Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings once again to youth realseekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across the fruited plain, the infiltrated, infested, fruited plain.
El Rushbaugh here.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and as has been the case lately, the ditto cam is on from the beginning of the show to the end of the show.
The whole show ditto cammed.
For those of you at RushLimbaugh.com, whose subscribers there, and this is something else that I, we don't mention this enough, but we've started video podcasts as well as our audio podcasts.
And you don't need to, I mean, you don't have to, you can watch them in two different ways.
You can watch the video podcast that we do every afternoon straight from the website, or you can download it through our very cool Rush 24-7 media center software, which is free to anybody who wants it.
But we have a lot of fun with these.
It's about 90 seconds.
Sometimes we a little long, sometimes a little short, but we do this the morning update every afternoon after the program, and they're funny.
They're fun to do.
They're serious.
It's the same.
Every ingredient that you hear on this program is contained in the morning updates.
If you haven't looked at one, you ought to go to the website now and do it.
You can't miss the logo for the morning update on the upper right-hand side of the page.
And I don't mention this enough.
I don't talk about this enough.
They're really good.
We enjoy doing them.
And I wanted to make mention of that here at the beginning of the program.
All right, the president, he stopped in Afghanistan, stopped in Kabul, a surprise visit there.
When I was looking at some of the video, I recognized the places that he was, especially one of the places with the troops and some of the external shots, too.
It took me back.
I was there just over a year ago, and I started having memories again, jump back to life that I had, especially when I saw President Karzai, who I had a chance to meet with, and there's the troops over there.
It was a great week.
It really was.
Then the president went off to India.
Now, I don't know if you've seen much coverage by the drive-by media of the president in India, but most of the coverage that I have seen features militants protesting death to Bush, death to America.
That's what I have seen.
That's what I've read.
But that's not the case.
Once again, the drive-by media trying to portray the president as woefully unpopular in this country, and it's just the opposite.
I have here the, what is it, Times of India online.
While United States favorability ratings have plunged in many countries, Indians are significantly more positive about the U.S. now than they were in the summer of 2002, according to a new opinion poll.
It's a Pew Global Attitude Survey, found that 71% of Indians have a favorable view of the United States.
54% admire President Bush in handling world affairs.
What mostly attracts Indians is that America remains a land of opportunity despite its booming economy today.
Asked where they would recommend that a young person move in order to lead a good life, 38% plurality of Indians chose the United States.
This finding may seem a weak endorsement given America's long-standing image as a hopeful new world for immigrants.
However, in no other country does even a plurality recommend the U.S. to the hypothetical young person searching for a new, better life.
So the I mean, I think when you also look at this, it finds that the poll indicates that, what is it, they're basically happy over there.
They consider themselves to be happy and gung-ho where the United States is concerned.
And the drive-bys, as I say, are putting up these huge anti-Bush demonstrations in India as though these were rank-and-file Indians that are making all the trouble, causing all the ruckus.
But a somewhat deeper analysis of these demonstrations reveals that these are not mainstream Hindu Indians that are making all this noise over there.
They are Indian Muslims and Communist Party members.
That's the drive-by media is focusing on.
The port deal still hasn't by the way, I didn't talk about this yesterday, but I meant to.
I just didn't get to it.
Let's see.
President Bush insisted on Tuesday it was safe to let an Arab company run terminals at six major U.S. ports, even though a new White House-backed security review of the deal is not yet started.
Bush appeared to be wearing down the resistance of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had questioned the plan.
Frist said he was more comfortable now because he had received more information.
He said he would not allow any related legislation on the Senate floor while the new inquiry is underway.
Now, the latest objection that some of the people who don't like the deal have raised is that the UAE has a boycott on anything having to do with Israel, any products, anything that goes through there, anything that's made there, anything that just happens to be passing through, they have a boycott.
Now, that's problematic.
There's nobody that can defend that.
But my only question is, why does that matter if the whole thing is bad for security?
I mean, the arguments, some of them keep changing.
I know some of the people that think they've been called xenophobes or racists are some are getting very offended by these allegations.
In fact, Susan Collins was on John Gibson's big show, Big Story on Fox yesterday afternoon.
And he said this to her.
He said, people who oppose this deal or object to it are being called xenophobes, demagogues, sometimes even racists.
If people were going to level that charge at you for having questions about this deal, and someone did, I did.
Let me heester, I accused Ms. Collins of demagoguing this by excerpting a three-month-old Coast Guard report on their concerns for security involving the Emirates, but those concerns were dealt with in the examination process, and they're going to be looked at again.
And actually, you know, this 45-day thing, if this is causing people to take a new look at port security, that's got to be ultimately a good thing anyway.
That's one of the positive byproducts of this.
Anyway, here's her answer to his question.
What would you say to somebody who calls you a demagogue or a xenophobe or a racist?
That deeply offends me, and I think it should offend anyone who has raised legitimate questions about whether a proper security review was done of this proposed deal.
And I think it's very unfortunate, and it portrays a bad image to the Muslim world when people recklessly throw around charges like that.
There's certainly nothing in my background that would ever suggest that I was in any way anti-Muslim or anti-Arab.
And I think that's very unfortunate that the motives of those of us who have raised legitimate questions, questions very similar to the questions raised by the United States Coast Guard, are having our motives impugned.
Well, maybe some are doing that.
But when she says here, there's recklessly throwing around charges like that.
There's nothing in my background to suggest I'm anti-Muslim or anti-Arab.
I did not.
Accuse her of that.
I just said you'd demagogue the issue here.
But I think they're very unfortunate for those of us who have raised legitimate questions.
Sends a bad image to the Muslim world when people recklessly...
Let me...
Let me, Senator Collins, the Muslim, worldly Arab world, already thinks that.
Senator Collins, the Muslim world, the Arab world, already thinks that.
They don't need for critics in America to start throwing those terms around in order for the, yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, that's right.
We hadn't even thought of that.
But those Americans saying that there's xenophobia and racism going on, well, that are right.
I think they come to that conclusion.
Whether they're right or wrong, I'm not even commenting on, but they come to that conclusion on their own.
At any rate, one more little soundbite on this.
This is an interesting story.
The Drive-By Media yesterday did a number for Harry Reid, for Denji Reid.
They really covered up his ignorance on this.
Now, we have a soundbite.
This is from CNN, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.
And they played this bite from Dingy Harry yesterday afternoon at his press conference.
The American people will not accept the United Arab Emirates, a country which was the first, I'm sorry, the third company, only one of three companies to recognize the Taliban, a country which boycotts anything dealing with Israel.
We're not going to agree to that.
And the president can say he proves it any way he wants.
There will be a vote in the Senate on this.
He will not get by by trying to jam this down our throats.
Okay, now, what they didn't tell you is that right before this answer, the following exchange took place.
There is no audio of this.
I only have the transcript.
I have to read this to you.
There is no audio because the entire media, the drive-by media, has buried what preceded the soundbite that you just heard.
It was covered nowhere, not even on C-SPAN.
But I have the transcript.
Harry Reid did not even know that P ⁇ O was the name of the company selling the ports.
Here is what nobody in the media showed you and what there is no video of or audio of now, but we have the transcript.
Unidentified reporters said, but didn't we already have a foreign country controlling our ports?
And see, let me stop.
No, we didn't.
There is no foreign country controlling the ports.
We're talking about terminal ownership here.
Repeat after me, class, a port is not a terminal.
A terminal is not a port.
At the risk of being accused of high treason, I, your host, America's anchorman, have the courage to open a dictionary and reveal a deep, dark secret.
A port is not a terminal and a terminal is not a port.
Here are the definitions.
Terminal, an assigned area where containers are prepared for loading into a vessel, train, or truck, or are stored immediately after discharge from the vessel, train, or truck.
That's the terminal.
The definition of a port, a harbor with piers or docks and terminals and long shoremen taking breaks.
That is a port.
Operating a terminal is not operating a seaport.
Operating a building on Wall Street is not operating Wall Street.
Now, somebody had to tell you this.
I didn't want you to hear this from friends in the street that you might not be able to trust.
I wanted you to hear it from a source authority, and that's me.
So even right here in this question from this idiot, unidentified reporter, but didn't we already have a foreign country controlling our ports?
There's no foreign country controlling the ports.
Okay, I finished now.
Didn't we already have, it's tough.
It's tough dealing with these people.
They distract me.
They sidetrack me.
They divert me.
I'm still focused.
Trying again here.
Third time.
Didn't we already have a foreign country controlling our ports when P ⁇ O was running them for the last decade?
Dingy Harry.
I don't know what P ⁇ O is.
Unidentified reporter.
Peninsular and Orient, the British company that had the contract.
No, no, no, no.
It's not a country.
It's a company.
This Dubai thing is a country.
That's the difference.
One is a company and one's a country.
Unidentified reporter.
Singapore owns ATL.
It's a company that runs the port in Los Angeles and other ports around the U.S.
It does not.
It does not run the ports.
Harry Reid, well, all I know is the British company was a company.
British stockholders, people, Americans own part of that company.
As you know, there's litigation going on in Great Britain today and yesterday on this.
And then the soundbite we played for you occurs.
The American people will not accept the United Arab Emirates.
That little preface to Dingy Harry's lament about Bush not dramming things down his throat is being buried.
When Dingy Harry, plus the reporter, I mean, mischaracterizing port operations in general in the question.
And that's how some of the alarmism has been spread.
Quick timeout, back with much more after this.
Stay with us.
It appears that the port deal is just not going to go away here, folks.
I mean, as a subject that people wish to discuss, we have a montage here of a press conference this morning on Capitol Hill.
Caesar Democrats, Ed Markey, Stenny Hoyer, who is number two in command for the Democrats in the House, to Nancy Pelosi, and we have Ms. America herself here in this montage.
This administration has failed miserably in making our ports more secure.
Dubai has brought that to the forefront.
It's part of a pattern where, whether it be chemical plants, nuclear plants, cargo, airlines, the Bush administration has allowed the industries to decide how much security is provided for the American people.
America can do better.
We know that.
For example, 100% of the containers going into the terminal in Hong Kong are inspected.
5% of containers in the U.S. are screened.
All right.
Now, my focus, as you people know, on this port deal is the Democrats and their opposition, which is purely political, purely opportunistic, and their concerns about security are, I think, way amped up and really not even genuine.
This is just the latest opportunity they think has been handed them in a silver platter to destroy Bush.
But I mean, if you want to look at their commitment to national security and their consistency on this, the Chinese port deals on the Panama Canal, where they own the ports, run the ports, manage the ports, do security of whatever they do with the ports on both sides.
The Atlantic and the Pacific sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese do it.
Costco in Long Beach, the Chinese outfit.
The Democrats were all for this.
In fact, it was Slick Willie who was involved with the Panama Canal deal, letting the Chinese run, manage, operate, whatever, the ports on both sides of the Panama Canal.
And this, the Chinese outfit that runs the Panama Canal ports on both sides has ties to the Chikoms, to the Chikom government.
And Democrats didn't raise a stink about that.
But the big point regarding the Libs here, folks, they want the United Arab Emirates and every other two-bit country at the UN to determine our entire foreign policy, yet they object to this.
You know, when the United Arab Emirates or any little other country at the United Nations objects to us, the Democrats want to grant them all the power in the world to do so.
And they want us to go out and ally ourselves and make amends and go out and make friends with these people.
We must bring them into our family of nations.
We are not the world's superpower.
We can no longer act that way.
We can't do things alone.
We must bring these people in.
So whatever the UAE wants to do at the United Nations, that's fine and dandy with the Libs.
Whatever anybody wants to do with the United Nations, French, Germans, that's fine with the Libs.
But boy, on this, for some reason, they have become persona non-grata.
You know, and who do the liberals think voted the UN?
United Arab Emirates in nearly 150 countries just like them.
So they're going to be in big trouble on this down the road.
Mark my words, folks, because once again, everything they're doing is based on a foundation of falsehoods.
I'll give you an illustration.
I won't be able to finish the details before the bottom-of-the-hour profit center timeout, but you remember, it wasn't too long ago, and I think they still are trying it.
Democrats ran this focus grouped phrase by the drive-by media, and the drive-by media picked it up, and they drove into a crowd, and they unloaded a hail of bullets, and then they created all kinds of confusion and despair.
They hopped back in the convertible, headed on down the highway with the top-down, ready to do another drive-by shooting somewhere.
That was the Republicans have a culture of corruption.
And about whom was that based?
Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff.
Now, it sort of cooled a little bit because it has been learned that Abramoff or Abramoff clients were in bed deep doo-doo with many Democrats, including Denji Harry.
