Democrats & Liberals Archives

Maximizing Shareholder Value

For those wondering how the Bush Administration carelessly wandered into the current inflamed port controversy, I’d like to assure them that it was not done carelessly. Those doing the vetting knew exactly what they were doing. They were expanding commerce with an Arab nation - UAE. Free trade, globalization, unfettered commerce, maximizing shareholder value everywhere is the Republican number one goal. Not democracy. Even security takes second place with them.

Which might explain the secrecy. Did you know that the administration has been negotiating a free trade deal with the United Arab Emirates at the same time the port deal was being negotiated? Did you know that UAE is a group of 7 dictatorships, not democracies. Yes, Bush wants to spread democracy in the Middle East; but first, let's get a little capitalism going.

Bush calls UAE an ally. But it is not a real ally like Britain. Molly Ivins reveals

"We have already been warned that, should we back out of the DP deal, the United Arab Emirates may well take offense and not be so nice about helping us in the War on Terra -- maybe even cut back its money, as well as its cooperation."

Just the type of ally we need. Almost as good as Saudi Arabia. UAE gave us only 2 of the 9/11 terrorists; Saudi Arabia gave us all the rest. Another trusted ally is Pakistan.

We're spreading democracy? What Republicans are spreading is free enterprise, not democracy. They are not the same. Look at China. It has free enterprise and it is a dictatorship. Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post tells us exactly what the Bush Administration is trying to do:

"What's clear is that neither the task of building democratic nations around the world nor ensuring secure ports and cities here at home is our primary national purpose. Our mission is to maximize shareholder value. Which, by the measure of our strategic interests and our historical ideals, amounts to selling America short."

The GAO (Government Accounting Office) agrees with Meyerson:

"In September, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said the Treasury Department, as head of the interagency committee that reviews such deals, had used an overly narrow definition of national security threats because it wanted to encourage foreign investment."

Investments count; security, not so much. Did you know that only about 6% of the cargo going through American ports is inspected? Did you know that the 9/11 commission alerted this administration to this fault line and almost nothing was done?

Did you know that in 2002, the Coast Guard estimated it would take $5.4 billion over 10 years to improve port security to the point mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Last year, Congress appropriated $175 million. The administration had requested $46 million.

And Bush is held up as a leader that will keep us safe?

The difference between the way Bush handles security at airports and at seaports demonstrates his priorities. At airports, people must arrive a couple of hours early and all their belongings are inspected. At seaports, an insignificant number of business products and equipment are inspected. Bush thinks that people should be disturbed but not business. To Republicans, business IS more important than the comfort of individuals.

Republicans believe that maximizing shareholder value is the greatest good. A greater good even than homeland security. This is not what Republicans say, but this is what they demonstrate with their actions.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 24, 2006 5:41 PM
Comments
Comment #129248

The administration is spreading something, but I don’t think democracy smells like this.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #129249

I agree with this post. I have seen it to many times. In my own state our republican governer has cut benefits to the elderly, and the poor and crippled. Under our new law an amputee cannot even get a pair of crutches. He did this to improve tax cuts for the wealthy. He said it was to curb the rising cost of medicaid and fight fraud. I think it is to make way for a healthcare system for only those you can afford it.

Posted by: jimmy at February 24, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #129251

Paul: I have read and heard mosy of what you have reported in your post. It IS appalling that we have spent around 20 billion on airport security and less than l l0th that amount on port security. This is just one of Bush’s less than adequate border security measures.
On a completely different note, I’m not sure of your thoughts on David Remer’s VOID project or if you are a dyed in the wool democrat, but, I suggest reading Bill Moyer’s speech. You can find it at Truth Out website. It’s way too long to repeat here, but the end result is to provide a way to change the way our representatives are elected. Just as with VOID, it would take a while to make all the changes, but, with a little help from my friends I think it could be accomplished.
I just need assistance with the manner in which this could be started. I’m sure there are several people on this blog with more smarts than I and with better contacts. I’m encouraging everyone to read the speech. Jack P

Posted by: jack p at February 24, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #129252

Paul,
I totally agree with you - again!
It particularly worries me that the UAE tends to flip-flop regarding whose side they are on.

Of course so does the Bush Adminstration.

I can hear it now: “I will use my power of veto if Congress tries to delay the sell. As soon as I find out what the big deal is…”

Or this one: Security is the most important concern this country has, except when it comes free enterprise…etc.
I don’t mind listening in on US citizens it’s for security reasons, but WE know that the UAE is on our side so they can be trusted.”

We don’t TRUST the CITIZENS of the US, but we DO TRUST the UAE?

Whose side is Bush on anyway?

Posted by: Linda H. at February 24, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #129254


Jack,
I tried to pull up the speech you are referring to - however it appears that Bill Moyer has quite a few speeches, so I need more information in order to read the speech you have in mind.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 24, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #129257

Awesome post.
Thanks Paul, for summing it up so well.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #129258

This administration has an idea of free enterprise which is only compatible with a government by oligarchy. The 2006 election needs to be a referendum on Bushco changes in our form of government.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 24, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #129259

This administration has an idea of free enterprise which is only compatible with a government by oligarchy. The 2006 election needs to be a referendum on Bushco changes in our form of government.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 24, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #129260

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022406A.shtml
This was the only thing I found on the home page of truthout. Avery interesting read, enlightening and alarming…

Posted by: richard at February 24, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #129262

Richard: That is the speech I was talking about. Thanks for providing the link. Some day I’ll have to figure out how to do that. jack p

Posted by: jack p at February 24, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #129269

Lovely ally,

Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.”

For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.

Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.

According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.

The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.

On February 15, 2005, the HAMAS website reported on funds transferred from HAI to two HAMAS front organizations in the West Bank, IQRA and Rifdah, which Israel had outlawed. And last July, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Khan Younis in Gaza was arrested as he returned from the UAE, for often transferring funds of as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza HAMAS branch. The suicide bombing and attacks, including one mortar attack on Gush Katif, caused the death of 44 Israeli civilians and dozens of injuries.

The UAE support of HAMAS is in line with the agenda promoted by the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think-tank, was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan and Roger Garaudy and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the war in Iraq on “radical Zionist and right-wing Christian” influence.

Although UAE foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the Emirates have been and remain a “strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism,” its continuing support of HAMAS and other Islamist organizations contradict his statement. This legitimately raises concerns about trusting U.S. ports to UAE management.

FrontPage Mag

Only Bushies can love this country. Even conservatives are disgusted.

Posted by: Max at February 24, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #129271

Free market implies free investment, mobility of labor, freedom to set prices and consistent protection of contracts through the rule of law. No country has achieved a completely free market and none ever will. The Index of Economic Freedom was recently published, so you can see which countries come closest to the ideal of a free market.

China rates number 111 and falls in the mostly unfree category. UAE is number 65 and near the bottom of the mostly free group.

Only 19 of the 157 countries listed have achieved a free economy. The U.S. is number 9. We lose the most points on fiscal burden (i.e. debt), but we have the world’s best financial system, our monetary policy is good and we mostly protect property rights.

China is not a free market. The government decides many things, including where you can set up shop, how much you can make etc. This UAE deal also is not a free market. I don’t care for socialism, it is the road to serfdom.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where governments still own or control resources. If we put state controlled and socialist firms off limits, we would be unable to trade with most of the world. We would not be able to travel on most ships or fly in most airlines.

The world has been coming around to freer markets for a generation, but it is not there yet.

So, I agree that it is not good to have state owned firms or socialist structures, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would hope. And we can hope to change it, but only if we deal with it.

It is possible to have a mostly free market in a non-democratic country, although usually not in an opressive one. But it is not possible to have a mostly democratic country with a non-free market. That is why we need to push both.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #129274

One thing we absolutely need in a free market is a legal requirement for truth. If it’s important enough for Wall Street to require truth in financial reporting from all US Corporations… isn’t that a good base to start from?

(Anyone see where this is going?)

“In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues…The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” – USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03

Posted by: tony at February 24, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #129276

This post sums up nicely what the American electorate needs to realize about the current adminstration in particular and a vast majority of the rest of Washington in general. Only a revolution in terms of campaign finance and lobbying regulations will quell the influence and power of corporations who sell us worn-out ideas like trickle-down theory and in the end sell us out to ensure golden parachutes for their failed executives and unfettered access to ever-increasing numbers of cheap, third-world laborers.

Posted by: macsonix at February 24, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #129278

Paul,
Right on!

For anyone keeping score, a recent Rasmussen poll has it 65-17 against selling the ports. Oh, and it’s not 6. It’s 21.

