Third Party & Independents Archives

More Bizarre Behaviour

In a surprising twist, yesterday President Bush threatened to actually use his veto power. If he follows through, it would mark the first application of the Presidental veto in over 5 years. The president threatened the use of his veto in response to congressional attempts to pass a bill that would halt the selling of six major US ports to Dubai Ports World. I guess if you want to see the president get active, you have to stand in the way of the profit stream for his oil buddies.

Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal

The Bush administration just can't seem to catch a break these days. For the past several days, Capitol Hill has been scrambling as Bush officials have tried to make deals with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee in order to avoid a full-scale investigation into Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. And right on the heels of that, we are seeing public and congressional outrage towards a deal which would give control of ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia to a state owned company in UAE. The mention of UAE should stop us here as we recall that UAE has been accused by this administration of sponsoring and harboring terrorists, and that UAE has vowed the destruction of Israel. This new trust with UAE seemingly flies in the face of the neocons' usual zionist agenda as well as our aggressive stance in the "War on Terror".

Remember, it is this administration which has done so much to raise the fears of US citizens in regards to international terrorism. They have beat the war drums against Syria and Iran. They have raised the suspicions of anyone who will listen to be skeptical of any middle eastern country (that is, excluding Israel). And now they expect everyone to drop their suspicions because DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff says there are provisions in the deal to protect national security? Nevermind the fact that those provisions are confidential (really, now who is surprised?). Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, had this to say about the administration's oversight of the deal:

"I know that they checked out the top people in the company, but middle-level management, the workers, people who would have access to any type of sensitive information, none of that really has been looked into."

This administration, which has been so hardcore in their "War on Terror", is suddenly not concerned with the low-level workers, the very positions which are most easily attained, and the possibility that terrorists might gain access to one of our most vulnerable positions. Not only that, but Bush's veto threat seems to indicate that he thinks our concerns are not legitimate. He evokes the image of a child throwing a tantrum (or better yet, the scene from "Dazed and Confused" when Pickford's Dad decides not to go out of town because he suspects his son is throwing a party when they leave.) The deal is set to close in 8 days, and Bush seems to be reacting out of frustration because he was so close to having his party without 'his parents' finding out. But now, it's not just the Democrats he's going to have to convince, he's got his own party after him, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is up in arms about this deal, and Bush just doesn't seem to understand why everyone is upset. And more than that, he has placed himself as an obstruction in the way of discovering what the details of this deal actually are.

Can anyone explain the irrational behaviour we've seen of late from the White House?

Posted by Andrew Parker at February 22, 2006 9:59 AM
Comments
Comment #128504

Andrew,

This is not bizzare behaviour for BushII, this is expected behaviour. He wants to be king and get his way, uncompromised or discussed; his motto seems to be “balance of power is for poor people, taxes are for the middle class.”
He is, though, becoming more petulant as increasingly his cries of “national security” and other fear mongering are being quesitoned.

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #128510

Andrew:

Perhaps I’ve missed something, but I don’t see the connection between the outsourcing the ports situation and “the profit stream for his oil buddies.”

The ports are currently outsourced and no one has complained. They may stay outsourced, since 24 of the 25 largest port companies are foreign (my numbers may be a bit off, but its a very high percentage). The only issue right now is to whom the ports should be outsourced.

I don’t get the connection, unless it was just a shot at Bush that really has no connection. Can you explain your thoughts?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #128515

Dave,
I agree this is expected behavior. I think the whole lot of these Neocons are as mad as hatters.

Andrew,
I was reading this article yesterday: Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal
And was stunned to read this gobsmacking sentence:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. He said details of those agreements were secret.

I’d like to know why they think that agreement must be kept a secret from Congress. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #128517

It gets better:
Bush Didn’t Know About Ports Deal

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #128518

As Joe says, the cargo handling ports are mostly outsourced already. Listen to the NPR morning edition report about that for background. We already have Chinese (and all Chinese firms have government ties), Danes, Brits and many others. The Coast Guard and Customs does the security, not the handling firms.

The question I have for you and other is,

Can you trust Arabs? Well can you?

That is the subtext of all of this: some people don’t trust Arabs. It is sort of racist. Well maybe not sort of. Politically this is bad for Bush. Maybe we should not let any foreigners run our business, but is that what you want?

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #128520

Miraculously, I agree with Jack. We should let the Arabs control our Ports.

I think this is a better chance to focus on the non-existent security on the Ports. Dear Leader Bush reduced by 30% the budget for any such security. Still, I am sure we are perfectly safe.

Posted by: Aldous at February 22, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #128524

Dave,
Holy Sh*t!!! Oh that’s sad…

Jack:
“Can you trust Arabs? Well can you?”

Sure.
But we shouldn’t let an Arab country control our ports on the East Coast.
You know how they talked about “a few bad apples” regarding Abu Ghraib? (Even though we now know those bad, utterly mad apples were at the top of the chain of command.) Same thing applies here.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #128526

This is not bizzare behaviour for BushII, this is expected behaviour. He wants to be king and get his way, uncompromised or discussed; his motto seems to be “balance of power is for poor people, taxes are for the middle class.”

Geeeez Dave, If ya didn’t say BushII I would have thought you were talking about Clinton or some other Democrat President. I’m glad ya cleared that up before you said anything else.
It’s like I’ve been saying, there aint a dimes difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 22, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #128528

JBOD-

To quote Walter from The Big Lebowski, “Well, there isn’t a literal connection…”

Although the Bush family has numerous ties to wealthy oil families, as well as the Saudi Royal family, I’m only conjecturing that Bush is so adamant about this deal because he has some interest in seeing it through. And his interest is extreme enough to him to stand in the way of congressional oversight and pull the veto card that we’ve never even seen from him before. What is he protecting?

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #128530

It seems a few major problems with Bush is:

  • he can not ever admit when he is wrong.

  • he trusts his own judgment too much.

  • he doesn’t really care about security (i.e. open borders and ports, can’t connect the dots, etc.)

  • he lost his veto pen for a long time, and when he found it, it was very bad timing;

  • he is just a tiny part of a much larger problem: government, growing ever larger, uncontrollable, and out of touch, and arrogant.

But, we can’t give one person all the credit.
He has a lot of help (if that’s what you want to call it).

Nothing, no reforms, no common-sense solutions, no progress can be made until government is held accountable. Only the voters can do that now (especially since hundreds of pardons are probably on the way, like the 140 felons pardoned by Clinton).

Fix it now, or wait until it is harder and more painful.

BTW, the only reason we have not been attacked again is only because the terrorists don’t have WMD yet. That is why they so far resorted to conventional explosives and airplanes for missiles. When the terrorists do get WMD, there will be nothing to stop them. And they can take their pick. Ship Containers, tunnels on Mexico border, or just walk across that border. This government, 4 years later has not even implemented the 911 Commission recommendations. New Mexico and Arizona have commited a state emergency. Government doesn’t care about any of that. Irresponsible incumbents only care about paddin’ their own cu$hy nests, and they all got golden parachutes. It is the people that will suffer for their negligence and corruption.

But, perhaps voters only have themselves to thank for it if they can not see the problem and the obvious solution. Start votin’ out all of these irresponsible incumbents, always.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #128531

Andrew:

By the way, I’d like to see more transparency in the port issue. We know that DPW has been checked out and approved by committee, but…did the committee do a good and thorough job—not sure about that.

I’m not willing, like some of the writers (and I use that term politely….very politely) to simply condemn the deal. It certainly merits close attention, and should involve to some degree the governors of the states where the ports are.

I also don’t particularly like the idea of the veto by Bush. I think he should invite the scrutiny, include the governors, and revisit the issue completely to show that the situation has been properly vetted. If it hasn’t been, then he shouldn’t be fighting for it. If it has been, he can then show that it was just political gamesmanship.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #128532

Jack-

I’m not debating whether or not the ports are going to be secure or not. I don’t care that they are run by foreign powers, but I am pointing out the inconsistency of the Bush Administration in outsourcing specifically to a country that is so contrary to their “War on Terror” and zionist goals.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #128533

JBOD-

I also don’t particularly like the idea of the veto by Bush. I think he should invite the scrutiny, include the governors, and revisit the issue completely to show that the situation has been properly vetted.

Good, then we agree.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #128541

AP

UAE has been a good ally in the war on terror. We let the Chinese run some of these operations. We let Brits run these operations. How are the Arabs different?

I am not a PC sort of guy. I judge people by the content of their characters not the kinds of robes they wear. Some UAE citizens are terrorists. So are some American citizens. I don’t want these guys to have access to sensitive places. But I won’t exclude someone just because he looks like some of the guys who blew up the WTC.

I also disagree with you and Joe about giving this to the governors etc. I think the process should be transparent, but we don’t need it politicized any more than it is.

Shummer and Frist are shocked, shocked to find business going on. That is probably why they are in politics.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #128543

Andrew:

As I suspected, there really wasn’t a connection to big oil. Thanks for clearing up that canard.

I guess I’m not willing to jump in and make those kind of assumptions. As you can see from my earlier post, I’m looking at this from the factual side, rather than an assumptive side. While I want to be sure proper investigation has been done, I’m not going to assume it hasn’t been done.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #128550
Can you trust Arabs? Well can you? Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 12:24 PM
The real question is:

Can you trust BushII? Can you?

After all; BushII did such a good job investigating the reasons to go to war in Iraq, we should trust him to do a good job investigating now.

Parker,

What is this “zionist goal” crap you keep talking about?