But there is a story today from the Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C. Don't know where the drive-by media is on this.
They're not on it yet.
The drive-by media doesn't seem to be interested in this.
Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints.
It seems that John Conyers, Congressperson Michigan, was using the little people in his offices for personal gain.
Two former aides to Conyers have alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules.
Deanna Marr, a former deputy chief of staff in his Detroit office, Sidney Rooks, former legal counsel in the district office, provided evidence for the allegations by sharing numerous letters, memos, and copies of emails, handwritten notes, and expense reports with the Hill.
I'll come back and give you some details of this, but with this story, the culture of corruption is going to go over the clip as well as a Democratic idea.
And this port deal will end up affecting them the same way.
Back in just a second.
We go beyond the limit on this program, folks.
There is no limit here because I have talent on loan from God.
All right.
The Democrats and their vaunted plan to take back the House and the Senate by campaigning against the Republicans' culture of corruption has just gone over the cliff.
And I have not one, but two stories.
As I mentioned, John Conyers, a couple former aides, have alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules, Deanna Maher and somebody named Sidney Rooks.
In letters sent separately by each woman to the House Ethics Committee, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney's Office, they allege that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and force them to babysit and chauffeur his children.
They also charged that some aides illegally used Conyers' congressional offices to enrich themselves.
Marr decided she could no longer work for Conyers in such an unethical environment as she quit in May of last year.
Rooks had left Conyers earlier this year, or years earlier, I'm sorry.
She was a full-time staffer working in the office for him from 97 to 99.
Before leaving, Conyers placed her on paid administrative leave for several months to stop paying her in April of 2000.
Marr wrote in a letter to the ethics panel January 13th, I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal, practices, which were accepted as business as usual.
A spokesman in Conyers' office referred questions to Stanley Brand, an attorney who regularly defends public officials who have been charged with wrongdoing.
Brand said, We've responded fully and completely over two years ago to what the ethics committee sent to us, and we've not heard anything since then.
Here are some of the details.
The crux of the allegations involve complaints that Conyers used his staff to work on several local and state campaigns, including his wife's failed bid for a seat in the state senate in Michigan.
In 2003, the Detroit Free Press reported about the allegations that Conyers repeatedly violated House rules by forcing staffers to work on campaigns without taking leave.
Among Marr's allegations, in 2002, Conyers' aides in D.C. were sent to Detroit to help his wife Monica win a state Senate seat.
While she lost that election, she won a seat last year on the Detroit City Council.
Marr and Rooks said that Conyers tasked staffers in his district office with taking care of his two young boys, John and Carl.
If he asked you to do something, you knew you had to do it, said Rooks, 54, who now administers a homeless shelter in Detroit.
She told the Hill newspaper that she tutored little John, as Conyers' eldest son is known, when he was a student at the Cranbrook School, a private school in Bloomfield Hills.
Well, another Democrat that won't let his kids go to the public school system in the town where he lives.
The tutoring took place during normal working hours.
She was not given additional compensation for the work, nor was she reimbursed for her out-of-pocket expenses.
Rooks said that when the kid received low grades, Conyers told her, Well, Rooks, you can add tutoring to your list of stuff to do.
That sounds very sexist to me.
It sounds demeaning.
It sounds almost dictatorial the way this guy was running his office.
All right, that's story number one.
There's another story here in the stack that involves a Democrat in, oh, what did I have?
I had it here and I had it out of order.
And I've got two different stacks here.
It's been a long night, and it was a long, actually short morning.
There's a guy, East St. Louis, Illinois.
Can't remember his name.
It's East St. Louis, Illinois.
When poor students from this impoverished city got into college, Charlie Powell Jr. chipped in so they could attend.
He got a trophy case for a junior high school.
He ran a clean, loving boarding home for people who were homeless or mentally ill, keeping them safe and off the streets.
Along the way, he rose to great power, great political power in recent years as a precinct committeeman and head of the local Democratic Party.
It's that position that proved to be his undoing.
In a federal courtroom yesterday, despite testimony reciting his good works, Powell was ordered to spend a year and nine months in prison for scheming to buy votes in the November 2004 election.
Opting to let his attorney and four character witnesses speak for him, Charlie Powell Jr., who is now 62, didn't get the probation he was seeking, but he still caught a break from the judge who turned back a federal prosecutor's request that Powell get something close to nearly three years.
