Bush supporters need to explain this one

[smurphy]

There is a actually a pretty good section in Fahrenheit about the Bush-Arab ties. It's too bad Moore is such a wack-job that some of the pertinent items he brings to the table get disregarded so quickly. I really wish both political sides to separate the message from the messenger more easily. Being an asshole doesn't mean you are always wrong. Sometimes the assholes are actually correct.

DTB - on the Panama Canal comparison - I can't see it. Didn't we have an agreement when the canal was built that it would be eventually turned over to Panama for them to do what they wanted? I'll have to check the exact facts, but I believe that was a big factor in what went on there.

PLUS - Panama Canal does not directly affect us being so far away. If something happens with the canal, it would obviously disrupt shipping, but it poses no immediate threat to American cities. ....And it's China, an emerging power, but not a country or a religion which has ever attacked us. I don't like many of the other security-related sellouts to China by the last 2 administrations, but I'm not sure I'd put the Panama Canal in that category.

 

[shamrock]

dtb, what is Michael Moore s documents, you lost me there? And I can't help that the Kennedy s are from Massachusetts, they may have been here even longer my descendants, not sure? I'm sure you must have or had democratic senators from your State no??

I'm shooting straight when I tell you folks I didn't vote for Michael Dukakis, did vote for weld, celluchi & Romney, didn't vote for Jane Swift however. Also voted Reagan & George H, did vote Clinton. So in no way have I voted historically liberal, just can't defend or apologize for Bush he is a joke. Went to college with hundreds like him. In any case hope your doing well, haven't spoken with you in awhile.

One quick question, are you disputing Bush is very closely aligned business & socially with the Royals??

Shamrock

 

[gardenweasel]

sorry for getting defensive chad....actually,it`s my bad on this one....you had every right to jump on the administration....

i am officially submitting my mea culpa on this one....



.....not much of a defense from the republicans again.... quiet...bush saying very little.....

chertoff is a horrible spokesman....


lenin said......

"The world will not be truly free until the last capitalist hangs from a rope." To which someone remarked, "That sure will take a lot of rope." Lenin replied, "Don't worry. The capitalists will sell it to us."


i guess that rope is now being sold to the arabs..... by the greedy assed republicans....

i`m ashamed to be a neocon....except for maryland governor bob ehrlich....he read the riot act to the administration....


anyway....after watching a rerun of the sopranos,it made me wonder...i thought the mob ran the ports....what happened?....lol

 

[smurphy]

"The world will not be truly free until the last capitalist hangs from a rope." To which someone remarked, "That sure will take a lot of rope." Lenin replied, "Don't worry. The capitalists will sell it to us."

Pretty damn good quote. I hope it doesn't play out that way. I enjoy capitalism way too much.

I really appreciate your views on this one, Weasel. Always good to see when partisanship is put aside. You've earned 10 free NYT bashings based on your comments in this thread, according to my calculations. :talk:

 

[ImFeklhr]

Free Market economics is beautiful. The global ecomony has some really strong aspects, and is here to say whether we like it or not...

...so am I being too naive to wonder why an American company couldn't run an American system of Ports?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

This is getting more confusing after more details are coming out. !st the cause of problem is u.a.e. buying British firm that did this work previously and takingover its contracts.

Now that we have reason "why" this situation has occurred out of way lets look for solutions. How does one go about telling/embarrassing- our greatest allies in middle east by telling they can't continue doing job. I am sure GW would appreciate easy answer to this one. If he boots them out of contract he risk losing faithful allianceand friends in middle east--if he don't boot them you will have the dems implying GW is sleeping with the enemy (this thread perfect example) and even moderates and conservatives can be swayed by the implications on this one.

Will be curious to see how this handled--anyone have any solutions--I don't.

I do not want Muslims with any ties to our security--and I don't want to erase the years of sweat it took to build allies in middle east.

 

[bryanz]

turn on Imus, they will replay the Lou Dobbs interview latter.

 

[Chadman]

Don't worry about keeping me "honest" GW...I do tend to be too partisan at times when fully engaged with some, here...lol.

I found this while skimming some of the lefty sites this AM, which adds a little more concern in my mind with this whole deal. Again, I don't think we've all heard everything pertinent about this, and there HAS to be something that makes better sense than economics behind this. Otherwise, the admin might be in serious political stuff moving forward. This is from ThinkProgress, which is obviously a lefty-biased site. Something to think about, though.
-----------------------

UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army

There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration?s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation?s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation?s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of ?the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.?

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today?s edition of the British paper Lloyd?s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician ?Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.?

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been ?a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia? direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.
-------------

Wow.

 

[smurphy]

This is getting more confusing after more details are coming out. !st the cause of problem is u.a.e. buying British firm that did this work previously and takingover its contracts.

Now that we have reason "why" this situation has occurred out of way lets look for solutions. How does one go about telling/embarrassing- our greatest allies in middle east by telling they can't continue doing job. I am sure GW would appreciate easy answer to this one. If he boots them out of contract he risk losing faithful allianceand friends in middle east--if he don't boot them you will have the dems implying GW is sleeping with the enemy (this thread perfect example) and even moderates and conservatives can be swayed by the implications on this one.

Will be curious to see how this handled--anyone have any solutions--I don't.

