...King Goober I and Senator War Hero are for it.
On the other hand, it would be nice to see CuriousCowardlyGeorge FlyingBushMonkey stand up and veto something...
But, on the other other hand, Washington's other newspaper seems to be in favor. (It is often difficult to tell, considering its mind-numbing prose style.)
Washington Post: Security Programs, Unions Would Stay at Ports
"I have no hand. No hand at all."
Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval...
From CNSNews.com:
A 'Misguided Decision,' Say NY and NJ Residents
(CNSNews.com) - At worst, it's a security threat; at best, it's a public relations nightmare. Bush administration officials plan to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday on a deal that would give a company owned by the United Arab Emirates operational control of terminals at six major U.S. ports. Full Story
Bush Threatens to Veto Any Attempt to Block Port Deal
(CNSNews.com) - President George W. Bush threatened on Tuesday to veto any legislation that would stop the deal for a state-owned Arab company to manage six major United States seaports, stating that the arrangement would not jeopardize U.S. security. Full Story
Commentary: Now the Dems Are Profilers, Too
(CNSNews.com) - Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin has been condemned as an "extremist" for advocating nationality profiling -- applying stricter scrutiny to terror-sponsoring and terror-sympathizing countries in immigration and security policies. Now some of the same Democrats who have blasted such profiling are rushing to the TV cameras to espouse these very same policies. Read the commentary
Commentary: Port Insecurity
(CNSNews.com) - This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind, writes columnist Rich Galen. Just 253 days away from the midterm election, this is not about port security -- it's about incumbent security. Read the commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment