Bush supporters need to explain this one

[smurphy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185347,00.html

Gardenweasel mentioned it before, now it's closer than ever to happen. 6 major ports (including one in NY) have been approved to be sold to an Arab company by the Bush administration.

Does this run counter to the war on terror? Does this compromise our safety - especially since ports are considered a likely soft target of future attacks. Is this disingenious to our soldiers oversees? I mean what's the point of invading Iraq if all we are going to do is sell out our own safety at home?

Please (without comparing anything to Clinton DTB) someone who believes in Bush and supports his decisions explain this. Bush said it himself in the State of Union - we are too dependent on a dangerous region of the world. So then he backstabs the American people and sells out our security. At least that's how it looks.

Much respect will be given to a pro-Bush poster who can step up and tackle this one without changing the subject or resorting to partisan rhetoric. I look forward to some responses....

 

[gardenweasel]

smurph...if republicans don`t backtrack on this one...they`ll lose the one real advantage they have over the dems in the 2006 elections.....

the assertion that the dems are soft on terror....

i can`t offer a legit argument,as you requested.......and the fact that this "deal" was cut in a "secret" conference("The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States", which includes officials from the Departments of Defense, Justice, State, Commerce and Homeland Security)and is supposedly classified scares me....the only name on the panel that i`ve seen mentioned was treasury secretary john snow...why are their names kept secret?....

the nsa issue doesn`t concern me...because logic indicates that it was done to enhance security....

to catch the bad guys before they can harm us...

the port deal puts a state owned businesss in charge of the shipping operations of 6 of our largest ports on the eastern seaboard.....

and the "state" that owns this business( the u.a.e.) is supposedly one of the countries that is stonewalling our attempts at tracking osama`s bank accts and transactions...

and that recognize the taliban?...

how can such an important, national-security decision be made by a secret government committee without congressional oversight?...

lord,even with the nsa issue,some dems in congress were informed....

how in god`s name can you give a relatively backward,possibly radical islamist supporting country this much influence over something as critical as major port management and security....any influenece....

4 planes on 9/11.....imagine 4 or even all 6 of these ports destroyed or compromised in one fell swoop....

i may be way off base... but,something really smells bad here....

btw...the u.a.e. is a federation of 7 arab states that run their own "internal" affairs(economic and governmental),but they have a federal gov`t .... the federal government controls the u.a.e`s foreign affairs and defense and plays a large role in the federation's economic and social development.......

 

[smurphy]

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I'd have to know more about it Smurph but on the surface if I didn't like idea of "giving" Panama Canal away I certainly would not change my mind in this circumstance because other party was in power.

Am glad to concern on issue of importance rather than hunting accident--fathom covert opps ect.

By the way--did you find Foxes article on subject fair?

 

[pd1]

I wonder how many palms were greased to get this through?

 

[Master Capper]

I wonder how many palms were greased to get this through?


I wonder how much was slipped to Cheney to get this thing through

 

[Chadman]

I'm going to hold off on blasting the administration on this until I read more about it. At face value, it seems to be status quo operating procedure for the Bush administration. Security is important, as long as the administration has ties to it. I want to know more about this company in particular, and who has ties to it. Conspiratorial thought? Sure. We'll see. The fact that AGAIN, the administration says that the information necessary to make a security decision is classified and cannot be released, should be concerning. But I doubt it will be for many who support Bush and Co.

 

[gardenweasel]

are we going to investigate every person that this company employs in the running of the ports?....

even if they don`t control security at these ports,i`d think that they`d have to have intimate knowledge of security measures to effectively run the port operations....

not only is this not prudent....but,it`s politically stupid for the republicans...

btw,chertoff was terrible on this issue sunday,imo....

 

[gardenweasel]

""The fact that AGAIN, the administration says that the information necessary to make a security decision is classified and cannot be released, should be concerning. But I doubt it will be for many who support Bush and Co.""



don`t think i`m seeing that in this thread...certainly not from me...i guess you weren`t aware that this neocon posted this story about a week ago...

and strangely enough,,,despite what the msm,and some liberals with tunnel vision might think,some information is and should be classified....

and i`m not talking about pencil pusher valerie plame`s identity....that really jeopardized american security didn`t it?..

still waiting on the indictments for outting a covert cia agent....lmao..

still waiting...

.again,when the actual charges can`t be prosecuted...the politically ambitious prosector falls back on legal nitpicking to justify spending millions on a useless boondoggle...

the libby indictment is almost as stupid as the clinton lynching...

is it a coincidence,then, that so many on the left that are bashing the administration on the nsa international wiretapping and surveillance program(under the guise of civil rights violations that no one seems to be able to give examples of....and even though some congressional democrats were aware of the program years ago..but,they got a pass,didn`t they?) are also bashing him on the port issue?....(and rightfully so on the latter)....

instead of them looking as though they are genuinely concerned with the security of ameica,they come off looking as though they`ll come down on any side of a security issue...if it gives them the opportunity to bash the administration...

i`d say i`m being objective...not sure about some others...

 

[Chadman]

Maybe so. I did interject a negative Bush tone to my wonderings. Probably not an objective post.

I agree that some information should be classified. However, I do not feel comfortable that the American people are being well served as far as information holding and reporting matters and this administration is concerned. I think that is a fair concern, all things considered.

 

[ctownguy]

I wonder how many palms were greased to get this through?


I wonder how much was slipped to Cheney to get this thing through

I have to admit that I would like to get more info on this. It is unsettling to think that an Arab country will be overseeing our 6 major ports.

But to insinuate that corruption on this administrations part is part of this is ridiculous. This men and women live here just like the rest of us what a stupid idea.