Posted by: phx8 at February 24, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #129279

Phx8

If they were selling the ports, I would be against it too.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #129280

jackp and richard, thanks for that link to Bill Moyer’s speech.
It was excellent (as usual), and unfortunately, I believe he’s 100% correct.
If American’s care about America, then we’ve got to make sure that every single one of these Corrupt and Morally Bankrupt Neocon’s are voted out. And speaking of voting them out: Why do Diebold’s Touch-Screen Voting Machines Have Built-In Wireless Infrared Data Transfer Ports?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #129287

Jack -

“If they were selling the ports, I would be against it too.”

I think you’ve gone against Bush about as many times as bush has used his Veto. I’m not going to say for sure, but I have a guess that it had been about ‘selling ports’ where you would be on the issue… Don’t worry, I think you would find yourself with about 37% of the population.

Posted by: tony at February 24, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #129291

Jack P
Highlight the desired area or address and right click and copy. Then move to post right click and paste.
I haven’t verified this in any other reports. Tonight on “Countdown” MSNBC it was reported that the port deal isn’t just six ports. The number of ports in total is closer to 21. Does that warm your heart?
I hope the GOP leadership rolls over and greases up as always. That will insure that they will be on the street by this time next year, probably holding signs that read “will work for food”.

Posted by: richard at February 24, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #129296

Jack,
Unlike a lot of Democrats/liberals, I’m not particularly troubled by seeing the UAE on the other end of this deal. I’m more concerned about the idea of selling assets and operations in the first place. Why is this in the best interest of the country? That should be an easy question to answer. Bush seems to be absolutely on fire in his rush to see the deal done. Considering he supposedly didn’t know about it in the first place, and next thing you know threatens to veto to make certain it goes through, and the White House puts on a full court press, even as many major Republican pols seem to want nothing to do with this- well, it stinks to high heaven.

I am amused that those Bush supporters who so recently condemned Islamofascism and the bloodthirsty nature of Islam now find themselves trying to smile about dealing with the UAE. I think a lot of Democrats/liberals are pounding in the brains of Bush supporters over this- but like I have said, the Bush White House is being hoisted on its own petard.

My guess is that a deal was worked out between Bush, Snow, the Carlyle Group, and the UAE. These people are about power and money and power and money. Bless their pointed little heads, but I beleive them when they say they had no idea this would cause a fuss. It was supposed to be a quiet, backroom deal about money and assets and enrichment. Because the Bush White House never really cared about right wing social Christian fundamentalist issues. That’s a larf. Those people are tools for the Bush White House; they’re desperate, and pathetically easy to fool. Look! Over there! Those gay guys might be getting married! That’s enough to keep the right wing fundies in line. Supreme Court justices like Roberts and Alito are there, not because their opinions on social issues matter to Bush, but because they are corporate shills. They can be counted on to make it easy to Bush and the Carlyle Group and the UAE To enrich each other.

When it comes to this deal with the UAE, I smell a rat. These people are way, way too eager. Methinks Bush doth protesteth too much.

Posted by: phx8 at February 24, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #129300

Jack,

Free markets are necessary for free trade but not quite the same. In order for free trade to exist between countries both countries must have free markets. If only one country has a free market then free trade is impossible. Paul is correct in pointing out the real priorities of this administration. Linda H. also did an excellent job of illustrating how Bush The Incompetent speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

I am one of the few “economics” enlightened liberals that believes in free trade. While there will always be individual winners and losers free trade - real free trade that is - benefits everyone. But here is the problem Jack, China does not have an open free market. Japan does not have an open free market. Central America does not have a free market. And from your own statistics the UAE does not have a free market.

What happens when a free market economy like the U.S. trades with a closed economy like Japan, China, or Mexico? What happens is that the free market economy (that would be us) gets cheated. Take Mexico or China as examples. Both countries allow multinational corporations to evade environment laws and basic rights of workers to collective bargaining, as well as, health and safety. So, so called American multinational corporations - which are granted full human rights status as people under the U.S. Constitution - including the right to $$$free speech$$$ - but which have no moral or patriotic commitments to the United States can go to these countries and rape the environment that everyone in the world depends on for survival - and they can rape, cripple, kill, and unfairly exploit the workers. These factors create defacto subsidies for these corporations to move production to these countries. Therefore these countries are not practicing free trade. They are subsidising the corporations to move production to their country. This puts downward pressure on the ability of American workers to earn a living wage under survivable working conditions. It is a race to the bottom.

In true free trade, production would move to these countries, but they would need pollution control equipment - standard of living and wages would rise - which would create new markets for American products - which would create new economic opportunity for Americans. That is not happening. More and more of our productive capacity - more and more of our economic power - more and more of our “equity” and ownership of our own country, is transferred over the border as we borrow more and more money to buy more and more products from more and more countries that cheat us in international trade by subsidising our amoral multinational corporations to transfer production to their countries without giving us a fair opportunity to sell our products to them.

Japan is a little different case. They invaded our markets while keeping their markets closed to us. Their markets are still largely closed to us. They cheated us starting in the 70s and they are still cheating us.

Increasing industrial productive capacity in China combined with decreasing industrial capacity in the U.S. will make China into the worlds only super-power.

So… to get back to Paul and Linda’s point, it is clear that the real agenda of the Bush Regime is to serve the amoral UnAmerican American multinational corporations, and that this regime does not care about the real interests of the American people.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 24, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #129305

phx8,

A rat. A snake. A cockroach. Bush, the rat. The Carlyle group, the snake. The UAE, the cockroach.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 24, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #129309

Jack
It seems you are paid by the word to get the message out to the wrong thinking liberals. Being so in the know perhaps you can explain to me how this is legal and what Abramoff was doing is illegal. Just curious.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #129314

What does Bush owe Dubai? That is the big question. Was a deal mad we don’t know about?

Posted by: shelly at February 24, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #129325

Sndyrmony

This is just politics. Are you surprised that politics is being committed in Washington?

Ray

We should work constantly to open markets. Few markets are as open as ours. This has been the case since the end of WWII. In my lifetime we worried about being cheated by Italians, Germans, Koreans, Japanese, Brazilians, Chinese, Arabs… well pretty much everybody.

Free markets are generally beneficial. We would benefit more if others were as open as we are. We work hard to open markets, but to close ourselves off would just hurt us more.

Mercantilism should have gone out of style 300 years ago. Our ultimate prosperity depends on our own skills and productivity. Everything else is merely commentary.

The biggest “threat” is China and India. But if we are smart and maybe a little lucky, we can welcome them as partners and we will all be richer. We have to engage the world, not hide from it.

To others
You might want to read a little about Dubai Ports World so that you know something about the company you are trashing (besides that it is Arab)


In that time our economy has grown faster than that of most of our trading partners.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #129330

I do not understand why some democrats are already back-peddling from the inflamatory statements and threats they made earlier in the week.

Posted by: Cliff at February 24, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #129337

Jack
Nice dodge, but bribery and extortion by any other name isn’t just politics as usual unless your a republican. Grab your ear, yank down when you cough.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 24, 2006 11:48 PM
Comment #129338

Jack,

Engage the world… certainly. Hide from them or from competition… certainly not. Sell our people, our national interest, our national power, our national security, our homeland security, our environment, down the river for the profit and power of the rich and privileged elite… no… sorry… not with you on that one.

It does not benifit America to allow ourselves to be cheated and our environment to be raped by UnAmerican American multinationals in China and Mexico.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 24, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #129339

Your article describes hardball politics. Bribery and extortion are names you can call it just like you could call taxation theft or imprisoning bank robbers kidnapping.

I know other people think it is funny, but I don’t really get that yank down reference.

Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #129340

ray,(japan still cheating us)well at least 80% of there vehicles are made here. unlike the big three, 90% of there vehicles are made somewhere else!!! how many 1990 ford or chevy cars do you see on the road?

Posted by: rodney brown at February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #129344

Jack,

In that time our economy has grown faster than that of most of our trading partners.

For much of the time the that you are talking about, the U.S. had a positive trade surplus with the world - remember - that was before NAFTA - that was before most favored trading status for China - that was back in the days before “globalization” when the U.S. was probably taking unfair advantage of the world through the imperialist policies of the IMF and the World Bank. That was back in the days when we traded, but at least negotiated fair deals, for the American people. The imperialist policies are still in place but now they only benefit the corporation and no longer benefit the American people. But our children can still fight and die to protect their interest…

Obviously something has changed - not for the better - not for the American people at least. Our children’s future is being mortgaged to pay Walmart’s profits.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #129347

“I don’t care for socialism, it is the road to serfdom.”

With the erosion of the average worker’s buying power over the last four and a half years, the lowest savings rate since the Depression, a declared open season on production jobs with liveable wages and benefits—a great hollowing out of manufacturing and production jobs, and a mass exodus of those same jobs overseas in the name of globalization and “free enterprise”— I believe servitude has a new name: Capitalism.

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 25, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #129350

Imperialist policies? I remember hearing about that when I went to college back in the 1970s, but I thought that it had gone the way of dependency theory, marxism and global cooling.