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #128552

Jack:

Its already politicized. The horse has left the barn. I think in the political climate, Bush should have been out in front on this. Had he involved the governors from the beginning, the uproar might never have occurred. And if there were an uproar, it would have been muted by the inclusion of others.

Governors like business in their states. Don’t see why they’d have been against the sale to DPW.

I agree with you that this is really an example of profiling, but the left just cant see that. Its not different than profiling an individual who happens to be from a certain country, and we know they’d be up in arms over that. The unwillingness to stand up for a principle in differing circumstances is not surprising, but its unfortunate.

As far as Frist and Shumer and the rest, its all in the realm of political gamesmanship now. The issue doesnt even really matter, so long as they get their camera time, their bases solidified, and the asses covered.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at February 22, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #128567

def’n; Pot-calling-the-kettle-black:
this is really an example of profiling, but the left just cant see that.
Posted by: jeobagodonuts at February 22, 2006 01:41 PM

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #128569

Dave:

Not sure what you intended to say with your post, but that’s not really anything new. :)

For Democrats to say this is anything BUT profiling is silly. Its precisely that. And for Republicans to act shocked that someone might want to profile would be equally disingenuous.

You’ll note from my posts that I’m not taking political sides on this, as many are wont to do. I’m simply talking about the issue. If you can do the same, then we’ll both perhaps learn something.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #128570

Forget the whole left/right paradigm for a minute, and drop the whole profiling argument. No one is suspicious just because of their race, and there are people angry about this from both major parties.

What we’re seeing is a 180-degree turnaround from the administration that until recently has been absolutely cuckoo for ‘homeland security’. And now, we have Bush making deals with a country avowed to destroy Israel that has knowingly permitted terrorist activites, the details of which are classified! The secrecy of this administration has gotten completely out of hand, especially when the President is so completely involved that he threatens to veto any measure that would stop his business deal. Why in the hell would the president be so opposed to an investigation (which would only take 45 days, as proposed by Congress - a minor delay) into what should be a routine changing of control of our ports?

And now, in light of Adrienne’s post, we see that Bush didn’t even know of the deal. Why then is he so adamant that there be no investigation? Why is his administration trying to fly this deal under the radar of the American public, Congress and the President? The people are justified in their demand for answers.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #128573

JBOD-

For Democrats to say this is anything BUT profiling is silly. Its precisely that.

How about an Independent saying that this is in no way profiling? I think that UAE’s track record is a warning flag, not the color of their skin, or how they dress or what region of the globe they call home. You can call someone a terrorist, no matter what, if they have been involved in previous terrorist activities. Similarly, shouldn’t this administration be suspicious of the security of handing our ports to a state-owned company from a nation that has ties to terrorism? They’re usually quite concerned with that sort of thing.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #128578

Jack-

We let the Chinese run some of these operations. We let Brits run these operations. How are the Arabs different?

Why is UAE (specifically, since we aren’t handing our ports to an “Arab” country) different? Let’s see:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

UAE has been a good ally in the war on terror.

Are you intentionally quoting Bush here? Just don’t swallow the fishing pole too.

Please, don’t try to claim the moral high ground here by falsly claiming that this has anything to do with race or any sort of profiling.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #128585

jbod,
Please, we have to use common sense here. If Bush’s Homeland Security had spent some of that giant wad o’ cash they got in putting in some standard proceedures to check all containers entering our ports, maybe we wouldn’t have to worry. But they didn’t, so we do.
And Chertoff now claiming that they made agreements with an UAE company that certain conditions would be met to ensure national security, but that the details of that agreement are secrets that Congress can’t know about is just completely insane.

Btw, it seems so nutty to me that you guys have claimed it’s fine if they secretly wiretap law abiding Arab-American citizens homes because of the “War on Terror”, but when it comes to this situation, where we’re dealing with foreign Arabs who are not U.S. citizens, and have no allegiance to America at all, suddenly it’s considered profiling?
Sorry, I don’t get it.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #128586

Joe Bagodonuts,

I think you brought an interseting point in saying that there is already the outsourcing going on. Suffice it to say it should have never been allowed in the first place for that money or any of it to leave this nation. We run the ports through the Coast Guard, Customs agencies and our “homeland” security why should we pay for all of the security and handling initiatives and the money gets sent back to the UAE (or for that matter any other country who owns our ports), it’s a drain obviously.


My objection to is not only the stated above but that the Wahabism and radicalized Islamic schools are still open for business and turning out terroristically minded Muslims as we speak. The Arabs are still funding terror groups (Hamas, Hezb’allah, Fatah and others) and are still handling the banking systems by which this money moves around the middle east. Are we so sure these are allies? WE have bases therebut that does not justify this exchange when they are supporting the things they have been shown time and time again to support and have supported in the past.

So A: It’s a fiscal drain & B: It’s not justified through our bases if they are the enemy to civilization, which is precisely what terror is and enemy of democratized civiliazation.

I mean look at the trouble that the Saudis have stirred up with the Danish cartoon controversy. Are these truly allies in generating democratic change and the answer is an undoubted; No they are not. That should be the criteria alone. And Yes so too with China.

Posted by: Translator at February 22, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #128588

Pardon the above typos, anyone reading it I hope would get the geist of the stance. I type a little too fast sometimes.

Posted by: Translator at February 22, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #128589

Andrew:
“Why is his administration trying to fly this deal under the radar of the American public, Congress and the President?”

Andrew I posted this link yesterday in the blue column:
W aides’ biz ties to Arab firm

From the article:

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

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

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

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

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


So there are two connections. With their chronic level of secrecy we may find there are other connections we don’t yet know about.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #128595

Listen to the whole NPR story. NPR has been no friend of the President. This is well balanced and fills in some facts about how this thing really works. Both Republicans and Democrats are being craven and opportunistic about this.

As for Bush being unaware of the approval, “The matter didn’t rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat”, said Scott McClellan.

I am glad our President doesn’t micro manage these things, but now he will pay a political price for a good management decision.

You do have to ask the question, however, about our trust of Arabs. We have seen this xenophobia before. Remember how upset people got when the Japanese were buying up American firms in the early 1990s? How did those investments do, BTW? And how many Americans do firms like Toyota and Honda employ today?

The problem back then was that we were prejudiced against the Japanese. It didn’t bother most people that Brits and Dutch were the largest investors in the U.S. before that time. Now we are accustomed to the Japanese and localities fight for their investments. Now we are afraid of the Arabs and this fear is bipartisan, evidently.

By all means, we should do due diligence on any firm that wants to set up operations in the U.S. Maybe even do a little extra if you have historical reasons. But if this firm passes on economic and security grounds let’s not hold them up on racist principles.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #128599

So Bush finally told his poor, ignorant followers to ‘f’ off. They’re supposed to get behind the War on Terror, it’s a new world after 9/11; and talk about islamofascists flies around, because we’re at war, after all, remember all those terror alerts? Remember the Traffic Light of Death? So, Bush supporters, shut up and follow. And now, here we are.

That ‘War on Terror’ stuff was just for the base. Good for elections, you know, rally round the flag, no gay marriage, whatever it takes. Because the Bush administration is about accumulating money to accumulate power to accumulate money to accumulate power…

What? What’s that, you say? You actually believed all that stuff about how our country is AT WAR? Well, out of the way, because there are deals to be made, and if you don’t like it, Bush supporter, President Bush is telling you to ‘f’ off; it’s not quite the ‘go ‘f’ yourself of Dick Cheney, but the message is just as clear, just the same; and if you have the audacity to raise your voice or stand in his way, Bush will cast HIS FIRST VETO in over five years in order to make sure his friends get this deal.

Unbelievable. Hilarious. Depressing. It’s rare to see arrogance and hubris so openly displayed.

Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #128601

“The problem back then was that we were prejudiced against the Japanese. It didn’t bother most people that Brits and Dutch were the largest investors in the U.S. before that time.”

What the hell does this have to do with the price of eggs? The Japanese, British and Dutch didn’t have ties to terrorists that want to take down the U.S., while this UAE state owned company, does.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #128605

phx8,
Well said!

“Unbelievable. Hilarious. Depressing. It’s rare to see arrogance and hubris so openly displayed.”

Man, ain’t that the truth!!!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #128608

“Unbelievable. Hilarious. Depressing. It’s rare to see arrogance and hubris so openly displayed.”

What do you mean? We’ve been seeing it for 5 years!

Posted by: Dave at February 22, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #128609

I find the continuing blind support for Bush amazing. We invade a country that had no ties to the terrorists but Bush threatens to VETO a bill to block a country with real ties to terrorists from controlling our sea ports.

How about using the old addage:

“Fool me once… shame on you. Fool … fool me once… ???? you just fool me again!”

Posted by: tony at February 22, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #128611

(in case I screwed up the translation so bad - that was an attempt at Bush’s quote.)

Posted by: tony at February 22, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #128616

Jack-

It is clear that you are really hung up on this race bit, when in actuality, it has to do with nothing but cold historical fact.

But if this firm passes on economic and security grounds let’s not hold them up on racist principles.

Do you know if they pass on security grounds? Not surprising that you don’t, since NO ONE does. Gotta love the secrecy that shrouds the whole White House. By the way, who here has even suggested that we hold them up simply because they’re a certain race? No one, so stop claiming that this is a racial thing.


