Make no mistake about it, the “face-saving†deal on the Dubai port imbroglio was concocted by the White House. It’s being spun to the press as a “offer†by Dubai Ports World. But the AP reports that “senior U.S. officials and DP World executives have closely coordinated their efforts in recent weeks.â€
The deal is political, not substantive. It’s designed take some heat off the White House, not protect the security of the United States.
1. The deal would not actually be delayed. Dubai Ports World has just offered to alter its management structure until the review is completed. “The company said that during the renewed scrutiny, or until May 1, a London-based executive who is a British citizen would have authority over DP World’s U.S. operations. It pledged that Dubai executives would not control or influence company business in the U.S., but said it was entitled to all profits during the period.â€
2. If the outcome is different, Dubai Ports World said it may sue. “In the legal papers sent to the White House, DP World said it would abide by the outcome of the lengthier review but indicated it could sue if the results were any different.â€
3. The administration has already made up their mind. Unless Congress has a role, it’s meaningless. “[Sen. Chuck] Schumer said Congress should have a chance after the review to approve or reject the administration’s decision. ‘If the report is completed and kept secret and only given to the president, who has already come out for the deal, it will not reassure Americans,’ Schumer said.â€
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it makes sense to have the UAE run operations at U.S. ports. But the proposed ‘compromise’ is fundamentally dishonest.
“For the purposes of this agreement, ‘45-day review’ will be defined as a ‘a blanket rubberstamp without further inquiry,’ Dubai will be defined as ‘the 51st state of the United States,’ and ‘national security’ will be taken to mean ‘token adherence to established maritime laws.’”
February 26th, 2006 at 5:51 pmJudd,it’s only dishonest from your standpoint. DPW received US government approval on Jan.17th. They then proceeded (as both P&O and DPW said all necessary approvals had been received) to finish the bid proess for P&O. The Singapore company dropped out,P&O shareholders voted to accept the offer and a closing was scheduled for March 2.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:04 pmFrom their viewpoint,they went through the process and were granted the approvals. If they consent to a further review in order to confirm for the Congress that there are no “threats to national security” how is that dishonest?
Well, what would we expect from the “Potemkin” administration, but a “Potemkin” compromise?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:05 pmAll fake, all the time is the BushCo motto.
True. Sad, but true. Maddening, but true.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:07 pmDPW is willing to put the lipstick on the pig as long as they get the pork out of it…..
February 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pm#2,
February 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pmBecause the answer is assumed, i.e., DPW will sue
if anything changes. What kind of “review” is that?
BuchCo cut corners, as usual, and now is trying to
save face through a fake review with a forgone
conclusion.
DPW has every right to sue, since it is BushCo that
disregarded due diligence, but we should still have
real due diligence rather than a rubber stamp joke.
The dishonesty is on BushCo, as usual.
If I wanted to get a large weapon or amount of some chemical into a city, I wouldn’t come across the borders, and drive a 1000 miles or more to the target.
I’d send in 3 or 4 ships packed with dirty bombs, chemical or biological weapons and hope one of them got through.
Plain and Simple.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:10 pmRemember, Al Quaida is the master of simple.
Look at 911. A few guys with box cutters.
No bombs, no guns, no bio weapons, just used our own technolgy and procedures against us.
If they could get a ship inside the Port of Baltimore, or New York, and detonate a couple of large scale dirty bombs, then the devastation would be massive.
Thats a good way to loose a quarter of a million people in a day.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pmBut hey, if Bush says don’t worry…….
February 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pmAlso, it is not just 6 ports….. It is 21 ports.
I don’t know why the media is not pointing this out. Actualy I do, but I was hoping.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:13 pmI mean, Bush has been right about everything so far, hasn’t he?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:14 pmWhy would anyone ever doubt him now?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:15 pmWorfeus no dirty bomb required …just do a “USS Cole” to a large LPG tanker and the MSM will have the coverage on 24 hrs a day for about a week, plus Bush can declare martial law, say Baltimore, Boston, Houston all three are vunerable to this….
February 26th, 2006 at 6:16 pmPoliticians of both parties using this as an issue have no credibility, the deal was done last November. Apparently the microphones and TV cameras they have been rushing to were not working back then. The deal has been common knowledge in shipping communitys.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:19 pmNo one is fooled. American’s are not, repeat, are not outraged about this deal for national security reasons or because the company/country is Arabian. They are outraged because the ports have been sold to another country period, any country.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:25 pmi thought i heard levin say this morning that it was NOT a done deal…
regardless - feb 23, in a letter to rummy, etc., eleven Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committe write:
Under 50 U.S.C. App. � 2170(b), the CFIUS must conduct the 45-day investigation “in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.â€
http://rawstory.com/ news/ 2005/ Congressmen_write_Rumsfeld_Chertoff_Snow_on_0223.html
…nothing about a “threatâ€, just AFFECT…
February 26th, 2006 at 6:28 pmand this deal will surely affect national security…
#14,
I have heard this before and my reaction is so
what?
I know:
-> BushCo was trying to sneak this through
-> It may be okay in the end
-> BushCo skipped the procedures
They got caught in total hypocrisy WRT their
February 26th, 2006 at 6:29 pmconstant:
-> With us or against us
-> Only W can protect us
Crap.
Too bad, so sad.
Suddenly Woody Allen expalains everything.
“It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.”
– Fielding Mellish
February 26th, 2006 at 6:34 pmIt’s good to hear that the wheels are in motion to allow for the deal and to tell the DC Republicans the truth about this deal.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:36 pmSure is a lot of shit going on about this. McCain says the more important issue is the economic one, not the security issue.
Just trying to diffuse the issue I guess. Americablog is saying that Dubai is telling bush - this time do it right.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:42 pm#18 Woody Allen for Sec of Def, oh that’s right one of his impersonators are already there.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:43 pmMore like Herman Goering.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#7 WORFEUS
With the Arabs controlling the ports you wouldn’t have to worry at all. It would take very few people with access to the information we will be providing the Arabs concerning the HLSD and Coast Guard security to guarantee that a number of containers containing WMD devices including dirty bombs would arrive at any of the 21 ports, not 6 as Bushco advertised. After the arrival it is a simple matter to load those containers on railroad cars and direct them to six major cities for the mutual boom and good bye US. It doesn’t take a conspiracy of the whole DWP or the royal family of little sheet heads. It takes one Bin Laden and a few little sheet heads and the MONEY from this deal. The operation of the ports under some bogus contract has little or no significance. The glaring problem with this whole deal is that Bushco is willing to sell out millions of US citizens for a few dollars in their own pockets. And they are not even honest enough to admit it. All we get is “It didn’t happen on my watch. It was Clinton’s fault.” or some other lame excuse. Congress has one chance to reverse the castration that has been in effect the last six years. I wish us luck!