You know that our economy relative to the world slowed in the 1970s, but has been growing faster since the late 1980s.

I think this is the general problem for the free market. Nobody, even those who like it, can quite figure out how it works, so they keep on predicting its imminent end.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #129352

And when President Bush warned against protectionism, xenophobia and isolationism during the State of the Union everybody claimed he was exaggerating. Our exchange is showing that he was on the mark.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #129354

In todays speech Bush said

We will not support Hamas unless they recognized
Israel as a country.
UAE does not recognized Israel as a country.
Bush says trust me.
Is this not racist.
UAE is a Monarchy not a company.
Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy.
Why not change them to Democracy too.
Which funnels cash money to terrists(call fundraisers)
100 millions donated to Katrina Relief.
1 month later UAE port deal starts.
Were did the money go,maybe to fix the ports
smells fishy like Halbuck.
The UAE has long-standing ties to the Bush family.One of it’s Sheikhs contributed at least
$1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation,which established the George Bush
Presidential Library in College Station,Texas.


Rove word for the Week is (Hystericial)
right at least 100 times or say it.
Free trade does that mean Cuba,North Vietnam
too.

Posted by: js at February 25, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #129357

Jack,

Obviously, life is not fair and global trade will never be completely fair. There is threshold that is tolerable and I maintain that we have passed that threshold.

I am not going to engage on the imperialist issue because that is tangential to the discussion and we will make not make headway at all by straying that far a field. So I should not have mentioned it.

Back to the point. The American economy has grown… but to whose benefit. I maintain that since the 70s it has been increasingly to the advantage of the rich and privileged elite - not to the average American.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #129367

Jack,

Our security is not about making a buck. Remember, almighty Bush said that we will have to sacrifice, and that it will be hard work to make the United States more secure. No one cares about what’s most profitable here only what’s most secure and best for this country. The UAE supports HAMAS (See my post above). Why would you want to do business with them? This is like asking a Columbian drug lord to watch our border in the war against drugs.

I have asked you many times what is racist about not wanting any country with ties to terrorism to oversee any part of our security regardless of race or geographical location. Does being a part of a free enterprise system mean we can’t choose when and with whom we want to do business? Sounds like something Bush would say and Bushies believe, but no one else thinks that’s free enterprise.

Posted by: max at February 25, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #129371

We could get into the dueling statistics. I remember the 1970s and they really sucked. Whatever happened to make the economy different was a good thing.

Seems to me that Americans can buy more with their wages than they could in 1970. We have bigger houses. We have more cars. We take longer vacations. We live longer and we are healthier. Besides that, maybe we are worse off.

There is an interesting article in Business Week. You have to register, but registration is free.

Max

UAE has been a good ally since the start of the war on terror. More than 40% of the equipment for our forces in Iraq goes through the port of Dubai. The firm we are talking about is evidently a good firm (see above).

There is nothing wrong with checking them out. The Treasury Dept has already done this, but if Schummer wants to do more, I don’t care. But IF they pass, let them alone. My fear is that we have already judged them as no good because of the nationality.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #129374

Phx8,

I like your quote: “I am amused that those Bush supporters who so recently condemned Islamofascism and the bloodthirsty nature of Islam now find themselves trying to smile about dealing with the UAE.”

Here’s my quote: “I am amused at those Reid/Pelosi/Dean supporters who so recently mocked the war on terror now think it so vital that we condemn an entire nation or at least its government … the same gov’t which lets us park billion dollar naval vessels in its harbors.”

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 25, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #129380

Oh Jesus Jack let me get my shovel here.

The Isolatioism was in another section of the speech having to do mostly with Iranian policies.

Xenophobia does NOT come into play here no one cares what the color of their skin is a t all that is not the substance of the debate it has to do with what those national policies are.

And he mention “protectionism” because Bush is freemarket destined to flush our sovereignty down the drain to pump wallstreet which they mistakenly think accurately reflects our American economy.

Now also Protectionism is what keeps Japan afloat as they can remain salient with a lower valued currency for export (I don’t know why I’m wasting this on you) but as a nation we are trying to have the same export-style freemarketism as Japan and it doesn’t work but as a by-product here it creates outsourcing. Nevermind Jack, point is through protectionism on their markets, and our lack of them makes them more viable than we are—we are a consumer based economy that Bush is trying to turn into an export-based economy such as China or Japan. It will and does pancake wherever it is tried without protections—look at the EU and Russia now. Bush and Company doesn’t know what they are doing—obviously.

Posted by: Translator at February 25, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #129383

rodney brown,

I just spotted your post up there about Japanese cars. Discretion is the better part of valor and I should just walk away because it is too big of an issue and requires too much research for facts but I just have to say something.

Yes, many Japanese cars are made here now - and that is good. Many of them are of excellent quality - Toyota, Honda, and Nissan… Mitsubisi not so much… But it is good that Americans can buy excellent quality cars assembled by Americans…

GM, in particular, as well as Ford, has narrowed the quality gap in many cases to less than the margin of error in the statistical samples.

There are many issues here too many to address in the time available.

Most of the Japanese transplants are non-union. They locate in right to work states and pay their employees comparable wages to the UAW in order to avoid being unionized.

Because our country does not have national health care and our health insurance is employer centered, any new business with new young workers, has a major unfair competitive advantage over any established business with older higher risk workers - and so the transplants have that advantage because the American companies are saddled with old workers and high legacy health care cost.

So the high wages and benefits that the non-union workers at the transplants enjoy are actually won by the courage, blood, sweat, and tears of the union workers at the American companies. If the UAW is successfully crushed, then the wages and benefits of the transplant workers will collapse - along with the wages and benefits of many other Americans, since it is the UAW that sets the standard.

The point that relates to this broader thread is that the transplants are actually still cheating their workers by paying them much lower total compensation then UAW members are paid for the same work because the transplants have such low health care and pension cost. If our non-union brothers and sisters at the transplants were to join the UAW, then the UAW would be able to negotiate higher wages for them in order to bring their total compensation equal to the current UAW members. They would make a lot more money - which would stimulate their local economies and create a lot of economic opportunity and it would give the American companies a chance to compete fairly with them on a level playing field.

But the Japanese companies do not want to compete fairly on a level playing field. Why would they want to? The field is tilted in their favor and they are winning. They want to cheat their gullible non-union American workers by pretending to give them comparable compensation to the UAW while actually paying them much less. They want to cheat the American people by shipping their components here to be assembled - while keeping their home markets largely closed to our products.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #129384

Jack
You don’t understand the yank on your ear? How about using your body as a hat? Don’t you ever get tired of it?
When Rove tells members of an investigating commitee if you make waves for the President, there will be no money from the RNC for upcoming elections it sounds like the same thing as jury tampering. You call it politics and that’s a lovely euphemism. But any way you parse it, it is bribery and the quid pro quo is obvious.
I suppose in a culture of corruption that’s just business as usual.
I didn’t really expect honesty out of you. After all day in and day out you spew the same BS that you’re fed by an administration that qualifies as pathological liars.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 25, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #129385

What kills me about this whole deal is that Bushco (and their Bushie Cultists) isn’t even listening to the people in their own party over this deal. That is what makes it so alarming and suspicious. It tells me that their greed is the only thing in the drivers seat on this deal, because they don’t even seem to give a damn about what anyone else thinks any longer.

Look at what some people you’d think they’d be listening to are saying:

Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.

“It shouldn’t have happened, it never should have happened,” Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

The quicker the Bush administration can get out of the deal, the better, he said. “There’s no question that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there and money was laundered through there,” Kean said.

“Governor Kean knows as much as anyone how risky it is to deal with the United Arab Emirates,” said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a leading opponent.

“This just proves that no real investigation was ever conducted, and it’s unfortunate that he and the other 9/11 commissioners were not contacted before the government approved this.”

The former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit joined in the criticism.

“The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do,” said Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit until 1999.

“I think the onus still remains with the company and for those who approved it, to justify how this is consistent with our national security concerns,” said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.


Also, this happened today:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The Bush administration was ordered by a U.S. federal judge on Friday to explain why it did not give New Jersey officials documents and information Washington had about a deal allowing an Arab company to take over management of a container terminal in Newark.

U.S. District Court Judge Jose Linares signed an order demanding to know why the government did not carry out a full investigation into the change of ownership of the container terminal at Port Newark.

The judge set a hearing for Wednesday and said in the order he would issue a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, pending a full investigation, unless he was satisfied with Washington’s answers.

The judge asked in the order that federal officials explain why New Jersey officials were not given the same documents and information that Washington used to approve the deal, under which state-owned Dubai Ports World would take over management from the British company P&O.