The judge said he's done a very good job for himself and the people he serves.
The simple truth is that politics in the state of Illinois is a real contact sport and obviously a very dangerous occupation to undertake.
Powell became the last person sentenced among five convicted of conspiracy to commit vote fraud.
Three co-defendants were sentenced to prison terms.
The longest was four and a half years, while the fourth defendant got probation.
Prosecutors provided scant evidence directly linking the defendants to the vote buying.
The government often relied on secretly recorded audio tapes in which it said the defendants could be heard talking about paying $5 for vote in a general election and whether that amount would be enough.
State records show that tens of thousands of dollars were transferred from the county Democrats to the committeemen days before the election.
Party leaders said the money was for legit expenses, including rides to the polls for people without cars.
So like every well, I know the story here says it all.
It's that position of Democratic Party that proved to be his undoing.
You lay down with the dogs, you're going to wake up with the fleas.
So bring on the culture corruption, Democrats.
Go ahead and bring it on.
And by the way, vote fraud?
Yeah, Democrats have been charging that since 2000.
Here's four guys sent to the big house, one of them, local leader of the Democratic Party in East St. Louis, Illinois.
Carrie in San Diego, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Roberts.
Good to be on.
Thank you.
Good non-union truck driving diesel-burning dittos to you.
I have a point to make about the whole port deal.
I spoke with the 20-plus-year Navy SEAL who's getting ready to gear up for his third deployment into a combat zone.
And I asked him his whole take about the port issue.
And he said, look, you know, 9-11 was executed by going through American-run terminals, American company terminals.
They used American company assets, airplanes, and they did it with box cutters, which are now, once again, legal to bring on airplanes.
So, are they?
He said.
Wait a minute.
No, I don't think that's true.
I think box cutters have been legalized again.
I don't think they ever will.
I think the smaller cutting devices was his point.
Yeah, yeah.
Smaller cutting devices.
Like a knife.
You can take your switchblade on there, but you can't take a box cutter.
Yeah, his whole point was that there is not going to be the shadiest even hint of a difference between who runs it.
You know, it's just neither here nor there.
The security, he pointed out that security isn't run by the management of the terminal.
It's usually run by a guy that's getting paid $9 or $10 an hour to mosey around the fence.
So he said that's where he saw the greatest threat.
Well, this is, let me, I appreciate the call.
And please don't take this the wrong way, but everything that your SEAL guy told you we have explored and mentioned on the program all last week.
It's one of the irritating things about, As a talk show host, as the premier host, I must confide in you people that there are parts of this issue that after a while, oh, please, can we get on to something else?
Because we've started repeating ourselves now.
But on the other hand, repeating ourselves is oftentimes necessary in order to hit as many brains, minds, and hearts as possible, because some people are just now still coming to this or now getting off of their first knee-jerk reactions and are just now starting to learn about it.
You know, learning curve is not as quick for some people.
So, repeating these things is useful.
As far as getting comments and military people, I'm getting email.
You know, we have thousands, tens of thousands of soldiers that are now members of the website, military members, because of the Adopt a Soldier program.
I'm getting emails from these people in our 24-7 email account box from people who've had experience with the Emirates and the people there, and they like them.
The Navy is just people in the Navy sending me glowing reports about how it is to deal with them in their port over there.
So, I'm not surprised that your SEAL would have that impersonation or impression rather of the deal.
What you said about 9-11, I remember saying that the chilling thing about 9-11 to me, aside from what it was, was that everything used was American.
They even stopped an election.
There was an election scheduled in New York on either that day or the day, the following day, and they even succeeded in stopping an election.
They came and used our flying schools.
They rented American cars from American companies.
Well, I don't know if they're American cars, but they were cars in America.
They got on domestic airlines.
They didn't get on United Arab Emirates Airlines.
They didn't get on Air Saudi.
They didn't get on Iraqi National Airways.
They didn't got on American, and they got on United.
Everything about, they hit American targets with American weapons that they had converted, American products that they converted to weapons.
And that's the thing that was just striking.
So, in light of that, do we take that?
We say, well, okay, that man, and of course, there was no Arab ownership of terminals or anything to do with 9-11 at the airports that were used, Newark and Logan.