February 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pmHey, it’s part of a trend, get used to it. Examples:
The Indiana welfare peogram is being privatized.
http://www.notmyman.org/ userctl.cfm?PageContentTypeID=137&PageContentID=24
Highway I-69 in Indiana is being leased for 75 years to a Spanish/Australian firm.
http://www.fortwayne.com/ mld/ journalgazette/ news/ special_packages/ indiana_toll_road/ 13698336.htm
The Panama Canal is operated by a Chinese firm.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/5/80227
And we’ve got bids out on you!
February 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pmAnybody care to point out even one time that DPW has engaged in operations that aided terrorism?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#25 Do you have Lee Harvy Oswald on video tape?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pmRuppert, go to the bodega, buy some spotted dick and then eat it.
-GSD
February 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pmClyde, your post # 23 is frightening.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pmRuppert: “Anybody care to point out even one time that DPW has engaged in operations that aided terrorism?”
February 26th, 2006 at 6:57 pm- - Ahhh, another permeating syllogism from Mr. Ruppert.
Gary, Dubai is owned by the UAE, and the UAE has engaged in supporting acts of terrorisim.
End of story.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:58 pmOnce again..
the US Coast Guard runs security at ports.
The port operations are run by whoever the company hires to carry out operations.
There’s no reason to suspect that the DPW, one of the most respected ports companies in the world, would have a reason to try and attack America.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pmRuppert, why do you hate America?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pmOh C’mon people. While we’re at it, why not give our airline security over to UAE too! Maybe control of our water supplies? Why not! we can make money on it!
February 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pmGary, how about the time that they allowed nuclear devices to be smuggled to North Korea and another country?
I would say that by this nature alone, they should not be allowed to be in charge of our ports. Until they can stop all the illegal actions, then they hcve no right to run our ports.
They smuggle humans, kids, and sell them. You might want to do some research. This country, hence company, is not clean and has not been proven to be trustable for a long period of time.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pmkaty,that’s exactly the point that Sens. Clinton and Levin raised at the hearing. From the DHS,State,Defense and the others was that the negotiated deal with DPW resulted in a transaction that could not affect national security. The request from Sen. Levin was that the Senate legal office would offer their view while the AG would offer his. Although, one could readily predict the AG’s stance. So,it’s just the Senate legal office they’re waiting for.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:03 pmthe US Coast Guard runs security at ports.
The port operations are run by whoever the company hires to carry out operations.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 26, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
What you conveniently left out is that it is the Port Operators that decide what security needs to be in place, what cargo is to be inspected, and basically direct the coast gaurd agents in their tasks.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:04 pmRuppert: There’s no reason to suspect that the DPW, one of the most respected ports companies in the world, would have a reason to try and attack America — You couldn’t make any less sense even if you posted in pantomime.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:04 pmGary
The Port Operators decide what cargo needs to be inspected.
Part of their job description is to “Identify Security needs and requirements†and to direct Port Security to possible threats.
Suppose thier plan is a crime of “omission†instead of commission?
Suppose they just decide we don’t need to know about that ship out in the harbor that just changed its colors and now appears to be from Lithuania instead of Pakistan? Suppose they just sort of steer it past where it might be inspected?
Suppose a manifest is changed, and the inspectors are not informed of a suspect vessel? Suppose records or documents are altered or destroyed?
The possiblities are endless, but you know what? Its probably the one we can’t think of.
Its the one you didn’t see coming thats the bitch of the bunch.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:06 pmCongress has one chance to reverse the castration that has been in effect the last six years. I wish us luck!
Comment by Clyde the Ripper — February 26, 2006 @ 6:47 pm.
Clyde any congressional republican running for reelection that opposes the “new” deal to relook at the port deal, will get a McCain style stealth swiftboating ala south carolina republican primary of 2000, and they know it, what do you think Rove is threating them with, he ran Bush’s campaign spin machine in 2000, like he runs the presidents spin machine today.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:06 pmBush was right about one thing. You’re either for us or against us.
Now we know where he stands.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:09 pmworfeus,the terminal operator devises a security plan which has to be approved by the Coast Guard along with inspections and audits by the Coast Guard. Where did you get the information that the terminal operator directs the CG on the pier?
The DHS and Customs also conduct inspections of cargo at ports of origin as well, not just at arrival.
In your scenario,then, the UAE,the clever bastards, waited 4 1/2 years to make a $6 billion investment to gain the right to operate pier terminals in the US and then slip a few TEUs into a couple of ports in order to kill a slew of Americans and as a result,the Bush administration will use the resulting chaos to impose martial law,suspend habeas corpus and put people like you in camps built by Halliburton.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:15 pmWhew,that would be some movie.Have you told your psychiatrist this one? What did (s)he think?
I don’t see a problem with terrorist countries running American ports.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:18 pmWhew,that would be some movie.Have you told your psychiatrist this one? What did (s)he think?
Comment by TJM — February 26, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
You did see Shindler’s List, right? People gassed in showers after long rides on trains with no food, toilets or seats simply because they were Jewish. Other people put in concetration camps and worked to death. It was a great movie - and unfortnately it was also true.
Thomas Jefferson believed that skepticism of government was so valuable on certain occasions that he wished it to always be alive.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pmI don’t have a problem with terrorist countries running American ports, either.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:22 pmThe NYT article describes the large number of issues still to be dealt with regarding ports. The actual ability to catch smuggled goods,whether they be people,drugs or a bomb is pretty poor. But whether it’s DPW running the terminals in the US,as the article notes,is the wrong question. The right approach is to adequately fund the effort to fulfill the objectives of the DHS plan.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:29 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 02/ 26/ national/ 26port.html
The right approach is to adequately fund the effort to fulfill the objectives of the DHS plan.