On Thursday, the State of New Jersey sued the federal government to block the deal on the grounds it violated the 10th Amendment, which says states control anything not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Yet another violation of the Constitution.
These Neocons just think they are always above the law!!!
How many times will they be allowed to get away with trashing the Constitution before the majority in this country can finally agree that they need to be impeached?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 25, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #129389

Adrienne
I think the majority of people realize this clown administration should be impeached or imprisoned. That will not happen as long as the GOP controls the congress. I would hate to see the mutt impeached before Cheney is removed. Like his dad he got a VP that is just too damn goofy to put in charge (officially).
I’ve heard this administration compared to the Nixon administration. That does a great diservice to the Nixon crew. They at least attempted to make it look like they were being forthright and honest.
As close as this gang gets to honesty is telling everyone who questions their actions to go fuck themselves.
I guess they cancelled those ethics refresher courses.

Posted by: richard at February 25, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #129398

Quoting Ken C.,

Here’s my quote: “I am amused at those Reid/Pelosi/Dean supporters who so recently mocked the war on terror now think it so vital that we condemn an entire nation or at least its government … the same gov’t which lets us park billion dollar naval vessels in its harbors.”

Before and since 9/11, close Arab ally (and closer Bush family business partners) Saudi Arabia have granted us even greater accommodations for our military presence in the region.

Still, a majority of the 9/11 terrorists originated from this country.

You must also accept Ken that your over blown, partisan rhetoric does Bush no good. Because, for once, the American people are paying attention, Bush has lost all credibility, and he is experiencing the effects of the climate of fear and suspicion he has helped create.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 25, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #129399

I would find it hard to believe we would seriously seek a free trade agreement with the UAE. American workers can compete with anybdy heads up but the UAE are slavers. How can you compete with slaves?
They routinely flog women for getting pregnant. Often these women are domestic slaves,sexually abused by their masters. They seem to have trouble finding their rapist though.
Their government is unusual,even in the mid-east, for having NO elected bodies.CIA link”suffrage - none”.
With friends like this who needs enemies?
Maybe BushCo. and their apoligist(you there Jack?) think we should be dealing with this trash but I and lots of others think it is time America stood for more than just making a buck. Yeah,they can keep their oil too.

Posted by: BillS at February 25, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #129400

The Bush administration is ignoring Congressional Republicans like Frist & Hastert, who want the deal postponed.

“Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal.”

“Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.

“Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval.”

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

That Rasmussen poll is really interesting. It shows 65-17% disapproval of the deal. What that tells me is that there is a base of Bush supporters, 17%. The Bush supporters/Neocons will follow no matter what. Bush could get caught engaging in white slavery, shipping teenage Texan cheerleaders to Lahore to serve as organ donors for Ayotollahs, and Bush supporters would applaud the creation of a new export for the free market, while simultaneously blaming Clinton.

However, the 39% approval ratings for Bush suggest the other 22% will back Congressional Republicans, but not Bush.

This is just one issue, but it’s being handled so unbelievably poorly by the White House, one can’t help but think the 2006 midterms could turn into a rout. This is such a foul-smelling mess, we’re not even talking about the meltdown in Iraq.


Posted by: phx8 at February 25, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #129415

phx8:
“This is just one issue, but it’s being handled so unbelievably poorly by the White House, one can’t help but think the 2006 midterms could turn into a rout.”

It’d be nice to think we could begin the task of impeaching the lot of them come November — but then I think about those Diebold Built-In Wireless Infrared Data Transfer Ports (link posted earlier), and then I read this story about what the BlackBox.org folks just discovered in Fla. and I wonder whether it’s still possible?
However, I do consider it a rather hopeful sign to see that at least the AP decided to run that story, rather than having that kind of news break only among the blogs as it usually does.

“This is such a foul-smelling mess, we’re not even talking about the meltdown in Iraq.”

I’m kind of surprised that nobody has written an article about all the chaos going on, aren’t you? Of course, I know the Red Column probably doesn’t want to go anywhere near it, but I have been expecting a post from the other two.
Anyway, William F. Buckley seems to be the first righty willing to say it out loud: “It Didn’t Work” and “Our mission has failed.”

PS.
RayG, great post — I’m a pro-union lady, myself.
Richard — I think they definitely cancelled those classes!
BillS — absolutely.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 25, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #129417

Hey phx8:

I know how Rove, Bushie and the rest can get this off the front page—how ‘bout a meltdown in Iran?

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 25, 2006 3:24 AM
Comment #129432

I don’t think Iran will have to meltdown… Iraq will go on it’s own, Israel and Palenstine will take each other along for the ride, and Iran will just add in whatever they have - and the whole region will go straight to hell.

I know the is a pessimistic view point, but can someone one please point out a single thing that Bush has had hiw hands in that has gone any which way but down? One? How about one thing that has avoided simply blowing up in his face? Any takers?

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #129437

Adrienne, actually the election fraud occurs on many fronts. People in more democratic districts did not even have enough machines to vote in Ohio in 2004. The oldest and least serviced machines are always sent to the poorer precincts. Absentee ballots have also been a source of phantom voting. People who have homes in more than one state, can vote absentee in one of them.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 25, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #129445

I think that any ship that visits a U.S. port should pay for the complete cost of a customs inspection. Just maybe, this would serve as a tariff and help our own economy-I would like to see some labels, Made in America.

Posted by: duckman1934 at February 25, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #129451

Jack,

We could get into the dueling statistics. UAE has been a good ally since the start of the war on terror. More than 40% of the equipment for our forces in Iraq goes through the port of Dubai. The firm we are talking about is evidently a good firm (see above).

I’m not arguing about whether or not they are a good firm. I am saying they support terrorism. How much supporting terrorism is okay in the firm we use to oversee our ports?

When leader Bush says countries who support terrorism will “face consequences”, did he mean positive consequences? If not, why are we rewarding the UAE with port oversight?

I remember the 1970s and they really sucked. Whatever happened to make the economy different was a good thing.

Seems to me that Americans can buy more with their wages than they could in 1970. We have bigger houses. We have more cars. We take longer vacations. We live longer and we are healthier. Besides that, maybe we are worse off.

You are suggesting our entire economy will collapse, fail, and return to 1970, because of this one deal with Dubai? If we don’t have this government in charge of our ports America’s economy will implode?

That sounds downright hysterical.

Posted by: Max at February 25, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #129454

“I know the is a pessimistic view point, but can someone one please point out a single thing that Bush has had hiw hands in that has gone any which way but down? One? How about one thing that has avoided simply blowing up in his face? Any takers?

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 08:38 AM”

Now, everyone prepare for a shock. Actually the Medicare Part D scrip plan is not, or at least should not, be the debacle it has been. It’s worked well for me.

So, in all fairness, I think Bush did a good thing there. I think within two or three years most will agree, and hopefully more affordable access to prescriptions will gradually decrease the need and related costs for preventable illness such as stroke, some heart disease, etc.

Medicare Part B has been around for ages. Medicare Part B providers get what could basically be called a “report card”, so when you select a Part B plan you can see what the providers previous performance has been.

I expect the same will be done with Part D providers, so I think this will eventually prove to be a true accomplishment of the Bush administration.

Also there can be little argument that crushing the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Of course it can be argued that we should have stayed more focused there and not invaded Iraq, but history will, IMO rightfully, credit Bush for this.

One more thing, while I seldom agree with Jack about anything. He has tried repeatedly, and correctly, to state that we’re not “selling” our ports to anyone. The only thing being “sold” is the “operation of the ports” and the US isn’t the “seller”. The US government’s role was to “approve” the sale.

I don’t like it. Many officials at both the federal and state level don’t like it and I don’t think it’s xenophobia. To me this is another case of the administration saying “trust us”. Well, sorry, but I don’t trust you. I think the Bush administration has made far too many grave errors to be trusted on anything without a great deal of oversight whether it be congressional, judicial, etc. as appropriate in each individual instance.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #129456

richard… richard… richard,

They didn’t cancel the ethics refreshers. They just slept through them… or maybe… spent the spare time text messaging their male homosexual prostitute lovers (see Karl Rove).

I agree that Cheney needs to be removed first. I think that the best scenario would be one similar to what happened with Nixon, where Agnew was forced to resign first - was replaced by a national unity candidate (Ford) - and then Nixon was forced out.

I agree with Adrienne, it would be nice if we could start impeachment proceedings in November.

I think that it is unlikely though for a number of reasons. People have already mentioned the voter fraud. But beyond that, as phx8 has pointed out, they still have 39% support, 17% that would follow Bush off a cliff. They should have no support.

They are master propagandists and they manage to turn many of these issues to their favor, or at least to negate the worst of the damage. If all else fails, they will shoot some guy in the face, and use it as a distraction.

They create a set of talking points - mostly provably and proven false - and they repeat them continuously and rigidly until a significant number of Americans believe them.

