Democrats & Liberals Archives

Privatization Hurts Security

Though Democrats have been claiming for years that our ports were insecure, the security-saturated “war president” finally acted. Bush transfered ownership of 6 American ports to Dubai Ports World, a private company owned by Dubai/United Arab Emirates. Bush, who has imprisoned in Guantanamo without redress many with Arab-sounding names, now says that the uproar against his actions is due to racism. No it is not. The uproar is taking place because Bush’s actions are hurting the security of the U.S. I’ll go further and say that the whole Republican idea of privatization has gone too far and is gutting our security.

Amazingly, Bush did not know of the deal that made Dubai Ports World owners of shipping operations in 6 major American seaports until the deal was approved. Now Bush says:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company."

Then he laid down the guantlet by saying that he would veto any legislation attempting to change the deal.

Bush's mind is closed. But I hope yours is open. Here is a short list of what is wrong with bringing UAE, the owners of Dubai Ports World, into our ports:

  • They financially supported terrorist groups. From the National Review, a conservative publication:

    "From the very beginning in the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League (MWL) as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for “Islamic activities” and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds."

  • Dr. A.Q. Khan, the developer of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, used Dubai as a transfer point for sending nuclear weapon components to Iran and Libya. So says BBC.

  • UAE was one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban

  • Two of UAE citizens participated in the 9/11 catastrophe

  • UAE is a center in trafficking in human beings - child slavery and prostitution
Bush says UAE is an ally. I don't think so. We can't trust it. Allowing them to handle American port operations would be like accepting a Trojan Horse.

Both Democratic and Republican officials are criticizing this action, Democrats because they are fighting for greater security, and Republicans because their cherished principle of privatization is smacking them back in the face.

Privatization is a Republican buzzword. Republicans want to reduce the size of government. They want to privatize government functions because "the private sector does everything better." Because of the Republicans' great penchant for privatization, they have flooded Iraq with "private contractors," who get paid outrageous sums and are not required to follow the rules. Maybe that's why Republicans like them. Armed services people hate these "contractors"; they are a big factor in descending morale.

It's not enough that privatization has hurt our security by ruining Army morale (and ruining our reputation around the world) now privatization is used to degrade homeland security. We should not have any corporation, any private operation, run our ports.

Our ports deserve as much security as our airports. I think most of our airports are run by local governments. Our ports should be run by government entities as well.

The major focus of an organization running one of our ports must be security. The major focus of a private company is making a buck. I'm not knocking this; it is a fact. A government organization will focus on security. To keep our ports safe, government organizations must be used to do it.

Republican privatization is hurting America's security. Let's put government back in charge of all aspects of security.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 22, 2006 5:35 PM
Comments
Comment #128653

UAE is a center in trafficking in human beings - child slavery and prostitution

The articles about the spaceport that is supposed to be built in the UAE, claims that Dubai and Abu Dhabi are major luxury tourist destinations. EW and ICK!

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #128655

Paul:

Since the ports in question are currently operating under a contractual agreement with a private company, what governmental entity do you propose to undertake this function?

It seems that this sort of change would require at least one feasiblity study to see if the government has the capability of port management.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 22, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #128659

While I do not agree that privatization is hurtful, and in most cases far superior to government run situations, I do agree that letting Dubai/UAE running our ports in not in our best interest.

I feel is is sort of like letting the Cali Cartel guard our border with Mexico.

Posted by: Jim T at February 22, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #128660

Paul, perhaps you should educate yourself on at least the bare facts before you post on a topic.
The number of complete falsehoods in this post makes its conclusions utterly worthless.

Bush transfered ownership of 6 American ports to Dubai Ports World, a private company owned by Dubai/United Arab Emirates.

This is simply not true. The deal has absolutely nothing to do with ownership of the ports. You’d know this if you had any familiarity whatsoever with what you’re talking about.

Both Democratic and Republican officials are criticizing this action, Democrats because they are fighting for greater security, and Republicans because their cherished principle of privatization is smacking them back in the face.

Another falsehood. The commercial management of these ports was ALREADY privatized and has been for some time.

The major focus of a private company is making a buck. I’m not knocking this; it is a fact. A government organization will focus on security. To keep our ports safe, government organizations must be used to do it.

