Bush is threatening to veto
By on Feb 21st, 2006 at 3:48 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush. Veto. Can’t put them in the same sentence.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pmHis first veto would be a Republican-sponsored bill?
I guess it’s a better first veto than his previous threat, the bill to outlaw torture. . .
February 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pmI do declare! Chimpy has a BIG pen, and is willing to use it!
February 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pmI’d like to see him veto that bill, because I think there would be plenty of votes to be override.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:53 pmDUH–to override, not to “be “
February 21st, 2006 at 3:55 pmExcellent! Either he sticks to his guns and shows that the GWOT is one big get rich opportunity for those connected to the Republican Syndicate….or he folds like cheap suit.
Bush, too stupid and corrupt to be a selected pResident.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:55 pmThis would be the first thing I would cheer him on with in the last two-three years.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:55 pmTHIS IS GETTING WEIRDER THAN CHENEY’S HUNTING ACCIDENT. THERE MUST BE SOME TEXAS MONEY AT STAKE.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pmHes used the VETO threat thing before.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pmThen he just issues a interpretative signing statement.
In fact Bush issued on of these ‘Signings’ on the Macain Torture Bill
February 21st, 2006 at 3:58 pmWonder if the repugs would begin oversite inbestigations into the incompetance of port security right after they override Bush’s veto?
February 21st, 2006 at 3:58 pmThe Dems need to write their own bill that would force the GOP caucus & Bush into a lose/lose situation.
Propose an increase to border, port, and infrastructure security substantially with stopping the UAE deal buried within.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:58 pmThere’s got to be more to this than we’re hearing.
We’re they trying to sneak this in under the radar before it hit?
I’m really suspicious of the issue because Rove normally keeps things so well choreographed. It’s hard for me to think of this as a “mistake”.
Call me paranoid.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:58 pmOk Sam Alito.
If your Still here, explain to us this thing called signing statements that you helped to create under Reagan?
February 21st, 2006 at 3:59 pmOf the people,by the people,for the people,g**damned piece of paper.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:59 pmFatty
There are direct business ties to DP International and the administration. So, yes, there is a lot more than meets the eye. Which beg the question, why are they being so stupid?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pmMaybe he’ll get used to using the veto after he gets some practice with this one. First time I’ve agreed with him in over 5 years.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:02 pmFiredoglake has a link to this story on Bush cronies that benefit from the deal.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:07 pmMatt O. and TJM, why do you want to see our ports turned over to the UAE?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pmBush won’t need to veto this.
The Republicans know better than to bring this up right now. Their leadership knows that Bush is right on this deal.
When it comes to security, I trust Bush more than I trust Chuck Schumer.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pmGentle, gentle…it’s his first time.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:08 pmDamnit, I just made myself sick.
I hope he does Veto it. Yet like the TIA program it just went under the Bush Cloak of National Security.
Anyway heres about signing statements for those, like me, whom arent versed in Law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788_pf.html>Klikkity klik
Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 2, 2006; A11
As a young Justice Department lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress’s reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record…
February 21st, 2006 at 4:09 pmlink for full article
yeah, this is great. this is great. bi-partisan support and a standoff..even Peter King (R) for Gods sakes is making some sense. Lindsey Graham, and Hastert, for fucks sake..
This could be a defining moment b/c this is in the spotlight right now. we need to start a demonstration at Port Newark, NJ, if this sale is allowed to happen.
SOONER OR LATER PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO MOBILIZE..
February 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pmGrrr
February 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pmTry this One
Once again, Bush will not need to veto this, because the Republican leadership knows better than to let the Democrats get any political victory.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:11 pmWhy does George W. Bush hate America?
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 4:11 pmthis is great. bi-partisan support and a standoff..even Peter King (R) for Gods sakes is making some sense. Lindesy Graham, and Hastert, even.
This could be a defining moment b/c this is in the spotlight right now. we need to start a demonstration at Port Newark, NJ, if this sale is allowed to happen. sooner or later people will have to mobilize..
February 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmGary
I agree, that is exactly why we need to up the ante, way up.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmGuess The Post doesnt like Linkers =)
February 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmGary, are you the same dildo that said Valerie and Joe Wilson were going to be indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald?
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pmCan’t remember if it was Schumer or Bush that got the PDB entitled, “bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US” back on August 6, 2001.
And we won’t mention that the CIA was planning drills during the morning of 9/11 where terrorists were to fly planes into buildings.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:14 pmYeah.
But this time around, i’m dependng on Republicans. Not Democrats.
This is an issue where you’re either for a more effective port service, or a less effective port service.
If you oppose the Dubai deal, you are against the effective use of American ports.
The left seems to think that airline passengers shouldn’t be searched for weapons, but Arabic companies should be discriminated against in the port business.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:15 pmHey Shrub can I place a bid on the Washington Monument?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:15 pmNo. 13 wrote: There’s got to be more to this than we’re hearing.
We’re they trying to sneak this in under the radar before it hit?
Of course there is. Bush needs the UAE on side before the war with Iran starts. The US needs to secure The Strait of Hormuz.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:15 pmSo this is all a game to you? All that matters to you is that your side wins?
Why do I even ask? If TP issued a report about the hazards of drinking battery acid, the trolls would be talking about how great it tastes…
February 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pmFrom everything I’ve read, the ownership would change for the ports but not the CONTROL of the ports (which would remain in our hands) … big difference. This smacks of backlash against arabs if you ask me … UAE is an ally in good standing. Do people think the coast guard and the port authority and the inspection processes would automatically chage because the ownership changed hands … also worth mention is that these ports have been under the control of a foreign ally (British commpany) for some time … it’s not like they’ve been under a US company umbrella to this point. To me, all the cafuffle plays into the “the world is against arabs” arguments that religious muslim zealots have been trying to claim …
February 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pmIt took six years but Bush is finally “the uniter,” bringing together broad bipartisan support on defeating the UAE port issue. Kudos, George, I knew you could do it.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:17 pm#Once again, Bush will not need to veto this, because the Republican leadership knows better than to let the Democrats get any political victory.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Ever notice the Undemocratic Rationale of Ruppert?
It doesnt matter if the majority of people dont want this.
Gary only Sees Keeping Corruption and the Neo-Convicts in Power.
Gary Ruppert when are you gonna admit that your one of those Anti-Constitution Reconstructionists?
Its Pretty Obvious you hate Democracy and Freedom.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:18 pmTell us what we know.
Giacomo is right.
The left is trying to exploit racist fears in order to get a political victory.
The ports have always been run by Americans, even while owned by other companies.
The fact here is that if any Republican wants to try and embarass the President and his party, that Republican is kindly invited to get the hell out of the party, because he’s no good.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:18 pm“The left seems to think that airline passengers shouldn’t be searched for weapons, but Arabic companies should be discriminated against in the port business.”
Typical kult eunuch. Lie about your pile of shit by saying; it was the Dems shit steaming on the floor (as he wipes his ass).
February 21st, 2006 at 4:19 pmI hope Dumbya does veto it!
Then we can enjoy watching his GOP support erode further going into the midterm election.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:19 pmThe left is trying to exploit racist fears in order to get a political victory.
The ports have always been run by Americans, even while owned by other companies.
The fact here is that if any Republican wants to try and embarass the President and his party, that Republican is kindly invited to get the hell out of the party, because he’s no good.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
The Left is exposing rampant cronyism.
