Administration Outsources Operations Of Six U.S. Ports To The United Arab Emirates
Administration Outsources Operations Of Six U.S. Ports To The United Arab Emirates
The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
Some facts about the UAE:
– 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.
A bipartisan group of seven members of Congress is calling on the Treasury Department to suspend their approval until they investigate the national security implications of the sale. Such an investigation is required by federal law but hasn’t yet been conducted. You can read their letter here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
great… give control over our ports to Muslim countries… why don’t we have Saudi Arabia run Homeland Security?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:07 am> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
February 17th, 2006 at 9:07 amC’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Yea, this sounds like a great idea.
How about we also put some nuclear material up for sale on Ebay, too? Gotta pay for those giveaways to Big Oil somehow.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:14 amThe Bush administration has stronger allegiance to the global elite than to the American public. Unfortunately, this select club of wealthy individuals contains one important and disgraced member: Osama bin Laden. The further empowerment of this club weakens our security and our national economic interests.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:16 amI really think Progs are confused. Schumer single-handedly railroaded the senate bid of the ever popular netroots darling Paul Hackett. Everything Schumer does is purely political. I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:19 amThese people are coming from a very dark place and have a death wish that they have so thoughtfully included us all in.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:21 amCould you be alittle less cryptic, Jesus H?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:23 amUnreal, anyone who thinks this is a good idea has their head up their @ss. If you think it is hysteria to think there is inherent danger in this decision then I sure you wouldn’t object to having an Iranian company supply the town/city that you are from with the food you eat.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am#6 -
That move really bugs me. I’m in Columubus, OH and was all geared up to volunteer for Hackett’s campaign.
Schumer is guilty of typical GOP behavior of only letting people in the right club play on the big political stage. I just don’t thin Brown is going to get the same following that Hackett would have.
Although, maybe Rush would like to volunteer for Brown. He’s so tight with Brown that he was aware of something that even Brown himself didn’t know - Sherrod Brown is African American (only he’s not: Limbaugh invented “racial component” to Hackett’s decision to withdraw from Ohio primary race)
February 17th, 2006 at 9:25 amI think this demonstrates who’s really calling the shots, and it ain’t Dick Cheney.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:26 amDoesn’t D. Cheney own “Newquewler Parts Are Us” on an island 90 miles off our coast?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amThis one has me baffled. What is the admin. thinking?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:27 amWhy would we outsource the management of American ports? Haven’t we all heard how vulnerable they are even years after 9/11? And the choice is to outsource to the UAE! Of all bodies to control the ports - this decision is beyond the pale.
Just who has Bush’s allegiance? The close association between the Bush family and the Princes of Arabia, the questions that continue to bubble beneath the surface concerning 9/11, the turning over the search for OBL to the Afghans — what is happening before our eyes? This is not even partisan any more — both parties should be demanding answers.
NO
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 amOn its face it does not make any sense at all. There has to be a back story. Who has been bribed? Is it a way to bust unions? Is the idea that when the ports are used to smuggle in some devasting weapon that is used against the United States Bush figures he will get more mileage out rekindling American fears than the possible fallout from the fact that his administration made it possible? I mean that has worked before and I do not give Dumbya any points for creativity. I agree with Authoritarian Rush, however, that other than showing extremely poor judgment, there is not enough at present to make much of a case.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 amUp next; outsourcing the FAA to Hamas.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:28 am#3, Authoritarian Rush - you’re right. Bush would not “blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America”, rather, he would deliberately do it.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:31 amHey Terry and Rush, why don’t we just oursource our airports to the muslims as well? Why stop there….. Why not all of our transportation systems. Hell we can outsource our government to them as well, oh wait we already do that.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:32 amI got it!
By giving the UAE control over the ports, it’ll be that much easier to figure out how the nuclear bomb/nerve gas/other terrorist device got into the country and was used in the next big attack.
You see, the administration is just trying to save time for the investigators who have to figure out what happened.
He’s just trying to give everyone some R&R time so they can play guitar and eat cake.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:33 amIt’s now official, our federal government aids terrorist attacks on their own people.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:34 amThey are now begging for an unprecedented attack. You think 9-11 was big? Just wait. Look for simultaneous attacks in three or four cities.
They sacrificed 3000 innocents to get their Iraq war.
Next up . . . . Martial Law.
an unrelated note, but I think you will like this story.
http://www.comcast.net/ news/ politics/ index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/ 2006/ 02/ 17/ 328192.html&cvqh=itn&ts=2006.02.17_07.05
don’t know what to say about this outsourcing. I don’t think we should put our countries enemies in charge of our ports, but that is just me.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:34 am# 6, Authoritarian Rush - “I’m going to lean toward hysteria on this one. So try not to make fools of yourselves.” So we should mimic Bush’s handling of 9/11 and just not care about possible threats now? Why is it that you are so gung-ho about doing EVERYTHING possible to keep illegal immigrants out, and you’re willing to do everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks… but as soon as Bush makes (yet another) mistake in a way that aids possibly terrorists, you defend it like it’s nothing?
February 17th, 2006 at 9:35 amThe UAE underbid Osama, they won the contract fair and simple.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:38 amProgs and Dems tried and failed to paint Murdoch selling Fox to a Saudi as a threat to national seciruty or some other bizarre occurance. Fact is, after the Democratic failures to change public opinion about this administration all they really have is slander and heresay. Do the report. Then follow up. But this story is already dead. Ho hum.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:39 amHey Rush, theres a big difference between selling a tv station and a port. GET A CLUE!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:42 am#23 -
The reason is some type of sick blind trust that conservatives seem to have for Bush and the administration. It’s as though he/they can do no wrong.
That to me is a key difference between conservatives and everyone else.
Conservatives blindly accept any action of their ‘leaders’ and repeat whatever justification they are told by them for said action.
Everyone else thinks for themselves, questions the motivations/reasons behind an action, and critically looks at the rationale given by the leaders.
Wake up, right. Giving the GOP carte blanche is dangerous. And stupid.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:43 amCan anyone cite one thing that the shrub ever did for the good of the amurkan people? He has his reasons for doing this, I can only guess at a few of them.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:44 amHey Rush - We don’t have to try and change public opinion, he has done that for us.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
February 17th, 2006 at 9:44 am#24, WtM
February 17th, 2006 at 9:46 amI appreciate your sarcasm, but BushCo doesn’t award contracts through a bidding process - it’s always a reward for something past or a bribe for something future.