Comment by TJM — February 26, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
Our government cannot adequately fund education, healthcare, food stamps, student loans, unemployment, etc. I have no doubt they will be unable to fund our port security adequately either.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:35 pmOur port are gaurded by rent-a-cops.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:38 pmTJM —
You just made up a bunch of crap and attributed to me.
Federalizing the ports is not a knee jerk reaction, its just a logical step when you are being invaded by a foriegn enemy.
Do I really have to explain this to you?
February 26th, 2006 at 7:39 pmAs for when the terrorists made this plan?
You act like 4 years is a long time to Bin Laden.
His CIA profile says he acts on a 6 to 7 year window.
There time table is not yours. And yes, the coast gaurd approves their plan, but so what?
Its THEIR PLAN for OUR SECURITY!!!
Even if this was not a HUGE security risk (it is, in fact, its an IDIOTS RISK), it is a DISGRACE to hand the country that financed 911 the right to run our port operations, particularly in the city where two of their people flew our jet liners into our buildings.
Its a disgrace, and I am ashamed of any American who for even considering it.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:43 pm#
The right approach is to adequately fund the effort to fulfill the objectives of the DHS plan.
Comment by TJM — February 26, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
Our government cannot adequately fund education, healthcare, food stamps, student loans, unemployment, etc. I have no doubt they will be unable to fund our port security adequately either.
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Want to bet some repug law maker suddenly discovers the need for port security in the next couple of weeks and calls for fully fundineg the security effort with a “new” bill in congress, and to “balance” the budget if china won’t give them the money to pay for the new security iniative, they have your list unbelievable to go after,… funny UAE ports secured by minimum wage guards funded with chinese loans, must make IRI, MA, WW, et al, want to get drunk and go hunting………..
February 26th, 2006 at 7:50 pmTJM’s brother-in-law cleans the ladies crapper across the street from an Arab that has an Uncle that drives a truck for DPW. That makes him like Bush: “Don’t confuse me with the facts my mind is made up and I may lose a commission.”
February 26th, 2006 at 7:51 pmIn your scenario,then, the UAE,the clever bastards, waited 4 1/2 years to make a $6 billion investment to gain the right to operate pier terminals in the US and then slip a few TEUs into a couple of ports in order to kill a slew of Americans
Comment by TJM — February 26, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
Uhh…thats about it in a nutshell.
Cept you got a few things wrong.
The UAE is not paying us to run our ports.
We are paying them.
Other than at you seem to have gotten it pretty well.
Or were you not aware that 911 took much longer than that to plan?
February 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pmfunny UAE ports secured by minimum wage guards funded with chinese loans, must make IRI, MA, WW, et al, want to get drunk and go hunting………..
Comment by Clif — February 26, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
So long as it’s cats and snakes… :)
February 26th, 2006 at 8:07 pmPoor Clyde,scatological references is the best you can do?That’s as weak and puerile as any of your supposedly more serious arguments so I guess when that’s your strong suit,you go with it.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:07 pmI really don’t care what you call me,I’m just trying to understand the opposition to what is a fairly typical business transaction. The NY ports are less likely than almost any port to have something like you posit happen. The amount of money made from smuggling drugs and people by the mob is better security that the government could ever provide.
But, hey, say whatever you like,you’re just proving the Rasmussen poll was correct. More than 80% of people have an opinion but more than 60% don’t know what they’re opining on. Sounds about right.
DPW will sue not if anything changes, but if it is unable to manage assets it purchased. DPW has a strong case because the bid was initially cleared by the government.
DPW would not sue in US court - it would be in some sort of international court, likely international arbitration which many companies resort to when they are ’stripped’ of an asset or have their contracts altered.
DPW’s argument for compensation is essentially that if it is rejected it will be a wholly political decision with no security justification. It will likely also argue that such a step breaches normal US practice on bids by foreign govt controlled companies.
The BID has been approved. What hasn’t been approved is the US SIDE in terms of the security/political aspects. The UK, btw, said it’s okay. P&O is a UK company with UK ports and a UK FERRY SERVICE. Yah, ferries where lots of people can die.
As I noted earlier we already have an enemy operating US terminals - China through COSCO a state controlled by partially HK listed company. They run western terminals and in 05 signed an agreement with the MA Port Authority for terminal concessions. I don’t remember the complaints…
I would treat this differently if DPW wasn’t already a major port/terminal operator, which it is (100 different ports/terminals). If they didn’t have a track record they wouldn’t and shouldn’t be approved. And yes, it is the company’s track record that I care about.
The security issues are essentially nonexistant because YOU CAN ALREADY BRING A NUKE INTO THE US PORTS. There are lots of ports in the world and some of them don’t have radiation detectors. If you were particularly clever you could airlift it in after it has left a foreign port that is inspected by the coast guard (ie helicopter) or simply have it brought up by a smaller ship to load (the big ships have their own cranes).
The funny, or sick, part about this is that a nuclear weapon would only be detected after the container is in the US and has been passed through the radiation detectors which ARE ON THE WAY OUT OF THE PORT. They get checked when they are already on trucks.
Given that most ports are in metropolitan areas it is not such a stretch to suggest that someone who owns a ship - a terminal concession would not be needed - could bring their nuke to, say, LA and just become a ‘martyr’ from the bridge when the container gets offloaded. Or while it’s on the ship.
The other ‘interesting’ aspect is that a container ship can easily deviate from a port and choose to head toward the city center. There would not be time to do anything about it and the coast guard patrol ships that are out just have 50 cals. A container ship needs two miles or so to fully stop.
The risk is not with DPW - it is with the fundamental aspect of world commerce. There are three main players - the port in the foreign country, the ship owner, and the receiving port. The place for stuff to happen is in the foreign country or by the ship.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:12 pmMore than 80% of people have an opinion but more than 60% don’t know what they’re opining on. Sounds about right.
Comment by TJM — February 26, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
You meant Sounds about Right. You’re supposed to capitalize proper nouns. Right-wing Fools, for instance.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:13 pmMA already ’sold’ a concession to the Chinese last year. Presumably they weren’t so worried then.
#52
You both have it wrong. DPW is not paying us to run the ports and we are not paying them.