Its Bush and the Rush Limbaugh Ilk thats played Fear and Terror into the hearts of the World thru Neo-Con Media.
Nice try at the Spin Boys, but it aint working.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:20 pmThe fact here is that if any Republican wants to try and embarass the President and his party, that Republican is kindly invited to get the hell out of the party, because he’s no good.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
is that WHY Bushes approval is only 61% in your ‘CLUB’ thats looking much like a flat tire?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pmI trust Bush
We all have faults. Admitting them is the first step.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pm#30, no Gary is the same dildo who said he would shove a flare gun up his rectum and discharge it if there were any indictments in the Plame case…he appears to have survived the experience.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:23 pmThe fact is that when it comes to political leaders in this nation, Bush is the best at protecting America, and I trust Bush’s judgement to make good decisions for America.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:23 pmCmon Gary Admit it.
You Dont Care about Majority Rule.
You want a Neo-Con Monarchy under Bubble Boy.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:24 pmGary and Giacomo – You two do realize that even though we are still doing security, perhaps, that with a KNOWN TERRORIST SUPPORTER there is an easy access to our weaknesses? You do realize that they will also be responsible for handling our Military equipment?
You don’t see the problem here? Was Britian in any way supporting terrorists? I’ll answer that one for you! NO.
You should go back to sleep and let the grownups deal with this one.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:24 pmOf course you do, gary.
Now go squat over your kult scripture, eunuch.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pmThe repubs in washington speaking out against the port deal based on secuity issues feel this will help them in November.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pmSURVEY:/strong>
Who is dumber?
-Gary Ruppert
-Giacomo
*2 hijackers from UAE
February 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pm*UAE shipping nuclear parts to AXIS OF EVIL
*UAE unwilling to let US trace money leeds in UAE banking system traced to 9/11
#I trust Bush
We all have faults. Admitting them is the first step.
Comment by David — February 21, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Trusting Bush is certainly a Fault….
February 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pmSeems as if the Doublespeakers have confused their words?
“I hope Dumbya does veto it!
Then we can enjoy watching his GOP support erode further going into the midterm election”
With the Supreme Court agreeing to review abortion law, his base may quickly swing back.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:26 pmIt’s one thing to be nothing but an elected Business Agent of Private Industry;
it’s another thing to be an Agent for Saudi/U.A.E. interests;
but to be both these things at the expense of U. S. National Security?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pmracist angle..that is the wrong call from the right. i think they finally might get burned on this. this is very simple understanding and distinction from normal foreign owned co. this is port security and terrorist ties..
February 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pmBush is the best at protecting America
Specious crap. Plain and simple. You have nothing to back that up.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pmArrogant putz!
February 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pmI hope he wields his veto pen for the first time on this matter because then the American people will see the arrogant pr-ck for what he is.
UAE,Great Britain what’s the difference? Oh,except Britons apparently only blow themselves up with backpacks on subways.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:29 pmAnd since they’ve been running the ports for the last 5 almost 6 years because no American company bid on the contract.
How very odd,the ports at issue here had no problem with P&O running their operations (a British company) despite a citizenry that I hardly need point out is quite heterogeneous.
But now,when the possibility of brown-skinned people (likely not,I imagine quite a few of the existing port staff will stick around,although if I worked in the P&O home office,I’d be getting my resume in order)taking over arises,all bets are off.
Mass hysteria,that’s the only explanation for TP and The Corner to be in agreement on any issue.
You two do realize that even though we are still doing security, perhaps, that with a KNOWN TERRORIST SUPPORTER there is an easy access to our weaknesses?
You’ll have to get me a link on that claim … I know Al Qaeda used UAE’s financial centers to move their capital around, but I also know that the UAE froze all Al Qaeda assets (per US request) post 9/11. We also have troops stationed in the UAE. From what I’ve read, UAE is more like Kuwait than it is Iran.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:30 pmThis smacks of backlash against arabs if you ask me … UAE is an ally in good standing.
Comment by Giacomo — February 21, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
You obviously didn’t read Friday’s post: Administration Outsources Operations Of Six U.S. Ports To The United Arab Emirates
This is no “backlash” against Arabs, but a genuine security concern. From Friday’s article:
– 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.
I suggest you follow the link and read the article to understand what we are talking about.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pmLet me say I do not support this veto… I thought he was going to veto the sale… Sorry about that.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pm#The fact is that when it comes to political leaders in this nation, Bush is the best at protecting America, and I trust Bush’s judgement to make good decisions for America.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Thats an opinion Gary not a FACT
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pmGary and Giamoco have to be the funniest duo since Laurel and Hardy. I can not read them and not laugh. Are you guys actually real? funny..funny stuff. You guys definately have your Auto-Con switch flipped on.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pm51- Giacomo actually tries to argue facts, as opposed to spouting the latest Limbannity talking point, so that’s not a fair comparison, IMO.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pmhey toon guy – you’ll love this:
February 21st, 2006 at 4:32 pmhttp://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19635
The fact is that when it comes to political leaders in this nation, Bush is the best at protecting America, and I trust Bush’s judgement to make good decisions for America.
Your proof for this is the largest terrorist attack on American soil ever on Septemeber 11, 2001, right?
Cause he did an awesome job protecting then.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pmTruth is Gary our Men and Women in the Services of our country Protect America.
Politicians Hide behind the protection of the people, not the other way around as you seem to see it.
Thanks for that link Gregor Samsa
February 21st, 2006 at 4:34 pmGary, #46 is an opinion and not a fact. Just like Aholes, everyone has an opinion.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:35 pmGary and Giamoco u are better off sticking to Red State or something, trying to perpetuate the brainwashing there. we’re too far gone..haha
February 21st, 2006 at 4:35 pmLooks like the Kult Eunuchs got the new scripture from LGF; “you racist dems just need to admit that you don’t want rag heads to make a living”.
I’ll bet their faces split open with the irony grin they get when talking about racism of the very race they hate. Fucking eunuchs.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:36 pmThe left is trying to exploit racist fears in order to get a political victory.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 21, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Again, Mr. Ruppert is trying to give a national security issue under a “left vs. right” spin.
As usual, Mr. Ruppert has to ignore facts to do that. From the FauxNews article:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Tuesday he will introduce legislation to delay approval of the pending deal. Frist’s decision is a major break with the White House as he is the highest ranking Republican in Congress to oppose the deal and personally vow legislation to delay approval unless the president intervenes.
Gary, when will you learn it pays to read the article before posting nonsense?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:37 pmGary/Giamoco,
Yawn. Have fun trying to get people riled up. You know and I know this is a political disaster for the GOP, and after all, who’s side wins is all that really matters, right?
Aside from that little bit about handing control of our ports over to a company run by a country that has ties to terrorists, this is turning out to be a pretty good day.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:38 pmYou’re welcome Mr. Ho
;-)
February 21st, 2006 at 4:38 pmDont let the door hit ya where nature split ya on the Way out Ruppert
The trolls all popped up at once today guess their Fax machines are pumping out Rovian spooge again
February 21st, 2006 at 4:39 pmGary, when will you learn it pays to read the article before posting nonsense?
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Gregor Samsa, when will we all learn that it pays to ignore Gary’s baseless claims?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:39 pmMisc
It is rather fun to see the kult scripture spread like a virus from the eunuchs. Oh how they flail about.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:40 pmPC,
Yep. The GOP is basically calling most of middle America racist.