Don’t forget that two of the hijackers were UAE
February 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amas well.
23
February 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amYou’re wrong. You’ve been on this site for this long and you still haven’t gotten the message about he who controls the message?
UAE is an American ally.
How those tiny little gears turn in those puny little brains Rust,just amazing!
February 17th, 2006 at 9:49 amThe company will operate machinery?Moving containers?Oil transfers?Disenfranchising the longshoresmen?Will they carry the insurance premiums?Is this an improvement over the current opperation?How much government money is involved?I don’t think they mean to hire their employees from the UAE so this would not be outsourcing jobs from American workers,just union busting.Those are high risk,high paying jobs so I expect that those who have them will be looking at pay cuts or lockouts.Sick puppies all of them.Greed and kickbacks.Another money laundering scheme.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:52 amFace it. Our country has been put on the auction block to the highest bidder. Bush sold himself out to the Saudi’s long ago in his early energy dealings. His buddy, “Bandar Bush” has had him in his pocket for years. Now the UAE get the ports as payback for political and most importantly cash reasons.
Remember, as one highly placed Bushista stated,”We’re an empire now, we create our own reality”
Besides, if there is another terrorist attach, Bush will have an chance to stand atop that mound of smouldering rubble and shout through his bull horn another bumper sticker slogan.
As long as he can keep America shaking in fear, he wil have absolute power. It worked for a crazy German painter, and it’s working for a failed fake Texan.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:53 amWell, we deal with the Al-Qualude trifecta daily don’t we. Wasn’t UAE , along with pakistan and saudi Arabia one of the biggest supporters in the late 90’s? Didn’t M. atta & another hijacker or 2 wire money back and forth to the UAE. .money .UAE was a big player in the financing of 911.i think even one of the hijackers was from UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amPublic opinion as it is now is not going to correct the problems. Only hearings. Dems can’t force hearings without overwhelming public support.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amWhen I get home at the end of the day, and turn on my TV, the very first thing I should see is a PSA about how deviant and contrary this government is. Cheney is running this country, and we don’t know anything about him. When Schumer does crap like this all he is really doing is playing the Terror/Hysteria card in the same fashion Bush does.
#37, read #32 for your answer: 2 were UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:57 amRush,
February 17th, 2006 at 9:58 amI don’t know anyone that thought that FOX having Saudi ties is a threat to national security…I think most people think it just shows how hypocrtical the people making the news at FOX are and how ignorant the people who follow the teachings of Murdoch are.
39
The prevailing message was not the appearance of hypocrisy but rather the power of the Prince to affect bias.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:02 amThe same company was bidding in the UK recently - the problem was price, not security. Another bidder got involved.
The company is more concerned with investing the current windfall oil receipts and getting a good return for the time when their oil stops flowing (alot of the members of the UAE are running out).
Of course it is a ‘concern’ but the same could be said about Citgo and Chavez’s threat to shut down his US refineries.
The problem is that it’s on US soil and the US is pefectly capable of nationalizing it/forcing operations to continue.
That said, the decision to buy the ports is a bad one. This company has a history of overpaying for assets that yield a steady cashflow (which is why they are popular - they’re bondlike in character because the returns are fairly stable).
UAE has differing levels of ‘modernity’ among the members that constitute it. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are very modern and very attractive to Westerners. Some of the others are ‘backward’.
That said, they’ve got one of the largest Formula One race tracks and the jockeys on their camels are now robotic. (they realized that with Westerners buying up all the property on their fake Palm Islands that child jockeys didn’t fit).
Dubai also is becoming a pretty big financial center.
This has been cleared by those lovely folks from Congress that look at this crap - remember they shot down the Chinese bid for ‘76′/Myranmar tyran oil company?:)
The lack of other bidders suggests that they are overpaying, probably by alot. Their forecast depends on the US influx of goods staying about at current levels or increasing - which can only happen if foreigners are willing to continue to finance our dissaving.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:04 am#37 -
Pointing out that the administration is outsourcing American ports to the UAE (who has REAL links to terrorists, not the made-up ones to Iraq) is playing the Terror/Hysteria card?
Ummmm… no. It’s trying to be proactive and prevent a problem BEFORE it happens. It’s what progressives do. Try to anticipate a problem and deal with it ahead of time.
You conservatives should try that for a change instead of invading countries and then all staring at each other saying, “Now what?”
(I was going to use the analogy of “Shoot first, ask questions later” but with the whole Cheney thing, it would have been more like “Shoot first, don’t answer questions at all.”)
February 17th, 2006 at 10:05 ama.rush has the troll morning shift. this fools ‘goose step’ is showing. he thought this was ‘I love bush.com’.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:06 am“Dubai Ports World” is a fairly new but has WESTERN management, for the most part. Dubai likes foreigners to run their financial operations - Dubai is trying to become a financial center for the mideast.
Dubai is part of the UAE, but it makes its own decisions. It’s the most ‘progressive’ area in the Muslim world - everyone seems to be wanting to live in their filled in Palm Island (which are quite cool) - and those people include americans/britains/etc.
This is a commercial transaction that has to be approved by the politicians. Dubai is concerned because in a few years they have no more oil and that is bad. That’s why they’re trying to transform themselves.
They are, however, going for assets that are good for the cashflow - but they are overpaying. Luckily in the UK their port bid appears to be falling through because of another hostile bid (the original DPW bid was endorsed by the target).
The UK didn’t consider them a threat - although essentially anything in the UK can be sold to anybody - they are a pretty free market. The US is too.
Drop the UAE label please, it’s Dubai and a Dubai investment company for the citizens of Dubai (who hold UAE passports). The returns do not go to any of the other UAE members and the board is not influenced by them. DPW also has independent, western directors.
Look into Dubai before you denigrate them, please. They are different than some of the other members that constitute the UAE.
The funny thing is that the coming lack of oil brought this social transformation - why can Saudi Arabia run out of oil?:)
February 17th, 2006 at 10:11 am#32 UAE’s our ally? Just like Saudia Arabia was our ally when they attacked us on 9/11? Has Bush held hands with the King of UAE yet?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:12 am42
I’m just mad at Schumer. I don’t think USA should have any relation of any sort with Muslim countries, however modern.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:12 amI am quite confused by this story.
I thought the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran the New York City / North/Central New Jersey ports.
