McCain: Port Sale Overblown Since UAE is ‘Freer Than China’
McCain: Port Sale Overblown Since UAE is ‘Freer Than China’
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) argued that concern over the Dubai port sale is misplaced since the UAE is freer than that beacon of liberty, China.
I think our priorities are misplaced. We’ve got a tremendous crisis in Iraq, that I’m happy to say the religious clerics have stood up against this violence. We’ve got the Iranian threat. We have got Nigerian oil at stake. We had an attack on a Saudi oil installation. We’ve got some very, very big issues that I think are perhaps more important than whether a country that’s freer than China should have control of some of our terminals.
According to the Freedom House’s 2006 Global Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, China scores the worst rating (7) for political rights and a 6 for civil liberties. Overall, it receives a rating of “Not Free.” It’s actually a feat to be less free than China — only 7 countries of 192 do it.
The UAE is also rated “Not Free,” scoring a 6 for both political rights and civil liberties. Some other human rights bastions who are “freer than China”: Iran, the Congo, Cote d’Iviore, and Rwanda.
Bottom line: There are reasonable arguments for why the ports sale should go through. Freedom in the United Arab Emirates is not one of them.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
UAE is freer than China. Cool. And Jeffrey Dahmer would have been a much better babysitter than Gacy.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:16 pmMcCain, party before anything else. Don’t be fooled, he’s a DIED IN THE WOOL repub. leaving common sense behind. After what he’s been through as a POW, he LET bush waterdown the ‘no torture’ law. He’s a sick man.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:20 pmMcCain is a Bush toady now, so anything he says or claims is a complete 100% LIE! UAE is a smugglers paradise of greed and corruption, so our ports would become the same!
Senator McCain needs to resign from the Senate ASAP!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 1:21 pmnotice how many times he mentioned oil?? whats up with that John??? you caved John! now you are nothing!!
February 26th, 2006 at 1:27 pmDeals between the US and foreign governments need the approval of the Congress and the President. That is the law. When the Congress and the President find out about the deal, a deal that only they have the authority to approve, because they happened to catch the news of its approval on CNN, I think there is something wrong here. But that’s just me.
I happen to believe that whether or not the UAE is better than China or Iran or even the US or God’s Heaven Itself, is beside the point.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmIt’s McCain v. 64 percent of America.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmAccording to McClain’s since Japan was freer than China in 1941 FDR should have given control of Pearl Harbor to the Japanese is November 1941 and World War II would have been averted. If Nixon had given Saigon to the North Vietnamese after the french left McCain would never have been a POW in North Vietnam–maybe Arizona but not Vietnam. We are at war whether we want it or not! Bush declared war on the Arabs–I don’t care what you call them an Arab is a Terrorist is a Muslim is an enemy to the United States and it is treason to consort with the enemy, much less give them free access to invade this Country. Until now they have had no means of delivering their weapons to the US except through the theft of an airplane or two. Now they have free access to every ship entering an American Port thanks to King George the Dumb, the Duke of Dubai.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pmMcCain is full of fuzzy thinking and freudian slips . I watched him , in my humble opinion , this candidacy for the presidency falls quite short. Mc Cain will do well to limit himself to a fuzzy talking senator. He straddled the issues covering his ass at every chance ,every question that G. Steph. asked.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:56 pmA interesting thing about UAE is that they are associated with the Opium trade in Afghanistan, so if they run our East Coast ports they can smuggle Opium into the U.S. by the cargo load! Easy to hide raw Opium, by putting it inside other items, so I guess this proves that Bush family is into the drug trade?! (Another proof the wide open Mexican border that allows cocaine to be smuggled into U.S.)
February 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pmGee, if UAE is freer than China, does that mean Bubble Boy knows more about Civil Rights than Rev. Lowery?
McCain is now Bush’s Bitch.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pmThere are reasonable arguments in favor of the port deal IF you believe that markets always rule, that money is the only thing that matters. Most republicans believe that, but most Americans don’t.
The Cheney administration famously accused democrats of wanting to offer therapy to the terrorists. The Cheney administration, in contrast, wants to do business with the terrorists.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:58 pmPost 16 yes the Korean War almost reached the border of China, so the Chinese poured one million troops into North Korea and pushed us all the way back to the tip of South Korea, then General McArthur invaded the north at Inchon and the war ended with a stalemate dividing Korea into 2 parts!
February 26th, 2006 at 2:06 pmJohn McCain is presently deluded into thinking he is in line for the Presidency in 2008.
He has agreed to be ‘Apologist’ and ‘Defender’ of the Bush administration, in exchange for a promise from them that they will no longer insult and slander him as they did in 2000, and will not do so in 2008.