JBOD (in reference to Adrienne’s post 03:01PM)-

Okay, so it wasn’t Bush’s oil buddies, but this deal certainly has business ties to Bush’s aides. The point is that Bush seems to be putting himself way out there to protect what seems to be a simple business deal.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #128617

AParker:

Similarly, shouldn’t this administration be suspicious of the security of handing our ports to a state-owned company from a nation that has ties to terrorism?

If you’ve been reading my posts, you’d know the answer is, yes, of course we need to be suspicious. That’s why I suggested the investigation and the inclusion of the governors in that process. But its NOT a reason to simply call the deal off, as many are suggesting.

Adrienne:

Sorry, I don’t get it.

It’s really very simple. Its profiling in BOTH situations. Sometimes it makes sense to profile who we want to catch, just like the FBI does with regard to serial killers. If a serial killer is on the loose, I don’t want to cops treating 80 year old grandmothers as potential suspects. You might note that I lambasted both sides for their hypocrisy—not just one.

Translator:

I’m not sure if there are American companies that can provide the services of controlling the operations at our ports. I read somewhere (can’t seem to find it) that all but one of the largest port operating companies are foreign. If we then still want an American company, it would have to be a no-bid deal. Also, the outsourcing companies hire mostly local workers, so a lot of the money and jobs stay here.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #128618

This just makes me laugh. If a non-republican senator had okayed this kind of a deal with a country that recognized the Taliban, and had a similar record as the UAE there’d be calls of treason, unamerican behaviour and they would be called unpatriotic.

However, when Dear Leader does it all we get is “How DARE you be racist!!!”

Posted by: chantico at February 22, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #128620

JBOD-

I don’t know why you’re directing that at me. We are in agreement with investigation, transparency and including the Governors. I have never suggested calling the deal off, nor do I see how that idea could be construed from any of my posts.

In addition, your response to Adrienne returns to your same misconstrued profiling notion that I just answered you on. I don’t think that anyone (red or blue or green) has a problem with ‘profiling’ someone based solely on the cold facts of their history (which is all that is happening re: suspicions about UAE). I guess I wouldn’t even call that profiling, although apparently you do. Perhaps that is the source of what only seems to be a difference of opinion.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #128625

Jack, JBOD, everyone else -

Just for the record, here is how I would define profiling:

“good” profiling (which I wouldn’t even call profiling): Keeping an eye on someone who has a history of illegal behaviour.

“bad” profiling: Keeping an eye on someone (with no history of illegal behaviour) who merely has looks, beliefs, traditions or home country in common with any number of other individuals who have a history of illegal behaviour.

I find it hard to accept that this view is hypocritical in any fashion. Suspicion of Dubai Ports World, since it is state-owned falls under the first category, since UAE certainly has a suspicious history. If DPW were not state owned, I would call all this clamor pointless. (Although, I would want the same security assurances from them as we get from every other port operator.) No one is asking that DPW be held to a higher standard than anyone else, right now we just want to know what standard they’ve even been held to in the first place.

Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #128626

Jbod,
What AParker said.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #128627

I just had a revelation. All Clinton had to do was say that not telling the truth about Monica was legal because he was fighting an undeclared war. Then Congress would pass a law making his lying legal. Problem solved. If only he had realized that the President has absolute power. Doh!

Posted by: mental wimp at February 22, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #128629

AParker:

I think we agree that due diligence is required in investigating this deal. I wrote “its NOT a reason to simply call the deal off, as many are suggesting” to not focus that as your point of view. It was for those who do want to call the deal off because of their assumption that its a bad deal.

We disagree on the profiling aspect, but…its not a big part of the equation for me. Its really just the normal hypocrisies that are prevalent in government. The issue for me is that we clearly look at the deal from all angles, but don’t kneejerk to the conclusions that so many are. (Note: i am NOT including you in that group)

There are those say the deal stinks cuz we are giving up the security of our ports (we are not), Bush is lying/incompetent/fraudulently unaware (he’s not, from what I read about this), they claim that outsourcing is the real issue (when we know the ports are already outsourced), or that the deal hasn’t been investigated (it has been).

Anyone who lays their claim on any of these reasons is kneejerking to a potentially incorrect assumption.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #128631

“Anyone who lays their claim on any of these reasons is kneejerking to a potentially incorrect assumption.”

Yeah and we never do that in the United States.

Posted by: chantico at February 22, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #128639

“Anyone who lays their claim on any of these reasons is kneejerking to a potentially incorrect assumption.”

OK - call me guilty. On it’s face - it has massive issues with the security of our ports. Lots of people keep bringing up the fact that WE will still have control of the security. One point being discussed about how the box cutters got on board the 9/11 planes is that they might have been loaded on board via the food services people. So how can anyone feel safe with letting ‘know associates and funders of terrorists’ run the ports we desperately need to protect and secure.

It’s kind of like the whole approach with sexual predators. Personally, I don’t like the web lists, etc - but who can argue that these people should not be working at local daycares. (Notice - not running the daycares, simply working there… or do we need to review this idea from every angle before making a decision?)

Posted by: tony at February 22, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #128641

Okay

What you are all saying is that UAE by nature of its circumstances, cannot have a company that should be allowed to run part of the cargo handling at U.S. ports, but China et all should.

Could you provide a list of other countries that are on the list, so we don’t make the mistake of letting them invest in firms that do operations in the U.S.?

President Bush has the moral high ground on this issue, but his political position is untenable. I suppose he will have to give up. But many others have shown their true colors.

Let’s not complain about profiling. It makes some sense to profile, but not to continue to discriminate after the due diligence.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #128645
The question I have for you and others is, can you trust Arabs? Well can you?

We shouldn’t be placing the security of our nation in the hands of any foreign power.

It is sort of racist. Well maybe not sort of….

No. It’s not. Anytime a foreign business buys an American one, the government makes sure no state secrets are at risk, such as when the gov delayed the Chinese company Lenovo’s acquisition of IBM’s PC division. They delay business deals like this all the time for security reasons, and in this case I can’t imagine a more reasonable or important security issue. All countries operate this way, and its not racist, it’s commonsense.

Maybe we should not let any foreigners run our business, but is that what you want?

If that business is America’s security than no I don’t want any foreigners running that business.

Posted by: Max at February 22, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #128651

The bill being introduced in the senete by Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez would block the of port operations to foreign governments. While their legislation may be aimed at this deal, it is not racial profiling. It would forbid all foreign governments for running our ports. That makes sense to me. Why on earth would we want a foreign government (esp one with a past of supporting terrorists) to run our ports? A private foreign firm? Maybe, but even that I find iffy. We need to be responsible for our own national security, that includes controlling our own ports and borders.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #128654

Max, Snowman, well said, and I totally agree.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #128656
What you are all saying is that UAE by nature of its circumstances, cannot have a company that should be allowed to run part of the cargo handling at U.S. ports, but China et all should.

So what you are saying is that because China does something we should?

Could you provide a list of other
countries that are on the list, so we don’t make the mistake of letting them invest in firms that do operations in the U.S.?

Sure. Any country with ties to terrorism, regardless of race.

President Bush has the moral high ground on this issue, but his political position is untenable.

Yep. Sure makes him look like a flip-flopper, or a what do call it when someone acts contradictorially? Like signing a document saying he won’t torture but also noting he’s not held to it?

But many others have shown their true colors.

Your groundless attempt to smear those who disagree with you as racists has failed.

Let’s not complain about profiling. It makes some sense to profile, but not to continue to discriminate after the due diligence.

Many people on this board are only asking for due diligence in the case of this company, a 45 day investigation.

Me, I don’t see how any company in a country where terrorist operations are rampant can screen their employees carefully enough to guarantee there will be no terrorists in their organization. This is hard enough for us to do in our own country. Do you disagree this would be harder in these countries? If not, why should the U.S. take on this additional security risk?

Posted by: Max at February 22, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #128662

“President Bush has the moral high ground on this issue, but his political position is untenable.”

There is nothing more untenable regarding this president than his morality.

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 22, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #128663

Andrew,

Let me help you out a bit.

You see contradiction because your interpretation is contradictory.

You see contradiction because you believe the gross mischaracterizations of Bush and company as neocon warmongers who are racist and fearmongering in pursuit of oil profits.

You see contradiction because you haven’t bothered to seek any more information than what has been topically reported.

It’s no wonder you are confused. You are a victim of left-wing prejudice and ignorance.


Tell me, how many low level employees will be brought in from Dubai with this deal?

Posted by: esimonson at February 22, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #128666

Max

Listen to the NPR story. Then you will understand better what you are talking about.

Do you think that a bunch of Arabs are going to come over and run the port? Do you know that 90% of the cargo handling on W. Coast ports is already done by foreign firms?

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #128671

Adrienne,

What the hell does this have to do with the price of eggs? The Japanese, British and Dutch didn’t have ties to terrorists that want to take down the U.S., while this UAE state owned company, does.

A bit of leftist jingoism here?

“They’re Arabs. Can’t trust them.”

Posted by: esimonson at February 22, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #128676

Sew the wind, reap the whirlwind. Fields sown so long with seeds of hate are bearing fruit.

Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #128677

“Do you know that 90% of the cargo handling on W. Coast ports is already done by foreign firms?”

And this is the best answer for this? One of the largest unprotected entrances to our country, one that every entity involved received failing marks by the 9/11 Commission… and you guys just want to let it go “because that’s just the way it is” ?

Posted by: tony at February 22, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #128679

esimonson,
To be fair, I’ve seen just as much, if not easily more, jingoism against arabs from the right on watchblog.

