.

[Alcon]

It's not statistically significant, but the fraction opposed on here (61%) is a fair amount less than that of Americans as a whole (70%). The forum is more pro-terrorist than the country as a whole.

I'm sure you dislike it when the right calls liberals "pro-terrorist," which is why I know that you know "pro-terrorist" is a bit of hyperbole.