It’s sickening to think that this is what passes for ‘character’ in Washington D.C. politics.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:11 pmthat anyone gives that idiot McCain the time of day, let alone a national platform form which to spew his jibberish is just astounding and certainly one of the many many discredits to the US in the bushcriminal regime era. McCain is wacko looney tunes.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pm.
Another perspective,in addition to the prior post by Faiz is at the Booman Tribune (the post is called “Hot Air and Bigotry Causes Storm Over Ports.” It’s a good summation of the various points.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pmClyde,your knowledge of who was President of the US after the French left is as deep as your knowledge of the facts in this case. (It was Eisenhower when the French left after the Geneva accord of 1954 whereupon the US funded the cost of the S.Viet-Nam army annually through a Congressional appropriation).
And thanks for confirming that this is about bigotry to you.
http://www.boomantribune.com
NOTE:
He is referring to the fact that a state controlled, HK listed shipping company manages US terminals/ports (ports seems to be the word of the month here, but generally at the large ports you manage terminals).
So, his point is: If COSCO is allowed to run operations all over the US and nobody has been screaming.
For instance: COSCO signed an agreement with the MA Port Authority in 05 to manage a terminal (I point it out because it’s recent). They also operate out of LA and Tacoma among others.
Google ‘cosco terminals’. I’m not interested in adding loads of links.
As for COSCO’s ownership structure, it is HK listed by controlled by the Chinese state through it’s SOE (State Owned Enterprise) parent. Listing a portion of it got the state company some cash without having to give up any control.
COSCO is definately Chinese managed - Americans are there, but not like at DPW.
So, his point was that if we allow the Chinese in and nobody has been whining then this garbage is xenophobia.
On the right it’s just a characteristic of a good deal of their supporters enhanced by Dear Leader muslim bashing. On the ‘left’ this is political opportunism (which is a good if it depresses his poll numbers and makes him a lame duck) as well as fear perpetuated by incomplete information on the ‘deal’.
UAE keeps coming up - the company is owned by the emirate of Dubai that is 80 percent foreign. There are 6 other emirates, 5 of which are backwaters you wouldn’t want to visit. Since each emirate runs their own affairs you can’t exactly lump them together. Just like you shouldn’t lump say Vermont and Texas/South Dakota together:)
February 26th, 2006 at 2:22 pmSmoking mirrors!
The issue is not whether the UAE is nice or free. The issue is that UAE citizens support Al Queda.
We don’t want any possible al Queda operative or supporter deciding what gets ship into America, nor be able to provide inside information to terrorists.
End of argument. There is no other side on this issue. The US government either provides the American public with National Security or they provide terrorists access to America. You are either with us or against us.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:22 pmPost 16 I had a friend who fought in the Korean War at the Chosen Dam when the Chinese troops swept down from the north! He said they were so many they looked like locusts swarming! He said he shot hundreds of them with a machine gun until he ran out of ammunition, then the Chinese overran their position and he fled for his life > he was the only survivor of his platoon!
February 26th, 2006 at 2:22 pmMcCain is a bush toady through and through. That is, he gets his marching orders from karl rove, dick cheney, and rush limbaugh. Sort of like Democrat complicity in the 9-11 commission white-wash FARCE. THAT farce was signed by Medal of Honor recipient Dem. Senator Bob Kerrey.
What is with America’s brave war veterans (no one doubts that McCain courageously REFUSED to be repatriated to America by North Vietnamese prison officials, in deference to his father’s position as a Navy admiral) like McCain, Kerrey, and John Kerry all kissing butt to the AWOL, Harken-dumping, election-stealing, dereliction-in-duty pre-9-11, criminal negligence re Katrina, treasury looting george w. bush? Is it true that female hormons in our water are turning the entire nation into a bunch of “girly-men”??
February 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pmI though we were talking about their links to al-Qeada and not whether or not they are free. I hope the public remembers this if McCain tries for the presidency. He’s bought and paid for just like everyone else.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:29 pm“freer than china”…here’s another thorn:
February 26th, 2006 at 2:32 pm“On June 3, 2005 the US State Department released the fifth annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report marked by a press briefing by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Ambassador John R. Miller, Senior Advisor on Trafficking in Persons. The Congressionally mandated report noted that Saudi Arabia was among four countries — the others are Kuwait, UAE and Qatar — that were added to the list of Tier 3 countries …”
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/ articles/ 2005/ ioi/ 050605-trafficking-rice.html
So, his point was that if we allow the Chinese in and nobody has been whining then this garbage is xenophobia.
Or you can look at the crux of this issue: that they got special treatment for a rush job to get their contract approved, and with their contract they are mildly responsible to the US government. And the general opinion is that no foreign government should be in charge of our port security. Period.