The race card has never been a particularly powerful one, especially now that the GOP has spent years trying to change legitimate minority beefs into “minority whining” and “playing the race card”.
That, my little trolls, is called “being hoist in your own petard”.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:41 pmwhen will we all learn that it pays to ignore Gary’s baseless claims?
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 21, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Good question.
I decide to challenge then so as to leave no doubt who is making the ignorant comments, and so I point out the facts.
But I will definitely not engage them in lengthy exchanges when they are so obviously intellectually dishonest.
My two cents.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:43 pm– 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.
Gregor
For a website like TP who, until this issue, continually raised the flag of multiculturalism and cultural understanding … well, let me just say fllter the first argument under that light and you’ll see what I’m driving at.
Second and third, key transfer point does not necessarily mean UAE government approved transfer point (although it may) … and having a terrorist use one’s banking centers isn’t incriminating as they currently use ours (through fronts of course).
Fourth, true, but they did freeze the assets that we asked them to …
Like any Arab nation, the UAE has to enage in a give/take with the US … but again, from what I’ve read, they are more akin to Kuwait than, say, Iran.
Gary and Giamoco have to be the funniest duo since Laurel and Hardy. I can not read them and not laugh. Are you guys actually real? funny..funny stuff. You guys definately have your Auto-Con switch flipped on.
Glad I afforded you the chance to feel superior … since I’m disagreeing with much of my party (in this case especially), not sure why you’d think I’m on “auto” … perhaps you’re just ignorant.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:43 pmIt is in our best interest that this deal go through. All patriots agree with the president on this. By “our†I mean the administration and their cronies and by “patriot†I mean everyone that is profiting by this abomination and every imbecile that blindly trusts and follows the administration.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:43 pmCitizen,
Sure didn’t take long. Of course, what actually happens is that we have three or four losers with no jobs and nothing better to do but wait until mom calls them for dinner. They hang out here hoping to get a rise out of people by being the first to make ridiculous statements. They hardly need Rove’s faxes to come up with talking points: it’s easy. You just cut-and-paste from Redstate, FP, LGF, RushOnline or Usenet.
If these are the best the wingnuts can field, then the right is in deep, deep trouble.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pmwell, now we know where the trolls have been on this subject till now – had to wait and get the next talking point: if you’re against this sale you are racist …
even bush said as much when he spoke about this…
and didn’t he just say, over the weekend, that he didn’t know about this deal?
and where’s “james”???
February 21st, 2006 at 4:45 pmI am expecting bill frist to fold watch for a major flip flopping from him. He will say the U.A.E. sale must go forward to protect American Citizens from their Bill of Rights and Consitution . That little scrap of paper from 1776 is now part of the trash pile…
February 21st, 2006 at 4:46 pm“For a website like TP who, until this issue, continually raised the flag of multiculturalism and cultural understanding … well, let me just say fllter the first argument under that light and you’ll see what I’m driving at. Giacomo”
Sweetie, multi-culturalism means respecting other cultures, it doesn’t mean you give up support security to a foreign power when every partisan republican claims we’re under ’seige’ from terrorists. That’s just silly partisan brain in action pumpkin. But I forgive you, the partisan brain is not a rational brain, so that’s why you say silly things. I forgive you for not being able to think rationally or reasonably.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:46 pmGiacomo,
You can pretty much be counted on to automatically back Bush, from what I’ve seen.
Oh, and let’s be clear (since you seem to have missed it): it’s not a good idea to allow foreign governments, or companies under the control of foreign governments, to control our ports. It’s especially not a good idea to have that happen when that foreign government has known ties to terrorist organizations.
No race issue involved. I’d say the same thing if we were talking about handing control of the ports over to a company with ties to Basque separatists, but it’s a tad bit worse when those ties are to organizations that have it out for us.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:48 pmIf the resident right wingers spouting their drivel could get any attention elsewhere we wouldn’t have nearly as much fun, eh? Buy another dozen eggs from Wal-Mart and keep sitting on them, maybe someday something will HATCH
February 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pmSimple enough now?
February 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pmSheesh, this is nto about left/right politics, or rather it shouldn’t be. But Gary and his ilk want every issue where the dear leader is questioned to be a right left issue. Umm sorry this it not, unless of course the administration made this decision over an opposing bid from someone who might be a political foe. This is plain and simple a matter of national security. Regardless of UAE conduct in recent years, their conduct up until their bloody finger prints were found all over 9-11 should preclude them from ever having anything to do with our national security. Sadly we are too addicted to the Saudi’s oil to punish them for their part in 9-11.
Funnny thingg too, I always took Gary to be a racisit who pretty much hated all brown skinned people, or at least his posts indicate as much. Now here he is calling others racists? Very interesting.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pmI really get a laugh out of the people who are supporting this…. They support the Eavesdropping program, because it spys on terrorists, but when it comes to a country who has in the past clearly supported terrorists then they don’t get it.
They spout this chant about we don’t want to protect America when we want an investigation into the wiretapping, but are more than eager to give our ports to a VERY QUESTIONALBLE organization.
No it does not have anything to do with who they are. If we were fighting the Japanees and a company associated with providing assistance to the Japanees wanted to purchase our ports, I would be against it.
Whats wrong with these people? Why is it that they have these blinders on and are determined to destroy our country? I guess that this proves the Pablovs (not sure about spelling) dog theory.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pmRightPunch,
February 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pmWell said.
My understanding is that a British company currently holds this contract. If the transfer of the contract is halted, would that ean that UAE is held to a different standard than the British? How does this not look racist?
And believe me, I am no supporter of W. I would love for him to be impeached and thrown into jail, but I don’t see this issue as one worth fighting. There are other much bigger issues staring at this country than this contract. Heck if people were really concerned, insert strong provisions in the contract negotiating process to ensure that the borders will be maintained and secured.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pmCitizen80203
I’ve always wondered why you use the term eunuch to denigrate … seems a tad infantile. Oh well, you’re obviously a cootie poo poo head so why should I bother.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:52 pmRemove Bush,
That’s because it’s not about what’s good for the country, or even what’s logical. It’s about blind support and love for Bush. We both know that.
These people represent a cult, in the truest sense of the word. They are profoundly dangerous and unAmerican. If given the opportunity, they would happily see us converted to a totalitarian government under Bush.
It really is that cut-and-dry.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:52 pmDavid,
Assuming you’re on the up and up…
I’m not terribly happy with the current ownership, either (didn’t know about it before now). But for the record, the company that’s on deck to buy control is controlled by the UAE government — a government with ties to terrorists.
That’s not racism. It’s a bona-fide cause for concern.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:54 pmAnd believe me, David, this is a big deal, and is seen as such by the majority of Americans. The first poll out will show it.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pm#88, whoops sorry gary I forgot that you are simply the unrational support bush whenever and wherever he needs support regardless of the right or wrong factor guy. I was confusing you with IRI. Not a pleasant person to be confused with.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:56 pmAll I have to say is this:
If this deal was brokered by Democrats and it was the Democrats that wanted to sell the control of our ports to another country, do you think the same neo-coservatives here would be so supportive of the deal?
Nope. They’d be screaming that the Democrats don’t care about security. That the left is weak on terror. That we’re unable to see how this could hurt America.
Funny.
It seems to be that a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of who it comes from. But neo-conservatives will take a steaming pile of poo delivered by Bush convince themselves it is a sweet smelling rose garden.