Posted by: chantico at February 22, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #128682

Eric:
“A bit of leftist jingoism here?
“They’re Arabs. Can’t trust them.””

Another nugget of illogical sh*t from a Neocon.
Hopefully America will be able to flush you all in November and the air will be sweet and free once more.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #128688

Adrienne -

Don’t think we have pipes big enough for all that.

Posted by: tony at February 22, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #128693

The hypocrisy is so thick, you can choke on it.

Bush defends his warrantless wiretapping as a necessary weapon in the war on terror but sees no danger in a giovernment that has recognized the Taliban but not Israel?

Bush said he had no knowledge of this sale until it was made public, but he’s able to snoop on Americans whenever he wants?

Condi Rice’s State Department has listed Dubai and the UAE as dangerous places for Americans to visit because of the possibility of terrorism (England and Australia have posted similar toourist warnings), but Bush sees no security threats in letting those terrorist-sponsoring governments gain controlover 6 of our ports?

Bush wants to know why an Arab GOVERNMENT should be treated differently than a PRIVATELY HELD British company with regard to port ownership? Uhhhh…government vs. privately held corporation? Hello?

Just when you think Bush can’t get any stoopider, he proves us all wrong. The only political capital he has left is the war on terror. But it looks like he’s going to fold his hand on that one, too.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #128697
It’s no wonder you are confused. You are a victim of left-wing prejudice and ignorance.

Isn’t Eric Simonson subject to the rules of the site? People have been banned for less than accusing someone of being confused and calling them a victim.

Posted by: Eagle Eater at February 22, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #128698

Tony

Do you care about the foreigners running the cargo handling before? Did you mind when the British firm was running it? What other industries can foreigners not be part of? Airbus? Isn’t that in a key industry? How about Toyota? Aren’t cars a key industry. Food service? Sodexho, a French firm is feeding our marines. BP, Shell?

We live in an integrated world. As an American, I feel that a foreign country who doesn’t want my investments just because I am an American is xenophobic and stupid. If America does the same, we would have to judge it by the same standards.

Come on people. Admit your bias is only toward Arabs, maybe Muslims. This is one of the most racist threads we have ever had and it is flying under your radar.

You know the test is substitution. Fill in a different nationality and see if you have a similar problem. If not, you could be racist.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #128702

Do you think that a bunch of Arabs are going to come over and run the port? Do you know that 90% of the cargo handling on W. Coast ports is already done by foreign firms?

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 06:05 PM

You’re right, Jack. Many are run by foreign firms. Privately held foreign firms, not governments. And certainly not by entities who have regognized the Taliban as a legitimate government, but have never recognized Israel as such. Care to rephrase your argument?

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #128704

“This is one of the most racist threads we have ever had and it is flying under your radar.”

Bullshit, Jack. Bullshit. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with state-sponsored terrorism. Unbelieveable.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #128709

I copied my statement from the Blue side- however it still a valid one, I believe.
I find I am more upset that Bush knew nothing about the ports opeartional selling than I am about the UAE itself.

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

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

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

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


Posted by: Linda H. at February 22, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #128719

Jack,

From the Institue for the Analysis of Global Security (www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html):

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

— Racism has nothing to do with people not supporting Bush’s Port atrocity, Jack. Please stop beating that dead horse.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #128723

NPR mentioned two Chinese firms. Is there a firm in China that is free from the government?

Please, if you have not yet done, listen to the NPR article. NPR is not pro-Bush in any way. When we talk about buying ports, it is just not right. Americans would still be employees. The Coast Guard, Customs, local law enforcement would still do security.

UEA has been cooperative with us in the war on terror.

And, yes this is based on racism. Nobody cared about who handled the cargo before. Most of the actual employees will remain Americans and even be the same guys.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #128726

“Nobody cared about who handled the cargo before.”

Because no one who handled the cargo before has had quite the same up close and personal experience with, and support of, terrorism.

Jack, are SURE you’re not really Karl Rove?

:-)

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #128731

So Arabs are terrorists, period.

Sure you are not Pat Buchanan? Left and right are both wrong on this.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #128741

Jack,

Neither China, nor Russia, nor Britain are the terrorists nests Dubai is. Anyway the law stipulates that a 45 day investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Why is this deal so important that the law must broken? Why can’t this wait 45 days as the law stipulates? Why is Bush’s administration above the law in this case?

Posted by: Max at February 22, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #128747

“So Arabs are terrorists, period.”

No, Jack, but countries that recognize the Taliban but not Israel might be. Or do you reject that possibility as well?

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #128748

chantico,

Ahhh, but that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? The left has been saying that Republicans are racists and are just using terrorism as a way to scare people. Adrienne’s comments look exactly like that to me.

Besides, I thought there really was no threat? Bush is scaremongering after all. ‘Those people over there’ can’t hurt us, they’re no threat…

But wait… we can’t have those darker skinned Arab people working at our ports, why, they’re dangerous!

Posted by: esimonson at February 22, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #128749

Adrienne,

Another nugget of illogical sh*t from a Neocon. Hopefully America will be able to flush you all in November and the air will be sweet and free once more.

It would take more than an election to make me go away. (Remember, as far as you know I don’t work for the Administration.)

Besides, I know that you secretly want to hear the truth.

Posted by: esimonson at February 22, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #128752

“Only Bush and Cheney were actually elected. “

I think even that is debatable. They were appointed by a stacked Supreme Court in ‘00, after halting a state-court-ordered recount, which they would have lost, (and after months of dumping legal voters from the rolls, thanks to that paragon of liberty, Ms. Katherine Harris).

And as for ‘04, well…never mind, I forgot which forum I was “visting.”

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 22, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #128754

“President Bush has the moral high ground on this issue…”

Wow. I’d love to hear your explanation, Jack. Oh, but wait, I already have…it’s because Dubya loves Arabs and nobody else here does!

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #128757

Magoo

The only thing we know is he is on the proper side, the side of not judging by the race of the person alone.

The Treasury Department did its due diligence. If Congress wants to investigate further it has the right and the resouces. If it turns up something, it can void the contract. But I would expect it to be something more than the nationality of the firm’s owners.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #128762

Well,Jack, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. For everyone’s sanity, I won’t battle with you any more on this. My parting wish is that you could understand that most here (including myself) are not against this port deal because of “the race of the person alone,” as you put it. Indeed, race has nothing to do with it. But a country with undeniable ties to terrorism has everything to do with it. Further, I believe that for some on the Right, racism will become the only thing they can erroneously argue for, as they know in their hearts that Bush is making a hige mistake here — but loyalty to his administration precludes many from saying so.

Have a good night. Magoo out.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 22, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #128768

what the hell happened to the conservatives, have they all gone f***ing insane?

this issue is cut and dried - the states don’t want the sale to go through. f**k racial profiling. f**k security. f**k the fed.
states’ rights - remember that? what, too young?

is there any similarity whatsoever between today’s ‘republicans’ and *real* republicans?

states rights? no
border control? hmm
small government? definitely not
fiscal responsibility? oh… my… god.

what the hell *do* you stand for these days?

i’m beginning to believe the hype… culture of corruption sorta has a ring to it, no?

Posted by: diogenes at February 22, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #128771

Nicely done, Magoo.

Article some of you may want to read:
An Unlikely Criminal Crossroads

Eric:
“It would take more than an election to make me go away.”

Only David can make you go away. Personally I wish he would since it seems so obvious to so many of us that your sole purpose here is to be a constant and unceasing source of flamebait.

“I know that you secretly want to hear the truth.”

Oh, indeed. There’s simply an assload of secrets being tightly held by you Neocon-artist’s that I’d like to know the truth about — but unfortunately, all you guys ever manage to squeeze out are lies.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #128784

esimmons,

If you give Dubai special priveledges above and beyond what other foreign powers get - isn’t that kind of like the affirmative action you Republicans are always saying is racist?

I mean, I think the whole racist argument is a joke, but if you are going to go there please explain why Dubai is not going to get the same 45 day investigation every other foreign government does? I’m sorry, but I cannot let your blatant racism go unnoticed.

Posted by: Max at February 23, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #128792
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

The concessions — described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies — reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.

Sooo, they got more concessions than anyone else? Unprecedented? This is not even about racial profiling, this is about them getting lax restrictions.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 23, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #128794

Adrienne,

Only David can make you go away. Personally I wish he would…

Ok…? And to think, all one has to do to get this kind of personal attack is disagree with the liberal worldview. From there it’s on to being called hateful and a liar and so on.

But doesn’t that make you think, Adrienne? If you believe I’m hateful because I disagree with you, or because I say liberalism is wrong and misguided, what does it say when you say Bush supporters and neo-cons are all liars etc? Have you ever given any thought to that?

Oh, indeed. There’s simply an assload of secrets being tightly held by you Neocon-artist’s that I’d like to know the truth about — but unfortunately, all you guys ever manage to squeeze out are lies.

Given how you seem to define lies I think I’m ok with that too.

I can understand the idea that there are questions about this port deal. But to jump to conclusions without all the facts is reckless. And yes- that’s going to include some republicans.

Posted by: esimonson at February 23, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #128798

max,

If you give Dubai special priveledges above and beyond what other foreign powers get - isn’t that kind of like the affirmative action you Republicans are always saying is racist?

You totally lost me there with how affirmative action is racist.

What special priviledges above and beyond what other foreign powers are you referring to?