The point is that this country has more ties to Osama than Iraq and we are giving them special treatment. Did the Chinese have ties to a terrorist that killed thousands of Americans? Or are you saying we should rise up against China? I thought George said (this week) that aiding a terrist makes you just as guilty. These guys are just as guilty by his standards. Maybe if George didn’t flip-flop so much….
February 26th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThis WW2 veteran, watched McCain very carfully, I don’t like to admit it but he’s had some cancer and there may be some still lingering in his temple, his scared look seemed to be back in Saigon, under torture. A while back he said Israel don’t torture, No John, “They just blow them away” Retire John McCain your loosing it. ole vet
February 26th, 2006 at 2:36 pmbush said it again on friday:
February 26th, 2006 at 2:39 pm“…America makes no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. If you harbor a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorists, and you’re an enemy of the United States of America.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2006/ 02/ 20060224.html
There are reasonable arguments in favor of the port deal IF you believe that markets always rule, that money is the only thing that matters. Most republicans believe that, but most Americans don’t.
Classic non-sequitur statement … if you don’t understand the ramifications of the port deal, perhaps you shouldn’t comment on it. Since support (and rejection) of this deal is, amazingly, bi-partisan, your projection of your own opinion onto “most Americans” is specious at best.
While it certainly is a financial deal, the money factors pale to the geo-political ones. Undoubtedly, I’m wasting my time trying to explain this … anyone who could casually link “Republicans” into one homogenous and static group is either 10 years old or blithely partisan.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI tend to agree with Abby in #5.
This sounds an awful lot like something that should be the subject of a treaty rather than a straight business contract. And treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the US Senate. Not a certainty at all, and probably why they tried to bypass Congress.
Also, if when putting together the deal they realized that extra security measures should be part of it, then doesn’t that prove that national security was a concern? Because if it was, then by law they were required to conduct the investigation. How could they argue around that?
February 26th, 2006 at 2:40 pmI was extremely disappointed with the morning pundits today.
Everyone talked about the Dubai deal like they were somehow so much more erudite than the average American, and that we are worried about this deal for no reason.
Maybe they don’t know that the firm in charge of operations has control over many security procedures, has access to classified data and literally can decide what comes in, what gets targeted for inspection and what constitutes a threat.
They want to convince us its a racial issue. In fact, they turned it into a racial issue.
But its not.
Its a common sense issue.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:41 pmFrom where I sit (which is pretty low) this is a no brainer.
We don’t need to discuss terms, we don’t need to investigate it longer, we just need to NIX it.
I don’t care if Arabs feel discriminated against. Just because someone feel slighted doesn’t mean we need to show our enemy our ASS.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:43 pmMcCain for some reason believes that he must move more to the extreme right than George Bush on every issue! He wants more troops in Iraq; he wants Iran completely destroyed; he wants to invade Syria; he wants the ports turned over to UAE! It is time for McCain to retire from Senate and politics!
February 26th, 2006 at 2:46 pmGiacomo,
Where’ve you been? Lobotomy? Sex change? No really, all kidding aside, hope all’s well…
Classic non-sequitur statement … if you don’t understand the ramifications of the port deal, perhaps you shouldn’t comment on it.
Like that ever stops the Right?
While it certainly is a financial deal, the money factors pale to the geo-political ones.
Comment by Giacomo — February 26, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
So, are you for it or against the deal? I couldn’t tell.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pmEven if this wasn’t a security risk, which it is, but even if it wasn’t, its a slap in the face of every American who died in the Trade Center, on Flight 93 and at the Pentagon on that terrible and bloody day.
Its a slap in the face to invite a country that provided 2 of the hijackers to come and manage our nations Ports of Entry.
Its an insult and a disgrace.
The Arabs, including Arab Americans need to stop worrying about feeling prejudiced against and understand it is unreasonable so early after 911, to expect us to open our seaports to an Arab Muslim nation that LAUNDERED THE MONEY FOR 911 and PROVIDED 2 HIJACKERS!
Its unseemly, and its too soon.
Give it another decade or two.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:48 pmAs for me and my house, we are AGAINST this deal even being CONSIDERED.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:48 pmAmericans know one thing about UAE:
2 of the 911 Terrorists came from there.
Americans can’t even find UAE on a map.
McCain needs to get back on his psychiatric meds.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:49 pmI don’t care if Arabs feel discriminated against. Just because someone feel slighted doesn’t mean we need to show our enemy our ASS.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
I’ve sort of been on the fence about the implications of this thing. I don’t know whether UAE is a real threat or if the whole War on Terror was mostly hype. I don’t trust the Bush Regime to be honest, so I’m inclined to believe that the initial claims of Terrorism were smoke and mirrors. That Osama was truly a microcosm of an extremist Islamic sect, who the Middle East saw the way see see guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell - crackpot zealots.