The Port Authority and the Coast Guard (the goverment) will remain—as they always have been—in charge of security. “Government organizations must be used to do it.” Fine, they ARE doing it and will STILL be doing. This is NOT a contract to oversee security.

Paul, I have to say that your post is probably the most sloppily researched and ill-informed one I have ever seen on this site.


Posted by: sanger at February 22, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #128668

Paul

We all are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Do you recall when these operations were privatized or what percentage is currently run by foreign owned businesses?

Do you think the whole port (including security) is privatized? You do, don’t you?

After you find this out, you might want to change your post.

Bush hating is not a substitute for fact finding.


Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #128675

Jack,

Bush hating is not a substitute for fact finding.

Yet it’s substituted for a great deal of things for many years on the left, like: honesty, integrity, objectivity…

On the positive side, this really highlights the total lack of principles of the left.

Essentially, you can take any issue that Bush is for and these guys will come out against it and vice versa. You could have a lot of fun with that if you were Bush. Hell, I have a lot of fun with it.

Posted by: esimonson at February 22, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #128678

30% of our port management is privitized.

As far as security goes….Sanger is correct. However, who puts together the manifest of these cargo ships? It isn’t the port autority nor is it the coast guard.

I’ve got mixed feelings about this. Any country that recognizes the Taliban and has a history of spreading highly enriched nuclear fuel or its components has me concerned. On the other hand, UAE is a nation of many tribes. The Dubia (spelling?) has been increasingly pro-capitalistic…maybe not western but certainly capitalistic.

There is one thing to consider. Mr. Snow has a long history in international trade (as well as a lot of cash) as do the Bush’s (in regards to oil). Both have a history of trade with the UAE.

There are many sides to this story. It’s a little more complicated than the left or pro-Bush right would have it seem. I think there is enough concern to have it looked at very closely. I reserve my judgement until I know more facts.

Posted by: Tom L at February 22, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #128680

ericmonson,

how is your input relative to the current discussion other than causing division? I don’t intend to insult you or anger you….only pointing out that your post had one point…making a slander toward the other side.

Posted by: Tom L at February 22, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #128690
I don’t intend to insult you or anger you….only pointing out that your post had one point…making a slander toward the other side.

Tom L,

This is Eric’s modus operandi here.

Essentially, you can take any issue that Bush is for and these guys will come out against it and vice versa. You could have a lot of fun with that if you were Bush. Hell, I have a lot of fun with it.

And essentially you can go to the red side and take any issue that Bush is for (no matter how bad) and watch the butt kissing begin. This is their King and he can do no wrong.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #128692

RE: The Security Risk of UAE

It is important to consider the the government is not implicated in the nuclear secret sale. The sales are linked to UAE because a resident of UAE was the agent arranging the sales. As far as I know, there is no pending accusations that the UAE was cognizant of the activity.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 22, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #128694

We have transferred huge amounts of money to the Emirs and Sheiks by purchasing their oil. Our government should be advising them on more appropriate investments. We obviously want them to spend that money here. The problem is that our leader is so incompetent that he does not even know what is happening most of the time. The security concerns that people are now expressing are apparently irreconcilable with the globalization agenda. The whole thing sounds a little like something out of http://www.theyesmen.org

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #128695

We have transferred huge amounts of money to the Emirs and Sheiks by purchasing their oil. Our government should be advising them on more appropriate investments. We obviously want them to spend that money here. The problem is that our leader is so incompetent that he does not even know what is happening most of the time. The security concerns that people are now expressing are apparently irreconcilable with the globalization agenda. The whole thing sounds a little like something out of http://www.theyesmen.org

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #128700

I find I am more upset that Bush knew nothng about the ports opeartional selling than I am about the UAE itself.

The idea that Bush’s Administration could and would make such a major change is unsettling, and alarming. Congress should have been involved from the beginning.

The fact that Bush didn’t even know about it until it was a ‘done-deal’ is down-right frightening.

I don’t beleive that anyone actually voted for the people in the Administration. Only Bush and Cheney were actually elected.

What other things has this Adimistration’s done done behind Bush’s back - and consequently behind Congress’s back.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 22, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #128703

This is great. As I’ve stated in other posts, give George a free hand for the next couple of years and he will single handily destroy the Republican Party. The man is an utter dufus, and the best hope the Democrats have of owning the Legislate and Executive office for decades to come.