Also whenever you post about corruption you make it seem like political corruption just started with Cheney and Haliburton, never in the history of this country have we had corruption at this level. Yea right.

 

[Chadman]

But to insinuate that corruption on this administrations part is part of this is ridiculous. This men and women live here just like the rest of us what a stupid idea.

Also whenever you post about corruption you make it seem like political corruption just started with Cheney and Haliburton, never in the history of this country have we had corruption at this level. Yea right.

Why is it ridiculous? Have you not seen any corruption in this administration or the people involved in it over the past few years? Are you saying that these people are above suspicion?

If so, you either just started looking at politics, or are going to defend the administration no matter what you are presented with. I can see you saying to do it off the cuff is unfair. That would make sense. To say it is worth being concerned about is ridiculous is - well - ridiculous.

Nobody said corruption started with Cheney and Halliburton. But here you go again, trying to deflect attention away from something that exists and can be discussed as a problem. Because somebody else was corrupt does not excuse someone else from responsibility for their actions.

I know it's tough to face problems with people you support. But to have any credibility, you can't always dismiss them. No matter how many times you try. I guess asking for credibility is elitist, right?

 

[ctownguy]

What corruption has occurred in the Bush administration, tell me oh wise one.

 

[dawgball]

I don't like the smell of this whole operation, but I don't know enough to judge it as of yet. And due to its classification, I seriously doubt I ever will. But from what I have read, I don't like it.

I will say this for the record, though. If this goes through and there is EVER a security breach at one of these ports, the left will have a field day with that story for many years to come.

People also have to remember that the more and more we are connected to every tidbit of information in the world, the more we realize how corrupt people are. I would say that this administration is probably about average to lower than average when compared to every other Presidency in history. We just know way more about it. Take Clinton, for instance. Do you really think we would have ever known about a freaking blow job? Who gives a shit? I GUARANTEE he wasn't the first and won't be the last to use the oval office as an intern testing ground.

Sorry to get off topic.

 

[djv]

Bad management maybe better word. Start with hurricane screws up's and there still on going. Maybe that should be criminal. Might want to add all screw up's in Iraq. How about Hal's no bid contracts. Did they ever pay that fine?

 

[Chadman]

Even though I know you will dismiss any connections I post, I'll just post all of the companies attached to this administration that have directly benefitted due to ties to this administration. I submit that there has to be some corruption in all of these ties, some has been proven as in Halliburton and it's subsidiaries. Others, too, of course. How about this role call:

Halliburton, Enron, Global Crossing, Onset Technology, Bechtel, Kellogg Brown & Root, Harken Energy, ChoicePoint, General Dynamics, ABB, Paladin, Carlyle. Don't forget the oil and energy companies that helped form the current energy policy. The pharmaceutical and medical companies that helped form the current Medicare policy. The banking and credit card companies that helped form the current bankruptcy and credit legislation.

Corruption? Favoritism to lobbyists? None in this administration?

Whatever, dude. Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me, what you say you believe.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I can't find any facts on whats going on--however I can not think of any facts or situations that would change mind--considering they are having suicide bomber recruitment schools in Iran I think it would be prudent for the rest of the world to isolate these muslim countries and not allow any of their population in free world rather than bring them into country..Maybe when they are isoltated to their own culture and decide living like homeless is not so good a life they wil rise up and rectify the situation themselves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I wonder how much was slipped to Cheney to get this thing through"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I wouldn't worry about self made millionaires set for life--who give 1/2 mill in stock options and their last $232,320 in speaking fees to charity--I doubt if $$$ is concern---its those that earned little outside politics that do the speeches -books--pardons-renting white house ect for cash that would be my concern
Clinton-Gore-Kerry all come to mind.
Of course you could use anologies like liberal Adam
Clymer who " tries to further denigrate Cheney's charitable contributions of over $400,000 the last ten years by saying that the "average American" gives around 2 percent to charity (Cheney gave 2.14%) and that people making more than $1 million give 4.5% on average."
"However, Clymer doesn't even bother to mention what percent Al Gore's paltry $353 donation to charity was in 1997. So Cheney's 2.14% was not enough, but Gore's 0.17% was just an oversight."
--or he could have been extreme and mentioned Kerry stiffing charity for "0".
Remember their 2 America rants and how they they have convinced the black population that they are the ones that support the poor

 

[shamrock]

why should any Arab outfit be in charge of any American port? Answer is simple, Bush has been in bed with these Saudi people for decades, it goes on and on and on and is never called out on it. Bush s immediate concern, (other than high peddling it to Nebraska), during 9/11 was to get his Saudi friends & Associates safely out of the country, that is undisputed fact. I know many people, Family included that were treated like second class citizens in JFK & Newark as Saudi s were brought straight through security and ushered on to planes. With federal clearance.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Sure he's been called out on it--I'm sure you've seen Micheal Moores doc's--I believe its mandatory in the land of Ted Kennedy--isn't it?

Found some input on issue in warching Charles Krauthammer. He anticipates this issue never coming to being even if it takes veto from GW.He had 2 main points--how to tell u.a.e. who for most part have supported us, no deal and the possible consequences if we don't. His point ,which I never thought of, was while they will not have personell on ground and most of our secrurty people will remain in place--they will still have to co ordinate efforts with our security on ground which means our sharing security secrets with them--and only takes one bad apple to pass this info on to undesrables.

here are a couple other articles I found on Chares website I found interesting especially the 1st on Hammas winning election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020201579.html

the second is per cartoons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901434.html

 

[StevieD]

Called out on it and never answered. But once again you attack the messenger, kennedy and Moore, and don't answer the question.