DPW is paying P&O’s shareholders 520p a share to delist the company. The shareholders are selling an ‘asset’, ie the concession, that P&O ‘bought’ from the respective port authorities or aquired through various aquisitions in the US.
Port Authorities make money off selling terminal concessions to companies. It’s not the other way around.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:16 pmTJM - What part of the FACTS that the UAE has/had ties to terrorists? You seem to point out some rather logical statements, why does this VERY SIMPLE FACT GET BY YOU?
So… Should we allow accussed child molesters watch our kids in a daycare center? Just because they have not been caught with in the last few years does not mean that they will not molest another child. In fact, the odds are very high that they will.
The UAE is known to deal with shady people/countries. Do you really trust them not to turn an eye to someone who they sympithise with? If you do, you should seek out phsychiatric help.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:18 pmWelcome to Facism 101 ,where up is down and down is up.
Truth is lies and lies is truth. There’s not a thing anyone can do its a done deal,America has been sold to the highest bidder and gwbush & co will make billions along with their big arab oil family.
House of Saud House Of U.A.E.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:18 pmOr put another way, would you even let the FAMILY of an accused child molestor babysit your kid?
February 26th, 2006 at 8:20 pmwell, you all should have been watching 60 minutes…i see #47 did…
it was very enlightening…this deal is worrisome, but much more is needed to assure security at the ports - no matter who is running them…
and, the point of my post #16 was to make clear that the 45-day investigation must be conducted in any instance that could affect national security - not just a threat to…and also that, to put it nicely, “the Bush Administration elected to forego such a review”, even though it was LAW…
imagine that…
February 26th, 2006 at 8:21 pmYea, imagine that.
Bush circumventing the law.
Who would’ve thunk it?
February 26th, 2006 at 8:24 pmJames - You sure don’t have a care about National Security, you must be a Republican. After all, they all talk about needing to do things for our security, but when there is a sure ability for our security to become breached because of a FORIEGN country managing our ports then everything is OK.
If it is such a GREAT place, why did Home land security suggest that people not travel to Dubi????
Yeah, just a country I want running our ports. One that we warn our citizens not to travel to. When was the last time that we received a warning not to travel to Britian?
February 26th, 2006 at 8:24 pmBut whats really ludicrious, is no one seems to notice that this administration that has HERALDED FROM THE ROOFTOPS the call to Homeland defense, and protecting us from the terrorists are the ones PUSHING this sale!!!
Its INSANE!
February 26th, 2006 at 8:26 pmIn fact there is a state wide warning for Americans travelling ANYWHERE in the UAE.
What great friends.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:27 pmWith friends like these, who needs Anomones?
February 26th, 2006 at 8:28 pmWell only time will tell how this works out.
R2K
February 26th, 2006 at 8:29 pmSince some Americans seem to not understand the full ramification of the UAE dirty deal, to operate ports on our East Coast, let me try to explain it in a different way! What if Bush allowed a Saudi Arabian government owned corporation to operate all of our International airports:
February 26th, 2006 at 8:30 pmWould you want to trust your security to them? Since about 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, would you feel safe in flying out of our airports? I believe that most rational Americans would refuse to get on any jets, if that were the case! I know that I would never travel by air again, so why should we trust the UAE government owned corporation with ties to Osama Bin Laden to run our seaports? It is crazy!
Lets just hope their enough of us left to learn the lesson.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:31 pmSo, the UAE doesn’t recoginize Israel. So, Mr. (Fill in the blank generic conservative, right winger,e.g. IRI, Mighty Aphrodite, etc) you must be against Israel to support nations that don’t recognize Israel. Are you are more concerned about being “politically correct and not offending the unelected Emirs of the UAE? Answer the question. Now!
-GSD
February 26th, 2006 at 8:32 pm#58
The US is known to deal with very shady countries (Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco, etc) as well. We’ve done a great job in Iraq - perhaps the world has reason to not take us seriously anymore when it comes to security concerns (which I would agree with, incidentally).
I thought I would elaborate on why DPW has a very strong case for international arbitration and yes, the US has signed up for the dispute resolution panel that does it. Our companies use it all the time - or the threat of it - the oil companies brandish it pretty frequently.
DPW has agreed to a 520p/share (6.8 billion USD for the entire company plus some assumption of debt). This bid was not conditional - as a major port operator DPW did not put in language that would have ‘killed’ the bid if it failed to secure regulatory approval. If they had stuck such a clause in they would have had to pay more (uncertainty of payment).
If DPW can’t take over the concessions that it owns it has essentially had an asset ’stolen’ from it for political reasons. The reason it would be a ‘political decision’ is that it has already been ‘approved’ once by the security folks. Revisiting it will give them a case.
That said, DPW is probably bluffing. They won’t sue because it will piss the US off. What they are strongly saying is that they really want the terminals. Operators like to operate the terminals on the departing and receiving ends - which was the reason for this bid.
If they did sue, it would not just be the federal government. They would take all of the respective port authorities, through the state government, to international arbitration.
Such arbitration is very, very expensive and can lead to very large awards. Not only would they be forced to pay for taking back the asset put would pay for lost income from the asset.
So it’s sort of an economic pressure. It’s nothing that US companies shy away from though.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:33 pmThats a good analogy.
Even if they just operated the ticket counters, and baggage handling, you know, operations?
Would anyone feel good about a UAE or Saudi or any other Muslim Arab nation having the responsibility for baggage handling?
February 26th, 2006 at 8:33 pmImagine Dubai Baggage Handling Inc being responsible for all baggage loaded onto an airplane.
Bet that would put a dent in ticket sales for Delta.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:36 pmYes, it’s terrible. Really bad. Also, do a search on ‘detention camps in the United States, Halliburton awarded contracts.’
See what you get. See what you get when you’re not a good murkan. So be a good murkan, don’t be a bad murkan.
yessiree
February 26th, 2006 at 8:37 pmJames - You can try to rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that NOT ONE OF THE MAIN HEADS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS even knew of the deal. This is an issue that despite it was approved by a committee that only had ONE meeting does not mean that we should just say OK. Were sorry that our government screwed up. Sorry, but our nation is run “by the people and for the people”, not by the government for the government.