Posted by: earjoy at February 22, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #128721

George Bush is just and wise,George Bush is just and wise….close your eyes and just keep saying it.

Posted by: BillS at February 22, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #128725

*The idea that Bush’s Administration could and would make such a major change is unsettling, and alarming. Congress should have been involved from the beginning.*
Linda H.:

I don’t think that this is a major change. The ports were previously operated by another foreign company. The british company that was previously filling the contract was purchased as part of a larger deal by DPW. DPW was vetted by both the American and British government (Some british ports will also be managed by DPW.)

The vetting process is not particularly secretive with many departments weighing in. I don’t think that Congressional input was restricted, but the procurement process is probably not under the direct supervision of congressmen. There input largely stops once the money is authorized. There are lots of large contracts approved by congress and relatively few receive congressional oversite.

Regardless of whether you agree wth the above, it is accurate that the contract did follow the required procedures for contract approval. The question then becomes should those procedures be ammended to create specific provisions for contracts involving homeland security. If America rejects this contract and then doesn’t institute legislative reform the clear message is that Mid-Easterners need not apply. UAE met the requirements. Either we accept the contract or change the requirements for everybody.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 22, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #128729

Paul,

Well stated and researched. For the heck of it, I’ll throw in something I pasted in the green colum. This is from the Institue for the Analysis of Global Security
(www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html):

“The Saudi regime has been complicit in its people’s actions and has turned a blind eye to the phenomenon of wealthy citizens sending money to charities that in turn route it to terror organizations. Furthermore, Saudi government money funneled into madrassas where radical anti-Americanism is propagated has been instrumental in creating an ideological climate which generates terrorism. Former CIA director James Woolsey described the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism and Islamist extremism as “the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing.”

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #128732

Mister Magoo, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that somebody who thinks that that a post that got all of its facts wrong was “well stated and researched” would start talking about Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the same thing as the UAE, right? Heck, they’re all Arabs. Just like England and France are the same country too.

Posted by: sanger at February 22, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #128733

Linda

I was not such a big deal until the anti-Arab crowd got at it. The president had no need to know about a relatively minor transaction involving the sale of one foreign firm to another. A big problem with political leadership is precisely that leaders tend to micro manage.

Magoo

Interesting about the Saudis. I guess for you all Arabs are alike. We can lump all Saudi together and lump them in with people form UAE. UAE is a different country you know.

It is funny that some of the same people who make such a big deal about listening to terrorists on the phone can so easily condemn a whole people. Can we now safely tap the phone calls of any Arabs?

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #128750

Sanger, Jack,

Sorry I didn’t paste what came after the initial paste. Now that I have, please read the following, which is also from www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html:

Terrorist financing is not restricted to the Saudis. A list of financial companies named by the Bush administration as financiers of Al-Qaeda, reveals involvement of prominent Arab individuals from several countries in the Middle East. One example of such company is the Al Taqwa bank. Among the bank’s shareholders are members of the prominent Khalifeh family of the UAE, the UAE’s grand mufti and his family members, members of the Kuwaiti royal family, members of the Bin Laden family, a prominent leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood group and several members of Hamas.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #128753

Please again someone explain to me why Dubai is now in charge of our ports. The list just keeps growing in terms of this administrations problems

Posted by: shelly at February 22, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #128756

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1651806&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Quote: “The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 22, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #128760

And you think it is a bad thing that the U.S. required the company to cooperate with future U.S. investigations. Sounds like we did good. Go Team U.S.

Of course our noble media has once again told anyone who might not have known to be more careful.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #128761

We cut off humanitraian aid to the Palistinians

because the elections didn’t go the way we

wanted. We have tortured Muslims. And, Iraq is

falling into chaos. But, if we don’t let this

deal with these very rich Dubai sheiks go

through,it will be a serious blow to American

Arab relations.

Posted by: jlw at February 22, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #128763

Shelly

A firm from UAE has purchased a British firm that is managing some cargo handling operations in some U.S. ports. The ports have more than one firm doing this. Employees doing the actual work are Americans. Most will be the same employees currently doing the work. Security is - as always - handled by the U.S.Coast Guard and Customs Service. American laws apply. American work rules apply.