The man can do no wrong, I guess. I guess that’s where their faith comes in. Blind, unwavering, stupid, faith.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:57 pmFor a website like TP who, until this issue, continually raised the flag of multiculturalism and cultural understanding
Comment by Giacomo — February 21, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
This is rubbish. Opposing the Taliban and everything it represents is not a cultural issue but a political & human rights one.
Second and third, key transfer point does not necessarily mean UAE government approved transfer point (although it may)
More rubbish. Nuclear material and/or components cannot be freely distributed throughout the world without complicity or knowledge from governments. Several international treaties and agreements make such transfers illegal.
So, either the UAE are very sloppy or wilfully breaking the law.
Like any Arab nation, the UAE has to enage in a give/take with the US … but again, from what I’ve read, they are more akin to Kuwait than, say, Iran.
What is akin to Iran is whatever the Bush administration decides is. They have decided the UAE and Pakistan are a-ok, while deciding to invade Iraq.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:57 pmDavid
1) Forget about who owns the company for the sake of argument. The management of DP will know (by necessity) the most secret parts of our port security. Now suppose they (or worse yet a baby son) get kidnapped (a very real occurence in UAE), then all US port security is compromised.
2) It helps any time the GOP incompetence in governing is hi-lighted.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:58 pmDavid
1) Forget about who owns the company for the sake of argument. The management of DP will know (by necessity) the most secret parts of our port security. Now suppose they (or worse yet a baby son) get kidnapped (a very real occurence in UAE), then all US port security is compromised.
2) It helps any time the GOP incompetence in governing is hi-lighted.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pmBush won’t need to veto this.
The Republicans know better than to bring this up right now. Their leadership knows that Bush is right on this deal.
When it comes to security, I trust Bush more than I trust Chuck Schumer.
Comment by Gary Ruppert
Hahaha you TRUST Bush!!! Really? Fool me once…umm .fool me twice… um … Bush??? You will never realize your have fallen off a cliff till half way down Gary.
Follow an idiot, suffer an idiots fate.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pmDavid – do you think that many people knew what was going on with Enron, until it was too late??? This is just meant to show that things can happen by the Higher Ranks and other people would just not know.
So this deal has to do with our countries ports, not just a buisiness, and you don’t have any concern over it???
February 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pmSweetie, multi-culturalism means respecting other cultures, it doesn’t mean you give up support security to a foreign power when every partisan republican claims we’re under ’seige’ from terrorists.
Hey pumpkin, glad to see you.
Multiculturalism – stressing the importance of different cultures, races, and ethnicities.
This is the definition I’m playing off of … you know, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter … surely you’ve observed this scenario. Worth noting is that the security does not change as a result of this deal (or else, I’d be against it) … the ownership does, not the control. As always, though, your heartfelt forgiveness is appreciated.
You can pretty much be counted on to automatically back Bush, from what I’ve seen.
Oh, and let’s be clear (since you seem to have missed it): it’s not a good idea to allow foreign governments, or companies under the control of foreign governments, to control our ports.
I’m a conservative … Bush sometimes is. I don’t agree with the man anywhere near 100%. The second part of your statement would make much more sense if a foreign government didn’t already control those same ports (since you seem to have missed it :-)) … or, by “foreign government” did you mean “arab government”.
If we were fighting the Japanees and a company associated with providing assistance to the Japanees wanted to purchase our ports, I would be against it.
As would I … but we aren’t fighting UAE. Your statement conflates terrorist and arab whether you know it or not. I agree that the UAE is not a shining example of democracy, but they are an ally in good standing (as is Britain). How exactly would you explain to a muslim zealot that we should treat a UAE company differently then we’ve treated a British one … that’s a blurry line … and one that the zealots will use to “prove” that the US is anti-muslim.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:03 pm#58 TJM – “But now,when the possibility of brown-skinned people…”
(deep breath, 1, 2, 3…naaaa) IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE PEOPLE ARE PURPLE OR GREEN OR ORANGE – THEY HAD/HAVE TIES TO TERRORISM.
“when will we all learn that it pays to ignore Gary’s baseless claims?”
February 21st, 2006 at 5:04 pmit should’ve been back at #32 (if not before) with this: “The left seems to think that airline passengers shouldn’t be searched for weapons, but Arabic companies should be discriminated against in the port business.”
IDIOT.
The ports are the outside infrastructure if bandarbush is able to break down the outside ports ..what would happen?
My thoughts would be the Country would be easier to take over or be invaded by bush’s pals the Saudi’s Hijackers.
I seem to remember something about the coast during the days following 9-11 can anyone fill this in for me.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pmMulticulturalism – stressing the importance of different cultures, races, and ethnicities.
…which does not extend to support for violations of human rights, or an inability to judge certain actions as unacceptable. That’s a right-wing perversion of multiculturalism. I understand why you’re confused.
I’m a conservative … Bush sometimes is. I don’t agree with the man anywhere near 100%.
Feel free to provide meaningful examples.
The second part of your statement would make much more sense if a foreign government didn’t already control those same ports (since you seem to have missed it :-))
Not really — I already mentioned that I was unaware of the current arrangement, and am not thrilled about it.
… or, by “foreign government†did you mean “arab governmentâ€.
Nope. I said what I meant. Nice try, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
I believe the reasons for concern — namely, the UAE government’s specific ties to al Qaeda –have already been hashed out thoroughly. Therefore, there’s really no excuse for you and Gary, etc. to not get this.
And to tell you the truth, I rather suspect you do. I’ve already run into several bona-fide conservatives who are extremely unhappy about this.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:08 pmThe theme for tonight is evidently “wingnuts suddenly discover multiculturalism and racial sensitivity”. Of course, at the same time they seem to have completely taken leave of any other sensibilities, like the common-sense problems of turning control of our ports over to a country with ties to al Qaeda.
And Giacomo, don’t give me that crap about UAE being an “ally in good standing” as an excuse. Would it make you feel better if I said I’d oppose turning control over to Pakistan, too?
February 21st, 2006 at 5:11 pmWell,it’s clear now with the last 30 or so posts that there is no longer a discussion of this issue.Just back-patting and encomiums all around.
But ask yourselves, what better for the GWB administration to do than to bring together left and right in a spirit of comity. Finally after more than 5 years the administration has been able to prove that both sides are scared to death of Arabs.
“They are a little people,a silly people,greedy,barbarous and cruel.”
(The screenwriter(s) of “Lawrence of Arabia” a fascinating story of its own, what with blacklisting and all))
February 21st, 2006 at 5:12 pmTJM,
February 21st, 2006 at 5:14 pmThat really is the point. Aside from the tiny minority of die-hard supporters who make themselves known through TP message boards and the esteemed Usenet forums, just about everyone sees problems with this.
…which does not extend to support for violations of human rights, or an inability to judge certain actions as unacceptable. That’s a right-wing perversion of multiculturalism. I understand why you’re confused.
Funny how keen you are about human rights violations … I can assume then you support the invasion of Iraq on such principles … or are you ne different, in effect, than the UAE.
Feel free to provide meaningful examples.
You must be new … let’s see. I differ on gun control, government spending, amnesty for illegals, torture as a policy, size of government, methods of taxation … I could keep going.
believe the reasons for concern — namely, the UAE government’s specific ties to al Qaeda –have already been hashed out thoroughly.
