Today on Blogcritics
Home » Circling The Wagon Around Bush Regarding the Port Issue

Circling The Wagon Around Bush Regarding the Port Issue

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

What Bush recently said has made me second-guess my support for the man. He has stated that he will veto any legislation that would block an United Arab Emirates owned company from taking over control of American ports.

I just don’t think we should trust this company without further inquiry. Any Arab-owned company gives me pause. I don’t think we should simply deny them, but let’s have some more time to investigate. This isn’t a company owned by Muslim shareholders or a board of directors, it is a company owned by a Muslim nation. A non-elected Muslim nation, held accountable to no one.

While the security will be controlled by the more-than-able Coast Guard, I find it hard to believe that this company will have no inside security knowledge of the ports they control. If you own a parking garage, and some other company controls security, you will surely have knowledge of their practices.

That is what really set me over the edge on this issue combined with the President’s “trust me” attitude. I believe in the old saying, “Trust, but verify”. The last time he said “trust me” was during the Harriet Miers nomination fiasco, and we know how that turned out. I trust George Bush, but let’s verify first.

President Bush says that the whole process was vetted by intelligence agencies. Were these the same intelligence agencies that were 100% positive there were weapons in Iraq? According to what we know, the whole process only took 25 days, not quite enough to do a full investigation of a billion-dollar company.

All I want is for the legislature to take a second look. I trust our elected officials to do this; after all, we do live in a republic, and that’s their job. And that’s what they want to do. They want 45 days to take a second look. If after 45 days, all is proven as the President said, I’m sure I’ll support the deal.

Like a child threatening to go to his mother when his father won’t let him have his way, he promised a veto.

I agree with Michelle Malkin. He won’t veto campaign finance reform or immense pork spending, but he’ll veto this. Lawmakers should call his bluff. Pass legislation to delay for a full inquiry. If he vetoes it, override it.

Read more at The Age of Reason.

Powered by

About Tom Bux

  • Mack

    You can’t seriously believe that there were no WMDs in Iraq, can you? With the evidence that has come out about ongoing programs, about the moving of the weapons to Syria, of Iraqi troops equipped with chemical suits and gas masks?

  • Michael J. West

    Mack: At this point, nobody believes that there were WMDs in Iraq. The funny thing about it is, that includes the Bush administration.

    Tom Bux: I like this one point in particular:

    Lawmakers should call his bluff.

    Which is true. Thus far, Bush has issued exactly zero vetoes of Congressional legislation. That’s certainly enough to make one think he won’t do it this time.

    There’s a new book out by Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy advisor to Reagan and asst. Secretary of teh Treasury under Bush 41, in which he says that Bush is less like Reagan than Richard Nixon: “a man who used the right to pursue his agenda, but was never really part of it.”

    This issue certainly makes that seem to be the case.

  • Tom Bux

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not 100% against the deal, and can be swayed, but I just think we need to take every precaution to be sure there won’t be any implications.

    The President should have done a better job selling this. He had to realize that families of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11 would have a negative reaction, right or wrong.

    And then the right wing talking point people are throwing the race card out there calling those of us who simply want some time for due process “islamophobics”.

  • RJ Elliott

    There actually were chemical weapons discovered in Iraq after the invasion. Chemical weapons are considered, along with biological and nuclear weapons, to be “weapons of mass destruction.”

    It’s a pity that so many believe the media myth that there “were no WMDs in Iraq”…

  • MCH

    But not enough weapons to actually warrant enlisting, rather than just writing macho comments?