I mean, I think the whole racist argument is a joke, but if you are going to go there please explain why Dubai is not going to get the same 45 day investigation every other foreign government does? I’m sorry, but I cannot let your blatant racism go unnoticed.

From what I’ve read about the process, the 45 days you seem to be referring to is an additional extraordinary investigation above and beyond what other foreign powers get.

The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt. The group included officials from 12 departments and agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, State and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Kimmitt said that the company, Dubai Ports World, had been thoroughly investigated by the administration, including by intelligence agencies, and that on Jan. 17 the panel members unanimously approved the transfer.

…An objection from any member of the interagency committee would have started, as required by law, an additional 45-day review. Such a review is being urged by governors and members of Congress. NYTimes

Posted by: esimonson at February 23, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #128807

Womanmarine,
Does those concessions work to pave the way to Peace with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?

No, Presiedent Bush would of been better served by his Staff if they would of recommended the privatization of the Company on the Global Market.

Eric,
Political Blindness on this issue and trusting any Government Official defies all reason and logic. Sorry, but this issue goes to te heart of the Future and that is not yours or mine to hold. Would you of supported President Bush’s grandfather if he would of pushed to allow Nazi Germany own a few ports.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 23, 2006 2:38 AM
Comment #128819

Henry Schlatman:

You may not know this but the Nazi Party had a large following in this country before WW2.

People tend to forget but the truth is Hitler and his philosophies were admired by many prominent Americans. This was one of the reasons FDR enacted such draconian measures after war broke out.

Posted by: Aldous at February 23, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #128831

“Come on people. Admit your bias is only toward Arabs, maybe Muslims. This is one of the most racist threads we have ever had and it is flying under your radar.”

We’re not talking about ARABS, we’re talking about UAE. (Here’s a hint: one is a government, the other is a race of people.) Stop trying to mock up the feigned indignation and face it, YOUR President wants to sign over our ports to a group who had more direct involvement in 9/11 than the Taliban. It’s not about racial profiling - you have to aim at a race to do that. It’s about a common sense approach to National Security. This is particularly obnoxious coming from a President who will do just about anything in the name of National Security - except protect our Nation.

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #128834

Aldous,
Like I have said Capitalism vs. Rapitalism or to keep the Beast Battle going “I the Corporation” vs. “We the Consumer” and who has the Unalienable Right to Rule the World. To bad we don’t hav a political party that will represent All Humans Equal. Because after all it is in the Name of Consuming that We debate and live.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 23, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #128843
Why is this deal so important that the law must broken? Why can’t this wait 45 days as the law stipulates? Why is Bush’s administration above the law in this case?

Posted by: Max at February 22, 2006 09:56 PM

Max,

Isn’t the answer obvious? To Bush, the Constitution is nothing but a “damn piece of paper.” He has no use for laws, he needs “no stinkin badges” He thinks and acts like a dictator above the law. The delay is an affront to his lordship, so he must challenge it.

Posted by: Dave at February 23, 2006 8:46 AM
Comment #128847

““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 —

Kind of says it all…

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #128848

i am wondering why no one is talking about the UAE’s connection with the Carlisle group?

Posted by: judye at February 23, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #128851

Jack-

What you are all saying is that UAE by nature of its circumstances, cannot have a company that should be allowed to run part of the cargo handling at U.S. ports, but China et all should.

If you would read what I’ve been posting, you will see that the idea here is NOT to deny DPW from running the ports, but that until the administration discloses what security assurances we have from them, the deal needs to be put on hold. It seems from some members of Congress (who apparently have seen some of the classified arrangement) that the provisions for security are inadequate.

Eric-

It’s no wonder you are confused. You are a victim of left-wing prejudice and ignorance.

Could your posts be more condescending? I will not debate with anyone who doesn’t understand basic human respect. The internet may be anonymous, but there is a real live person on the other end. Please keep your comments on topic, and remember Watchblog’s mantra.

Adrienne-

I’d ask you to remember the ‘critique the message…’ policy also. (specifically, re: your response to Eric’s posts) If Eric’s posts are flamebait (which they seem to me to be, especially in light of his profile) then simply don’t respond.

Posted by: AParker at February 23, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #128852

esimmon,

I’m glad you don’t play the race card with affirmative action. I can’t stand that.

The administration’s review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

New York Times - Can’t link for some reason but its the article under “most emailed”

Posted by: Max at February 23, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #128861

Andrew:

“Adrienne-
I’d ask you to remember the ‘critique the message…’ policy also. (specifically, re: your response to Eric’s posts) If Eric’s posts are flamebait (which they seem to me to be, especially in light of his profile) then simply don’t respond.”

Believe me Andrew, most of the time I try hard not to respond to Eric’s flamebaiting. But sometimes my temper gets the better of me. Other times I truly feel I have to — and this was one of those times, because I didn’t appreciate him trying to label me a racist.
And in truth, I am critiquing the message.
Because Eric has proven that he only has one message to deliver in this blog: that anyone who is a liberal thinker is scum, and that they deserve to be heaped with as many insults and as much condescension as possible.
This kind of bullying and disdain has gotten very old, and shows no signs of stopping — so it might actually be a good thing if he occasionally experiences a taste of what he’s constantly dishing out to so many people here.
I’m sorry if I offended you — for I do realize that such comments are unpleasant and that they never have anything whatsoever to do with the topics under discussion.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #128866

Adrienne -

My only concern would be that you might cross a line like I did, and then be asked to leave… that would suck. So… just be careful.

BTW - are you as stumped with the absolute blind lock step with Bush on this issue? I thought Bush said that all governments who sponsor or accept terrorists were our enemy. Does that only now apply to those who don’t have significant financial benefits?

To me, this has become so sad, like watching the little white poodle who has to keep jumping through the hoop of fire. You wonder when it’ll finally have enough and bite the owner in the butt. Some posting here just seem to wag their tails harder.

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #128870

Don’t worry Eric

Adrienne calls me a liar (or something liket that) every time I catch her on one of her passionately mistaken beliefs. I guess she would say that her temper gets the best of her. It is her way or raising the white flag, while shouting defiance. Don’t hold it against her. She means well.

This deal went through the usual procedures. The Congress gave this discretion to the President back in 1988. This kind of deal does not go through the Congress. The Congress wanted to insulate these transactions from the political posturing they wisely foresaw they could not avoid. They understood their limitations.

The Congress has independent ability to investigate and should do it if it feels it should. If they turn up anything damning (besides nationality of the owners) they can void the deal.

If you want to hear some of the pros and cons, listen to the Dianne Rehm show from PBS. You can get it on the Internet. Dianne is very liberal, so you will have to adjust a little to the right, but you can hear the guest give both sides.

I believe the outcry is racist. I don’t say that most people are aware of it or using it on purpose. But the idea that it is about the particular country UAE, is disingenuous. Not only has the UEA been a good ally since 9/11, I bet that most of those loudly braying on their hind legs could not find UAE on a map – even now. The idea that we should allow only private firms to compete is a good one, but we would have to eliminate many of those currently handling cargo if we applied those rules.

BTW - this is clearly not a partisan issue. Republicans and Dems are behaving equally badly - or not. The WSJ and the Washington Post are on the same side and even old Jimmy Carter is on the right side this time.

Fear sells on both sides.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #128874

Tony — I’ve been doing my best not to cross that line — for years now! ;^)

“BTW - are you as stumped with the absolute blind lock step with Bush on this issue?”

Stumped definitely, but not really surprised. Though disturbing, the blind loyalty and faith in this president just doesn’t have the power to shock me anymore. I now recognize it for what it is — a cult of personality.

“I thought Bush said that all governments who sponsor or accept terrorists were our enemy. Does that only now apply to those who don’t have significant financial benefits?”

That seems to be the case, doesn’t it? Btw, that was a great quote you put up. Bush’s own words always most starkly expose him. Over and over they show him to be a man with no moral center and no true convictions.

“To me, this has become so sad, like watching the little white poodle who has to keep jumping through the hoop of fire.”

It is sad. And I’m rather depressed that in the Blue Column there are some liberals who also seem to feel this deal should be allowed to go through.

“You wonder when it’ll finally have enough and bite the owner in the butt. Some posting here just seem to wag their tails harder.”

As Paul Siegel put it in his thread — it’s like inviting the Trojan Horse beyond our gates in defiance of all logic and common sense. I see people going along with this idea as either lacking the imagination to think as strategically as our enemy would, or as you said, just too blindly in lockstep because they decided long ago that Bushco would always have their best interests at heart.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #128877

Jack-

Let me explain what I think is going on with your arguments:

What I think I hear you arguing is that there are people who are in an uproar about this for more racial reasons. However, you are not talking to those people here in this column. (At least not any posts that I’ve read, I may have missed a few) I hear you talking in generalities about these racist people, and I don’t really see how you can be talking about the responders in this article.

In addition, your claims on the hearts of people…

I believe the outcry is racist. I don’t say that most people are aware of it or using it on purpose.

…is arrogant at best.

Not only has the UEA been a good ally since 9/11…

Did you not read my response to this outlandish claim? (Posted by: AParker at February 22, 2006 02:40 PM)

BUT, most importantly:

This deal went through the usual procedures.

I guess you are not aware of the MANDATORY investigation of any firm that is “controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government”. You cannot simply make things up to justify your position. I recommend you get the facts before making such black and white statements.