From what I’ve read, these ties are about as significant as those between Saddam and Al Qaeda … which is to say, not. Send me a link if you’ve read otherwise.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:14 pmI said this earlier, but I need to say it again.
Someone, please answer this:
“If this deal was brokered by Democrats and it was the Democrats that wanted to sell the control of our ports to another country, do you think the same neo-coservatives here would be so supportive of the deal?”
February 21st, 2006 at 5:18 pmyou know the answer to that, bobcat…
February 21st, 2006 at 5:21 pmwe all do…
At least Giacomo is an intelligent conservative. That’s rare in these parts.
Funny thing is the current incarnation of the GOP party seems to be missing some of the key elements of conservatism. Somewhere along the line small governement and fiscal responsibilty got replaced by a divine mandate to preach morals.
I used to be independent until the current GOP became what it is today. Now, according to the defintions of the parties, I’m a liberal freak.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:22 pm32 Gary Ruppert
And the right seems to think only the Saudis understand what Americans really need … and can do …on our own.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:23 pmGiacomo,
I’m sure you and our esteemed readers are aware that invading a country over human rights issues might not be the best way to solve those issues. Come on, man! You’re not even trying!
From what I’ve read, these ties are about as significant as those between Saddam and Al Qaeda … which is to say, not. Send me a link if you’ve read otherwise.
Of course, I’m not arguing that we should invade UAE on the grounds that they have ties to al Qaeda — just that we shouldn’t turn over control of our ports to them. Are you saying you would have happily turned over control of our ports to an Iraqi-government-controlled company, on some vague, mistaken theory of multiculturalism?
Just so we’re clear. That would be quite a turnaround for the right wing.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:25 pm36 Giacomo )
How many British are brought up as children hearing that America and Israel are evil and hate Mohamed? How many times do the British as children grow up hearing about bloody crusades against their religion in the past? How many british are hearing everyday things like this …
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document042602.asp
February 21st, 2006 at 5:27 pmAnd as I noted before, I would also oppose turning over control of our ports to Pakistan, who is also an “ally in good standing”.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:27 pmLike shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, that’s only because our trolls have decided to take on such farcical positions in the name of defending Bush.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:30 pmNow you see why they kissed…
…yes the King was Saudi…
…but the implications speak volumes…
George W. Bush cares about your security…
February 21st, 2006 at 5:33 pmI thought Bush was a free market kinda guy? He seems rather adamant and out in front of this story??? There is either something really juicy at the bottom of this, or, BushCo is using it as a diversion.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:34 pmbobcat
It’s not about who brokered the deal … I am looking at this from a 1) open-market standpoint and 2) from a geo-political standpoint. While I can’t disagree with some of the expressed sentiments here (namely, that the UAE, while an ally, has engaged in curious ways concerning terrorism) the fact is that the US currently regards UAE as an ally (again, in good standing). The reality and the political reality here may divert. Politically, the Bush administration can’t openly say they support Arabs and/or Muslims (but not the terrorist ones) and then actively block this deal. To the Arab observer, there is no difference between UAE and Britain (both allies in good standing) … they would regard a block as proof that the “west” is anti-arab … either we change how we categorize UAE, or we allow this deal … geo-politically, there can be no fence straddle here …
Now add to this that the actual security will not change (I would propose that security needs to tighten) from when the Brittish company held the ports and this much ado looks to be about nothing. My two cents …
February 21st, 2006 at 5:34 pmI’ve always wondered why you use the term eunuch to denigrate … seems a tad infantile.
As opposed to “moonbat” (WeverTF that means), “fever swamp,” or “filthy left.” Yeah, those are more mature.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:34 pmthey would regard a block as proof that the “west†is anti-arab …
OR that the west thinks the arabs need to clean up there own house before we get a real president that will unleash a WWII on their asses.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:38 pmSaudi Arabia needs a wake up call. Not a business deal with them or their buddies.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:39 pm#19 I misread what the veto was about. Sorry. I do NOT want our ports turned over.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:42 pmHey Giacomo – Who cares what ANYONE THINKS! It’s our ports for crying out loud. Either your serious about it or your not. I realize that we have our boarder wide open, but let’s not make it that much easier by just turning the country over to people who are known to have supported terrorists.
Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t we pull some of those people off Death Row and have them run for president. What the hell, they made a mistake, but the country should not hold it against them that they killed people, or was associated with the killing.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:43 pmWhy katy,I do declare,you seem right exercised by all this excitement. Do have a lemonade and let that caps lock key cool down. You’ve been listening to people tell you things you obviously don’t understand.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:45 pmLet me pose this: Since the year 2000,P&O has operated in these ports because no American company bid on the job. In large part because there aren’t companies in the US who do this sort of work. The market has changed (see Rotterdam and the port container operation there,it’s virtually all automatic,no people involved in handling the containers).
Now,P&O is being sold to DPW and the contracts to manage the ports will be assumed by DPW only with the consent of the US.
As I understand it,port security was/is/will be handled by DHS,just as it is today. But your fear is that the new owners would be rather lax in permitting someone unknown to arrive on the scene and they would co-operate with that arrival so as to make their $6 billion investment vaporize in the proverbial mushroom cloud.
Now,in the last 6 years,what country has seen its own nationals blow up a means of transportation. I’ll make it easier,what country in the last year has seen its own nationals blow up a means of transportation? If you said the same country from whence comes P&O you would win a prize.
So who should we be more afraid of I guess is the question. I just don’t see the UAE businessman responsible for this investment on behalf of his government as a lot more risk than the British one.
Go ahead Bush! make my day. i will be there in DC popping the cork on the champagne the day you finally are impeached.
no really. if you peel back who bush appointed to head the Maritime Administration (the Administration in charge of port securities) you will find that he is Armenian.
Armenia borders Iran.
I’m starting to think that my hunch about Bush sleeping with the enemy all along is true.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:47 pmTJM – “Now,in the last 6 years,what country has seen its own nationals blow up a means of transportation.”
And when you say nationals you include all backgrounds, correct?
How many of those nationals were of the Arab decent, that committed those bombings?
Yeah you can say I’m playing a race card, but it’s just an astute fact. Were those people Irish? Were they Itallian? Were they German?
So you see, there really is no comparison to your argument.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pmHere’s some facts on DPW.
1.) Dubai Ports World is a world leader in port operations
2.) Dubai Port World is not a new company, it has worked closely with the United States for many years
3.) The United Arab Emirates is a major partner in the War on Terrorism
4.) Over the last few decades Dubai Ports World has consistently met the expectations and standards of the United States federal government
5.) The Coast Guard and the United States customs authorities, not Dubai Ports World, are still responsible for checking incoming cargo, passengers, and crews as well as for planning and maintaining port security.
6.) Dubai Ports World operates ports in Singapore and the Middle East, in addition to other strategic locations around the world. It would be in our best interest to foster cooperation with a company that operates such ports because it is at these ports where terrorists will try to load a weapon for delivery to U.S. Terrorists will not try to sneak a weapon on a boat in New York for delivery elsewhere in the United States. They will sneak a weapon on a boat in Singapore for delivery to a U.S. port. Our goal needs to be to stop terrorists abroad from sneaking bombs onto boats and to locate these bombs if they reach our ports. Working with a company like Dubai Ports World, which operates in strategic points around the world, seems to make the most sense if that is our goal.
Oh yeah, that didn’t come from a Bush supporter, it came from a Kossack.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:54 pmTJM
You squatting kult eunuch.