What is the role of the private company here anyway? The larger issuess including not only national security but that privatization is actually something that “I hates me some bureaucrats” “anti-gummint” conservatievs, rather than support, should dislike as it actually results in the duplication of bureaucracies (having both a private and public one).
Is there any way for that aspect of the situation to gain traction — the aspect that businesses have bureaucracies too — so people who don’t like pencil pushers (since they bullied them in Middle School) should actually be against privatization?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:13 amBottom line - Dubai (and Abu Dhabi) should not be lumped in with the rest of the UAE. For the most part they act like sovereign states and have vastly different social structures. Dubai is the most tolerant and would probably rank as the most progressive Muslim country.
There are more foreigners in Dubai that citizens. They are also opening a massive financial district. Let’s give them some credit for trying to change.
And yes, they are ruled by a Sheik who has hereditary rule. Regardless, he’s at least a bit more enlightened than other Arab ones.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amActually W needs an incident before November in order to convince the American people to propagate his dictatorship. What better way than to put the fox in charge of the henhouse?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:14 amRemind me again why the GOP is strong on national security.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amI’ve never one to see danger behind every tree, but so many weird things have been happening so fast that you have to wonder — is this government purposely trying to destroy the U.S. before the ‘08 elections?
Despite claiming to protect America, there’s been no real improvement in security (unless you mistake my 12 year old happy kid and her grandmother are shoe bombers). China bankrolls more and more of the U.S. economy while stealing trade and defense secrets. Internationally, we’re viewed as favorable as Russis (that of the old USSR with its Iron Curtain, gulags, etc.) Laws no longer matter because the executive has declared itself all-powerful, unaccountable to anyone for anything. We now torture without consequence, we spy without warrants. We silence dissent. We stack the Supreme Court and highjack the media. We let our enemies slip out of our hands, then attack another country under false pretenses. We sit by as a major US city disappears, taking a major oil and gas supply center with it, all the while doing nothing to ease our dependence on foreign oil. We attempt to destroy Social Security under the guise of fixing it, then try the same thing with health care. We cry over an inheritance tax then saddle future generations with national debt. We claim to unite and in the next sentence castigate anyone who thinks differently. We praise innovation, then attempt to teach our kids religious fairy tales of creation. And on, and on, until one day, we start sellling our ports to other nations “with troubling ties to international terrorism.”
You couldn’t do more harm more quickly if you tried. Which begs the question, are we trying?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:18 am#47
I’ll answer your question and the rest of the crap that people are assuming about this bid.
DPW WILL NOT OWN THE PORTS.
“I thought the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ran the New York City / North/Central New Jersey ports.”
They don’t ‘run’ them, they ‘own’ them. They issue a concession to manage the ports. It’s publicly owned and privately managed.
Dubai Port Worlds is buying the CONCESSION to OPERATE but NOT OWN the ports in question from P&O (a UK company).
So ownership is not an issue.
For the alarmists out there, the port authorities can cancel the contracts for breach of the contractual stipulations which means running the ports, basically.
The idea is that it’s inefficient for the Port Authority to run what should be privately managed. It also gets the public money through concessions. The best part is that the port authority doesn’t have to pay for upgrades to the port.
Judge it by that please:)
And just so you all know, I’m not a wingnut.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:19 am#32,
You don’t think this move would increase the possibility of a terrorist getting his way? I am sure the UAE has good intentions, are our ally, etc. However, this would increase the chances of terrorists gaining access. The terrorists could more easily infiltrate the new system, they look like them, act like them, have the same religion, can go unnoticed. We all know when push comes to shove, Arabs are only in it for the money, they otherwise really don’t like us.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amYup, BushCo. Keeping America Safe. Or safer than it was. Or as safe as can be expected. Or safer than John Kerry could keep us. Or safer than, say, Iraq. Yeah. That’s it. We’re safer because we’re fighting a war somewhere else, not here. Safe as a bug in a rug in a house on fire.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:22 amAnother thing to look at, if you’re a political realist is NEW ORLEANS. Its a BLATANT attempt to get political approval. The port is a mess, but operating. DPW will invest heavily in that port - it is attractive commercially - but will probably do more than they need just to show what great corporate citizens they are.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:22 amand none of the muslims that work for Dubai Ports World, have, or will have, any problem with the U.S. after witnesing their behavior towards the Muslim world.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am“The terrorists could more easily infiltrate the new system, they look like them, act like them, have the same religion, can go unnoticed. We all know when push comes to shove, Arabs are only in it for the money, they otherwise really don’t like us.”
DPW employs Western managers. The only people that are going to be working there are American staff and Western managers plus probably a couple Dubai reps to watch their investments.
They’re not importing a bunch of Arabs to be longshoremen.
Dubai would not want to lose 6.8 billion out of what is basically a fund to hold them over after the oil stops flowing.
Stop the UAE crap. This concerns Dubai which makes sovereign investment decisions. The same goes for political ones.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:25 am“and none of the muslims that work for Dubai Ports World, have, or will have, any problem with the U.S. after witnesing their behavior towards the Muslim world.”
Dubai is pretty secular. And no, they probably don’t, actually. Considering that tons of Westerners live in Dubai and aren’t getting killed shows that they have at least some restraint.
Try walking around Saudi Arabia. Alot different than walking around Dubai. Dubai is ‘the place to be’ for wealthy Americans, Europeans, and Asians.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:27 amThis is not a big deal. Most of the large shipping ports in this country are divided up into a series of terminals which are operated by big terminal operation companies. These include APM Terminals (a Danish company) and COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Company). I think all that is happening here is that this Dubai Ports company will be operating terminals but security/oversight is still done by the goverment.
Also, Dubai is not the UAE. I don’t know how UAE got lumped into the discussion but it’s irrelevant.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:29 amPrecott Bush would have outsourced America’s ports to Krupp or Messerschmidt.
This is just an in-the-genes thing.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:29 am#49, Yep, I, too, am awaiting a “security” event this summer — just in time for the elections.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amooops — Late for work now.
Dubai will, at some point, list DPW on the Dubai stock exchange with global depositary receipts in the US. They want to spin this thing out and get some more interest in their financial district.