Posted by: AParker at February 23, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #128878

i think it is important to take note of the bipartisan aspect of this debate - no one likes the idea of this deal going through except bush and his cronies. don’t claim that the republicans support the deal, because by and large, they really don’t appear to. (hence the necessity for bush to use his veto.)

this sort of blind allegiance is extremely worrisome to me. more and more i get the feeling that bush could come out and say “surprise, i AM osama”, and there would be a significant number of bushies out there who would still find cause to leap to his defense.

they defend every word from bush’s mouth to such an extent - he has never done anything wrong and is incapable of lying - that i am forced to wonder, if bush confessed to lying, would their heads explode?

“he never lies, but wait, he said he did - or was that a lie???”

*boom*

Posted by: diogenes at February 23, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #128879

Adrienne-

I wasn’t offended by your comments, but I can’t stand up for you if you include comments of a more personal nature. I’d like to see a third party column where we can actually debate the facts of the situation without becoming entangled by the usual red/blue wedge issue baloney. (Which has been happening for the past few articles, until this one - you can tell by reading the number of posts… they explode once people start biting on the flamebait.) Flamers can claim that their position holds the moral high-ground, but when it is clear that they’re not even responding to what their critics (here) are actually saying, it is important that our actions reflect the real high-ground.

Posted by: AParker at February 23, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #128881

Jack:
You have now reached the point where you are becoming almost as condescending and insulting as Eric is. But I know you’re doing so for an entirely different reason: embarrassment.
Because so many of us have been exposing your “facts” for what they really are — mere opinions.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #128882

Point taken, Andrew. I’ll stop now.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #128884

Jack,

You asked for a list of countries I would exclude from managing any part of our nation’s security, and I said any nation that has ties with terrorism regardless of race. Please explain to me how this is a racist position. I believe I am in agreement with what Bush said he wanted before he did the opposite which is to take a hard line against countries that recognize or support terrrorism.

You know I think the racist position is baloney, but if the 45 day investigation period is mandatory in the cases of foreign acquisitions, than if anything providing Dubai with special priveledges for no reason would the action showing bias. Don’t you want to treat all foreign nations equally?

Please explain:

Your reasons for wanting to give Dubai the special priveledge of waiving the mandatory 45 day investigation.

How not wanting any nation regardless of race with ties to terrorism operating any aspect of our security is racist.

If Bush wanting Dubai to operate our ports after saying that “every regime that sponsors terror is equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice”, and that “any governmment that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends will know the consequences” is flip flopping? If you would not call it flip flopping, what would you call it?

Posted by: Max at February 23, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #128894
a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government.
It is, so that should be it. 45 day congressional review.

But, Why doesn’t the story end there?
Why do the bushies round up the wagons, pretend black is white, and say everyone not them is either racist, stupid, ignorant, or a terrorist sympathizer?
Why does Bushie threaten a veto?
Where is the “We were wrong, we’ll get you next round”?

Reading this thread is seems it might really be the “personality cult” thing. They see Bushie as resolute and infallible, so they pretend at it too.

Posted by: Dave at February 23, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #128900

Adrienne

Use the turn around priciple. Take our respective posts and reverse the namee. See if you would feel more insulted by your comments or mine.

You called me a liar on seveal occassions. You said my arguments were horseshit. In return I have been condescending. In such situations I prefer that, rather than descend to the level of the person insulting me.

Dave

Not a rhetorical question, since I really don’t know the answer. If that 45 day investigation to be conducted by Congress or the Executive?

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #128909

Jack-

On this page, I see no mention of horseshit other than yours, and I see no use of the word liar except by you and Eric in response to Adrienne. So lets just drop the baggage and have a conversation like adults… you don’t need someone half your age to tell you that you don’t have to respond to name calling with any change in attitude, much less trying to justify a condescending attitude in response to as much.

Posted by: AParker at February 23, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #128919

And in the meantime, violence in Iraq escalates:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Sectarian violence killed more than 130 people across Iraq and left dozens of mosques damaged or in ruins as the United States appealed on Thursday to Sunnis and Shi’ites to step back from the brink of civil war.

We went in there with guns blazing, now we’re appealing? We’re letting Al Quida take control.

What is the administration doing?

Posted by: womanmarine at February 23, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #128920

as far as insults and name calling, I’ve always loved this quote:

“It’s not the names that others call you that demean your nature, it’s the names you answer to.”

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #128921

as far as insults and name calling, I’ve always loved this quote:

“It’s not the names that others call you that demean your nature, it’s the names you answer to.”

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #128922

Andrew,
Interesting part of a transcript I was just reading from the Lou Dobbs Show:

DOBBS: President Bush’s family and members of the Bush administration have long-standing business connections with the United Arab Emirates, and those connections are raising new concerns and questions tonight in some quarters about why the president is defying his very own party leadership and his party in defending the Dubai port deal.

CHRISTINE ROMANS: The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush’s father once served as senior adviser and is a who’s who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

Another family connection, the president’s brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

So, not just Snow and Sanborn have ties to UAE government run businesses and other investors, but the Bush Family does also. Supposedly Bush Jr. didn’t know anything about this deal, but it makes me wonder whether Bush Sr. knew something about it? After all, Cheney was his man too…

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #128931

A Parker

Thanks for the advice. The debates do spill among the posting. And I don’t want to pollute yours. We do have a problem in that we sort of know each other so we read a lot into each other’s post - sometimes things that are not there.

And I am not that old, well maybe.

Adrienne

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #128932

Adrienne-

Ah, the plot thickens. I was just speculating when I wrote the last line of my intro paragraph, but I’m not surprised to see the connections. Why else would Bush threaten his unused veto power, unless he or someone close to him has some sort of invested interest at stake.

Tony-

I love the quote.

Posted by: AParker at February 23, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #128939

Aparker,

It’s no wonder you are confused. You are a victim of left-wing prejudice and ignorance.
Could your posts be more condescending? I will not debate with anyone who doesn’t understand basic human respect. The internet may be anonymous, but there is a real live person on the other end. Please keep your comments on topic, and remember Watchblog’s mantra.

To flame bait for just a moment— yes, I could actually be more condescending. But I also should have quoted the comment that caught me on that riff, which was your assertion that you couldn’t understand Bush’s seemingly irrational behaviour.

Sorry if you were offended.

Can anyone explain the irrational behaviour we’ve seen of late from the White House?

…but I am pointing out the inconsistency of the Bush Administration in outsourcing specifically to a country that is so contrary to their “War on Terror” and zionist goals.

Of course most of what you describe as irrational is actually the left-wing mantra of half- and non-truths about Bush. So naturally you would see a contradiction, but it would be due to the latent misunderstandings inherent in statements like, “neocons usual zionist agenda,” and, “if you want to see the president get active, you have to stand in the way of the profit stream for his oil buddies.

Posted by: esimonson at February 23, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #128947

jack,

Don’t worry Eric

Adrienne calls me a liar (or something liket that) every time I catch her on one of her passionately mistaken beliefs. I guess she would say that her temper gets the best of her. It is her way or raising the white flag, while shouting defiance. Don’t hold it against her. She means well.

Well, the truth is we all let our emotions get the best of us from time to time. Adrienne is passionate and that’s no vice. I wouldn’t ever hold those things against her, per se. But I think it can become an issue unto itself when takes the place of any debate.

Posted by: esimonson at February 23, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #128950
To flame bait for just a moment— yes, I could actually be more condescending. But I also should have quoted the comment that caught me on that riff, which was your assertion that you couldn’t understand Bush’s seemingly irrational behaviour.

Sorry if you were offended.

Don’t be sorry, Eric. Just leave. You’ve clearly violated the low bar of Watchblog’s policy on numerous occassions.

Can someone please wake up David Remer.

Posted by: Eagle Eater at February 23, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #128955

Ok - esimonson…

“Of course most of what you describe as irrational is actually the left-wing mantra of half- and non-truths about Bush. ”

Since this seems to be the base of most of your attacks on liberals… prove it.

Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #128993

“But I think it can become an issue unto itself when takes the place of any debate.”

What an hilarious joke coming from a guy who does nothing but flamebait endlessly.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #129051

Jack:

I’ve read this web site weekly going on for almost two years, and I’ve got to say I’m shocked. I had to rub my eyes after the race card was played. I’ve strung together all of your quotes in this thread regarding the “racist” aspect to people’s response to the port deal. They are in order from earliest to last, and it is ugly to watch. I reccommend people read Jack’s full posts, as I do not wish to take any of these quotes out of contest. I’ve been reading Jack’s posts for almost two years now, and have never seen anything like this. ::::Drumroll::::

Example 1: “That is the subtext of all of this: some people don’t trust Arabs. It is sort of racist. Well maybe not sort of.”


Notice at this point in the debate, the race card is hurled on the table.

Example 2: “You do have to ask the question, however, about our trust of Arabs. We have seen this xenophobia before.”


Good lord. Jack…. please. I need one example from you. Just one prominent democrat. One member on this discussion. Please. This is not a bet you will want to take, but wait…..


Example 3:“Let’s not complain about profiling. It makes some sense to profile, but not to continue to discriminate after the due diligence.”


OK, now this time you make no reference to “RACIAL profiling,” mentioning only profiling. At this point, I recognized your backing down from the race card (profiling has nothing to do with race unless specified, and none of the profiling talked about has to do with race, but connections between terrorists and a state-owned company). Whew!… I almost thought you were going to actually stick with that argument! But it wasn’t over….


Example 4:“The only thing we know is he is on the proper side, the side of not judging by the race of the person alone.”