But regardless of the threat-non thraet issue, I don’t think any forgeign country should be protecting out ports. It not only goes against the purpose of National Security in general, but it goes against plain old common sense.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pmThats right unbelievable. Our ports should have been Federalized after 911.
Any real President who was concerned with Homeland Defense would have done that.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pmAny real President who was concerned with Homeland Defense would have done that.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
That combined with all of his vacationing at the time makes you wonder how much of this threat of terrorism is real, doesn’t it?
February 26th, 2006 at 3:01 pmI don’t know whether UAE is a real threat or if the whole War on Terror was mostly hype.
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
The UAE is a definate threat. They provided not only 2 of the Hijackers, but they also helped finance the major part of the operations for the 911 attacks, and they also were implicated in smuggling nuclear weapons and technology.
Its insane to think they suddenly cleaned up their act after just a few short years.
And even if they did, how do we know they are not infiltrated by Al-Qaida operatives?
The whole thing is unseemly.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:02 pmThis is not a racial matter.
The color of their skin is in no way a factor.
This is a common sense matter.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pmPost 40 the airports should have been federalized too with troops guarding them, instead of white shirted custom guards without guns! Also the borders with Mexico and Canada would be guarded by troops if Bush really cared about our nation’s security! I think unbelievable is partly correct that the so-called “War on Terrorism” is a overhyped pile of steaming baloney, but still smart to protect seaports, airports and borders!
February 26th, 2006 at 3:04 pmIf it wasn’t for the UAE, North Korea and Iran would not have the nuclear technology they have now.
Everyone should watch Jack Cafferty on CNN. He’s doing a special on it right now.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:06 pmPost 44.
EXACTLY!!!
February 26th, 2006 at 3:06 pmArab factions have always been fighting amongst themselves.
Our current strategy is DOOMED to FORCE us to pick sides in these wars, and thus the perpetual state of war that Herr Busch and his cronies envision becomes a reality.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pmOur strategy should have been to SECURE our borders, strengthen our Air and Naval defenses, and put a moratoreum on immigration for 5 or 10 years, particularly from Arab countries.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:09 pmThe whole thing is unseemly.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
There’s a history teacher at my school who is amazing. When I get a break, sometimes I’ll go listen to his lecture. I managed a couple weeks ago or so, to catch his class on Islam.
In order to understand Islam, he said, you should understand that part of teh world. It’s hot, with limited resources and a lot of people. As a result, they fight constantly over survival. To them, fighting is their culture. That’s the way of life they know. And that’s the way it has been for many generations.
Makes sense that if you live under inhospitable conditions, you become inhospitable. Just the reality of life, and evolution of culture along with genetics.
What I don’t understand his is reasoning WHY this was necessary? We’re the wealthiest nation in the world. Why can’t we internally fund our own security? We clearly have the means and the resources… and even greedy American companies willing to feed from the trough.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pmUnbelievable
I’ve been lurking some … been busy at work as well. As things stand right now, I’m for this deal. As I alluded to earlier, the geo-political concerns of this deal are paramount. As I see it 1) treating one ally in good standing (Britain) differently than another (UAE) is extremely poor form and gives the jihadists of the world “proof” that the US is anti-Muslim. 2) as we continue toward a more global economy, international competition for bids (here in the US) is an inevitability, restricting this bid because the owners are Arabs (lets be honest, that’s why we’re concerned) smacks of reactionary thinking and is counter-productive economically (please note that economic issues don’t trump safety, though). 3) this deal reeks of quid pro quo, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing … in fact, it could be evidence of the Bush administration possessing a brain … Arab support in the W.O.T. is badly needed and an adequate “trading” point (please note that W.O.T. issues don’t trump safety, though). 4) Lastly, there is a cavernous difference bewteen “operations” in a port and “safety” of a port … the former speaks to loading and unloading, ship mgmt, etc., the latter is the crucial component (and as far as I’ve read, would remain unchanged). People have argued, perhaps incorrectly, that the UAE company would be privvy to too much of our safety capabilities. I reserve final judgment until I know the answer to this question. I will say that if the UAE company did know such information, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they’d hand it to Al Qaeda … it doesn’t. Since the USA retains the security of these ports (and since this security, while far from perfect, has been improving steadily) … I’m pro the deal (for now).
February 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pmWhich would make the Arab nations feel more persecuted?
Being denied entrance into our country (A privilege not a right) or being denied of the right to breath Oxygen? (A right not a privilege).