1) DPW is a GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATION.
2) All port operations should be run by the federal government.
3) What happens when that UAE businessman’s son is kidnapped for the sole reason for getting said businessman’s access to the details of our port security?
4) Eunuch is discriptive of the “deferment” administration, they got no balls.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:55 pmActually, the security may not be much different. But because of the dumbass Republican voter mentality, all they see is “A-rabs control US ports”. It seems having a group of dumbasses as a constituency is backfiring, and the Republican leadership in congress is feeling the spray.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:57 pm130 – -
1) Who cares
2) Who cares
3) Who cares
4) ..etc etc etc etc
911 – No arab countries watching our Nukes, Ports, Skyscrapers, Military, Subways, etc.
Pearl Harbor – Japanese managing our ports? Our subways? Our nukes?
If you want to be friendly to the arabs and try to show them that democracy is a good thing then I am all for it. Lets give them information. Lets help them modernize. Lets make them partners in exploring space. But our security? No freakin way.
February 21st, 2006 at 5:59 pmIRI is pissed about it, he dont want no stinkin A-rabs controlling US ports. And most Democrats are on board becouse we finally got something with bi-partisan support against the chimp.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:00 pmBush kissed the King of Saudi Arabia, but it looks like he may deep-throat the Emire of Dubai.
Nice work G-Dubya.
-GSD
February 21st, 2006 at 6:02 pmIsn’t Bush always saying, “We will not negotiate with terrorists?” That any country that harbors terrorists is an enemy of the US?
Don’t tell me the man has changed his mind because we all know he won’t second guess himself.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:03 pmWhat I like about this whole deal is that it’s a complex issue that the public is not likely to understand — but, on its face, it looks completely absurd. Perhaps our less informed citizens will, wrongly or rightly, see it that way. Lord knows, they’ve missed enough of the nuanced issues that should have riled them up.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:04 pmIt seems like ths is all about money like so many other decisions from the Bushistas.
I believe it was Lenin who said that “the capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with.”
February 21st, 2006 at 6:04 pm127
Then hire a bunch of Americans that need jobs and nationalize our ports. It only takes one time for a “Come on my muslim brother! Just let me hop a ride on this ship. I am poor and my family is waiting on me in New York.”
to happen and then the neocons will have the mass histeria they so want. No thank you. I don’t care if the arabs are prejudiced against us already and until they change their tune as a society I don’t trust them with my countries security in any way. I would rather see much more of America brought back under American control from all foreign countries.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:06 pmThe Republicans will bark just enough. Bush won’t need to veto.
But here’s the latest propaganda from Frist:
News that a Middle-East based firm is seeking to purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports – from New York to New Orleans – raise serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.
Post 9/11 prudence warrants – at the very least – a more extensive review of this matter. As Ronald Reagan used to say: ‘trust, but verify.’ And that’s what we need to do. The simple fact is, there’s no such thing as being ‘too careful’ in a post 9/11 world.
As of today, I’m requesting briefings on this deal. If the Administration does not put the deal on hold, I will introduce legislation doing so … to ensure that this decision gets a more thorough review.
Common sense warrants it; our national security requires it.
I expect to be discussing this issue in greater detail this evening when I appear on Hannity & Colmes. I hope you will tune in. As always, I encourage you to leave a comment on my blog by clicking here. Much more to follow in the days ahead …
Bill Frist, M.D.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:13 pm#111 bobcat
February 21st, 2006 at 6:15 pm“If this deal was brokered by Democrats and it was the Democrats that wanted to sell the control of our ports to another country, do you think the same neo-coservatives here would be so supportive of the deal?â€
You KNOW the answer to that one — we all do.
Bush has committed numerous offenses to the people and laws of America, that if Democrats even thought about doing any one of them they would be charged and tried.
Also, this has to be a Red Herring for the NSA scandal.
Don’t forget the real issue, people! Illegal Spying!
February 21st, 2006 at 6:15 pm#112, sorry Katy, didn’t intend to step on your toes. I missed your post.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:16 pmYou know what I like most here is the calm,reasoned debate. But I guess some think that disagreement can only arise because of brainwashing or being a mindless follower. So to Citizen, thank you for your comment although I didn’t read past your immature opening.
As John Gielgud said in Arthur,one must normally go to a bowling alley to meet someone of your caliber
To Remove Bush,you drew the utterly wrong inference from my statement. It had only to do with the citizenship (P&O=British,bombers=British) to contrast that with the fear of UAE ownership.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:19 pmBut thank you for letting me have a glimpse of where your head is on the whole race relations issue.
Why is Bush&Co so adamant about this extremely unpopular decision? Why are they seeking the animosity? Why do they feel a business deal with the the UAE (Carlyle, Saudis, etc.) is more important than the American people?
February 21st, 2006 at 6:20 pmOh, silly me! Of course. Never mind.
#121, Giacomo, you wrote, “…the UAE, while an ally, has engaged in curious ways concerning terrorism, the fact is that the US currently regards UAE as an ally”
The UAE has engaged in far more than mere ‘curious ways’ regarding terrorism; check out this link: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011022fa_FACT1
The fact is certain republicans in the US currently regard UAE as an ally.
The Bush administration can’t openly say they support Arabs and/or Muslims because they wage illegal wars upon them.
You then wrote, “To the Arab observer, there is no difference between UAE and Britain (both allies in good standing)”
Arabs know there are a great deal of differences between Arabs and the British, as do the British, as neither are ‘allies in good standing’ but both are doing their best to manipulate your politics while making money out of you. Most Arabs and Brits don’t give a damn about Americans now more than ever before due to your respective warmongering and fascism. This is painful for me as I feel for good Americans.
So what if the Arabs “regard a block as proof that the “west†is anti-arab….”, the level of this statement on world politics is irrelevant. Let them misperceive if they wish to, so what? Oh yes, that’s right, bigOIL boys in the WH who have their heads up Arab aholes.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:21 pmGary and Giacomo have yet to understand that they and 51 million people were dumb enough to put the most stupidest man in the solar system back in the White House for four more years of destroying what it took 200 years for this country to accomplish.
The 49 million of us who did not want the bubble boy back in 2004 will not be at fault this time. Letting one of the Taliban’s supporters run 6 U.S. ports is unwarranted, unnecessary and totally evident of another 9/11 type event.
We know that anyone who is connected to oil is connected to
February 21st, 2006 at 6:33 pmendangering the rights of all Americans and creating a new regime in which the Constitution will be thrown away like a piece of toilet tissue and flushed.
For once it’s apparent the the monetary interests of the Bush White House come before the safety and security of our country.
What’s striking though is that while money and power interests before the country are what have driven the Bush Republicans over the last 5 years more than the safety and security of our country, Bush is trotting out the old useless haggard threat of a veto in order to insure his own money and power interests above even the GOP!
Amazing. What will King George come up with next to threaten our country from the inside?
February 21st, 2006 at 6:36 pmI am looking at this from a 1) open-market standpoint…
Comment by Giacomo #121
jaggoffmore,
You mean open-a*s…
…don’t you?
…stop prostrating yourself to your false gods Bushiva and L’il Dick…
…children may be watching…
February 21st, 2006 at 6:38 pmRed Herring
February 21st, 2006 at 6:39 pmJIMBO, I didn’t vote for Bush as I am British and it is illegal for mr to do so. Even if I could vote in American elections, I would vote Bush only after a complete and irreversible lobotomy. FYI, I did not vote for Blair either. I am a pacifist.