Therefore, even though a handfull of people said it was OK (despite the fact that HS had a problem with the deal initially) does not mean that the approval is actually legal.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm#63
There’s a travel advisory to all the Gulf states. I’m not saying that I don’t care about ’security’ I am saying that if you just address DPW you’re doing NOTHING. There has to be a discussion on 1. the shipping lines and contract ships and their respective owners 2. the ports of origin. #2 is sort of addressed with the customs agreement, but barely. #1 isn’t addressed at all.
Oh, TRAVEL ADVISORY TO BRITAIN? RIGHT AFTER THE TUBE BOMBINGS.
We issue travel advisories when there’s a threat of further terrorism. Same thing with Madrid train bombings…
Of course those are lifted quickly.
And no, I’m not a republican. What I am is a realist who can see that the DPW is a red herring in that there is no focus on the ports of origin or the ships themselves. The focus is on ONE COMPANY. What about COSCO? Are we in love with the Chinese too?
The truth is that for secure commerce the US would need to implement REAL screening (not the current crap) at the ports of origin. Countries don’t like that because it’s an invasion of their sovereignty (in their view). This would involve screening all containers before they left the port and when they arrived at port.
Now why doesn’t the US screen all containers? The reason is purely economic - the gridlock it would cause would hurt 1. his business pals 2. his party’s reelection chances (recession) and 3. it would hurt people by increasing the costs of goods (shippers generally have to pay for the time that their container is at the terminal).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t or that we couldn’t - we could - but if you focus on DPW you’re really missing quite a bit.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:43 pmWe keep letting big business and government farm out America’s operations, pretty soon there won’t be an America, just an international resource.
Think about it. We all know Presidents are elected off of funds by big business. Big businesses lobby for certain privliges and advantatges.
As foriegn countries keep buying out major US corporations, then essentially foriegn countries will be choosing our President.
These guys are stripping America like a Beemer in a Chop Shop.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:45 pmYes post 75: Why should the American citizenry care if Bush has to cancel this dirty deal and therefore the UAE might spit in his face in outrage? Dubya cut this deal in secret, without consulting the Congress, nor informing Americans untill a whistleblower leaked it to the press, so he can take the heat of canceling it or RESIGN!
February 26th, 2006 at 8:45 pmOne meeting of underlings + one underling who said, “wait a minute” = approval.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:46 pmWho is running this asylum?
The so called elected ones are crooks and liars, and their appointees are criminals and incompetents.
After a point, just saying, I’m sorry, we messed up is not cutting it.
#75
It is assumed legal if such practice is common practice. DPW does not need a US court to rule on the legality - an international abritration panel would.
This panel isn’t frequented by the heads of agencies because it looks at lots of bids. Rumsfield is running a war he is losing, etc. They don’t want to go and delegate someone else.
I think you have the idea that every bid by a foreign government controlled company gets screened by heads of DHS DOD etc in hours of meetings. They delegate the research to staffers of each department and some undersecretary for DOD shows up.
The fight here is really whether the President or the Congress should approve bids. I’d go with Congress.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:46 pmso he can take the heat of canceling it or RESIGN!
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
Don’t tease me like that Jay :)
February 26th, 2006 at 8:49 pm#63
There’s a travel advisory to all the Gulf states
Comment by James — February 26, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
Wrong again James.
There is.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:49 pmIf the United States can use the Constitutional right of Emminent Domain to steal Grandma’s house to build a shopping center the Congress can certainly use the process to void the claim to US property of an enemy during wartime. DWP can sue up a storm and piss up a rope but they ain’t gonna put no damn raghead terrorist in my back yard without a fight.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:51 pmFrom the US STATE DEPARTMENT
TRAVEL ADVISORY FOR THE UAE
SAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness.
The Department of State remains concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Americans should maintain a low profile, vary routes and times for all required travel, and treat mail and packages from unfamiliar sources with caution.
In addition, U.S. citizens are urged to avoid contact with any suspicious, unfamiliar objects, and to report the presence of the objects to local authorities.
Vehicles should not be left unattended, if at all possible, and should be kept locked at all times.
U.S. Government personnel overseas have been advised to take the same precautions. In addition, U.S. Government facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time as necessary to review their security posture and ensure its adequacy.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:52 pmSorry James, I read that wrong. I thought you were saying there was no travel advisory.
My bad.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:56 pmThe following countries have travel advisories issued by the State Dept. in the region: Pakistan,Afghanistan,Iran,Iraq,Saudi Arabia,Lebanon,Yemen,Israel,the West Bank and Gaza.
Oddly,the UAE is not on there.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:05 pmSorry TJM, but the Travel Advisory for the UAE is posted in #84.
The UAE IS there. It might not be on the same threat level as countries like Iran, but its there.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:08 pmSAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:09 pmJames is a stooge. The first time he posted was the day the port story broke. Ever since he’s been painting false pictures of himself to sway opinion here.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:14 pmWhat part of these people thought that China controlling ports -was ok for us?
February 26th, 2006 at 9:15 pmFrom the US STATE DEPARTMENT
TRAVEL ADVISORY FOR THE UAE
SAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
What the f*ck? Excuse my French, but really…
February 26th, 2006 at 9:16 pmDubai, services American military vehicles and ships in Drydock, they also contributed 100 million dollars to Katrina relief.
The Vice president of the company is American and Dubai is considered a target by AlQaeda because it is too Western.
the ‘two 9/11′ hijackers that ‘came from UAE’….is misleading…they were born there but the families left when they were age 2. They are also cooperating at a very high level in purging terrorist funds from their banking systems.
I’m guessing the deal will go thru, will become a campaign issue for Senators and Governors….and lead to nothing changing.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:18 pmAnyone who watched 60 Minutes tonight would be mortified by this notion of giving ports to countries with 911 terrorist ties.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:20 pmLet the UAE corporation sue our nation > that would piss off everybody in America, so there would be a massive backlash against them! If they were smart, they would withdrawl the offer and go buy Russia’s ports > lol.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:21 pmWhat the f*ck? Excuse my French, but really…
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
LOL, oh you didn’t hear that one yet Unb?
LOL, yea, that one sorta gives one pause, ay?
February 26th, 2006 at 9:24 pmOne good thing if the UAE dirty deal is canceled > we will NOT see Bush holding hands or kissing Arab royalty any longer > they will kick him in the nuts instead > lol.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:24 pmI wish I hadn’t missed that 60 minutes story.