Cause right now we are going to their countries and denying them the right to live.
I think they would have preffered my plan in the long run.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI think unbelievable is partly correct that the so-called “War on Terrorism†is a overhyped pile of steaming baloney, but still smart to protect seaports, airports and borders!
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
I don’t disagree with National Security. When you’re the wealthiest country in the world and act like a big bully bragging about it to boot, you need to keep an eye on things.
But, honestly, they could have created an American company whom to out source the protection of the ports, and then that company could have done a sub-contracted deal with the UAE and the American people wouldn’t have known about it for a long time, if ever. So, it begs to ask - why was this done so blatantly? That’s what I don’t get. Arrogance, or just lunacy? Or both?
February 26th, 2006 at 3:15 pmPost 49 unbelievable > I think that Bush himself owes the UAE for something, so this is a payback of some kind! Before Dubya became Gov. of Texas, then president, he got involved in a OIL exploration company called Harken which was financed by UAE government! Harkin never found viable oil fields so went bankrupt! In effect George owes money to the UAE on a personal level, but it is NOT our responsibility to settle his personal debts! He has NO right to sell our East Coast port operations to UAE >PERIOD.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:18 pmthey could have created an American company whom to out source the protection of the ports, and then that company could have done a sub-contracted deal with the UAE
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Now you sound like a republican, LOL.
Just kidding Unbel, but this is something that would have made me just as mad. I don’t want the UAE having a JANITORIAL contract at our seaports,or airports. Or any place near a border.
If the UAE has a problem with it? Then tell them next time don’t finance people and provide people who fly Jet Liners into our buildings.
See that was the “dealbreaker” for worfeus.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pmGiacomo,
I understand what you’re saying, but I tend to be skeptical first and give trust slowly where I think it has been earned.
Somethings, sure, I understand the global economy argument. Things like household goods and clothing. I just don’t see allowing anyone - even Canada - to own contracts on our ports. That should be an American only job. In fact, it would give us the opporunity to create jobs for Americans. Something this Administration has not only NOT done, but has created a job loss (while we see a population increase) by outsourcing more and more jobs to other countries - as the average American slips further and further into poverty.
I just don’t see it as a good deal for the average American.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pmThere has to be an American company that can do this job, and help put Americans to work. Global is here,but we must put America first as ALL other countrys do. We can not let WTO control us,and any cost. Telling us that lowering our living standards is ok, is BULLSHIT.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pmIn effect George owes money to the UAE on a personal level, but it is NOT our responsibility to settle his personal debts! He has NO right to sell our East Coast port operations to UAE >PERIOD.
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
I’d heard it was questionable as to who funded George Junior’s multiple failed endeavors to find oil in Texas, and that it most certainly wasn’t Daddy. Would make sense that outside sources would be interested in owning him. Especially with his interest in politics.
Yeah, Jay, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:26 pmNow you sound like a republican, LOL.
Not that I condone it - just that I know how these people operate having been a part of Corporate America for 14 years.
Just kidding Unbel, but this is something that would have made me just as mad. I don’t want the UAE having a JANITORIAL contract at our seaports,or airports. Or any place near a border.
We need more jobs for Americans and American residents anyway…
If the UAE has a problem with it? Then tell them next time don’t finance people and provide people who fly Jet Liners into our buildings.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Did they know that they were specifically financing 9/11? Or were they financing Osama in the same general way as Reagan and Bush Senior?
February 26th, 2006 at 3:29 pmthis is a major worry for me:
“The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on US soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate US government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to US approvals of foreign sales in other industries.”
February 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pmhttp://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2006/ 2/ 25/ 111940/ 343
#50
The Coast Guard comes up with the security plan and the port owners are the parties responsible for carrying that plan out.
At the very least this gives every foriegn port owner access to the Coast Guards’s security practices.
When the Coast Guard was asked by Washington to determine how much it would cost to secure our ports they estimated something like 7 Billion over 5 years.
Bush has given them 170 million to work with.
So much for port security.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI cannot respect or trust John McCain. He is a sell out. He compromised himself when he hugged Bush after Bush stabbed him and his family.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pmI like the answer in #1, motherlowman when he compared McCain’s illogical argument to a comparison between the babysitting choice of Jeffrey Dahmer or John Gacy.
There may be reasonable arguments to be made in this case, but the WH is not making them. They tried to slip this one under the door and it flies in the fact of Bush’s words,
“if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist.”
oops “flies in the face”
February 26th, 2006 at 3:33 pmOh they knew. They were STATE run banks.
They knew. And they are still probably financing operations.
See, heres the real problem. People will laugh, but I know its true.
We just don’t have enough agents who speak Farci. We can’t translate real time.