I was wrong. I misinterpreted your response to be sane (please don’t ban me, but I’m actually convinced you know you’re wrong at this point). I would argue with you, but you have provided ABSOLUTELY no evidence of rasicm, so I don’t quite know how to respond… If only there were some evidence….


Example 5:“I believe the outcry is racist. I don’t say that most people are aware of it or using it on purpose. But the idea that it is about the particular country UAE, is disingenuous.”


The coup-de-gras… you essentially say: I have no proof, you are all liars, or are too stupid to realize you are racists. I can’t stand when this race card is played by the left, but honestly… I’ve never seen it wielded so amatuerishly. I beg you to reconsider what you have laid down on this site today, as it cheapens so much good commentary. Please bring tangible arguments to the table, rather than accuse people of suspected racism… Or even better- prove it.

Posted by: SilverIce9 at February 24, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #129120

SilverIce:

I believe there has been a racial aspect to this port issue. But I also think people have been smart enough to modify their positions to take out the racial issue. Here’s how I see it, from when the issue first took hold:

1) Bush is outsourcing the ports—how can we outsource our security like this.

2)We are outsourcing our security of the ports to a Middle Eastern Arab country—how dare we.

3)Some of the 911 terrorists came from the UAE, and we are outsourcing our security

4) Okay okay, so we’ve been outsourcing the ports for some time now, but that was to BRITAIN, and this is to a Middle Eastern Arab country.

5) Okay okay, so we’ve been outsourcing for a while, and we aren’t even outsourcing security, just operations, but still….its a Middle Eastern Arab country where some of the 911 terrorists came from

6)Its not that its an ARAB country—its that they’ve sponsored terror before.

You see how initially it was called outsourcing of security, and many people didn’t know it had even been going on for a while, and that it wasnt security that was being outsourced. That was the initial salvo. It really is easy to take a knee jerk reaction, when you hear that our ports will be controlled by a Middle Eastern company—that was MY knee jerk reaction too.

When I found the real story, and the fact that there has been oversight on this issue, I felt better, but not assuaged. I’ve said the matter needs to be fully investigated; if the committee in charge of that did not do a good job, then shame on them.

Eventually, and without any surprise, the left is now claiming a Bush conspiracy—ahem, the latest Bush conspiracy. In many of their minds, Cheney is probably planning his next hunting trip in order to take people’s eye off the issue.

Bottom line: there has, in fact, been a racial component to this. Its been there and its being modified, because people are smart enough to know it won’t sell. So they’ve altered their statements. Its what politicians do, and why we should get rid of the politicians. (David and d.a.n.—that last part was for you :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 24, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #129133
Bottom line: there has, in fact, been a racial component to this.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 24, 2006 09:34 AM
Yes, there has been a race card used here; it’s being used by you people to distract from the real issue: That once again Bush has ignored the law to do what he wants, so you once again try to make the other guys look bad by repeating nonsense. The big lie stops working after a while. In 1945 is when the Red Army was in the Reichstag. In 2006 maybe it’s this.

BTW, when I use “Bush” it really means “GW Bush and his administration”

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #129145

Joe: Please keep the conversation based on facts, and not speculation. For example, my counter argument to you racial aspect is that the only reason you back bush is because you are a democracy hating fascist. Now, granted I have no proof of this, I think that the opposing side of this argument is smart enough to conceal it.


Do you see how ridiculous that is. Your argument may (unlikely) be true, but since there is no way to prove it (and you have no evidence, let alone proof), it has no place in this debate. Relegate it to the conspiracy department. Just discussing this is essentially a threadjack. Unless you… or Jack… present a shred of evidence ANYBODY aguing against this deal has anything but national security in mind.


“”“”1) Bush is outsourcing the ports—how can we outsource our security like this.

2)We are outsourcing our security of the ports to a Middle Eastern Arab country—how dare we.

3)Some of the 911 terrorists came from the UAE, and we are outsourcing our security

4) Okay okay, so we’ve been outsourcing the ports for some time now, but that was to BRITAIN, and this is to a Middle Eastern Arab country.

5) Okay okay, so we’ve been outsourcing for a while, and we aren’t even outsourcing security, just operations, but still….its a Middle Eastern Arab country where some of the 911 terrorists came from

6)Its not that its an ARAB country—its that they’ve sponsored terror before.””“”

Response to 1) Agreed- With a few exceptions. Rather than list the countries we shouldn’t let run our ports, I think there are only a handful of countries that should be aloud to run our ports.


Response to 2) Not one person has argued this on this site(with the exception of a few folks from the red side of the column). I guess I’m guilty of playing the racism card now too, but I have evidence of that racism (go listen to Michael Savage talk about this deal, or flip over to LFG and read a page or two). The issue is not about race, but of state relations. You know this as well as I do, but are simply encouraging a dishonest debate to save your president some face… Understandable. Denial is the first step to the truth.
Response to 3) There is more than a bit of truth to this. The majority of security operations are done by Homeland security and the coast guard. However, letting a shady (in terms of policies, not race… f****r) country have anything to do with our ports involving any aspect of security is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.


Response to 4) Close, but dishonest. Not race, but State. If your goal is to fool a few idiots into thinking opposing this deal amounts to racism, congratulations… Bush can scare people into a shady war, but even the most skilled of politicians (and their minions) have their limits.


Response to 5)Correct. Good Point. They also finance terrorism, launder the money for terrorism, and provide help for terrorist activities. Terrorism does not equal race. Would I turn over port security to Timothy McVeigh’s family? Hell, no. Would I turn it over to a family that used to meet with Osama (post-becoming-a-terrorist-osama)? Hell no.


Response to 6) Wow, a revelation. You have seen the light. Lord, hand me another sinner. I really don’t mean to be rude, but you have no argument. Typically, if one side’s argument is that the other side is a poopyface/chimpy/racist/PartoftheRightWingConspiracy, you do not have an argument.

Posted by: SilverIce9 at February 24, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #129149

Joe:


I apologize. By the time I finished writing my response, I forgot about the last part of your post. I agree that there are politicians playing the race card. But as far as the arguments for or against this deal, we can leave race out of it. This deal could have implications on national security, and I don’t trust the administration. Any republican or democrat living on a coast should want this looked into (and I understand you agree with this as well, Joe). But can we at least have a non-partisan group look into this? The last time a partisan group looked into something regarding national security (OSA looking at the intelligence for Iraq WMDS), the result was far from exemplary. I remain to be convinced about this deal on any level. However, calling me or anyone else a racist for opposing this deal is irresponsible.

Posted by: SilverIce9 at February 24, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #129153

SilverIce9:
“I remain to be convinced about this deal on any level.”

Same here. It’s fishy from every angle you look at it.

“However, calling me or anyone else a racist for opposing this deal is irresponsible.”

I agree completely. This is not about racism. Its about national security, plain and simple.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #129174

Adrienne,

We actually disagree a little on this matter. I think the key is a failure of Bush to follow the law. Congress would almost certainly have killed the agreement based on the simple politics of it and the lack of normal protocols, esp. the need for documents to be held on US soil and for an American citizen to represent something (can’t remember what)

Security concerns I can’t speak to, since I really don’t know what controls are in place (it’s a secwet, shhh), but those arguments against the deal seem pretty compelling on the surface. Also important to me is that if Bush wants to sell us that we are at war, then this again shows how much of a duplicitous liar he is by allowing control of our security to be handled in such a way.

And, (it does so go on, doesn’t it?) is this related to Bush family $’s? Is this why he actually claimed he didn’t know?. Is he taking cues from teflon Ronnie? Is our security actually at risk? Those are all just suspicions at this point. Maybe the impeachemnt will draw the rest of the truth out.

Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #129182

Dave:
“We actually disagree a little on this matter.”

Dave, I don’t see how we disagree at all, because I agree with everything you just wrote.
Like I said before, this deal seems fishy from every angle. That includes the fact that they didn’t follow the law, their secrecy, their money trail, AND the national security aspects of this deal.
When I said “this is about national security, plain and simple” I meant my objection to the UAE owning our port terminals is only about that, not racism like Joe, Jack and Eric have been trying to claim.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 24, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #129201

When I complain about Bush and his invasion of Iraq - I am called unAmerican.

When I complain about Bush’s handling of the Katrina fiasco - I am called vile for making a political issue out of a national disaster.

When I complain about Bush signing a business deal with the UAE - I am called a racist.

Wow. I think I see a pattern here. No honest answers, so attack the messenger.

Posted by: tony at February 24, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #129277

Silver:

I don’t think I’ve called you a racist at all. I’ve stated my opinion that there has been a racial aspect to this situation—-if you don’t fall into that category, don’t put yourself there. I certainly haven’t.

I don’t think my post was clearly written, and as a result you misunderstood my intent. My 6 points are intended to be a progression of the arguments about the port issue. The arguments began with the media and people incorrectly claiming that Bush approved the outsourcing of the ports—he didn’t. He simply approved the sale of one outsourcing firm to another.

If you follow along with the changing nature of the argument against, you can see that initially, there was certainly a racial aspect to it. Its been softened with later arguments, but it sure was there.

What I started with several days ago was the thought that the deal had been vetted in committee, and if the committee did a good job, then I’m okay with the deal. If they did a poor job, then it needs further investigation. I’m still pretty much there. The deal should be investigated, but should NOT be discarded due to knee jerk assumptions. Read back and you’ll see those who’ve been jumping to them.