BTW - the other firm bidding on the contract was from Singapore and the country selling was British. The operation was foreign owned before and would be foreign owned again. It was between Brits, Singaporians (if that’s the adjective) and Arabs. People don’t trust Arabs. If Singapore had won, we’d have never heard of this.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #128767

Mister Magoo, are we going to go down a road in which a whole country, all of its citizens and all of its companies are labeled terrorists because SOME people there sympathize with, fund, or are otherwise involved with terrorism?

This is insanity.

Timothy Mcveigh was a US citizen. Maybe we should ban US companies from doing business in the the United States.

Look, as soon as I see a single direct connection between this specific company and terrorist organizations, I’ll agree. But until then, this is the worst kind of guilt by association. And frankly, it’s racist.

Posted by: sanger at February 22, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #128775

I think the media (including conservative media) has misrepresented the true story here; the American people weren’t told the truth in the beginning. When I first heard it, I was definitely against it; I mean come on, an Arab country, who won’t recognize Israel, is “managing” our ports, that’s ridiculous!


However, they are not managing our ports and there is no proof that they do not recognize Israel. The security of our ports will be run by the coast gaurd and port security. The jobs will still go to the unions; just now the unions can bleed a foreign country instead of bleeding American companies dry. I think the Republicans and Democrats are wrong here and (once again) I’m disappointed in the media that ran the story the way they did.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #128777

Part of this insightful post is my quote of the week.

Posted by: Deborah White at February 22, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #128778

Self involved much?!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 23, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #128781

Paul, I think Trojan Horse was a very good metaphor to use to describe what this nutty Neocon business deal might end up as.

ohrealy — The Yes Men! I agree.

LindaH. — Bush frightens me on so many levels —constantly.

jlw — good point

Jay Jay:
“This is their King and he can do no wrong.”

Yes. The Madness of King George and his fawning Court. Gives me the willies.

Magoo and Kansas Dem, thanks for those links!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #128783

From here:

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about “foreign operational direction” of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 23, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #128785
The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
Posted by: womanmarine at February 23, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #128790

I’m as against a forgien counrty or company running our ports as I am China buying one of our oil companies. Bush is definitely wrong here.
How do we know that we can trust them not to use these ports to bring terrorist and weapons into the US? Of course the question can be asked, How do we know we cann’t? Neither can be answered definitely either way. But I would rather error on the side of National Security and not allow them to run our ports.
In this case the company is an Arab company. This means that the officers of it a most likely Muslim. They may not be terrorist, But I think they’d come nearer being loyal to fellow Muslims than us. Even if they are terrorist.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 23, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #128796

Ron, if you’re against another country running our ports, then why haven’t you been complaining about the British company, that the UAB bought it from, running our ports since 9/11? The dutch and Chinese are running ports in this country; Los Angeles port, 80% are owned by foreign nations and most of them by the Chinese. So, where was everyone with that info?!


I think that the media didn’t tell us the truth from the get go with this portgate. At first it was that the UAB were “managing” the ports and they were doing the security for the ports in the US. However, that’s not what is really happening here. They are not managing; it’s US workers (union labor) and the security will be administered by the CG and port security. That’s the plain truth.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 23, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #128805

I’m with Bush on this one. This is probably the first time in his tenure that I can say that. For the record, I loathe the arrogant idiot! And it does bother me a little that he wasn’t even aware of the transaction before it was made. But from the president who had to be informed of hurricane Katrina by CNN, this is not surprising. Nonetheless, the arguments that this deal somehow endangers our security simply don’t hold up.

There are radical elements in the UAE. But unlike every one of its neighbors, radical Islam in the UAE is disorganized, impotent both politically and socially. It is true that foriegn terrorists have used the UAE for transhipment of their terror. But that has more to due with the fact that the UAE has a bustling export-led economy and is surrounded by countries where radical Islam is a force. Two of the hijackers were UAE citizens. However, they’re inspiration could hardly have come from within the UAE. More likely it came from radical Imams in Saudi Arabia, and Britain; countries with far more extensive investments in the US than the UAE could ever hope to have.

The security policies enforced on our nation’s posts will not change in the slightest; same policies, same officials enforcing those policies. This is not a good thing. Those policies are pathetic, but this deal does not make them worse.