Yah, I’ve posted to much on this. We don’t need to be too xenophobic against Dubai. We would be concerned if it wasn’t Dubai or Abu Dhabi. The other members of the UAE are pretty repressive regimes.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amThis shows that the money controls what happens, who knows what will happen once these wealthy folks get their foot in the door. More bribes, payouts, kickbacks, influence peddling, looking the other way.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:34 amThere seems to be some sort of confusion that this a private transaction. The political aspect is approval. DPW made a bid for P&O over in the UK - I guess they won? Haven’t been keeping up on it since the initial offer/counterbid.
So, P&O has alot of American hedgefunds for shareholders looking for a quick profit. Mmmm financial community lobies. The bid is agreed so it’d look pretty shitty if the UK authorities have approved the bid (which they have) - and it’s for ports in the UK too - and the US denies it.
Denying it would also probably be ‘bad’ for Bush just because he’s trying to convice the Muslim world that we don’t hate them (which he does).
The ‘cartoon wars’ have made them especially sensitive. Funny how Bush through the State Department wouldn’t defend free speech.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:35 amLiberals and Prog.are cautious and want to put America and its needs first. Conservatives the opposite, who would have thunk it.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:36 amI think some of the neo cons are missing the point. Even if security is handeled by the US and even if the ports are still owned by the us, it is nto a good idea to reward those who want to hurt us. See what we did to Iraq, and they had nothing to do with 9/11. Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and others may not have participated directly in 911 yet they turned a blind eye to the conditions which foster the hatred of the US and they allow terrorists to grow and get recruited fromt heir mosques. Imagine the outrage if CLinton had done this? Never mind, CLinton would have been impeached and removed from office long ago if he had followed the exact same course as curious george.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:37 amHey Beep52-Well said. Everyday we sink further down the rabbit hole.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:39 amIt seems like the US is in some financial deep shit to be willing to do this.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:39 am“This shows that the money controls what happens, who knows what will happen once these wealthy folks get their foot in the door. More bribes, payouts, kickbacks, influence peddling, looking the other way.”
DPW made a public bid for a public company. The bid was agreed by the P&O board (including the independent directors). The ‘payout’ is DPW offering P&O shareholders alot of money for the company (it’s an all cash transaction, I believe - DPW can’t issue shares).
The only ‘influence peddling’ would be DPW hiring a Washington lobbying firm to make sure they don’t get sacked after winning the initial review.
Apparently some people here aren’t aware that this is a private transaction between two companies. The port authority owns the port, but P&O operates it. P&O sold that right to DPW for 6.8 billion (the initial bid was 2 billion lower btw).
DPW got their bid approved because 1.UK approved it 2. US investors benefit 3. it’s a commercial transaction 4. the bidder is Dubai and 5. Bushco wants to reward Dubai for being ‘progressive’.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amMarie, (#13)
I think there are two possible explanations. I think Bush is working on behalf of the Arabs and has been all along. The Carlyle Group is allied with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Remember, it’s all about corporate power—-not abortion, not theocracy, and certainly not “protecting America”.
Another possible explanation is provided in #51 above. Great post by beep. This newest sell-out is the clearest indication yet that the power elite really does want to wreck this country, as though it’s outlived its usefulness.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amDubai…
Isn’t that where OBL had kidney treatments and met with CIA officials shortly before 9/11?
OBL has denied it, of course.
He’s so very honest…
February 17th, 2006 at 10:43 amWhat have the taliban done to upset the US? Stop the opium flow?
What has Bin Laden done to upset the US? They’ve got nothing on him, except a poor video clip of him admiting. This falls short of proof that he masterminded the 9/11.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:45 amAnd how about the fact that Mohamed Atta, tha “frontman” of the attacks was sailing on Abramoff’s casino ships?
#52 - I agree. I am a huge TP fan, but this is a god-awful post. Firstly, there’s no friggin’ outsourcing. P&O, a listed UK company, currently operates the 6 ports. Dubai ports is bidding for P&O, as they have every right to do. Unless the Brits block the bid, this deal goes ahead. End of story. If there are genuine security concerns about this, it is because Chimp has done dicksquat to improve port security since 9/11. This has nothing to do with DPW’s bid.
Come on TP. You can do better than the winger xenophobes who are all shit-scared at the thought of foreigners running a port. And besides, one of the reasons they can afford this purchase is because we still buy so much friggin’ oil from this part of the world. That’s a legitimate angle to this story.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:46 am“It seems like the US is in some financial deep shit to be willing to do this.”
No, it appears that P&O shareholders want DPW’s cash. P&O is a UNITED KINGDOM COMPANY. The US - I suppose you mean as in government - isn’t getting money. (although the port authorities, especially New Orleans, get free upgrades to their ports).
DPW will also have to invest heavily in the tracks that link the ports to the railroads. They are really, really congested. Some of these ports also don’t stack containers b/c of longshoreman opposition (stacking saves space and time).
“Kuwait, Saudi, UAE and others may not have participated directly in 911 yet they turned a blind eye to the conditions which foster the hatred of the US and they allow terrorists to grow and get recruited fromt heir mosques.”
UAE does not equal Dubai in any real sense. Seeing that soccer stars, hollywood folks, etc are going to Dubai and buying houses - that alcohol freely flows, that the nonbelievers are not getting butchered - I’d say that’s pretty progessive.
The population of Dubai is actually quite small. It’s not exactly secular but they are cooperative.
They own Emirates Airlines for all those who care.
Anyway, they’re probably overpaying but they want to become a big player and draw in capital to Dubai.
Most of this relates to the Dubai stock exchange. At some point Dubai will want to list DPW to get a lumpsum payment and find something else to buy.
Oh, and not that long ago Dubai was a pretty boring place. Running out of oil does wonders for countries.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:48 amActually I wouldn’t worry about this too much. In ten years these sea ports will all be offshore reefs.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:49 am#73, I agree with you DF, this is the TP equivalent of raising the ‘threat level’. Did you do a similar one on China bidding for Unocal? This makes Lou Dobbs sound sensible. Just wondering.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:50 amJames are you sure your not a wingnut? I wouldn’t put it past you. All the regular wingnuts have retreated lately, likely because a new approach was being implemented. Now here you are, the new form of Troll, acting like you are not a troll, appearing to be moderate. The give away is that you are all of the sudden here out of nowhere, and you are persistent, don’t seem to be giving up anytime soon.
The new Troll strategy: less inflammatory, regular names, denying being a wingnut, appearing moderate, not trying to derail the topic.
Message to RNC, your new strategy has been found out, in one day.
Message to
February 17th, 2006 at 10:52 am#73
Thanks for confirming I’m not the only other TP fan with such views.
