Is Pres Bush making his comments about the ports a personal issue?
143856
Mni...PLEASE! Conspiracy my A$$!\n\nThe Bush family is an oil Empire. They are close friends with many Saudi VIP's. They ARE profiting from the Iraqi war, and when a no-bid contract is awarded, it ain't because someone is giving a great price...somebody is getting their pockets lined. Who might that be?\n\n\nThat ain't no F'ing conspiracy, buddy!
1087100
Well. look at his statements, and how they tend to change when light is shed on the unlikelihood of their veracity. It's almost like a con-man trying to tailor his answers to fit the new questions.\nSeriously though, you talk about at least four different issues: \n\n• WMDs and the case for the war with Iraq;\n\nEveryone but bush (to his discredit) has admitted that clearly, more information was needed to justify going to war. Moreover, it was the clear politicization of intelligence (and probably more than a bit of corporate interest) that led the White House to be concerned with the Mideast growing unstable and interrupting the flow of oil from the region. By taking the initiative of utilizing the troops already in place in the region, he made the critical error of not arranging to have larger, more powerful countries back his play. An argument has been made that he chose to make America the powerful lead partner in this war/venture so as to ensure that America had primary superpower access to Iraq's oil supplies (and not have to quibble with Russia or China). A fairly reasonable course of action, if you are practicing realpolitik (like Kissinger and Rumsfeld do)...and consider the lives spent protecting oil interests a bargain.\n\n• Regime Change;\n\nWell, let's face it: Saddam was a pretty icky man, and his two sons were strong candidates for Dick of the Week when they eventually assumed the reins of power from dear old Dad. That being said, it should be important to note that the bush Administration does not intend to allow either an Islamic fundamentalist or America-unfriendly government. Watch and see if I have not foretold the future here...\n\n• Democracy int he Mideast; and\n\nThere is no saying that our flavor of Democracy is something that should be instituted over there. we have spend some time fine-tuning it so it (debateably) works forus. The folk in that region - well, in that part of the world, I think - are used to having their fortunes dictated to them at the point of a gun. Not much freedome there, black or white. No shades of gray, as democracy is (and to my reckoning SHOULD be).\nAsking them to adopt a government like ours is like throwing a 6-year old into shark-infested waters and expecting them to not only learn to swim, but to eat the sharks as well. Democracy is truly brain-bending work..maybe a bit out of the reach for folks trying to find a way to keep the lights on and the bullets out of the guns. they need time, not someone looking over their shoulders all the time telling what they should be doing.\nWhat might work better for these sorts of places is a theocratic (meaning religious-based) republic set into place. A moderate government will almost always lead to eventual democracy, but it allows the government to control the rate at which these freedoms are introduced. so as to acclimate the citizenry to them gradually.\n\n• the viability of the democratic process in Palestine.\n\nIt is viable, but it's going to take a long time. Old wounds held for over 60 years (and not millenia, as some uneducated cretins would have you think) do not heal overnight, or even in a single generation.\nGrace is required on all four sides (the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Islamic support arising from nation-states and NGOs, and the capital-driven remainder), and patience as well.\nIf Hamas wants to be taken seriously, it cannot  - I repeat CANNOT - condone violence with the end product being the destruction of the Israeli state. Advocating the erasure of another people's society is not a good way to get that society of people to help mend fences and let go of old grudges. Countries - and people too - are a lot alike in that way. \n\nSo that was the long answer to your question. the short answer is as follows: Bush changes the purpose of why we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq because he's searching for a way to maintain/manipulate the American people's focus on HIS goals, w
237834
People only care about things as much as they need to care. Which means they tend to have incomplete information and make snap judgements. And, since they only have enough information to be able to think a problem through to a given point, they tend to readily accept sophisms.\n\nAt least, that explains how Bush got elected, how he could be right about allowing the port deal to go through, and how he could screw up something as simple as pointing out that Arab-owned companies already run many US ports.
84811
No. I think the government is stretched thin. I think that it would a good idea to have the ports privately owed. \n\nHmmm..... I think our national security should be a top priority. Obviously, we don't want all our ports owed by a country in a volatile region. I guess I would say no. Our ports should be controlled by US companies, with a lot of experience in security. Obviously, we respect Dubai but we need to be careful on who owns our ports.
884291
While i'm sure Mr. Bush has indeed had conversations with countless people who are considered experts on the Iraqi situation. He has failed to act on any advice that would alleiveate tensions in the region. The situation has now become so bad that the solution will probally cost many more american and british lives there. Good question.