Then again, from the sounds of it, maybe I’m lucky I did.
PLEASE GOD NO MORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE!!!!!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:25 pmMAKE IT STOPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:26 pmwhew….sorry folks….
took a short trip there.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:26 pmLOL, yea, that one sorta gives one pause, ay?
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Further proof of either obsessive fear-mongering on behalf of our government, or blatant disregard for our safety. Either one isn’t very comforting.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pmthey will kick him in the nuts instead > lol.
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
If HBO did a pay-per-view showing of that, they’d make millions (billions if it went global).
February 26th, 2006 at 9:29 pmAs long as corporations have the rights of citizens but with more power (read: money) and laws requiring them to operate in the best interest of their shareholders (read: lots of money), their rights will supercede actual human citizens’ rights.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:34 pmI’d like to sing ya all a little song, heh heh….
Oh yea, wait a second, I don’t know how to play the guitar and I can’t sing.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:35 pmPut down the guitar Mr President and step away…
February 26th, 2006 at 9:36 pmunbelievable post 102 > I have to laugh about this dirty deal or cry myself to sleep over it, so make jokes out of it! Actually in the end it will be a serious mistake, because it just takes one ship full of plutonium to render New York harbor unlivable for a century! Either Bush does not care or he is so stupid that he is oblivious to it? Those in the Congress who allow it have NO excuse!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 9:43 pmuhhh….I’ll be back in a few hours people….
I was just heading out for some smokes.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:53 pmCondie…bring me some peanuts.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:54 pmFrom the State Dept. website: ” Travel Warnings are issued when the State Dept. recommends that Americans avoid a certain countyr. The countries listed below are currently on that list. In addition to this list the State Dept. issues Consular Information Sheets for every country… with information on such matters as the health conditions,crime….”
The UAE is not on the Dept,’s list of countries to be avoided.
Under the Consular Information Sheet:”Americans in the UAE should exercise a high leve of security awareness.”
Close.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:56 pmTJM.
Did your mommy drop you on your head or something?
Where did I say anything other than there was an advisory for the UAE?
I even posted it directly off the State Department Website.
Get a grip.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:59 pmImpeach now…don’t pay taxes…no taxation without representation. Our forefathers who did not pay taxes to England because they got nothing were called insurgents.We should not have to email and write our congresspeople to not vote for a fascist to the supreme court or to not allow a terroist state to buy our ports. We are not being represented in Washington and should not pay taxes until this administration is impeached and tried at the Hague.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:01 pmBut I’ll tell you what ToJamMan.
Since you’re so hot on the UAE, why don’t you take the little women and the kids on down their and vacation this summer?
Whadda ya say? Sound like a plan?
And hey, don’t bother to write or send photos.
We’ll take them off the online news sites. :|
February 26th, 2006 at 10:05 pmTJM
February 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pmToeJamMan
err..that is what it stands for right?
I mean I just assumed… :o
February 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pmGod I sound like Ann Coulter.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:18 pmMost Americans have never been to the UAE > my mother was an American reporter in Kuwait for almost 10 years, from 1992 till beginning of 2002, and she visited Dubai! Dubai is known for its gold and illicit smuggling of everything from pistachio nuts, to raw Opium, to selling of children!This is the nest of vermin that Bush wants to turn our port operations over to > a United group of tiny Arabic fly specks along the coast of Saudi Arabia! A people who love to smuggle anything and everything! An alliance of phony royalty who funnel funds to Osama in trade for Opium and gold > what a dirty deal Bush is foisting onto America?!
February 26th, 2006 at 10:21 pmSTOP this port sale PERIOD! AND NOW! NO SALE OF 22 OF OUR PORTS TO KNOWN TERRORISTS! This proves Bush and others were behind and involved in 9-11! And this proves they are planning more attacks on U.S. through our ports! Call ALL T.V. STATIONS, RADIO STATIONS TOO AND WRITE LETTERS IMMEDIATELY TO ALL PAPERS AND DEMAND ALL REP’S AND SENATORS VOTE TO TOTALLY BLOCK THE SALE OF OUR PORTS TO KNOWN TERRORISTS OR GET THE HELL OUT OF CONGRESS AND NOW! AND NO GODDAMN PHONEY INVESTIGATION THAT DOESN’T POSTPONE SALE! OUR NATION’S SECURITY IS AT STAKE! THEN DEMAND CONGRESS HAVE U.S. TROOPS AND/OR U.S. Marshall’s arrest the whole damn treasonous Bush regime for TREASON AND NOW, before they pull off another attack on U.S. and NOW! IF you love America and our freedoms and value your lives,DO IT NOW! Before he/they have U.S. attacked again from a false flag attack, while blaming some innocent country while being in bed with the REAL TERRORISTS! And call ALL your friends and talk to everyone on street too and urge them to call Congress ASAP too and demand them to TOTALLY STOP THE SALE OF OUR PORTS AND NO DELAY OR PHONEY INVESTIGATION,EITHER BUT VOTE TO BLOCK IT TOTALLY AND OVERRIDE THE TREASONOUS S.O.B’S VETO AND THEN DEMAND U.S. TROOPS ARREST HIM AND HIS EVIL COHORTS WHO ARE DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN AND WHO ARE ABOUT TO CAUSE AND HELP ANOTHER ATTACK ON U.S. THROUGH THOSE 22 PORTS! PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF AMERICA, DEMAND BUSH AND COHORTS BE ARRESTED ASAP FOR TREASON!
February 26th, 2006 at 10:22 pmIt’s “there” not their; homophones can be tricky,like your and you’re.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:22 pmWhen you finally get that GED,the whole family will be so proud that somebody managed to finish school,well, sort of.
Ahh…opium and child selling…. sounds lovely.
Yea TJM…..
Don’t bother to send photos….LOL….
we’ll just download them as they post them up at http://www.haveUseenme.com
:)
February 26th, 2006 at 10:22 pmAhh…reduced to grammatical errors.
Oh well TJM, ya got me there.
I tend to be somewhat dyslexic with my homonyms albeit occasionally erudite.
Oh well, point to you big guy. Way to go.