I’m not particularly arguing for or against the deal at this point. What I’m saying is investigate it properly, and then make decisions. Some in here don’t like the deal simply because Bush made it. I know that last sentence will get some people up in arms, but its the truth. Possibly the people who get most up in arms about it are the ones who should be most defensive about it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 24, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #129283

You are correct. The race comments were much more due to the comical progression in Jack’s posts. I suppose we stand on the same ground, in that we both consider the deal to be fine if there aren’t any security concerns. Maybe I jump the gun because of what is known about the UAE government - remember that the company is state-owned, not private. If there was a legitamate non-partisan investigation into this, and it was shown that this deal could not impead port security, I would concede the deal should go through.


There are a few things that we know so far that would suggest that this deal is shady beyond “just another outsourcing of port operations.”


1) Bush threatens to use his first veto to make this happen… Afterwards, we learn he knows nothing about the deal. If he trusts his crew, great. Seems a little suspicious though, do you not agree?


2) There are two contacts in the administration with very close ties to this company (how close I’ll admit I’m not too sure). This isn’t a dealbreaker by any means, but something worth looking into as well.


3) There is the fact that the UAE donated $100,000,000 to katrina relief. Is this a quid pro quo? Don’t know, but I doubt the initial investigation looked into any of these things.


I’d like answers to those three points, and would like to know the details of the original 25 day investigation. I don’t mean to make this thread into one bashing the secretive nature of this adminitstration, but these are questions I honestly feel we must know.


So I think there is some common ground for us to stand on. I wish all the politicians could unite to get us answers, but I’m faily certain that:


Democrats will focus all their energy to: make Bush look terrible.


Republicans will focus all their energy to: distance themselves from an unpopular president in order to help themselves in November.

Posted by: SilverIce9 at February 24, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #129284

I do feel that I need to be clear that I am FAR from being sold on this deal. All investigations would need to PROVE this deal to me, and no one will be given the benefit of doubt by me.

Posted by: SilverIce9 at February 24, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #129405

tony,

Ok - esimonson…

“Of course most of what you describe as irrational is actually the left-wing mantra of half- and non-truths about Bush.”

Since this seems to be the base of most of your attacks on liberals… prove it.
Posted by: tony at February 23, 2006 08:11 PM

I think it basically stands on it’s own Tony. The left doesn’t listen to facts, they just get mad and start calling every question, statement, or reply an attack. The next step is to call me a liar. (Let’s not forget flamebaiting.) After that it’s only a short step from being called hateful. But that’s ok, generally I can take it.


…The sad part of it is that there are no facts here to debate when we are talking about supposed secret deals and zionist goals. Hello?! This is what I call a left-wing liberal mantra of half and non-truths. No ports are being sold or taken over. No secret deal has taken place.

Maybe you could tell me what the zionist goals of the administration is supposed to mean? Commonly when the left says Bush is frustrated, irrational, secretive, angry, etc. this is taken as a quantifiable truth?.

Let’s compare the statement you are asking me to prove with one of Parker’s.

“Of course most of what you describe as irrational is actually the left-wing mantra of half- and non-truths about Bush.”

I assume you categorize the above as an attack. What about the following:

Not only that, but Bush’s veto threat seems to indicate that he thinks our concerns are not legitimate. He evokes the image of a child throwing a tantrum (or better yet, the scene from “Dazed and Confused” when Pickford’s Dad decides not to go out of town because he suspects his son is throwing a party when they leave.) The deal is set to close in 8 days, and Bush seems to be reacting out of frustration because he was so close to having his party without ‘his parents’ finding out.

This is a characterization. A non-truth. You feel it may well be true. You believe it may well be true. But it has nothing to do with the actual veracity of any facts.

Is calling Bush a child throwing a tantrum an example of attacking the messenger or the message? I happen to think it is within the bounds of this site rules, but what I seem to be hearing is that “attacking liberals” is not within the watchblog policy.

To which, I say this is a typical liberal operating procedure. Establish a double standard that makes you impervious to any one questioning your political ideas.

Posted by: esimonson at February 25, 2006 2:49 AM
Comment #129414

Adrienne,

“But I think it can become an issue unto itself when takes the place of any debate.”

What an hilarious joke coming from a guy who does nothing but flamebait endlessly.

I’m not sure what flamebait even means. Maybe if you gave me an (equally applicable) definition, I could try to abide by it. Unless, of course you would rather not seek peace and understanding? Cause I’m a pretty reasonable guy. Just because you have determined that I disagree with your beliefs does not mean I hate you.


Eagle Eater,

Don’t be sorry, Eric. Just leave. You’ve clearly violated the low bar of Watchblog’s policy on numerous occassions.

Can someone please wake up David Remer.

Please show me where I have violated Watchblog’s policy on numerous occasions.

I suspect that what you mean is that I have violated the policy as you believe it should be, prohibiting opposition to liberal political spin.

Why is your name “Eagle Eater” by the way? It wouldn’t be a personal swipe against a conservative comment poster would it?

Posted by: esimonson at February 25, 2006 3:11 AM
Comment #129537

“I think it basically stands on it’s own Tony. The left doesn’t listen to facts, they just get mad and start calling every question, statement, or reply an attack. The next step is to call me a liar. (Let’s not forget flamebaiting.) After that it’s only a short step from being called hateful. But that’s ok, generally I can take it.”

Really. If you look carefully, it’s not standing on it’s own, it’s simply mired in … well let’s just say the flowers will grow very well around it.

Come on - your posts are called attacks because there is no base of discussion - simply name calling and grand generalizations. I asked for proof… Can you take that? Can you support your claims against us liberals? Come on - consider this an out right challenge. I’ll be waiting.

Posted by: tony at February 25, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #129645

tony,

Really. If you look carefully, it’s not standing on it’s own, it’s simply mired in … well let’s just say the flowers will grow very well around it.

Come on - your posts are called attacks because there is no base of discussion - simply name calling and grand generalizations. I asked for proof… Can you take that? Can you support your claims against us liberals? Come on - consider this an out right challenge. I’ll be waiting.

It does stand on it’s own because it’s a statement just like all the ones you’ve made without some kind of mythical “full documentation.”

But I can understand that you do not really want an answer since you ignored mine. Look at the comment above again, please. I gave you the first salvo. Calling Bush a baby, and a child, and the conservative agenda as “zionist goals” are some of the non-truths I was talking about.

The sad part of it is that there are no facts here to debate when we are talking about supposed secret deals and zionist goals. Hello?! This is what I call a left-wing liberal mantra of half and non-truths. No ports are being sold or taken over. No secret deal has taken place.

Maybe you could tell me what the zionist goals of the administration is supposed to mean? Commonly when the left says Bush is frustrated, irrational, secretive, angry, etc. this is taken as a quantifiable truth?

Let’s compare the statement you are asking me to prove with one of Parker’s.

Of course most of what you describe as irrational is actually the left-wing mantra of half- and non-truths about Bush.

I assume you categorize the above as an attack. What about the following:

Not only that, but Bush’s veto threat seems to indicate that he thinks our concerns are not legitimate. He evokes the image of a child throwing a tantrum (or better yet, the scene from Dazed and Confused when Pickford’s Dad decides not to go out of town because he suspects his son is throwing a party when they leave.) The deal is set to close in 8 days, and Bush seems to be reacting out of frustration because he was so close to having his party without his parents finding out

This is a characterization. A non-truth. You feel it may well be true. You believe it may well be true. But it has nothing to do with the actual veracity of any facts.

Is calling Bush a child throwing a tantrum an example of attacking the messenger or the message? I happen to think it is within the bounds of this site rules, but what I seem to be hearing is that attacking liberals is not within the watchblog policy.

To which, I say this is a typical liberal operating procedure. Establish a double standard that makes you impervious to any one questioning your political ideas.

Posted by: esimonson at February 25, 2006 02:49 AM

Get back to me when you can.

Posted by: esimonson at February 26, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #129662

OK - It’s very simple.

One is an opinion on a specific instance - a complaint of the way Bush handled a situation being discussed. The other is a base generalization - not aimed at the discussion,but an attack for having a particular point of view. Your comment was aimed at discrediting the person making a point - it seems to be trying to put an end to the discussion by saying ‘you a liar, so nothing you say has any meaning.’

The quote about Bush says that Bush seemed to be acting like a child - an while it’s obviously not a fact, it is part of a discussion on how Bush has handled the UAE Port issue. From what I read here, it was never meant to be a ‘truth’ or propped up by fact. Therefore, it’s not a lie or a ‘half-truth’ because it’s simply an opinion. If you don’t see the difference by now, notice the qualifiers like “evokes an image” & “seems to be” - those are personal perceptions of what is going on and were obviously not put up as fact.

But in your quote - you state “Of course most of what you describe as irrational is actually the left-wing mantra of half- and non-truths about Bush.” You make an assertion that opinion or a single person’s point of view is actually the rule of thought for all liberals. That’s not put forth as an opinion, it’s put forth as a fact. This is what I asked you to prove. “Is actually” is the qualifier that makes this a statement of fact.

I can understand if you FEEL that ‘all us liberals’ are completely whacked and have no grasp on reality. You would then obviously understand if I completely disagreed with you and FEEL the same about conservatives. (Actually - I hold a lot in common with many true conservative views.) Those are opinions. If you assert that I am a liar simply because of my political alignment, then you should back that claim up with proof - or it is you who are lying. (I’m not attacking you here, just trying to make a point.)

Posted by: tony at February 26, 2006 8:44 AM
Post a comment