Oh, you mentioned the UK approving the bid. They did make an approval.
P&O has a lossmaking ferry service across the Channel. DPW was the only bidder willing to keep it. That got them political points because the ferry people are Labor supporters. (as in the Labor party).
The feds inspect these ports. There are radiation detectors installed now (hugely expensive for the operators and a headache b/c of false positives) and they are inspected all the time.
This is not like DPW gets the concession and runs it like they want. They get inspected and have to do whatever the hell the US FBI/CIA/etc want.
Here’s the deal - If DPW really wanted to screw us, they wouldn’t buy these ports. Because it’s a concession, the port authorities can void the concession if there’s a major breach in the contract - say security.
That’d make 6.8 billion plus billions more in investment disappear. And the port authorities would get to keep all the nice new cranes, tracks, radiation detectors, etc.
Did I mention the people who INSPECT CONTAINERS are not the operators? They’re the feds.
Running a port means charging fees, unloading the crap, stacking it, keeping track of it, taking it down and putting it on a semi or train, and saying goodbye. It really doesn’t have much to do with security.
Besides, the longshoremen, who actually do everything, are still going to be Americans. The financial benefits of operating the port just goes to DPW instead of a UK company.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:56 amI think it is a mistake to lump Liberals and Proressives.
The Dems and Repubs are in a symbiotic gridlock. Neither will ever fracture enough to spawn a real independent party. I feel the future of America and the security of my children rest in the end of the current 2 party system.
This is why Hackett was shelved.
February 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am#79, so it was Schumer who demagogued this issue on the ports in the first place and also Schumer who stabbed Hackett in the back? Its a one-party state in all but name, AR, with one-dollar, one-vote.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:00 amI just rolled and smoked a big fat Dubai.
-GSD
February 17th, 2006 at 11:01 amThere goes the neighborhood.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:05 amDon’t worry. Bush will spy on them.
#77
I post pretty frequently. Just not in all the posts. TP happens to be my favorite blog.
Apparently disagreeing with this post (and one other two months ago?) qualifies me as a wingnut.
I’m persistent because we’re sticking to the UAE hates us garbage and that this is some giant plot.
It’s Dubai. Ever looked up on Dubai? I’d actually like to live there. Unfortunately, I don’t have nearly enough money for the kind of places they’re putting up.
What I’m trying to convey is that Dubai is independent and progressive. It’s not fair to lump them in with Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
I also had an issue of linking actions in other UAE members to Dubai. Since everyone here is assuming the UAE is some sort of central system - it’s not. It’s a confederation where are the members get to do basically whatever they please.
I’m definately anti-bush, but I’m not for xenophobic type behavior. I’m also not for linking to Foxnews.:)
Disagreeing with anti-business stuff is not so bad. My concern is that if the UK govt accepted it and P&O did too then we have a pretty high bar to reach.
Joining FoxNews in bashing ANY muslim country is not so great. Turkey is trying to join the EU, Dubai is trying to join the international financial community.
And no, you don’t get limbs cut off in Dubai. And you can drink, eat publicly during Rammadan, etc. Sort of like Lebanon used to be.
I’d just like it if we didn’t group all Muslim states into one category.
The problem, as I see it, is we’re quick to defend individual Muslims (which we should), but also quick to attack states that are muslim.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amKeerist. Mark my words. A large nuclear weapon will be smuggled into the U.S. if this is allowed to go through.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amso, “james”…yes, you sure are persistant…
February 17th, 2006 at 11:09 amjust who/what are you, to be SO knowledgable…
how about some links to the facts you’ve been passing out here…
#77
A wingnut wouldn’t be defending Dubai.:) I’m defending a progressive (for the area) government that is moving away from oil.
I like a country that lets me drink, eat when I please, and not pray if I choose. I like the idea of a nice, hot place with nice homes and lots of Americans and Europeans.
Wingnuts don’t defend muslim countries - they attack them.
The only ‘issue’ with Dubai is that, yes, the Sheik runs it. The upside is that he’s investing the petrodollars while they still exist for the people. Another upside is that their citizens aren’t killing the Westerners.
My ‘test’ for a tolerant muslim country is whether the majority foreign population is attacked by the muslims. Not happening in Dubai.
I’d feel pretty safe walking around in Dubai. I wouldn’t, at all, in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iran, Yemen, etc.
Oh, Dubai also operates the LARGEST USED CAR AUCTION! Woo. They’re toyotas, etc from Japan that are used or damaged. They get sent on throughout the middle east and Africa. Pretty cool tent car city they have going.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:12 am#85, I’ve been to Dubai and have friends living there, I can vouch for what James is saying. I’m disappointed to notice quite a few negative stereotypical comments about muslims in general in here - more in keeping with the trolls who visit here than anything else.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am#78 - No worries. This is a total airshot. You understand a heck of a lot more about the running of a port; I just know that we have no right interfering in a merger between two foreign public companies.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:17 amJame - I don’t think your a wingnut, but your not looking at the big picture.
You say that Dubai is not part of the hatred toward America. Maybe they are not, but I would rather not take that chance right this moment. Perhaps 10-15 years down the road, this might make more sense.
It would be like allowing a company who is composed of Japanees owned individuals obtaining rights to our ports after we bombed them for the attack of Pearl Harbor.
Don’t you see the connection here? They might be great people, and I am not trying to lump all Muslims together, but we need to be cautious here and this is not the way to do that.
Hope this makes sense?
February 17th, 2006 at 11:18 amDPW’s Site
http://www.dpiterminals.com/
For some info on Dubai check out their site:
http://www.dubaicityguide.com/main/index.asp
All in english…
For info on tourism in general check out:
http://www.dubaitourism.ae/
Dubai gov
http://www.dm.gov.ae/ portal/ dt?desktop.suid=uid=ENanonymous,ou=people,o=public,dc=dm,dc=gov,dc=ae
CIA factsheet on UAE
http://www.cia.gov/ cia/ publications/ factbook/ geos/ ae.html
Non-fox story on the P&O deal:
February 17th, 2006 at 11:22 amhttp://www.dailystar.com.lb/ article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=22108
ah yes the bush administration at work again, what a sublime situation
February 17th, 2006 at 11:29 am87
That’s interesting. On the surface the Republicans are percieved as enabling terror through trade practices while Democrats are percieved as being hostile and stereotypical about Muslims (myself included).