I have heard Democrats say that we need to be better at doing the same thing - and we probably will - it probably will make us more competitive and successful - but I think to the detriment of political discourse in this country. I think that joining them in this will further undermine our already shaky democracy.

We need bi-partisan help with this. But as sndyrmony has pointed out above, they have tremendous discipline over their party through extortion, bribery, and arm twisting - and they want more power - can you say megalomaniac?

Still, I am with Adrienne, hope springs eternal, they may force the Republican congress to stand or fall with them, until they finally over-reach and all fall together. Things do seem to be coming unglued.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #129457

The deal with Dubai was instituted primarily because the UAE put 8 billion dollars into the Carlyle Fund, and have funded Neil Bush’s software corporation. The Bush family has demonstrated time and again that they are perfectly willing to sell America down the river to anybody as long as they and their buddies make money on it. Terrorism is not the issue here. Money is. Bush would probably be happy as hell to see another terrorist incident, as it would raise his poll numbers a bit (unless it were traced directly to him).
So far, all he has done is demonstrate that he is a bungling liar and a shill for some VERY rich wingnut people. It is past time somebody in the Democratic Party got some leadership-backbone and led the fight against this destructive moron.
And—-Let’s Put and keep American Ports under AMERICAN control!

Posted by: capnmike at February 25, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #129458

I just reread what I wrote.

I somewhat messed up. This Dragon Naturally Speaking is great but it doesn’t tell me when I’m wrong.

Rather than say,
“Medicare Part B has been around for ages. Medicare Part B providers get what could basically be called a “report card”, so when you select a Part B plan you can see what the providers previous performance has been.”

It’s actually the “supplement plans” and “advantage plans” that get “report cards”.

Same logic applies.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #129459

Syndymony

I don’t understand either of those references. Maybe we have different cultural background. Wearing your body for a hat makes no sense to and pulling on your ear is meaningless. I understand that most other people seem to get it. Just not me.

Adrienne

Republicans are being as xenophobic as Democrats in this situation. It is good politics all around. It is just wrong.

Max

They don’t support terrorism and have been very cooperative in the war on terror. We trust them enough to allow 40% of our military equipment to go through Dubai. President Clinton back when the UAE was still doing the things they have since stopped, though it useful to sell them some of our most advance military equipment (the kind that we generally share with only close allies).

The President will probably lose this one. Most Republicans have jumped off the wagon and Democrats were never on.

I know that this argument is like the charge of the Light Brigade or like the Polish cavalry charging the Nazi Panzers. We are defeated by superior firepower. We are deployed in an untenabe position. But sometimes a fight is worth fighting even when it is a lost cause because if we give in on this, the xenophobia will just grow.

I won’t win, but I will be back.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #129462

Gee Jack
Was it xenophobic to oppose the Chinese purchase of Unocal not long ago? Or is that different because China is not an absolute monarchy? Its not socialism that leads to serfdom. It is feudalism. Look at history before you make such silly statements. If you and yours want to play footsy with a bunch of slavers why don’t you move their.Maybe you can sell some of your children to them to cover expenses. In the meantime please spare us the self righteous twaddle. “charge of the light brigade” indeed!

Posted by: BillS at February 25, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #129465

Jack,

Xenophobia suggests irrational distrust, but why isn’t it perfectly logical to believe we will do a better job of overseeing our ports than anyone else?

Also, they do support Hamas. They funnel hundreds of millions of dollars through “charities” directly to Hamas, as shown in my post above.

I know that this argument is like the charge of the Light Brigade or like the Polish cavalry charging the Nazi Panzers.

How romantic, but it’s more like Benedict Arnold surrendering West Point to the British for a payoff.

However, I do congratulate you for holding yourself back from slurring all the Republicans and Democrats that disagree with Bushies as racist. You are more mature than our president. Bravo!

Posted by: Max at February 25, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #129477

KansasDem -

“Actually the Medicare Part D scrip plan is not, or at least should not, be the debacle it has been.”

“Also there can be little argument that crushing the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right thing to do.”

I applaud you effort.

OK - but these have both failed in their implementation. I agree that something has needed to be done about prescription drugs and I hope that maybe someday we can find ‘things’ to do to help out with general healthcare for everyone. As far as Afghanistan goes… I’m still not sure he handled that one right - even in theory. I know it was not handled right in practice. It’s never enough to simple destroy a country for a specific reason - even if that reason is a good one. You must be able to fix what you have broken. We have failed miserably at that on all fronts.

So - IMO - I’m still waiting for someone to post a single thing that Bush has done right. How about “just OK” job on something? Hell, I think I might even settle for Bush remembering his zip code by now.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #129480

BillS

According to Marx and those who are influenced by that sort of thing, systems like feudalism are easily defined and recognized. I don’t believe in those things. If it looks like something, that is what I call it.

It is most metaphorical anyway, based on the title to Hayek’s classic book

Max

On the other side, I was just checking on whether or not most Toyota workers in America are unionized. They are not. But in finding that information, I read about the success Toyota, Nissan etc are having making cars in America with American workers. So if you buy a Toyota mostly made in Kentucky, is that still a Japanese car?

Your question about whether or not we can do it better is answered by “it depends’. Can the big three in Detroit do a better job with American workers than Toyota in Kentucky?

Syn
It is sunny today. In fact I figure on going out to run in a few minutes. Sitting at the computer makes you fat.


Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #129482

BM Caradine,

So you’re proposing stopping all trade with Saudi Arabia? Or are you saying that parking a 1 billion dollar Aegis Cruiser in the UAE’s harbor is small potatoes compared to letting them offload boxes in the states?

I’ll let you answer those before I respond more.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 25, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #129485

Jack,

Me? You didn’t answer any of my questions…

Posted by: Max at February 25, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #129489

Max -

As far as I can tell, there aren’t a lot of answers coming from that side.

Ken -

Since you love to post things continuously, here’s this quote one more time:

“�For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid…. [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice… We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.”
—- GW Bush—-

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #129496

Max

Sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions.

Let me try

1. How much supporting terrorism is okay in the firm we use to oversee our ports?

None. The firm does not support terrorism as far as anyone has asserted. It is guilt by association with UAE. UAE, like probably every Muslim country in the world, has some ties you could construe as with terrorism. But they have been cooperative and a good ally since 9/11. By the strict standard that people seem to be applying, I don’t think any Muslim country or probably most others could not pass.

2. If not, why are we rewarding the UAE with port oversight?

The premise is mistaken. We have a UAE holding company buying a UK holding company that manages some cargo handling facilities at some ports. The local authorities, coast guard and customs have port oversight.

RE the 1970s, I was simply responding to a post that implied that things for the U.S. were better back then. I don’t think we will decline to that level.

I think I have addressed your questions and I didn’t mean to ignore them earlier.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #129505

Ken: I assure you, the American people are paying top dollar for every ship we have anchored in a U.A.E.port. the Dubai Ports Authority will be paid handsomely for every box they offload in an American port;even the one that is full of auto parts(and that small package of hunta/bubonic/spanish flu virus)headed for a warehouse in Detroit.
My definition of the free trade agreement”The means by which capitalists and totalitarian dictators maximize wealth and power for themselves to the detriment of working class people throughout the world.”

Posted by: jlw at February 25, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #129507

Jack….I’m still not sure if you don’t get it, or are trying to evade, avoid, or ignore the relevance here……………this is NOT a company..or a firm…but a government we’re talking about. Therefore, we’re not dealing with a CEO, but who…..maybe one of the royal princes…???
And you say they have been cooperative and a good ally since 9/11…..if you’re basing that on something coming from Bush…..then you’re more delusional than earlier perceived.
Might want to think about getting a little more sun…………….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #129512

Sandra

Which Arab or Muslim countries would you find acceptable?

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #129513

Jack,

It is guilt by association with UAE. UAE, like probably every Muslim country in the world, has some ties you could construe as with terrorism.

When a UAE company has the president of the country sitting on the board and that company gives hundreds of millions of dollars to “charities” which Israel has outlawed because they are Hamas organizations that doesn’t sound like a coincidence or weak tie to me. It sounds like the government hardly bothers to hide what it really feels.

Posted by: Max at February 25, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #129514

Jack,

It is guilt by association with UAE. UAE, like probably every Muslim country in the world, has some ties you could construe as with terrorism.

When a UAE company has the president of the country sitting on the board and that company gives hundreds of millions of dollars to “charities” which Israel has outlawed because they are Hamas organizations that doesn’t sound like a coincidence or weak tie to me. It sounds like the government hardly bothers to hide what it really feels. Any country overseeing (I’m using the right word) our ports should be beyond reproach.

Posted by: Max at February 25, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #129516

Max

Same question to you as Sandra. Which Muslim countries would you find acceptable?

Let me expand a bit. Airports have similar contracts for cargo handling. Foreign carries control parts of cargo handling. How much does this bother you?