I know most of you don’t want Bush in power which is why I wrote ‘I feel for good Americans’. I know repugs are in power because of rigged diebolds, coercion (from Rove et al), bribery (from Abramoff et al), smear campaigns, illegally-funded campaigns, corporate lobbying, and 51 million fascists/evangelists/non-freethinking sheep.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:43 pmSo Iraq, with no ties to Al Qaeda, get bombed and invaded. Saudi Arabia and UAE, with provable ties to 9/11 terrorism and Al Qaeda, get sweetheart deals with this administration.
Ruppert, you do know which side Al Qaeda would be supporting on this, right? Your side. Why do you hate America so much? Or maybe, you are an AQ terrorist working the issue from a PC in some madrass in Dubai.
I suppose when Pakistan makes a bid for running Logan, JFK, Philly, and Ron Reagan Airports, you’ll be OK with this, too.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pmThis story goes deeper; Look at this from Raw Story.
February 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pmhttp://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_nominated_executive_from_Dubai_port_0221.html
Jimbo, have you confused (British) Gary with the troll Gary Rupert?
February 21st, 2006 at 6:49 pm#154, Marie, that has happened before, especially when people start replying to Gary Ruppert as just ‘Gary’. Should I change my moniker?
February 21st, 2006 at 6:52 pmTJM – “To Remove Bush,you drew the utterly wrong inference from my statement. It had only to do with the citizenship (P&O=British,bombers=British) to contrast that with the fear of UAE ownership.
But thank you for letting me have a glimpse of where your head is on the whole race relations issue.”
How can I draw the wrong inference from your statement???? You stated that because a British national blew up something that this is somehow a contrast with UAE owenership. It is ABSOLUTELY relavent. Can you tell me the nationality of these people responsible for the bombing? Where they Irish? Were they German? I think this is completly a valid and warranted question.
The point is that RADICAL MUSLIMS did this. It does not matter if they were from Iraq, Britan, or the USA. What was their nationality? The point is that by having ties to terrorists, it is easier to obtain entry and or sneak a dirty bomb into our country.
You just don’t get the overall idea, do you.
So if a WHITE man robs a bank, then you would expect the police to be stopping all BLACK, ASIAN, MEXICAN, etc. other than a WHITE man because it would be racist to associate a WHITE man with the crime or alledged crime?
Not too bright of an idea is it?
February 21st, 2006 at 6:55 pmi like “british gary” :)
February 21st, 2006 at 6:57 pmGood posts every one. And the Democratic leaders are saying what.? (:( Any one hear hear anything,? geees the silence is again defening…Blessings
February 21st, 2006 at 6:59 pmHold on a minute.
This has Karl Rove written all over it.
What if this is just a political ploy to make the sitting Republicans look good for taking a stand against Bush? How much would that demonstration of love for American security due to ensure their re-election in November?
And, if the UAE deal falls through, which beloved American corporation or its subsidiary might just wind up with the contract?
Can you say Halliburton?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:01 pmor “gary the brit” :)
and marie, no problem…but how ’bout that – same words!
February 21st, 2006 at 7:01 pmlike minds…
i think it’s ridiculous that Bush and Bartlett are trying to compare the UAE (terrorist harborists) and our British cousins, our oldest ally.
One question: how are the WOMEN in the UAE treated? do they have to wear robes over their entire bodies? if so, i don’t want them anywhere NEAR my country.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:04 pm#157, cheers Katy, I’m a better ‘Gary’ than the ‘Ruppert’ variety as clearly, I like America more than he does.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:05 pmCmon now, you have to excuse Gary…that flare he fired up his ass went straight to his brain and totally fried it.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:29 pmGary Ruppert that is
February 21st, 2006 at 7:31 pm#162 BntG
February 21st, 2006 at 7:33 pmThat’s obvious!
I have observed before that people were mistaking your name for the name of the brainless one.
Thanks for the support from “across the pond.”
Politicians supporting a halt to the UAE sale so far:
I count 11 Republicans and 6 Democrats.
Gary Rupert doesn’t know what the fvck he is talking about.
UAE Protecting Our Ports?
February 21st, 2006 at 7:39 pmBritish non-troll Gary,
That works. I always hate to see people mistake you for that dumbass Gary Ruppert.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:41 pmBanana our oldest ally is actually France, if you don’t believe me, go to the Yorktown Battle field and read the plac that George Washington had placed there thanking the french for their help during the last battle of our Revolution for Independance fronm ………. oh yea The British.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:46 pmRemoveBush,infiltration is more likely if common citizenship not the color of skin was my point. The young men on the tube were British as is P&O which while not solely would draw from British citizens as employees. Just as the UAE would draw from its citizens.
February 21st, 2006 at 8:03 pmThe scary part of the Tube bombings is that those young men were described as fairly normal until they hefted their backpacks and set off for London. You leaped to note their skin color as a commonality with their radicalism,but that was not my point. Thus your inference was incorrect,not irrelevant but incorrect.
Wow, I am slightly surprised that the comments regarding my post (way back on 91, I believe) were not nasty. That’s refreshing! I’ve seen comments devolve into middle school humor.
I would personally rather see an American company assume the contracts with respect to the ports in question. I guess Halliburton hasn’t tried to weasel in on this type of work (yet).
This argument seems to me to be a double edged sword. Do I want something horrible to happen on the ports? Of course not! Do I believe everything I’ve heard about 9/11 and terrorism? No. I have a hard time understanding what may be an irrational response, or even misguided response, to this impending deal.
I’m very skeptical as to how much of this ‘war on terror’ has been manufactured to ensure that those in power remain in power, and can do so at almost any cost. I could almost see this deal with UAE as a deal brokered with a crony (W). Now, I wasn’t aware that a British organization held those contracts. I’m not crazy about any foreign organization watching over our ports. It’s truly a shame that this country is outsourcing a job as important as this. This really is an outrage (but that’s for another conversation).
Ask yourselves these questions: how did you react when you first heard about this issue? Were you ‘terrified?’ Were you ‘concerned?’ I think on some level this is an orchestrated ploy to make sure we are still afraid of the ‘terrorists;’ that we are in the thick of a ‘war on terror.’ Now this may be a case where the concern is justified, but how are any of us to know that?
February 21st, 2006 at 8:17 pm[...] The administration plays this game so well, with EVERYONE buying into pump-fakes by Frist, et al, that headlines are even floating with echoes of Bush’s threat to veto a vote against the port deal. Ha! I mean the likelihood of this President vetoing ANYTHING is even more remote than the odds on my favorite baseball team winning the world series. [...]
February 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm#Infinite – Gary Ruppert, Gary,
February 21st, 2006 at 8:57 pmEgad, there are two Gary’s in the world? The first skilled in the art of committing character suicide and the other a rational sapient being? The latter has found his rock (or his time card).
Oops, I meant former, not latter.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:01 pmJudd, buddy,
February 21st, 2006 at 9:07 pmCouldn’t you add a ‘correct post’ to the array you have as formatting options?
WaltTheMan,
I would love an edit button. But, you know the trolls would use it to remove stupid shit they have been debunked on.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:14 pm“Ask yourselves these questions: how did you react when you first heard about this issue? Were you ‘terrified?’ Were you ‘concerned?’ I think on some level this is an orchestrated ploy to make sure we are still afraid of the ‘terrorists;’ that we are in the thick of a ‘war on terror.’ Now this may be a case where the concern is justified, but how are any of us to know that?