This makes examining computer documents, listening to conversations, etc very difficult, and creates a perfect breeding ground for all sorts of skullduggery.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pmWhen there is a security problem with the ports in the future, we will not have a paper trail in the U.S. nor will we have am American liason, as Katy points out in her post #59.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:36 pm“if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist.â€
Comment by Marie — February 26, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
Except that he has Presidential Pardon powers and isn’t afraid to use them if there’s so much as a nickle in it for him and his cronies.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:37 pmIt has been proven that some UAE princes went to Afghanistan in 1998-9 to meet with Osama himself, so they have more than economic ties to him! President Clinton was unable to bomb Osama once because UAE royalty was there and he was told by CIA not to kill them! I feel the whole deal is a need to payback the UAE by George, but we should NOT be put at risk for his stupid business deals!
February 26th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#50 Comment by Giacomo
As I see it 1) treating one ally in good standing (Britain) differently than another (UAE) is extremely poor form and gives the jihadists of the world “proof†that the US is anti-Muslim.
UAE is not or should not be an ally in good standing. With their history and relationship with Osama, they should be considered a provisional ally under constant review. They are NOT in the same class as Britain. That has NOTHING to do with whether they are Muslim or not. That is a red herring argument. Going ahead with this deal, especially considering the lowered requirements on DPW/UAE, gives the jihadists of the world proof that the US is a fool for money/oil/power. And an easy mark for another terror attack.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. When the hell is this country going to learn that?! US administrations have been burned repeatedly on that score, as in Osama, as in Saddam, and on and on.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#29 and #59, Katy,
February 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pmSorry, I have apparently done it again — posted a comment and then found that you had said something similar.
We just don’t have enough agents who speak Farci. We can’t translate real time.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
We have thousands of former Iraqi citizens in this country who hated Saddam (why they left), who would love to translate. I know a couple personally. They speak perfect English and are highly educated to boot.
The lack of logical abilities of the people running this country is appalling.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pmIts insane Jay.
After all the corruption, scandals, charges of incompetence and bungling, we should not even be having this discussion.
How can the people sit still?
February 26th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#50 But Giacomo…
I sense from your comments that you would be inclined to let the deal go through unless something comes out that would make it a bad idea, while I am inclined to say let’s not let the deal go through until we’re sure there isn’t anything to worry about. More of a “better safe than sorry” approach which, I’m sure you can agree, would make our citizens feel safer.
As to your points, I would add this:
1) This is not a matter of treating “one ally” differently from another. The British company is a privately-owned one wile the Dubai company is owned by its government. It makes no difference to me which country it is, or what their skin color (which makes no difference to me about anything), or what their religious beliefs. It is simply the idea that another country could have operational control over what comes into and goes out of our ports is not wise from a national security perspective. Which leads me to…
2) Were any American companies that manage ports even given the opportunity to obtain this contract? Why not? If it was going to change hands, why couldn’t it be the law that the contract must revert competitive bidding?
3) I do agree that the deal reeks of quid pro quo, but I disagree that this is not necessarily a bad thing. For me personally, I am curious as to how the president’s longtime family friend James R. Bath fits into all this. Mr. Bath had a lot to do with the president obtaining his personal fortune. And besides, without the benefit of the mandatory investigation that they tried to avoid, what else in there in this quid pro quo that we don’t know about?
4) And lastly, you are correct to note the concern that the UAE might be privy to too much information, but I would be more concerned about the individuals who get their hands on such information. It might be an office clerk who sees the information pass through his desk that also passes copies to bad people. Not saying that’s been happening, but absent any kind of investigation, how could we be certain? Also, if we let a foreign government control our ports, what if they decide to retaliate against us for something by refusing ships with much-needed supplies from entering our ports to unload? How do we ensure our security then?
While I am not a huge fan of the “9/11 changed everything” line of defense for some of the changes we’ve made, I find it hard to accept that 9/11 didn’t change our view of the wisdom of letting foreign governments control access to our country. We should be doing more to control all of our borders, north, south, east and west.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThere is no way this deal should even be on the table.
It shows just how weak Congress is, and how apathetic the nation is.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pmI feel the whole deal is a need to payback the UAE by George, but we should NOT be put at risk for his stupid business deals!
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
I wholly agree. It simply makes too much sense.
But King George is an egocentric little bastard. It’s all about him.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pmThe enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. When the hell is this country going to learn that?! US administrations have been burned repeatedly on that score, as in Osama, as in Saddam, and on and on.
Comment by CZ-1 — February 26, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Absolutely! I don’t understand why we don’t look at countries like Switzerland, Norway and Canada and see that not only are they living betterthan we are, but that no one is flying planes into their buildings - and then learn something about diplomacy and genuine National Security…
February 26th, 2006 at 3:46 pmWayne,
Great post #71.