We will have this 45 day investigation of the deal. Have you already decided that the firm is guilty or will you accept the deal if nothing is turned up?

American firms sometimes want to invest in foreign countries, you know. Dishonest foreign bureaucrats have kept us out of telcom, transportation, even beachfront property using security arguments. We have usually been able to take the high ground and point out that the U.S. is open.

This particular deal will mean nothing in a couple of months. But if it becomes a trend, we will be going down that same road that has kept third worlder third world and for so long made it so hard to get a telephone line even in many advanced countries.

BTW - overseeing the ports is not the right word. We are talking about a holding company for a firm that employs American workers to handle cargo at some parts of some ports. It oversees nothing but that.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #129515

Jack….what the hell does the statement I made to you, have to do with the question you asked me??????

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #129518

Sandra

I believe the conditions you have set would preclude any Muslim country. I am merely asking if you can find any without enough disqualifying flaws.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #129522

Jack,

It has been pointed out by others that this company is tied to the UAE government. That being the case, it is reasonable to look at the UAE and question their intentions and sympathies. Others have pointed out that there is clear evidence to suspect that the UAE has terrorist sympathies. It has already been pointed out by others that even assuming that this company is innocent it is reasonable to wonder if they have been infiltrated. If I were Osama, and I wanted to be able to ship WMD around the world, I would like to have some friends in the shipping business. The easiest way to infiltrate the shipping industry would be to infiltrate the Arab shipping industry and then migrate from there. Now that is all speculation - yes - but reasonable suspicion. Sure the Coast Guard provide security. The police provide security on your street, but they don’t know what really goes on on your street as well as you do. Your boss controls your office, but does he really know what people talk about the water cooler. He probably does. He probably spies on us. The point is simply this, people on the inside have access to inside information - hence the term inside job. So this is clearly an issue that raises security concerns, and the fact the this Regime would rubber stamp this deal without a full blown investigation is, at the very least, another example that Bush is still reading “MY PET GOAT.” It is “hard work”, sounding out all of those big words. That is the best face that you can put on this.

On the other side, I was just checking on whether or not most Toyota workers in America are unionized. They are not. But in finding that information, I read about the success Toyota, Nissan etc are having making cars in America with American workers. So if you buy a Toyota mostly made in Kentucky, is that still a Japanese car?

It is an American car which has been assembled in America (“assembled” really, the least labor intensive part), with largely Japanese parts. Of coarse a GM car assembled in Mexico is a Mexican car. But did you read my earlier post on the subject? Much of the transplants success is due to the ways that they cheat the system. Of coarse American car companies are moving off shore in order to compete - more to say on that - but no more time.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #129523

I html block quoted my self accidentally.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 25, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #129527

I don’t know where you think I was “setting conditions”…and you should probably pose your question to Bush…he is the one who has all along that we would not recognize nor embrace any body that that supported terrorism(ists) in any way.
Jack….you totally amaze me ! Let me try one more time to get across to you. It has already been said in numerous ways, yet you fail to grasp why “we” have such a problem with this deal.
The company managing the ports now is just that….a company, and not the Parliament….hence the government.
The proposed turnover will be into the hands of the UAE government!!!!! Big difference….big, big, big difference.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #129532

Sandra -

Nope nope nope. Used to be that way, but Bush says we shoudn’t worry about security, so what’s the big deal? We’re all safe now, right?

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #129539

Jack,

You ask,
“Wearing your body for a hat makes no sense to and pulling on your ear is meaningless. I understand that most other people seem to get it. Just not me.”

Well that cut-n-paste doesn’t quite connotate a question, but these all refer to basically “wearing your ass for a hat” or “having your head up your ass”.

While I find the “pulling on your ear” thing comical it may be unfair. As much as I disagree with you, and as much as you might sometimes anger me, you are a formidable foe. As much as we might be divided on political issues we’re both equally American.

We actually have something in common. We’re both stubborn as hell. I personally believe that’s a good trait. We just have to expect the rhetoric to get a bit thick once in a while.

Now, back to the battle.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #129551

As I sit here reading these posts by the allknowing about how well the economy of America is doing, I wonder how many of you have ever missed a meal, or walked down the streets of almost any city in this country and seen the homeless sleeping in the alleyways, or the children prostituting themselves for enough money to feed their brothers and sisters because their parents are on drugs or can’t find jobs because illegal aliens are being hired for much less.

Bush said no child should be left behind, but it’s alright to sell their birthrights to foreign countries, I guess

Posted by: JRD at February 25, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #129552

Sandra

The firm doesn’t manage the ports. It runs one of maybe a dozen cargo handling firms.

Listen to the NPR series re. NPR is left of center and not generally friendly to the President, but they do a good job of explaining in this case.

Kansas

Thanks. I really didn’t get it.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #129572

“Sandra -

Nope nope nope. Used to be that way, but Bush says we shoudn’t worry about security, so what’s the big deal? We’re all safe now, right?

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 07:59 PM”

Tony,

When us “libby’s” do this it’s “flip-flopping”.

When the Neo-cons do it they’re protecting us from ourselves. You should know by now that Bush & Co. deserve unquestionable trust. After all they’ve never let us down yet.

Unless I missed something no one’s mentioned this:

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_121

Notable quotes:

“It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.”

“On Saturday, congressional leaders, the company and Bush administration officials appeared to move closer to a compromise intended to derail plans by Republicans and Democrats for legislation next week that would force a new investigation of security issues relating to the deal.”

***

On another thread I said,

“What I find amazing is that news of the cries from the GOP died over the past 24 hours. Today all of the cries of outrage came from the “left”!

I’ll go out on a limb here, within another 48 hours you’ll hear no more complaints from any Republican. In fact, I’ll go further out on the limb and say that within 72 hours you’ll find nearly all Repubs mimicing McCain.
Posted by: KansasDem at February 23, 2006 09:46 PM”

***

Maybe I was premature but not too much. This is one of those times where I hope I’m wrong.

I’m real curious now, what is the current Bush strategy in Iraq other than helping to rebuild religious sites that are being blown up every day? The civil war has started.

Would someone remind me how things have improved in the middle east?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #129573

Aaaah Jack….you must have some endearing qualities….nobody can be this dogmatic ALL the time……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #129574

Woof!

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #129575

Well Kansas……Bush now has some phone buddies over there…..he has been on the phone with them all day urging them, and supporting their efforts to get everyone in line…!!
THis kinda makes you wonder what they’re running in the back rooms now that we’re all wrapped up in this……….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #129576

Jack
An Islamic that would be acceptable? Turky
Feudalism was not mentioned by Marx in particular. It mostly vanished from western Europe in the 15th century but lasted longer in the east. Absolute rulers own their individual fiefs. Everyone living there works for them. The UAE is a callaboration of fiefdoms.Serfdom usually refers to those tied to the land,farmers,who have to pay their lords for growing crops but can be applied to production of goods also. They overlords( in this case emirs,caliphs,sultans) have absolute authority.
This system should be appalling to any freedom loving American. In europe it tended to evolve into absolute monarchies and our war of independance was a revolution against such a system. Most of us still believe it is an evil system even though Cheny must have wet dreams just thinking of it.
That is a good enough reason not to do business with the UAE itself.Add terrorist support and slavery and it should be a no brainer.
Clinton sold the arms. Again with the Clinton did it so it is OK for us to do something quite different. Do you guys ever tire of that? Well Clinton should not have done it. Two mistakes make a right?

Posted by: BillS at February 25, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #129579

“Thanks. I really didn’t get it.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 08:40 PM”

Jack,

No thanks necessary. I originally thought you were being disingenuous. A joke is not a joke unless everyone gets it. Then it becomes ridicule. You don’t deserve to be ridiculed, none of us do.

Just don’t think this means I’ll change my moderated liberal stance. I just believe in fair play. I also would be disappointed if you changed your stance, yeah, like that would happen anyway.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #129580

If anyone is interested in reading another opinion….and the word “secret” always brings out the curiosity.
“Documents show secret deal on port sale.”

http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=0356CB7817924E8C850261204FE03E3B

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #129581

Marx talked a lot about Feudalism. It was one of the stages of history in his harebrained scheme of dialectics.

But you are not getting it right even in theory. The lord of the manor was not an absolute ruler in any sense. In feudalism everyone had obligations. Serfs had obligations to the lord, but the lord had obligations to other lords, his king and also to his serfs.

An important distinction which you missed in the detail is that the serfs did not work for the Lord. They worked for the land. They were tied to the land and the lord could not move them from one of his estates to another without the application of tradition and law.

Anyway, the serfdom is mostly metaphorical. But in socialism, as in feudalism, the state in theory, owns everything and everyone holds his position at the sufferance of the state. But I would not assert that the details are identical, just more similar to each other than either is to a free market.