I do not want Muslims with any ties to our security--and I don't want to erase the years of sweat it took to build allies in middle east.

Dogs - are you flip-flopping? This would appear to be nearly a 180 from your perspective on the various Clinton to China sellouts. ....and over a much more potentially dangerous situation.

Your difference in approach between deals of the presidents is remarkable. You are willing to break this one down and give Dubya every benefit of every doubt. Meanwhile - the results do not lie - the compromising of our ports is obvious.

2 of the 9-11 hijackers came from tiny little UAE. 0 from Iraq. Yet, we invade Iraq, but are willing to give UAE control over 6 ports. The math is illogical. If Clinton were doing this, you wouldn't be giving benefits of any doubts, you'd be furious.

The only thing that makes UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc "key allies" is that we are in bed with the ruling powers of these countries. It's 100% BECAUSE OF OIL. In fact, the very same Al Jazeera you love so much is based in Qatar - a country viewed the same as UAE. Do you consider Al Jazeera to be our ally? Would you sell them part of the US because they are supposedly our friend?

Hell, we still would have been a "key ally" with Iraq if Saddam didn't get uppity with us. Certainly it was never a human rights issue. He was our friend while we knew he was creating mass graves, and these other extrememly non-democratic human rights violators are currently our friends.

It's absolutely insane to think of these countries as our allies and give them control over anything. They breed the very terrorists we supposedly fight. NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!

 

[smurphy]

I think this is a very important peice of information on this topic:

Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

So - we are "at war" (a term Kosar has already dismantled because we probably will be at war with terror forever) which is why the administration needs further authority to spy on us. ....They ask no other scarifices though - no victory gardens, no conservation of fuel, no financial contributions - just endless deficit. Hell, we don't even need to guard our ports from the enemy - not if there's money for Bush's friends to be made. Nahh, because after all UAE is our ally. OUR ALLY! :thinking:

They essentially helped finance and plan 9-11, they help smuggle nukes to Iran, N. Korea, and Libya. What wonderful friends they are .....to Bush.

See, these are the good muslims. You know, the wealthy ones. The ones Bush snorted coke with back in the day. The ones who rule with an iron fist over their subjects. The ones who are muslim on one hand, but friggin greedy partying assholes on the other. These are the ones with diplomatic immunity in the US, the ones who get special flights outta here when something bad goes down.

Our allies. True friends. Pose no threat to our security whatsoever. ...and 9-11 never happened I suppose.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I don't see any flip flopping what so ever if you'll read the last sentence. If you noticed I was asking for answers to dilema--not carping regardless which avenue GW takes. Your side has lost 2 elections to person with about 40% approval rating because of that very thing--strong on carping but weak on answers--

Now that you got the carping out of the way--do you have any answers?

 

[smurphy]

I wanted McCain in 2000, so I'm not sure which "side" you are referring to.

Yeah - I got a plain and simple answer to this which I assume was implied: DO NOT ALLOW THE TAKEOVER OF THESE 6 PORTS.

Reason: Tangible security risk to the United States.

 

[Chadman]

Big surprise here, huh?
-------------------------------------

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

 

[Mjolnir]

i have agreed with gw on most of the stuff that i've read, but the little i've read on this,i couldnt disagree more on handing thisresponsibility to another country. if anything we should hand it to some angry rednecks.

 

[shamrock]

I have very simple answers:

1) stop dealing and bending over for the Royals

2) tell them you'll administer to your own ports, pretty certain we don't need the same people that helped finance wtc & uss COLE running OUR PORTS.

3) FIND & KILLED OBL
of course this like the previous 2 won't happen because Bush caters to Arabs primarily the Royals. This is why bin laden --- has not been captured and killed. The Saudi s, although they banned obl from their country, they would definitely look negatively on the Americans capturing killing a bin laden, probably one of the most
affluent & influential families in Saudi Arabia.

Do you people really think the world is that big, that after 5 years this guy couldn't be captured? Give me a break ---, amazing how some people think. If Bush wanted him dead, he' d be history.

 

[Chadman]

Perhaps Dick Cheney should hunt some quail in the mountains of Pakistan. They would need a pretty strong pack horse to carry the coolers, though.

 

[djv]

Chad that one maid my side hurts LOL.

 

[Chadman]

One issue that has not really been touched on here is that giving up security responsibilities and expenditures to a private corporation of any kind (that is not a security company, that is...) is not sensible if you are so committed to homeland security issues. A private corporation is responsible to the bottom line and shareholders, and putting money towards security and security technology probably won't be job #1. It might not be job #10.

That's kinda scary.

 

[smurphy]

Big surprise here, huh?
-------------------------------------

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

Do Bush supporters even read this kind of information? This stuff is so huge and compromises every level of our security aagainst middle east terror threats - and it's direct and tangible as opposed to all that guessing about Iraq. I just don't understand the absolute lack of acknowledgement. Didn't stop the same people from making a big deal about how Kerry was sold out to a ketchup company though.

 

[Chadman]

I see now where Bush is making a HUGE stand on this issue, threatening a veto of any denial of this deal. This would be his first Veto of his administration. Seems like a strange issue to make a stand on, unless you REALLY, REALLY want it to go through. Hmm. Interesting. Sounds like kind of a Pre-911 plan to me.