Once of the worst oversights Bush has made in the war on terror is to disregard the importance of our image in the eyes of the Arab people. Quite simply our own hamfisted disrespect, and arrogance has done more damage to our security than any bomb. In my opinion those who oppose this deal are making the same mistake. Any realistic evaluation of UAE shows that it is a friend and ally and a force for moderation in an area of the world that desperates needs one. Rejecting this deal could only be interpreted as religous prejudice by most of the Arab world. The hosility and resentment that would inspire will have a real impact on our security. This deal, as written, will not.

Posted by: Mike Cooper at February 23, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #128828
Mister Magoo, are we going to go down a road in which a whole country, all of its citizens and all of its companies are labeled terrorists because SOME people there sympathize with, fund, or are otherwise involved with terrorism?

This is insanity.

Look, as soon as I see a single direct connection between this specific company and terrorist organizations, I’ll agree. But until then, this is the worst kind of guilt by association. And frankly, it’s racist.

Posted by: sanger at February 22, 2006 11:22 PM

Sanger,

Are we going to go down a road in which we invade a whole country, kill many of its citizens and bomb the hell out of many of its companies because SOME people there sympathize with, fund, or are otherwise involved with terrorism? (well, not really involved per se, but a tenuous, not-yet-disproven (at the time anyway) link is better than no link at all; and besides, a terrorist did seek medical care there once)

This is insanity.

Look, as soon as I see a single direct connection between this specific company country and terrorist organizations, Ill agree. But until then, this is the worst kind of guilt by association. And frankly, its racist.

I tried to resist doing this to your post, I really did, especially since it is a bit off-topic (sorry). But try as I might, it was just set up too perfectly, my hands found themselves typing it up even as my brain screamed No! Its just too easy!

Posted by: Liberal Demon at February 23, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #128876

Why would anyone be surprised that Bush didn’t know anything about the deal? The driver doesn’t need to tell the hood ornament where the car is going. He is after all just along for the ride.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 23, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #128883

There are a few points to this deal that I haven’t seen posted. If they have been posted, please forgive the repeat.
The first is that this company Dubai Ports World is controlled/partially owned by the UAE government. So this is about allowing a foreign goverment run an American port.
And yes, the coast guard does control security, however they are only able to search 5% of the cargo that comes into the ports.

Another point is that DPW has hired Bob Dole to lobby Washington for the deal to go through. This sounds very fishy to me. DPW has a huge lobby in Washington. I don’t like the idea that a government owned corporation has a large political lobby.
Also, one of DP Worlds top executives, David Sanborn was nominated by President George W. Bush in January to become the administrator of the Maritime Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation. It just sounds a lot like Halliburton to me. George is simply handing out favors and paying back those that got him elected. He seems to do this with little regard for the American public, civil rights, or environmental impacts. (Don’t get me started on the huge sale of public land in California for “mining” rights!)

I’m not sure of women’s rights in the UAE. From what I have read they actually have some, unlike those in Saudi Arabia. If anyone knows whether they have to be covered, can vote…I would like to know.

Posted by: Terri at February 23, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #128886

rahdigly
I didn’t know that forgien companies were running other ports. And if that’s true I’m against it too.
Just about everything that this country inmports and exports goes through these ports. How can we be sure that what’s comming in isn’t going to be used against us to kill our citizens if some other country is runnig things?
I’ll bet no other country is or ever will allow an forgien company to run their ports.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 23, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #128889

Nobody else is worried about the special concessions that were given to this company? As I posted above “concessions that are unprecedented among maritime companies” and “the administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders”? “Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.”

These two concerns are not racist in any way. Why are they getting special consideration in this manner? What else are they getting that we don’t know about?

I have some serious reservations about this deal that Bush claims not to have known about, but will defend to the point of veto?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 23, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #128893

womanmarine
I’m sure as hell concerned about them. I’m also concerned that our Government would approve other countires running our ports. If this is globalazation for get it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 23, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #128934

Speaking of hood ornaments and drivers………
Below is a newly released comment from Herr Rove…
Bush would accept slight delay in ports deal: Rove 17 minutes ago


President George W. Bush would accept a slight delay in permitting Dubai Ports World to acquire a British company that operates six key U.S. ports, senior White House adviser Karl Rove told Fox News.

When asked if Bush would accept a slight delay in implementing the takeover of P&O, Rove said: “Yes, look, there are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week.

“There’s no requirement that it close, you know, immediately after that,” he said in an interview with FOX News Talks’ “The Tony Snow Show.”