I think in fact, 911 changed nothing.
Its still business as usual for these guys.
If 911 had changed everything, millions of illegal aliens would not be waltzing across our borders, Nations who sponsor terrorisim would not be in bed with our government and our National Guard would be here at the ready to defend the states from invasion, instead off stirring up a hornets nest in the middle east.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pmlook at countries like Switzerland, Norway and Canada and see that not only are they living betterthan we are, but that no one is flying planes into their buildings
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Great point!
Maybe our dads were right when they told us if we don’t want trouble, then don’t go looking for it.
We could learn a lot from the Swiss.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pmPost 70 WORFEUS > I think a clear majority of Americans NO longer trust Bush because of this dirty deal with the UAE, but most of our Senators and Reps. appear to NOT understand this charade, or are too scared of Cheney to really stop it? This should be the last straw for the Congress to impeach Dubya and Dicky!
February 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pmmarie - how ’bout that! i enjoy it actually!
February 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pmyour posts are always very thoughtful, so when we duplicate so often, i feel so smart!
It shows just how weak Congress is, and how apathetic the nation is.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Not only is George treating them like a subservient branch, but they are letting him…
So, what did Mr. Cafferty have to say?
February 26th, 2006 at 3:50 pmThis should be the last straw for the Congress to impeach Dubya and Dicky!
Comment by Jay Randal — February 26, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
I think it is.
Lets hope someone like Patrick Fitzgerald thinks so too.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:52 pmWhat I mean by that is a good man.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:52 pmMaybe our dads were right when they told us if we don’t want trouble, then don’t go looking for it.
We could learn a lot from the Swiss.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
Yeah, hard to argue with that bit of sage advice.
Unfortunately, George thinks he can invent a better wheel…
February 26th, 2006 at 3:53 pmSo, what did Mr. Cafferty have to say?
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Well I only caught the last 10 minutes or so, but from what I heard, not too much.
Its like the news stations put pressure on the news casters to not be too hard on this deal.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:57 pmOn THIS WEEK this morning they made it sound like to question this deal was not only stupid, but racist.
I never heard such a weak repsonse.
Earlier this week they were all up in arms about it, now they seem like they want it to go through.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pmIts like the news stations put pressure on the news casters to not be too hard on this deal.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Coward media…
February 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pmNot only is George treating them like a subservient branch, but they are letting him…
Comment by unbelievable — February 26, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Bush thinks Congress is “Cute”.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pmHe’s always ready to “listen to their suggestions”.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pm#50 Muslims attacked us. Muslims express a desire to destroy the U.S. If we are NOT anti-Muslim, then we are the insane ones.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pmBush thinks Legislation constitutes “suggestions“
February 26th, 2006 at 4:02 pmAnd Bush wonders why we call him a Hitler.
Hitler did the EXACT same things.
The EXACT same things.
Anyone who studied WW2 should have seen this right away.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:03 pmwayne #72 - “…absent any kind of investigation, how could we be certain?…”
we’d never be certain because there wouldn’t BE any investigation: (see #60)
February 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pm“The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on US soil, where they would be subject to court orders…”
http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2006/ 2/ 25/ 111940/ 343
And Bush wonders why we call him a Hitler.
Anyone who studied WW2 should have seen this right away.
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Sounds like all but that lunatic fringe of 35% do… but if he thinks Congress is ‘cute’, then clearly he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what We the People think. Yep… Hitler.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:06 pm#88 Sorry to disagree, but it was radical fundamentalist Muslims who attacked us, nit your average eveyday Muslims. To say we must be anti-Muslim because of what a few extremsist did is like saying we should be anti-Christian because of what the KKK did.
You can’t condemn all followers of a religion just because a few of them pervert it for their own murderous purposes.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:07 pmInformation on our port security floating around, but I am sure Katy no one would do anything like selling it to the highest bidder, would they?
February 26th, 2006 at 4:07 pmInformation on our port security floating around, but I am sure Katy no one would do anything like selling it to the highest bidder, would they?
Comment by WORFEUS — February 26, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Funny considering in all other matters, government contracts go to the LOWEST bidder…
February 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pmI have to agree with Wayne on # 88.
I am definately not Anti-Muslim. I believe in live and let live.
My right to swing ends where your nose begins kinda of thing.
I just believe that foreign, Arab Muslims attacked us, so foreign Arab Muslims should be denied entrance into our country until we can sort this whole thing out.
Is that too much to ask?