February 17th, 2006 at 11:29 amI think any Muslim country that deals with America will produce terrorists. So my choice is to abandon these countries. The American choice is to engage and change these countries and increase police powers everywhere.
Oh, management structure.
http://www.dpiterminals.com/ members.asp?MCatID=3&PageID=10&SubPageID=4&PSID=1
As you can see, EIGHT of the NINE managers are either American, European, or Asian. (The CEO is from Dubai). It’s about half and half.
Anyway, thought you’d like to know that arabs don’t exactly run the company:)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:30 amJames - “I’m persistent because we’re sticking to the UAE hates us garbage and that this is some giant plot.”
I just visited their web page and there are 2 buttons: UAE, International.
So Dubai is not related to UAE? We can’t lump them in with UAE? Please explain?
They are CLEARLY connected with UAE.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am#89, 92
I don’t the a nativist (isolationist) policy is such a terrific idea.
I realize that people have concerns about this. Call your rep and senator.
Also - I don’t understand something here. There’s the big deal about doing business with Arabs on ports…but we get alot of our oil from them (and Venezuela). That far outstrips DPW.
Yes, I know we’d all like to become more fuel efficient. I know I would (I drive a diesel jetta - 54mpg - waiting for a hybrid version that will make the toyots look bad:)). I keep the house at 64 degrees (and it’s sort of cold here) and I use all flourescent lighting. That’s more because I like to save money, but switching bulbs out does alot.
The Middle East exists and we have to acknowledge it. As for a Japanese comparison, we turned a blind eye while they slaughtered millions in China. That was isolationist.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:38 am#94
the UAE and INTERNATIONAL buttons are if you are interested in their UAE or international ports:)
They run some pretty large container transhipment terminals there. It’s where they started. So - it’s sort of natural to have a link to that.
.ae is the domain for the UAE. The issue is to not lump Dubai in with the other members of the UAE. I’m not saying it isn’t a part of it - but the structure of the government is such that you can do what you wish within your own country, sheik wise. That’s why some are backwaters and some aren’t.
It’s also why some parts of the UAE are not good places to visit.
A good way to think of the UAE is America under the Articles of Confederation. You basically did as you pleased.
Anyway, the UAE exists only because the UK made it so. Hmm, sort of like ISRAEL and IRAQ. (The UK was their colonial ruler until 1971). The UK decided what the country would look like when they colonized it. Same deal with Iraq, same deal with Israel. (to an extent).
As a side note, my grandfather served in the Palestinian Police (UK army). Apparently it was hellish what with everyone hating you.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:44 amWhat makes me think after reading what James has to say on this subject, that over time and eventually, this fish that is sitting out in the sun will start to really stink like other Republican ventures. I’ll just have sit back and watch this one unfold(as if I had a choice). Note: mental experiment on forming unbiased opinions(doomed to failure, but who knows?)
February 17th, 2006 at 11:45 amJames, theres a HUGE difference between buying something from the Middle East and having them run our ports. GEEZE.
OK, let me try and put it another way. It would be like Los Angeles being run by the Bloods or Cripts. Sure, they may have changed and the ones that are now operating on their own have changed, but they are still part of the gang. Not to say that they can’t change, but there GENERALLY is a life long alegance to the gang.
So this would be OK to have a company run by members of the Bloods or Cripts running LA?
It’s fine to begin repairing the damage this administration has done with the Muslims, but to just jump in with a race that we are fighting seems to be a little suicidal.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:50 amWhats up with that
February 17th, 2006 at 11:54 amA good way to think of the UAE is America under the Articles of Confederation.
It is if you’re totally ignorant of the world outside your borders. Each UAE member is a kingdom.
I guess if Bush is exporting democracy, he has to import dictatorship, or else we have a trade gap.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:57 amAs for a Japanese comparison, we turned a blind eye while they slaughtered millions in China. That was isolationist.
Yes, it’s not like we sent the Flying Tigers, human rights investigators, and eventually the entire Pacific Navy after them, is it?
Like Bush said, we’ve had a hundred years of uniterupted good relations with Japan.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:00 pmIt wasn’t until one morning in December we realized that we didn’t like their method of managing our ports, eh James?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmwell terry, thanks for the “voucher”, but i think “james” can surely speak for himself…i just want to be able to verify any “credentials”… that’s not asking too much, i think…
February 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pmso, bacck to my first question: james, who/what are you? …as if…
but thanks for the “links”
> I don’t think Bush would blindly give terrorists avenues to hurt America…
C’mon Progs, your Libness is showing.
Comment by Authoritarian Rush — February 17, 2006 @
com’on, what do you think 9/11 was.and new orleans. this peckerwood (bushy)knew what was coming and the black and white prove it. all he is doing is banking on the american people to sop up is rhetoric like biscuts and gravy. and i have to agree that there are alot of stupid folks out there lickin the plates. and someone mentioned we owe money: we owe china 50 billion dollars, thanks bush. we owe saudi. we do not own america. we do not own our own money.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pm#92, so the US should avoid talking to:
Turkey - world’s oldest secular democracy which just happens to be muslim
Malaysia - a moderate muslim state
Morocco - bad luck for the new gulag they are building there
Indonesia - a democratic success story of the last five years
Hmm, not a very well-thought out comment.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmThis move warrants a closer look simply because our ports are still our most vulnerable targets. Only 5% of all containers coming into the country are actually inspected.
Also, the committe that approved this sale - the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment - is headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow. In 2004, DP World purchased part of the American company CSX for over $1 billion. Before he became Treasury Secretary, John Snow was Chairman and CEO of CSX. Is this just one more example of back room wheeling and dealing?
And Shumer is not the only politician voicing his concerns, so are Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Mark Foley, R-Fla., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The same link above also describes P&O’s duties (which will now became Dubai Ports duties) this way: “That firm hires workers to load containers on and off vessels stopping at state-owned terminals and other docks…Though CP&P Ports Virginia has only about 20 permanent employees, it hires longshoremen - ranging from 10 to a few hundred a day - to load and offload vessels calling on the local port, said Claire Gosnell, a P&O spokeswoman in London.”
Finally, considering we have soldiers in the Middle East fighting and DYING to keep us safe here at home, don’t we owe it to them to move slowly on this and make sure this is in our country’s best interest?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pmOur ports are a critical component of our national security. It seems irresponsible to me to outsource this component to a foreign power. It is not xenophobic to seek to control our nationl security. We must draw a line somewhere. Should we outsource our police forces, too? That might be cheaper.