:|
February 26th, 2006 at 10:26 pmI’ll be looking for you on http://www.haveUseenme.com
And try to smile if you want them in the album.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:29 pmWho better to operate our ports than a bunch of smugglers. Then we might get the good stuff first since they have less problems with security, right?…………………..LOL
February 26th, 2006 at 10:30 pmWhy do we cut off aid to the Hamas democratically elected government that refuses to recognize Israel, yet we let the UAE, which also refuses to recognize Israel, oversee our ports? I don’t get it? Are we that stupid?
February 26th, 2006 at 10:30 pmAt least Bushco, inc. thinks we are
February 26th, 2006 at 10:35 pmLet bush do what he wants, cause he’s a genious. Look at what people who vote republican feel about the middle east anyway, but they’re still ok with the ports, and if republicans have this bad feelings about the arab world of course it’s right. Now, look at what this kind loving page, that this republican made. OK, now tell me that he’s not right about the ports if republicans, like this, agree with them.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:39 pm#128 Sue
Be careful how you talk! You will offend TJM and he will do bad things to your little brother and sister. He is a paid shill to tout this deal and bad mouth anybody that has a concern about the deal. I am with you and intend to start the E-mails tomorrow. An easy way is to go to Congress.org and use the message system there as you can immediately contact any member of Congress. Hey, TJM, what is the Arabic equivalent of the GED. That is where you learned English isn’t it?
February 26th, 2006 at 10:46 pmhow that bastard frist can show his face after this, i don’t know. he was grandstanding last week on what a dumb deal this was, a week later, the entire nation misunderstood the deal and Bush now requires everyone’s trust and support. remember when republicans talked about flip-flopping? frist should come out and say “never listen to another word that comes out of my lying mouth.”
February 26th, 2006 at 11:07 pmEmirati 19%, other Arab and Iranian 23%, South Asian 50%, other expatriates (includes Westerners and East Asians) 8% (1982)
note: less than 20% are UAE citizens (1982)
conventional long form: United Arab Emirates
conventional short form: none
local long form: Al Imarat al Arabiyah al Muttahidah
local short form: none
former: Trucial Oman, Trucial States
abbreviation: UAE
Independence Day, 2 December (1971)
Constitution:
Definition Field Listing
2 December 1971 (made permanent in 1996)
Legal system:
Definition Field Listing
federal court system introduced in 1971; applies to all emirates except Dubayy (Dubai) and Ra’s al Khaymah, which are not fully integrated into the federal judicial system; all emirates have secular courts to adjudicate criminal, civil, and commercial matters and Islamic courts to review family and religious disputes
International organization participation:
Definition Field Listing
ABEDA, AFESD, AMF, FAO, G-77, GCC, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt (signatory), ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, ISO, ITU, LAS, MIGA, NAM, OAPEC, OIC, OPCW, OPEC, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO
Any sharp correction to the UAE’s equity markets could damage investor and consumer sentiment and affect bank asset quality.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:10 pmI’m with you sue, been doing that already, just like the Katrina disaster, I have been working with emails and the phone. If every one would do what they can we will win…..Blessings…Don’t forget huge bumper stickers and signs are a plus also.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:13 pmYou all will want the next harpers;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/26/211139/366
February 26th, 2006 at 11:20 pmhow come gary ruppert always sounds like rush limbaugh?…or maybe he is?
February 26th, 2006 at 11:53 pmGary either does it for profit or he has had a double Limbotomy.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:02 amI find a lot of commentary here based on BIGOTRY and IGNORANCE and that sums up to ISLAMOPHOBIA.
Keep hating them and they will keep hating you right back.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:05 am#148 - greg smith,
February 27th, 2006 at 12:09 amHuh? Some of my best friends are and have been Islamic.
#147 Walt he’s probably had the neo-con lobotomy, that is where they shove a vacuum cleaner hose up your nose and leave it on for a few hours, it appears to work as those that have had it no longer have any critical analytical reasoning capabilities.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:09 amUAE the Kingdom of Smugglers is going to run all our East Coast ports, from Maine to Texas?! Even our State Department says that UAE is a transhipment point for opium and other drugs like Hashish, and Heroin, and a money laundering banking hideout > wow Bush likes to sell us out!
February 27th, 2006 at 12:18 am#150 - Clif,
February 27th, 2006 at 12:22 amPlease notice the subtle difference between ‘Limbotomy’ and ‘Lobotomy’. I do try to deal in nuances.
What is limbotomy, nothing in wiki, or online dictionary, so i guess sp err
February 27th, 2006 at 12:42 amIf I said Ralph Limbotomy, would you understand?
February 27th, 2006 at 1:00 amThat was Rush Limbotomy
February 27th, 2006 at 1:08 amThe vacuum cleaner is definately called for but Rush should be first in line …out of respect you know…………..
February 27th, 2006 at 1:32 amLoL.
A Limbotomy is what everyone who listens to Limbaughs show gets.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:33 amOf interest to all posters > I was looking up information on the UAE and Dubai on google, and one site listed about a hundred or more Bars, Discos and Nightclubs in Dubai that served alcohol, and many have scantally clad belly dancers or other entertainment >lol. A real sin city of vice in Arabia and a meeting place for the well groomed global elite! Expensive restaurants and exclusive shops too! Very posh hotels as well! I bet the Saudi royals visit there a lot to drink booze and get laid too > lol.
Odd thing is since Osama is supposed to be Anti-Vice and alcohol, then why does he associate with UAE princes?
February 27th, 2006 at 2:54 amTo those who support this deal, there is another aspect that should be talked about. Put aside the security issues for a moment (&, like it or not, there are several serious security issues) and realize that as a part of this deal, DPW is NOT required to store any corporate documentation within the United States. There are many American workers on these ports who will, effectively, lose their ability to legally challenge their employer in any way. With no American documentation, there is no possibility for a court to enforce discovery laws, thereby nullifying any possible case. Essentially, DPW will be able to completely disregard worker’s compensation claims and violate labor statutes. In addition to all of the other serious issues with this deal, if approved it will screw every worker that remains in their position on the docks. Bu$hCo just loves screwing the little guy to pad their friends’ and their own pockets. This deal never had anything to do with security for Bushco (although it should have!), it’s just another ponzi scheme they’ve inflicted on the American people. Impeach Now!