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 23, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #128958

Sandra -

You ever wonder why these guys are pushing so hard on this deal… while Iraq and Palenstine go to hell? I guess, maybe, when you have a Saudi Prine hold you hand while you walk about your ranch - it’s to think about anything else. … and so close to Valentine’s Day - so romantic.

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #128959

actually - that should read’ Saudi Prince’

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #128971

“actually - that should read’ Saudi Prince’

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 08:20 PM”

Oh, yeah some of them guy’s that Bush rushed out of the country after 9-11!

See: PRINCE BANDAR BIN SULTAN BIN ABDULAZIZ AL-SAUD, EXECUTIVE POLICY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT

http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/bandar.asp

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #128976

I thought Prince Bandar was the dean of the diplomatic corps in Washington,there longer than any other ambassador, and is affectionately referred to as Bandar Bush by our royal family

Posted by: ohrealy at February 23, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #128999

“I thought Prince Bandar was the dean of the diplomatic corps in Washington,there longer than any other ambassador, and is affectionately referred to as Bandar Bush by our royal family

Posted by: ohrealy at February 23, 2006 08:53 PM”

Well, based on this I guess he forgot to let W know what was up:
“Bush in dark on ports deal until dispute”

As controversy intensifies, officials admit Congress needed to know:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/charlotte/news/13938966.htm?source=rss&channel=charlotte_news

Ya’ just can’t make this shit up!
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #129008

Paul……can you, or anyone, direct me to any information on just if and what Snow may gain from this deal?????


Secretary Snow chairs the Committee on Foreign Investments — the same group that approved the recent contract with Dubai Ports World.

Secretary Snow used to be the CEO of the CSX Corporation which, in 2004, was acquired by Dubai Ports World. Snow has a deferred compensation package with CSX worth millions of dollars and the package includes a special retirement pension.


.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 23, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #129028

The Coast Guard is in charge of security now and will be if this deal goes through.Nothing will change except who owns the ports.New owners,same management.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 23, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #129064

Great Britian sold certain function performed at these ports to DPW. Security has always been a function of the U.S.
Ownership of just 2 entities that use these ports has changed hands and GWB had nothing to do with it. It was Great Britian and UAE. That is all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 24, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #129125

I have already contacted all my representatives and senators and let them know what a bad idea this is. I hope this country lasts throught the next 2 years so that we can get rid of this group of neo conservative pirates. Selling our country out to further enrich their own oil family fortunes.

Posted by: Betty Miller at February 24, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #129135

Sandra:

Paul……can you, or anyone, direct me to any information on just if and what Snow may gain from this deal?????

Don’t hold your breath. You violated the standard by asking for proof. You should know from having read this thread that actual proof is not required.

Paul essentially put 3 pieces of a 10,000 piece puzzle together, and thinks he has created the ‘Mona Lisa’. Others have added their pieces from their respective puzzles, and claim its now the Sistine Chapel. That the information is correct or incorrect doesn’t matter. With their “I hate Bush” contact lenses firmly esconsed over their pupils, they can see nothing clearly.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 24, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #129184

I still maintain that Bush should have KNOWN about this situation. It frightens me that his administration can do these types of things without consulting the President. (I now question the other decisions that have been made, in his name.)

I know that many projects are being handled without Bush’s knowledge,since many apparently seems to be small potatoes.

It does seems to me that when the security of our country is at state, and Bush has made it abundantly clear that he will sacrifice a citizens rights for security, such an arrangement should have been brought to his attention.

No, I am not being racist. Nor am I writing out of fear. It just seems logical that if a country can flip-flop once or twice in less than a decade, they could do it again.

Bush’s firm decision to USE his VETO power if Congress tries to stop him is certainly frightening, in that he didn’t even know anything about it.

I heard about the minor delay this morning as well. What does it matter if the decision is delayed as long as he holds the VETO over everyone heads? That seems awfully close to extortion.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 24, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #129471

I hope Congress does pass a bill blocking the sale of our ports to anyone but a US company. And I hope they make it veto proof. But I reckon they’re just making a big fuss because they’re up for reelection next year. They most likely will use Bushes threat of veto as an excuse not to do anything. After all waht the hell difference does it make to them if foreign countires buy the US. Just as long as the keep there ca$hy jobs.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 25, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #129472

Ooppps! I meant cu$hy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 25, 2006 2:07 PM
Post a comment