It could be that currently, the UAE is our bestest buddy - a paragon of reasonableness. That still does not justify entrusting them with our ports.
The administration wants to do this because it will benefit Bush’s rich foreign friends. Even if George has looked into their soul and decided they are good people, I’m not reassured.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIf you don’t support giving control of our ports to the Bush family Taliban friends then you are unpatriotic.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#103, OK then, maybe I should just say that I agree with James. I don’t think he needs to justify himself to anyone, his posted facts and links are all I need.
#98, ‘bloods and crips’ - I’ve ridden a few P&O Ferries in my time, I don’t recall any gangsta rap being played in the bars. And what’s this?
You are drinking the Fox News Kool Aid if you think the entire Umma is fighting. If you continue to think like that and have your actions reflect that thought, then you will have your Clash of Civilizations. Its what Bin Laden wanst and I think its what the PNAC agenda is too. Your racism is starting to show…
February 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmKeerist. Mark my words. A large nuclear weapon will be smuggled into the U.S. if this is allowed to go through.
Comment by Dubya — February 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Bingo! And after we’ll hear:
February 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIt had to have been Iran. We have the intelligence.
Now aren’t y’all glad we decided to bomb them earlier?
If we hadn’t, they may have smuggled in many more, and it could have been much worse.
Now then, all you folks stay huddled up with yer visqueen & duct tape, we’ll protect ya.
Gerald
Sad, but that is the mindset of the eunuch kultists of Bush.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pm#1 – Of course it makes us safer – and by us I mean the administration and their cronies and by safer I mean more wealthy. That is the only goal and they are willing to look like incompetent buffoons to achieve it.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm#109, oh and these two statements are contradictory:
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm“You are drinking the Fox News Kool Aid if you think the entire Umma is fighting. ”
Your missing the point!!!!!!!!!!!!1
It’s an example and is meant to help demonstrate the issue moron.
OK, let me try it another way with you. (GEEZE).
Let’s say that someone shoots you because they dont like you. This guy has a brother which has the same views as the guy that shot you. Would you be so quick to allow him to run your buisness for you?
Damn, why is it so hard for the simple things to sink in?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmYes Dreary
They have passed the point of even caring if exposed. As long as a “result” is achieved, all is proceeding to plan.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm[…] UPDATE: ThinkProgress.org has some thoughts to add on the topic. The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†[…]
February 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmTime for the squating eunuchs to dig the “Saddam hole” behind the washer in the basement.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm“#109, oh and these two statements are contradictory:”
How are they contradictory?
” #98 “It’s fine to begin repairing the damage this administration has done with the Muslims, but to just jump in with a race that we are fighting seems to be a little suicidal.—
I am saying that we should be cautious here. Dont you see the words “just jump in”? Definition - use some caution.
” #89 “They might be great people, and I am not trying to lump all Muslims together, but we need to be cautious here and this is not the way to do that.—
And I am saying we need to be cuatious here.
How is that contradictory. GEEZE
February 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#107, Peter, you need to read the article: the ports are already ‘outsourced to a foreign power’. I don’t wish to scare you but it’s one which has fought the US twice already, burned Washington and threatened to hang the President. They once tried to impose their empire on over 25% of the earth’s surface, invented the concentration camp and once controlled half the world’s oil supply.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmIt’s all interconnected by money, power, position; USA is becoming more like UAE each day….join the dots between those in power within/between each ‘monarchy’.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pmHey hey hey! Saudi Arabia is offering 2.3 Billion to “safeguard” the Statue of Liberty. Who cares why…thats 2.3 BILLION!!!
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#118 - “I am not trying to lump all Muslims together” and “a race we are fighting” - of course that’s contradictory - you are lumping all muslims together
February 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm“Outsourcing” America until it ceases to exist.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#119 - yeah and the Jews persecuted Christ. We have moved past that too. Your suggesting that during these times that you are stating that we were offering our ports to these countries, or the same race of people.
Your trying to say that directly after, or during, a conflict with a race of people that we should just let them in without any reservations or concerns.
DAMN, some people are soooooooo stupid.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pm105
Don’t get uppity with me, Terry. I know you don’t live in America. Right or wrong, Muslims are Muslims. And Christians here don’t like ‘em. Check your riots map, punk.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmAuthoritarian Rush Eunuch
Go squat in your “hole of Saddam” punk.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm#122
“#118 - “I am not trying to lump all Muslims together†and “a race we are fighting†- of course that’s contradictory - you are lumping all muslims together
Comment by TerrytheTurtle ”
So I guess when someone says that a large majority of the mexicans in Arizona are illegal aliens, that they are refering to ALL mexicans? Or by saying that a large portion of the black people who live in the getto steals to survive is stating that ALL blacks steal? Or to say that because a large portion of the white people in the south hate non-white people is the same as saying that all white people hat non-white people?
Damn man, you need help.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmComment by RemoveBush — February 17, 2006 @ 9:42 am
Actually we just pointed out the fact that a Saudi owns a 5% stake in Fox news and it has been proven that he has had headlines changed so as not to look bad for Saudis.
But you wouldn’t know that would you. Because you don’t read anything, absorb anything or learn anything beyond you partisanship.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pmAuthoritarian Rush
Progressive are not stupid. It is easy to understand that mixed in with a bunch of muslims are terrorists… going from that to saying that the idiot biggoted christians dont like muslims is moving from common sense into racist type thought… If the christians don’t like em that is only because the christians dont follow their own religion. If they dont know which to trust and common sense dictates caution then that is entirely different.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#127, I have said nothing: you said the words ‘a race we are fighting’. You are the one lumping all muslims together as the ‘race we are fighting’, directly contradicting the ‘I’m not trying…’ Anytime I see one of those sentences, there’s a ‘but’ in it. It’s pretty obvious where you stand.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm130/127
Why all the mincing of words… would it not be easy to simply say that the majority of the problems we are dealing with are coming from arab countries? How is that any different than say arab race? or muslim religion? Unless you are a redneck KKK nazi wannabe then no one thinks someone means every person in that race or country or whatever.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#130 - So if I refer to a black country as a race of people I am being racist? Or how about if I call Japan a race of people, am I being racist? How about Russians as a race of people, am I being racist?
Get a fvcking clue.
Hey MORON, heres the definition of race for you.
