Curiouser and curiouser...
The Dubai port deal is back in the news. The House panel, which is dominated by Republicans voted to block the deal. I'm not sure about the verbiage they choose to use here. Our Congress does not have the authority to block the sale of a British company to a Middle Eastern company, which seems to be implied a bit. They are voting whether to transfer our contract from P&O to Dubai.
Based on their quotes, I can't help but wonder if the Congressmen debating this really understand it or if they are playing up a falsehood for political gain. Quoted from MSNBC: "This is a national security issue." said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands." and "One of the most vulnerable situations facing America is our ports of entry," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "Whoever's responsible for those ports of entry should be American." Hello...the ports are being controlled by the Brits now, not us. True, they are our buds right now. I understand the distinction between a perceived friend and a perceived enemy, but still - get it right.
Oh, and have you heard about this? Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the fact that he has been counseling them in this port deal issue is being reported all over the Internet. Honestly I haven't seen the national news on TV in so long that I don't know if they have picked it up yet.
Although I don't agree with Bush on this one, he claims that Dubai is our friend and ally and that we should treat them as such. He is sticking by his conviction. Hillary, on the other hand, reported Bill's earnings from Dubai yet "claims" that she had no idea that he was currently counseling them on the best way to achieve this deal. She had no problem spending the 450K that they pocketed, yet because it's a chance to lead the charge and gain a few political points, she sells them out.
Bush and Clinton both are on Dubai's side here. Are we being reactionary? I don't know. I'm sure we aren't hearing everything so my opinion is as naive as everyone else's. I feel uncomfortable with the concept and right now I don't think there is anything wrong with erring on the side of national safety. I do have a problem with politicos that change their skins depending on the political storm that's brewing. I don't always agree with Bush, but I admire him as a leader because he doesn't waver on issues. Having the courage and conviction to take an unpopular stand is the mark of a true leader. Leading my popular opinion and being willing to sell out is the mark of a wannabe.
Based on their quotes, I can't help but wonder if the Congressmen debating this really understand it or if they are playing up a falsehood for political gain. Quoted from MSNBC: "This is a national security issue." said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would "keep America's ports in American hands." and "One of the most vulnerable situations facing America is our ports of entry," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "Whoever's responsible for those ports of entry should be American." Hello...the ports are being controlled by the Brits now, not us. True, they are our buds right now. I understand the distinction between a perceived friend and a perceived enemy, but still - get it right.
Oh, and have you heard about this? Bill Clinton's ties to Dubai and the fact that he has been counseling them in this port deal issue is being reported all over the Internet. Honestly I haven't seen the national news on TV in so long that I don't know if they have picked it up yet.
Although I don't agree with Bush on this one, he claims that Dubai is our friend and ally and that we should treat them as such. He is sticking by his conviction. Hillary, on the other hand, reported Bill's earnings from Dubai yet "claims" that she had no idea that he was currently counseling them on the best way to achieve this deal. She had no problem spending the 450K that they pocketed, yet because it's a chance to lead the charge and gain a few political points, she sells them out.
Bush and Clinton both are on Dubai's side here. Are we being reactionary? I don't know. I'm sure we aren't hearing everything so my opinion is as naive as everyone else's. I feel uncomfortable with the concept and right now I don't think there is anything wrong with erring on the side of national safety. I do have a problem with politicos that change their skins depending on the political storm that's brewing. I don't always agree with Bush, but I admire him as a leader because he doesn't waver on issues. Having the courage and conviction to take an unpopular stand is the mark of a true leader. Leading my popular opinion and being willing to sell out is the mark of a wannabe.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home