You know, they didn't go through and didn't have to.
So, you take that and say, okay, does it matter then that an Arab company is going to have ownership of nine terminals at six ports on the Eastern Seaboard of this country, Philadelphia, Maryland, Baltimore, New Jersey?
It leads me to think that all of this debate about the port deal is actually having a very good upside to it or derivative, and that is finally a focus on security at these ports.
Not that there hasn't been, but it's causing people.
See, I think a lot of people got lax and lazy after 9-11.
We stopped showing people the pictures.
The Democratic Party has spent the last five years trying to convince you that we don't have an enemy, that there was just an isolated incident, and they tried to continually create this pre-9-11 world.
And I remember lamenting that maybe we're going to need to get hit a couple more times before people understand that this is a war and it was just not an isolated incident because it wasn't isolated.
And it was not the first time the World Trade Center had been hit.
First time was February 26, 1993.
And they tried to do then what they succeeded in doing in 9-11.
Just they figured out they had to do it from above rather than below because of the size and structure of the buildings.
Now, all of a sudden, we got an enemy.
Now, all of a sudden, Democrats, for the first time in five years, are concerned about all this.
Up till then, Bush has been the enemy, and the spy program, and the prisons, and the torture chambers, and all that's been the enemy.
So, I think they're in big trouble.
But when you look at the fact that we had 9-11 take place with everything involved in it being American, nothing had to be imported.
All they had to do was make sure the cops didn't notice the multiple driver's licenses and make sure they didn't see the overlooked or outdated visas and just had to stay out of trouble, not commit any serious crimes before the big event.
That's all they had to do.
Didn't have to infiltrate anything.
Just come in as immigrants seeking asylum or whatever ruse that they used.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Hi, how are you?
El Rushboe, serving humanity simply by showing up here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I have a question.
If the United Arab Emirates outfit ends up operating these nine terminals at our ports, aren't Israeli goods going to be going through there?
What will happen to their boycott?
Are we going to have to make sure that no Israeli goods go through the terminals operated by the United Arab Emirates if this deal goes?
Well, it'll be interesting to see what they do about that.
Now, the Liberals and Democrats, here's their checklist on all this.
They will not rest until every container is inspected.
They will not rest unless every inspector of containers is CIA, FBI, or Delta Force.
They will not rest unless every commercial airliner has an anti-missile defense system.
They will not rest unless every inch of our northern border is secure, checked, and screened.
Southern border, forget that.
Let McCain deal with that.
So many contradictions.
Here they are, totally opposed to the Patriot Act.
I mean, it's going to be extended, but most of the Democrats are just struck a compromise on it, details coming up.
But Dingy Hurry is running around.
We killed the Patriot Act.
We killed them.
They're against any surveillance that would tip us off to terrorist activity in this country.
They're against these so-called warrantless searches, which they have demagogued and contemptibly miscast as domestic spying.
And yet, they are just going to go to the mat on port security.
They're being as inconsistent as it's possible to be.
Scott in West Palm Beach, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Will, it's a pleasure, and good afternoon.
Thank you, sir.
Okay.
In your former assertion earlier on in the show, I think you're right on the money and that Democrats notoriously look for opportunities, and this is nothing but opportunism on their part.
And I think one would be extremely naive to think that if George W. Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein, we would be hearing nothing from them other than we should have and how Bush dropped the ball.
Now, that being said, I am opposed to the operation of the terminals.
I think it's, I mean, I understand that Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, Emirates, sorry, are allies, but there are many Other ways that one could show goodwill than to have them operate major infrastructure in our country.
Well, but are you against all foreign operations?
Yeah.
Yes, and that actually might be.
We're going to be up a creek because we don't do it.
Well, I think that in this day and age, if we were able to split the atom and get people on the moon and get a rover to Mars, I think we could figure out a way to operate a terminal.
No, it's not that we don't know how.
It's that apparently there is no American company, no businessman is interested in doing it.
And so that would present a huge problem.
Look, I've got to run here because of the constraints of time, but I'm glad you called.
The politics of this deal is another thing that have people concerned, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, because they think the vote on this, when it's taken, is going to be very partisan, and that's going to be bad for somebody, wrong side going into the election.
Details coming up.
I have some questions for you and the liberals in the next hour about this whole port deal versus your stand on national security and other areas.