People who talk about feudalism usually don’t apply it outside Europe, except that the European run Kingdom of Jerusalem was probably the best example of the system. Some people think Japan had a feudal system.

My point about Clinton is not that he made a mistake and that justifies Bush. It is that he DID NOT make a mistake. Clinton was right and so is Bush.

Turkey is everyone’s favorite Muslim majority country(mine too), probably because it is a secular state. I don’t really believe there would be no questions if it was Turkish firm, however. The EU very cleverly tries to dodge the Turkish question whenever it really comes up.

Do I understand you correctly in that you want to do NO busines with the UAE.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #129588

“As I sit here reading these posts by the allknowing about how well the economy of America is doing, I wonder how many of you have ever missed a meal, or walked down the streets of almost any city in this country and seen the homeless sleeping in the alleyways, or the children prostituting themselves for enough money to feed their brothers and sisters because their parents are on drugs or can’t find jobs because illegal aliens are being hired for much less.
Posted by: JRD at February 25, 2006 08:37 PM”

JRD,
I have. If I take the shortest route to the hospital in Wichita I see it. On the evening news report they might occasionally mention a dead homeless person. It usually amounts to something like “a man’s body was found…….blah, blah, blah……no foul play is suspected”, end of story. A bum died, no problem.

My son and his wife are foster parents. They’ve had several teens that had previously been prostituting themselves, both male and female, just to survive.

I’m only 54 but disabled and I try to help out at the senior center when I can. I help a few seniors shop. It sucks to see some of these people have to pass up fresh fruits and vegetables because they can’t afford it. These are in large part the people that supported the “war effort” that kept us free of the Axis powers of WWII. Many of them were just kids then themselves.

Then along comes the “I want what I want when I want it” generation! How many people today have two or more TV’s in their home, but lack the savings to carry them through even three months of uninsured job loss or a serious illness?

IMO we are socially bankrupt on a national level and it’s no more due to one party than the other. America’s social bankruptcy is one thing that is truly bipartisan.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #129591

Oh hey…..big surprise!!! CNN just reported they have learned that Republican lawmakers have crafted a comprimise that will allow the port deal to go through………….okay, all together now….. FLIP…FLOP… Remains to be seen if they are the ones still stuck tightly to Bush’s butt, or if some of the dissenters moved back across the aisle..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #129597



Homeland Security objected at first to ports deal, then withdrew objection

WASHINGTON The Homeland Security Department did at first object to the takeover of some U-S port operations by a company based in the United Arab Emirates. It was the only objection among members of a government committee that eventually approved the multi-(b) billion-dollar deal without dissent.

The department’s objections were settled later in a review, after D-P World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders, the company and Bush administration officials appear to be moving closer to a compromise. It’s intended to derail plans for bi-partisan legislation that would force a new investigation of security issues relating to the deal.

A D-P World executive says the company would agree to tougher security restrictions to win congressional support only if the same restrictions applied to all U-S port operators.



Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #129602

Sandra,

Thanks for the link. I totally agree with you. Jack never will.

He’s not alone. Bush thinks this is a good idea. Jack supports Bush.

Jack, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you’ve ever disagreed with Bush!

It’s good to disagree, it’s better to be able to voice that disagreement. That’s why we’re not blowing up sh** over here.

I hate the thought that we have American’s in Iraq when it’s blowing up into a full blown civil war.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #129605

So you’re proposing stopping all trade with Saudi Arabia? Or are you saying that parking a 1 billion dollar Aegis Cruiser in the UAE’s harbor is small potatoes compared to letting them offload boxes in the states?

Only by jumping to such hysterical conclusions Ken, can Bush defenders actually seem rational in their argument.

No, all I’m asking for is the 45-day review and scrutiny by Congress (which is lawfully their prerogative), that may go a long way towards allaying fears.

In the wake of the administration’s handling of Katrina, it’s incredible to be told not to ask questions. This deal was not reached after a thorough investigation, but because John Snow and others would benefit monetarily.

And, quashing this deal will have no effect on our standing in the Arab world, whatsoever.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 25, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #129606

Hey what a shock. The Republicans rolled over and filled their cracks with Kentucky jelly. Like no one saw this coming. A little extortion goes a long way in the beltway. This will be a boon to the dems if they can keep from lodging their feet in their mouths. At this rate it won’t be long before the GOP are eating their young.
With a little luck Fritzy will get off his butt and gut this pathetic excuse for an administration. Then as the Abramoff tune starts weeding out the underlying trash the Dems could end up being the majority by default. If this wasn’t my country I’d find this funnier than watching the Muslims dancing in the street.
The argument I keep hearing is we don’t want to alienate the Muslim world..What the f$#%^ are they talking about? Near as I can tell we couldn’t alienate them anymore if we showered them with leaflets of Mo doing a pig on both ends.
Heaven forbid that Iraq fall into civil war…hello, they have had a low key civil war going on since we arrived to “liberate” them. Oh great idea lets bring peace to the middle east. Unless you plan on nuking it till it’s just shiny glass there isn’t goint to be peace in that part of the world period.
End to terrorism? Wake up people. We were attacked by a group of Saudis led by a Saudi in Afganistan and a couple thousand people died. For revenge let’s lay waste to Iraq. So we kill untold tens of thousands directly and destroy the infrastructure leading to who knows how many deaths and unknown suffering by the remaining population. Good idea. I’m just glad the Arabs don’t hold a grudge.
It seems rectal crainiotomies need to be performed on a large segment of our society. (not just Jack, hell he’s just a symptom)


Posted by: sndyrmony at February 25, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #129607

“Oh hey…..big surprise!!! CNN just reported they have learned that Republican lawmakers have crafted a comprimise that will allow the port deal to go through………….okay, all together now….. FLIP…FLOP… Remains to be seen if they are the ones still stuck tightly to Bush’s butt, or if some of the dissenters moved back across the aisle..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 25, 2006 10:35 PM”

I hate to say I told you so but………..

KansasDem
PS: the VP’s been known to break a tie vote. You’ll see no overide of a veto here.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 25, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #129615

Kansas et al

If this sort of rule is applied to all firms we won’t be able to run our ports. We depend on foreign contactors for more than half of the total cargo handling.

Re supporting Bush (or not) I have written in support of same sex marriage (which I don’t think is the Bush position). I didn’t care for his steel tariffs. I don’t think we should have a prescription drug benefit. I don’t think we should have so much Federal involvement in rebuilding New Orleans. I am disappointed that he failed to reform SS and George Bush is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to speaking.

Generally when I disagree with the President, I just don’t write anything on that subject. It is not my business to trash him. You guys can do that without me. When I choose a subject to write about I have options and I take the ones where the President is doing a good job.

BTW - I have seen very little in the way of praise for our President over here. I can turn around that accusation. I rarely go against, but you never praise.

I also like Bush. I like most of the things he is doing. I don’t like all the results, but I know that implementation is hard and I cut the executive some slack on that.

Posted by: Jack at February 26, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #129620

I have a word of priase for the pres. I hear he can tie his own shoes in just a couple tries. Otherwise I’d say for a border line retard he’s done well. Before you start whining about he’s not retarded connsider. A student at Yale with money and family connections and a history of father at Yale head of CIA etc. He gets C’s. Clearly his high marks were the result of family connections. Anyone who attended college knows what the C students were doing, and not very well. If he hadn’t been connected he would have been fired out of there like puffed rice from cannons. Shades of the Light brigade, eh.

Posted by: richard at February 26, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #129624

“Generally when I disagree with the President, I just don⦣x20AC;™t write anything on that subject. It is not my business to trash him.”

Jack,

We differ there big time. I’ll praise what I think is good and equally condemn what I think is bad. With 180 degrees being the farthest apart on issues that two people can be, we’re probably about 170 degrees apart. But that’s OK. IMO Bush is a dill-hole which is one rod short of a dill-rod.

I don’t trust him one little bit. I don’t hate him but I don’t respect him either. I do believe he should be impeached regardless of the outcome.