February 27th, 2006 at 4:15 amFor those of you just tuning in… Assclowns of the Week: GWB’s Wide World of Ports Edition is up. On the spit this week:
February 27th, 2006 at 7:27 am10) Joementum Lieberman
9) CA Sec. of State Bruce McPherson
8) Rita Cosby
7) George Bush
6) Michael Chertoff
5) Donald Rumsfeld
4) The US Government
3) The Bush administration
2) Gordon England
1) The South Dakota Legislature
Please check this financial analysis on FINANCIAL MARKETS FORECAST AND ANALYSIS
Monday, February 27, 2006 8:23 GMT
Weekly Report
By Robert McHugh at Main Line Investors, Inc.
http://www.technicalindicatorindex.com
The coming opening of the Iran Oil Bourse is driving this Ports sale. If the sale does not go through there may be problems between UAE and USA in using the UAE as a base for sending American troops in the attack on Iran to stop the Bourse. The Bear Market is over. The US dollar is about to be wacked. Why have so many reseignations in the Federal Reserve? Something HUGE is about to occur in the Markets in March /April. The ending of reporting on the M3 is an indication of this. I greatly fear the possibility of a similar crash as in 1929. Be prepared. Get out of American Dollars.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:31 amHow to perform a Limbotomy:
Strap a perfectly normal human being into a chair, then drugging them heavily and playing “Achy Breaky Heart”, “Jolene” and “Itsy Bitsty Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini” on repeat. During this period the participant’s eyes are taped open and they are forced to watch happy, peaceful arabic women and children frolicking in a field, alternated with happy old black people in service uniforms getting medical treatment from highly trained and competent doctors.
This continues until the patients will is broken and they are left as nothing but twisted shells of humanity, incapable of anything but a deep abiding hatred for all women and children, particularly arabic ones, as well as old retired soldiers, particularly ones of colour, they are to be subjected to the litmus test of watching the Rush Limbaugh show.
If they agree with what the views expressed by Rush Limbaugh, the opperation is a success and they are released. If they don’t, they are sent to Gitmo because they are clearly sub-human terrorists.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:26 amI got a brilliant idea why does The American banks not offer a better claim to P&O
Oh Sorry I forgot Bush has Banckrupted America the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:36 am164
The American debt will eventually get called, but it has a few years to go before it does, and it will only get called by a major enemy of America and/or capitalism who is willing to see a world-wide depression.
It’s such a good thing America doesn’t owe a large chunk of that debt to Terrorist states and communists hey?
February 27th, 2006 at 8:43 amIt’s such a good thing America doesn’t owe a large chunk of that debt to Terrorist states and communists hey?
Comment by Bruce Gorton — February 27, 2006 @ 8:43 am
And just wait until China sells our loans to them on top of this port ‘deal’… Then Osama will reach his goal of bankrupting the United Staes… or did Georgie forget about that one???
February 27th, 2006 at 8:48 amA whole parade of Republicans selling us out to the UAE.
Not that we didn’t expect it. Still it’s interesting to see them be so brazen about it.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:17 amDont expect the puke house and senate to do so, but this UAE deal is a treaty, not a contract, and MUST be approved by congress.
Looks like the shrub will have to borrow another 6.5 billion from China to bail himself out of this one.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:46 amAmerica is now for sale to the highest bidder - corporate lobbyists, friends of Osama, it doesn’t matter…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ any-port-company-in-storm.html
February 27th, 2006 at 9:57 am#166, Unbelievable,
Nice one, like your posts. We should get coffee sometime.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:48 am#166 but unfortunately you do you owe China (communists)so much there already dumping the dollar also India cant wait to dump the dollar and on top of that most people dont buy American products cause
February 27th, 2006 at 11:28 ama) your foreign policy stinks up to geroge bushes underpants
b) your industry polutes the planet
c) both a and b
[…] Don’t get me wrong. It’s fun to watch Bush twist in the wind on this issue, and it’s nice to see the Democrats actually engaging in spine-like activity for once. And Bush & his cronies are dissembling just as much as ever over it (the compromise is not a compromise, it’s 21 ports not 6). […]
February 27th, 2006 at 12:00 pmThis deal sounds fair to me….But, then again, maybe we have differing ideas on what the definition of the word “is” is…
–
February 27th, 2006 at 3:21 pmWe know George Bush has lied to us, spied on us, broken the law and sent Americans to fight an illegal war. The time for just debate and protest is over. We need real action to save our country and our Constitution – Congress must consider the impeachment of George W. Bush. Click here to take action: http://www.ccr-ny.org/impeachment
February 27th, 2006 at 3:37 pmOF all the comments here that really scare me, this one is it:
“Well only time will tell how this works out.”
R2K
Comment by Victor — February 26, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
We ran out of time on 9/11. Time is no longer a luxury we can afford by blindly agreeing with King George. Bush threw America under the bus with this deal.
A snake in the desert is of very little consequence. However, invite the snake into your home and it’s only a matter of time before you are bitten.
Wake up!!!!
February 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pmwhat i want to know is:
(1) who signed the original deal, and what is that person’s authority to do so?
(2) if that person does not have authority to sign such a deal, then can dpw actually sue the country? could it not sue that person? (kind of a luscious thought)
this of course raises the question of what will come of the suits already filed against the deal.
and won’t it be interesting to see how the administration responds to this ’suit’ issue. can we all bet that they’ll be defending the company’s right to the deal, and the american obligation to honor it. ok, fine. but how does that square with all the myriad treaty obligations we’ve violated of late, not least of which being the geneva conventions?
February 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pmAmerican subsidiaries of P&O are the ones running the operations at US ports. American subsidiaries, with American workers, with American bosses.
Not to mention that the only Arab in the management of DP World is the CEO. Everyone else are Americans, Europeans, and Indians.
Congress made the law that gave the CFIUS the responsibility of determining whether or not an acquisition would affect national security. You can’t whine afterwards when they do the exact job that you gave them to do.
If you want Congressional oversight - write it into the law.
ThinkProgress, DailyKos, Michelle Malkin, and the rest of the goon-squad is on crack over this deal.
February 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pmNice one, like your posts. We should get coffee sometime.
Comment by For Truth — February 27, 2006 @ 10:48 am
You mean like virtually?
February 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pm