Comment by David ”
Actually, I was pissed! All this talk about “we gotta protect ya from them terrorists” and then Bush and his cronies put into place a company that has been known to support terrorists. Otherwise, I could care less (well other than caring that our country was being sold to the highest bidder). Hell that’s why so many Republicans are so willing to give up my Civil Liberties for Bush with this Eavesdropping issue, and he just hands over our ports to the highest bidder with no regard for national security.
This was how I reacted when I first heard of it.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:17 pmSpudge_boy look up Army regulation 210-35, its at
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
February 21st, 2006 at 9:27 pmRemoveBush,
Once again, we see completely eye to eye.
I wasn’t scared, I wasn’t terrified. I said to myself “Self, see you were right. The Global War on Terror IS a farce meant to put the money of the American taxpayer into the hands of Bush cronies.” and you know what, I was right. Here is all you need to know.
DP World
January 24, 2006
DP World Executive Nominated For Presitigous Us Govt Position
Cronyism, nothing more, nothing less.
This is Haliburton on water.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:29 pmClif,
Wow, the only difference between that and say the Japanese or the Nazis during WWII is that they used the enemy prisoners. Looks like the US Army wants to use US citizens.
Wow. I will have to read that whole thing. Thanks for the link.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:33 pmSpudge also look up the internment camps that Halliburton is building for DOJ-DOD I think this is conected, that reg gave me the chills, as a former army Officer I could see a lot of bad there.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:44 pm“If you oppose the Dubai deal, you are against the effective use of American ports.”
Gary: You are an idiot. Your statement smacks of “you are either with us or against us”. Which are you Gary — with us, or against us? I knew you money hungry neocons would eventually show your true colors — money before country.
February 21st, 2006 at 9:57 pmVaughn D. Taylor,
Please see my post # 166. That retard Gary Ruppert hinks that only Democrats are against this. 11 high ranking Republicans and 6 Democrats have come out against this. Gary Ruppert (and please state Gary Ruppert, as “Gary” is one of us) is not even intouch with his own party.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:08 pmSpudge: Sorry, Gary Ruppert. I’m just amused at the spin control on this one. These neocons are truly sick. Sick, hypocrites.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:11 pmAll these weasels care about is how much money they can make. The weasel class will not care til their homes are burning behind their gated walls.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:22 pmAnyone that agrees with this transfer would also let a “Suspected” child molester watch their kids, if they were cheaper or it helped the global economy.
The fact that some posts talk about racism is a joke. American companies should own, operate and secure all security threats to our country. It wouldn’t matter if it was Russia, Iran, UAE, or any other country. Britain shouldn’t be in this position either but any comparison between them and UAE is also a joke. Again, would you let a “Suspected” child molester watch your kids vs. a friend you’ve known for years?
February 21st, 2006 at 10:25 pmD L – That has got to be the best analogy I have heard yet!
GOOD JOB!
February 21st, 2006 at 10:34 pmD L,
That is exactly where I am coming from. “Suspected is enough for me.
If two of the 9/11 highjackers were from the UAE, and the funds to launch the 9/11 attacks were laundered through banks in the UAE, then they need to prove to me and the American public that they have cleaned up their act. A clandestine meeting with George W. Bush and his gang isn’t good enough. I don’t trust them as far as I could kick them. And the ain’t far.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:36 pmExcuse me, but why were the American ports under the control of a foreign government (Britain) in the first place? By the way, the bin Laden family is huge in Dubai so it’s just Boy George saying thank you to Osama for keeping up the Fu Manchu act.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:37 pmRemoveBush,
D L, Vaughn D. Taylor and The Man are all great poster. I hope we “hear” a lot more from them.
My right wing parents are still 100% behind stopping this sale. That is a good measuring stick.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:38 pmOMG!!!
You gotta see this:
Incredible
Way off topic, but very cool!
February 21st, 2006 at 10:42 pm#188, now you know how the rest of the world feels – just a bit, just a tiny bit.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:06 pm#151
Gary, it was directed at Gary Ruppert and not you. I am very sorry I got you confused with the other guy.
My mistake. Besides, I can understand your frustration with Blair. After all, he’s now Bush’s little puppy.
There was a music video that was shown in England a few years ago by George Michael. It was called “Wag The Dog.” It showed Blair as a dog cuddling up to the bubble boy. I wondered if you saw it. I saw it on Nightline and it was never shown again. Bush America obviously banned it.
Once again, I apologize for the confusion. I should have written Gary Ruppert’s name on my previous post.
Can you forgive me?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:41 pmTED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago
WASHINGTON –
Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 amThe problem is, there is no good reason anyone can think of for this sale to be pushed through so ferociously by Bush.
Why is he so determined that this one deal go through?
The whole country is up in arms and he is threatening to pull out the veto pen for the first time???
How big are his balls to look the cameras, and the American people in the eye and say, screw you, I think its safe, so you all are gonna live with it.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:06 amI know alot more is at stake in politics,
but is it wrong that this stuff is my favorite
pastime?
My favorite sport, with the Presidential elections
being the Superbowl.
I’m pathetic.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:14 amIf this deal goes through, and there is a terrorist incident as a result, there won’t be a hole deep enough on this entire planet for Bush to hide in. Nixon was the first president to resign(as a result of a sure successful impeachment), Bush might well be the first president to be lynched.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:14 amThe 911 terrorists were just bad seeds in a Bush circle of friends.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:27 amAnyone see Frontline about the Iraq insurgency? Good stuff! America is F*CKED in Iraq.
Bushco just don’t have any sense of reality. It’s pure schizophrenia. They say they are “stunned” by the backlash. This just drives home how out of touch they are. Just as with Katrina.
The Bush line in Iraq is “spreading democracy”. But the people who elected BUSH do not care about Iraqis or Muslims or Arabs. They care about revenge and bustin’ heads. They certainly don’t care about UAE. Except that 911 terrorists/Bush family friends came from there.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:39 amThere is no doubt now that these few trolls are indeed paid. Almost every single Congressman is against this, nay, nearly every single American is against this, especially after we start understanding more about the troubles this company has had with security.
It is more cronyism and for ANYONE at all to support Bush on this tit for tat deal involving buddy Sanborn cares not about the security of this country.
This administration has used fear as their weapon against the public, unless it involves money. This deal is unAmerican, unpatriotic, and shows all of us what Bush/Cheney really care about.
Again, these trolls MUST be paid because they don’t even buy this. But, some folks will do anything for a buck – just more greedy republicans.
February 22nd, 2006 at 10:02 amFor more on Bush’s threatened veto, his history of threatened vetoes, and the conservative media’s talking points, go to JABBS.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 pmHis “VETO” pen is probably with Osama Bin Laden, wherever THAT may be….
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:58 pmJIMBO I’m a pacifist, of course I forgive you, no problem buddy. I’d never believe one name could cause so much confusion so I’ll stick with this new moniker.
On topic, I believe P&O (Britain) should never have had the contract on your docks – they are American docks that are clearly of Nat. Security importance and must remain protected, owned and controlled by Americans. Isn’t this what you Americans mean by a ‘no-brainer’?
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:19 pmSo if Bush is ready to whip out his mighty pen, if need be , then he should hold a press conference, and explain it to the American people. Shouldn’t be a problem, right ?
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:20 am