How do you feel about your tax dollars being spent to rebuild mosques in Iraq that were blown up by Iraqi’s?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 26, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #129628

Jack
Glad some one tried to let you in on the joke.
You need not worry your little head about federal funds being used to rebuild New Orleans. The Pres showed up for the photo ops, mission accomplished. Not a Ronald Reagan, well no he’s not old enough or bright enough to be senile and who could tell if he has alzheimers or not.
You wrote in support of same sex marriage, good you were probably one of the few Reps who realized it wasn’t mandatory.
As to this POS we laughingly refer to as the prez, I fear him and the rest of his bottom dwelling scum cronies more than any lopsided f%^&*ng terrorist organization. Shit if you look you might realize we already had a coup in this country, just no need to inform anyone. If we wait till the American public wakes up we’ll be long retired and then who gives a damn. They can go f#&% themselves. Vote for that POS, I would vote for Willie Wonka before I would vote for this lop.
On the upside I do believe we can fix the problem of New Orleans and the sea level problem. I think we should dig up Texas and haul it over as land fill till we get some decent elevation, then rebuild the city. If we have any Texas left over we should give it back to Mexico. Consider the gifts of Texas. The Bush klan, Tom DeLay, Landslide Lyndon, If we don’t give it back to Mexico we should certainly revoke their right to send elected officials any further north than Austin.
Kansas dem. There is no thanks to be expected for wising up a chump. (even if you could)


Posted by: sndyrmony at February 26, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #129631

Jack
There are several advanced socialist countries in the world with better conditions for most people than in the US. They might be surprised at their serf status.Guess it depends on your definitions People do own their homes etc. in Sweden and Austria for example but they are socialist countries. Fundemental services are provided by the state. They are also democracies.Representitive democracies for you sticklers.
You did not answer my question about the difference between this deal and allowing the Chinese to purchase Unacal. Did you favor that deal also? If not wasnt that racist,xenophobic?
As to whether we should do business with the UAE at all ,no I do not think we should do any more business than absolutly necessary with any non-democratic country. Certainly not enter extensive trade agreements them.
Especially the UAE.They have oil and a lot of our money. A prostitute that only services rich clients is still a whore.Even communist China has elections at the local level. UAE has no elected bodies at all. This is abberent even for the mid-east.
They are also slavers.Look it up. Some information is sketchy as they do not allow human rights organization in. They refuse to sign the UN treaty regarding basic rights of immigrant workers that compose most of the UAE population. They rountinly flog women for getting pregnant out of marraige. I am not talking about a spanking here but 100-150 lashes. Often these women are domestic servants held as virtual chattel who are raped by their owners. Young boys are kiddnaped from southern asia and Iran and sold there as camel jockies,sex slaves and beggers. Nice bunch of folks there.
Generally trade is good. Free trade is even good if in fact it is free trade. For the eventual benefits to materialize for American workers,not just the corporations, there has to be certain conditions on both sides that assure that forign workers will at some point at least recieve a big enough portion of the wealth they create to buy products from the US(besides fighters anyway).That some sort of balance is achievable. There are two ways this happens. By legislation(ie.minimum wage standards)or by unionism(wage barginning of one sort or another) protected by law,usually both. Niether of these processes will ever occur in a country that is autocratic. Adding slavery and virtual slavery to the equation means the UAE is so far from meeting these conditions that an extensive trade agreement with them is foolish in the long run. I can see its appeal in the short run as a desperate atempt to get some of the money we traded them for oil back. A better strategy would be to take a substantial part of the ridculous defense budget and make a real push to develope alternate energy supplies.Alternate energy is so obvious even your boy has been forced to give it lip service .That way we could tell them and their ilk to suck eggs until they at least move into the 19th century.


Posted by: BillS at February 26, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #129642

I keep hearing a lot of chatter about what fine allies the UAE has become in the war on terror. I suppose after being caught up to their turbins in funneling funds to numerous terrorist organizations and facilitating the movement of nuclear tech to Iran and North Korea They couldn’t have gotten much worse. Of course it was a pragmatic decision to aid in the war on terror, funny how an aircraft carrier loitering offshore changes the minds of many in power.
As to middle east oil, we get most of our oil from Canada.
Alternative fuels, let’s see. It seems to me that during World war II the Germans were making diesel fuel from coal. I don’t think the alchemy involved was lost to the ages.

Posted by: richard at February 26, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #129649

Jack

I agree with you I like Turkey too!!!

I like turkey at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

The Arabs are getting a bad rap.

Once we start lobbying for the next 45 days for

the Arabs, the deal will pass with no veto.

Next we should make a deal with the Arabs princes

to rebuild the Twin Towers. Americans can lease

it from the Arabs,we sill own the land and all

security rights nothing will change.They will

run it from the Middle east,we would save alot

of taxs dollars.

Trust me this sounds like a good deal.

Can’t teach and old dog new tricks.

Good thing I’m a young dog and can learn new

TRICKS.

Do you think Rudy G. should have taken the money

from the prince.

Posted by: js at February 26, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #129661

Good article, Paul. I can’t wait to see how the red columnists spin President Bush’s next presidential directive: outsourcing immigration control to a company owned by Mexico…

Posted by: American Pundit at February 26, 2006 8:13 AM
Comment #129669

Pundit -

What about outsourcing security in Iraq to ex-Bathe party members… or giving charge to Afgani war lords over delivery of humanitarian aid shipments?

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #129707

sndyrmony,

rectal craniotomies?… My wife was a surgical scrub nurse, she liked doing craniotomies, I don’t think she ever did one of those… but hey doing one to Bush might help to him read “MY PET GOAT”, clearly he has been reading that book for along time now… Jack just needs a little medication… perhaps some masculine would expand his horizon…

I may have to borrow the term rectal craniotomy and and use it in Ray’s Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases. The definition of Defense Intelligence is included here. To read more of Ray’s Brief Dictionary go to: Ray’s Political Blog

Defense Intelligence (Dē΄-fĕnss Ĭn΄-tĕl-ǐ-gĕnss) noun. 1.) A well thought out military campaign involving the use of enough troops to maintain stability after victory is complete. 2.) Sending troops into combat with adequate armor. 3.) Torturing Arabs so that they no longer even know what the truth is, and will tell us whatever they think that we want to hear. 4.) Drawing pictures of fictional mobile bio-weapons labs on semi-trucks. 5.) Warrant-less spying on American enemies of His Highness President George Bush the Second. 6.) Really cool little remote controlled planes with big assed missiles. And number 7.) Trusting a government linked company with social, cultural, national, economic, and political links to our number one terrorist enemy, to be responsible the number one avenue, that our enemy might want to use to attack us.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 26, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #129720

I haven’t read all the posts on this topic, but I don’t believe anyone has brought up the name of James Baker in all this. It all has to do with oil and money and Baker knows all the players in the game, including Bush Jr. & Bush Sr.
Incidentally, Richard, thanks for the info. I’ll try to use it from time to time.
Adrienne, you’re gonna have to stop posting. You make just too much sense for the extremists on both sides. I can’t figure our why Jack keeps coming back to be bashed again and again. Who is he going to get behind after the next election? I’m certain nobody the left elects will be to his satisfaction.
I have been voting since Truman was president and over all those years and prior to that, I have never found a president I disliked as much as I dislike Bush. I also never thought it necessary to stand up for stupid things done by the president I voted for.
I’m sure there are a lot conservatives out there who think Bush has screwed up big time on several issues and I’d like to think I’d feel the same way if he were my president. (heaven forbid)
Jack p

Posted by: jack p at February 26, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #129731

jack (not Jack)

Wow - I thought you were Jack, and I was just about ready to eat my mouse. BTW - there use to be a Tony (very conservative) who posted here, and it cause a bunch of confusion.

I hope that Bush II is just an anomally - that the two parties are not heading further and further apart. I can not image how Bush II could perform any worse, nor in a more secretive and anti-American way… but it that a product of sheer incompetenance or partisan divide? If we get ‘our guy’ in next, will we be so blindly supportive of his/her failure?

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #129740

tony,

The best estimate of how irrationally supportive we might be if our guy or girl gets elected next time is too look back at our own reactions to Clinton at the time. I liked Clinton, thought he was a good President, and thought that the Republicans were playing cheap partisan politics with the investigation. But I also thought that he inhaled, made moneyoff from white water, and “did” the women.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 26, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #129743

I pretty much thought Clinton was a budda. But, when he talked, even he most ardant enemies had to listen. You don’t get that with W.

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #129762

///Historical Accuracy Alert///
The serfs were not freed until 1861 in Russia, and feudalism is still alive and well in England, where the Dukes of St. Albans, Richmond, and Grafton sit in the House of Lords. They are the direct male descendants of Charles2 by Nell Gwynn, Louise de Keroualle and Barbara Villiers Palmer Castlemaine Cleveland, repectively. I skipped the Duke of Buccleuh, descended through Lucy Walter, from Scotland, because I can not remember how their name became Montague-Douglas-Scott, and it is harder to spell.

This system was alive and well when Marx was writing.///

Posted by: ohrealy at February 26, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #129913

“Republicans believe that maximizing shareholder value is the greatest good. A greater good even than homeland security. This is not what Republicans say, but this is what they demonstrate with their actions.”

This is simply naive or even intellectually dishonest. Just replace the word “Republican” with “shareholders, corporate officers and boards of directors”. You won’t because we have plenty of rich shareholders, COs and board members that are Democrats and liberals.

Be more honest with your readers. Wealth and the acquiring of it is no more Republican than it is Democrat.

Posted by: ILIndCon at February 27, 2006 12:57 PM
Post a comment