A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
The Bushites would let this Dubai-owned company run our ports because, um, they don’t actually give one whit about our national security. C’mon, they Invade Iraq and turn it into a terrorist breeding ground, create a Hamas-led government because of their vacuum of leadership with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, out a CIA agent who was working on tracking Iran’s nuclear weapons buildup and black market interest, our most vulnerable cities still don’t have the allocations to do half of the necessary measures to protect their citizens.
It’s a joke. The jig is up, or should be. But the mainstream media keeps reporting this administrations intentional misdeeds and blunders as if they’re doing commentary for a sporting event. “Well, we’re not sure how the White House will turn this one around, Brian.” And then Rove lobs them another big ball of cheese that they’re more than ready to eat.
No one in this administration gives a rodent’s whisker about our citizens or our soldiers. They are traitors, so the Dubai contract should surprise no one. What would be surprising is if the mainstream press gives it much play.
Don’t hold your breath.
http://www.mediabloodhound.com
February 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmGuys
You are arguing semantics here. The only question to be answered is; does this make the U.S. safer? Yes or No?
February 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pmFor any fools above who are actually falling for this, you get your buttons pushed pretty easily. You’re like doggies on a leash getting lead around by their master, hoping for a milkbone.
An evil external force with no allegiance to the national interests of America has the White House, Capitol Hill, and the mainstream media and entertainment industries under control and/or bought off. This force has lied us into an illegal and unnecessary war, brought us the increasing liquidation of the middle class, and is sucking the financial lifeblood out of this once great land at a positively terrifying pace. America will be a spent husk when they’re done using us, with a profile of a 3rd world country. This force has purposely created a climate where chances for global war and the diminution of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are greatly enhanced.
And yet, in the face of this dire threat now threatening all of us, what is it that you peckerheads are worried about? A port management company that happens to be from an Arab country getting some contracts in the USA.
What is a rationally minded person supposed to make of that?
You dumbed down idiots, where’s your sense of recognition and proportion? Time is short, wake the hell up.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#125, Pointing out uncomfortable truths is ‘getting uppity’ eh?
#124 and you said it again: “or during, a conflict with a race of people” - you are lumping all muslims together.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pm“It is easy to understand that mixed in with a bunch of muslims are terrorists…”
This is a hasty generalization. There exists a fundamental clash of civilizations here twixt AMERICANS (Christian or otherwise), and Muslims. When Terry talks about Muslim “democracies” he’s talking about countries that haven’t got themselves up to speed with a successful campaign/pushback against American impirialism.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmDon’t you see how quickly Iran turned? Iran was on the verge of getting their intellectual verve back! The most wonderful man I ever met is from Iran. He left during the Revolution. That was a long time ago. What we have here is broken.
#132 - the issue is that you are seemingly justifying your stance on the port issue on the grounds that they are muslim and that’s all and you protest weakly that you are not earlier in your posts. Is your position that the US is at war with all muslims or not? Come on, you can do it without using the ‘f’ word and without a personal attack - it would help your credibility, you know.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHey Radon - Your the one who seems to be getting your buttons pushed pretty easily. This all ties in with all the other stuff you talked about. One is just as important as the other. It’s like saying that we don’t need to worry about how someone died, because they are already dead.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#137 - AR - check your facts:
Turkey, 2003 - refused to allow the US to invade Iraq from Turkey, despite Paul Wolfowitz demanding that the Turkish Army take control of the country. That looks like a muslim democracy that was ‘up to speed’ with US imperialism don;t you think?
And the clash of civilizations exists if you want it to exist and if enough people think it’s OK to arbitrarily divide up mankind because of no other system than color or religion. Welcome to the New Dark Ages…thanks a lot.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#135
What would you say about a middle eastern country allowed to work in the World Trade Center towers prior to 9/11? In a time when America should be bulking up on our defense here at home and at a time when every nonNeoCon is constantly called yellow bellyed communists for not wanting to drink the blood of the Iraqis we are being told be these same people that they also think that letting middle eastern countries run out ports? air ports? banks? millitary? Either they believe their own crap about protecting America or they dont and this shows they do not. I DO NOT want ANY arab country working in sensitive areas in America any time soon. Not guarding our borders with Canada and Mexico. Not “cleaning” our airplanes… not working as scientists in our nuclear labs…none of that. How foolish we will look if in the end we get hit again because of it. And who will pay the most if it does happen again? Lady Liberty.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThanx for stopping by Radon but Everyone here knows that already, but did you get a charge out of imagining that you are the only one in the know?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmGo suck on your Radon mitigation exhaust fan, Radon.
“RemoveBush”
That part I get ;-)
February 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#136
What are you wanting? You want him to list the names and phone#s of all the people he specifically is talking about?
February 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#138 - It’s a little difficult when a person with blinders on keeps repeating the same thing rather than looking around and realizing that there is more around them then what they see in front of them.
For example:
You keep pointing out that I am refering to ALL Muslims because I say race. How would you prefer me to speak of them? Towel heads? (rather racist don’t you think?) I think that calling muslims from the Middle East a race of people, which by definition is true, that this is rather nuetral.
But instead of seeing the conversation as it is, you wish to try and make it out that this is some kind of racist comment. Or that the comment is corraling all Muslims into the same group. When you refer to a race, then by definition as well this does mean that ALL MUSLIMS are included. It’s kind of a catch 22 don’t you think?
So how do you feel the best way to refer to Muslims in the Middle East who are of the same race who we are fighting should be refered to? I think I have done a DAMN FINE JOB of being non-racist or discriminitive of the Muslims.
But to say that because a few don’t represent the masses is a little nieve as well. Especially when over 80% of the Iraqis think that it is just fine for the Americans to be blown up. So if 100% of the Iraqis are Muslims, and 80% think that it is OK to blow up American soldiers……. Well, I think (Hope) you may see the point, but I doubt it.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmRadon,
Who the hell are you addressing. Apparently you have typed the wrong URL into your browser. try Free Republic or another right wing site.
February 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAuthoritarian Rush 137
The conflict is not civilizations. What cartoons I watch or religion I have or soft drink I buy means nothing to the arabs. They are not like christians. They are not coming over here trying to convert everyone. The conflict is the Reasoned/Scientific world verse the Fundamentalists. The religious fundamentalists are “racists” at their core. They don’t need religion as their excuse they can simply say “Jew” or “American” or “Outsider” or “Whites”. The