1101095
“Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.”\n\n “I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view.”
560639
You said we don't have to agree, right?  Well, we seem to agree that Bush is deceitful and foolish, and this is something I have believed since a long time ago.  But I do no longer feel quite as threatened by Bush's tenure as I used to feel.  His first four years in office were atrocious, and it is only now that people are realizing it.  On the other hand, his second administration--save for the tragedy of the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court--has been and is likely to continue to be substantially better (not to say it will be good, ever!).   This second Bush administration is learning to navigate the difficult waters of international diplomacy, and since it is less powerful, it can do less harm.  So I'm not concerned with Bush.  I'm far more concerned with the Republican party, which is--in my humble opinion--orders of magnitude worse than Bush.
877923
Because unfortunately this is what passes for political discourse for many in this country today. It is acceptable to criticize policies which you don't like. It is acceptable to dislike the man if you choose. A poster about above me stated that it is patriotic to criticize, I can accept that, but there is a difference between constructive criticism and absolute slander and many just appear to be unable to separate the two. Do not be deterred by the negative responses you have received here. If you like the President for whatever reason that is your right and speaking out about why you like him is perfectly acceptable. Your opinions are just as valid as any of the detractors. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword, while we may not like the things that are said it is still the right of people to say these things. In a perfect world people would intelligently discuss issues, but alas the world we live in is far from perfect.
230471
As a democrat I find it fascinating. I don't think it's worth all the fuss. Globalization is the future and I'm personally not worried that the Dubai company will allow any more breaches in port safety than an American company would.\n\nBut I'm enjoying all the flack Bush is getting from his own constituents over this.
778160
I remember hearing about that. It's too bad they didn't execute them all a long time ago. As for Bush, I don't understand whats wrong with him. I've been asking for years why is he so bent on pleasing President Fox and the Mexican government at the expense of these two young girls and their families. Maybe he's thinking about running for president in Mexico after 2008 or maybe he's got a deal worked out with Mexico to hide him, after they go after him for war crimes. Anyway, I'm still distrustful after he tried to allow the port deal to the Saudis. Keep e'm coming girl. I don't care what they say, your making strong points.
579446
I disagree with many issues, the war for one, but he is the one in the hot seat, and he is the one who must push the button and make the hard decisions.  I wouldn't care to be in his place not for all the tea in China.\nHe may be the leader of the country, but his decisions depends on the informations he gets, so his advisers can be holding the power behind the curtain.
885359
Yes, and how many different stories has he contrived to try and explain it off. First it was meant for Bush, no apology. Then it was I misquoted from my notes, no apology. Then it was someone else changed my notes, I misspoke and apologize kinda. \n\nhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-pOypG0szd7Pv_X1rQxw_4qCWpA--?cq=1
713078
No.\n\nShe said worse about him.\n\nOf course in her case it was the truth, something he is not familiar with.\n\nFermez l' Bush.
141048
Do you really want to know all the details of why such ports are being given to a Middle-eastern business to run?  What if it is a sting operation?  Should we just publish the details and fight it?  Isn't that what we're doing?\nLeave it alone.  Bush knows what he is doing.
288685
Wow, somebody got a bee in their turban...\n\nBush Sr. among many other ex-Party and current leadership all have small stakes in the form of mutual funds which in turn are heavily invested in many Middle-East construction and shipping companies.  It is indirect, but it is a clearly linear relationship.  Bush Sr. alone stands to make about $7 million in capital gains when the whole deal goes through (for 26 ports, not just the few in the US, which ironically are the least profitable).
180416
Have you noticed every day on the news, headline is Bush DEFENDS this decision, Bush DEFENDS that decision, I am wondering the same thing. His approval rating is down to a point that he should take notice that he is not representing the majority of American people. Some of his decisions may even be dangerous to the American people. Examples are the ports deal and now that nuclear deal with India. To me the way it has been going lately I will breathe a sigh of relief when his term is over.
466576
It was great to hear a reasonable explanation for affairs to date. Isn't funny that president Clinton is informed and willing to talk about the affairs of the World. I watched Senator McCain this morning on Meet The Press, and he said George Bush was Stupid about the Relationship with President Putin from Russia. I about fell on the floor, he said he didn't agree or vote for Bush's policies all through Bush's terms. I know that that isn't true, but that's what was said.