February 26th, 2006 at 4:10 pmSeems like the Sunday TV talk shows are spin programs for the Bush Regime! The press on Mondays uncovers a new Bush scandal, and by Fridays it cools down a bit, then on Sundays it gets buried beneath mounds of pundent crap >lol.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:12 pmYou can say that again Jay.
I used to be a huge fan of Russert and Stephanopolis, but lately I think they are all part of the deal.
Maybe someones threating their lives, who knows? Maybe their jobs? Or maybe they are all so much smarter than us.
But today I was depressed watching them. It was like listening to Scott Mcllelan.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:15 pmI mean This Week had that racist witch Tori Clarke, who was Rummy’s Chief of Staff.
Whats up with that? Thats part of the round table? Someone right out of the Administration?
February 26th, 2006 at 4:17 pm#96 Worfeus,
Thanks, but I think we need the cooperation of some of the “foreign Arab Muslims” in order to help us find the ones who would do us harm. That’s not equivalent to saying we should give up control of our ports and borders to them, but we do need their help. I think we’ll all be much safer with their help than without it.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:18 pmI will be back later > keep up all the good posts everyone!
February 26th, 2006 at 4:20 pmYou might be right Wayne, but I have to respectfully disagree.
We’ve been doing it that way for a 100 years, how about giving the Mote and Drawbridge thingy a try for a few years?
The other way just doesn’t seem to be working.
How about pulling up the drawbridge, putting some croc-a-gators in the mote, and not F#$$@#K with anyone for a decade or two?
February 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pmLet’s give that a try for a while.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:24 pmYou are so right, and it is not just sarcasm. Bush has demostrated this over 500 times with his “signing statements” when signing legislation into law. He’ll take the law as a suggestion and disregard it if he wishes.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:26 pm…………..cocaine is a hell of a drug.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:27 pmMcCain is a fuzzy thinking power crazed ass licking opportunist! This man who seems to have no fixed center beliefs is rapidly becoming incredibly dangerous by panderiing to every group and saying what ever he has to say to get elected!
February 26th, 2006 at 4:28 pmI think he scares me more than Bush!
Worfeus,
I can understand the frustration that would drive one to want to do that. We tried to be an example to the world and this is how we get repaid? Screw ‘em all! Stay on your own side of the water! But that wouldn’t really work in the long run, now would it?
I freely admit that I don’t have all the answers, but that’s in no small part to the fact that I don’t have all the facts, either. For example, when I first learned of this DPW deal, I had no idea that government-owned Chinese companies were already controlling some of our West Coast ports in much the same way that DPW would be controlling these East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. As I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let any other country control our ports, unless possibly you’re talking about Canada and Mexico helping to control any jointly run ports. They, at least, are peaceful neighbors.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:30 pmI wish this guy would just shut up . He straddles the fence for his own benefit , he’s a phony .
February 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pmYou talkin to me MichDem?
February 26th, 2006 at 4:32 pmWell a British country was running the ports before, and what is actually happening is they are being bought out by the UAE.
I don’t really have a problem with England doing anything here, they were our orginal Soveriegn after all. America is technically a British Colony. A rebellious one, but still a settlement of England.
Having England run certain things is like having your grandparents watch your kids.
Having the UAE do it, is like hiring the family of the Drunk Driver that ran over your brother to watch your children.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWhat America needs now more than anything, is a little humility.
We need to humble ourselves and learn from successful nations, like Switzerland and Holland. Look at Belgium.
Either that or watch more Star Trek. (Remember the Prime Directive?)
February 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pmWorfeu,
Perhaps you “misspoke”, but you said “a British country was running the ports…”. Did you mean “British company“? And the babysitting analogy is interesting. I haven’t decided what to think of it yet, in terms of how dead on it is. But it is food for thought.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:40 pmYes, good catch wayne. I did mean British Company.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pmOh you liked the Babysitting analogy? :D
Thats a Worfeus original.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:43 pmThis is not a racial matter with the people of Dubai.
Americans don’t care what color their skin is. We care about the two UAE Nationals who flew 747’s into our buildings.
We care about the government of the UAE financing people to fly 747’s into our buildings.
We care about the UAE providing Nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea.
We care about the UAE supporting the Taliban.
But they pull that race card and play America like a 50 cent plastic Banjo.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:47 pmPeople dancin all over themselves trying to not look like racists.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pmWhats amazing is how many pundits, political analysts and tv journalists are working overtime to demonstrate how many reasons they can think for this thing to go through.
It seems like the in thing to come up with a hundred reasons why the UAE deal is good for America.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:50 pmUAE is not or should not be an ally in good standing. With their history and relationship with Osama, they should be considered a provisional ally under constant review. They are NOT in the same class as Britain. That has NOTHING to do with whether they are Muslim or not. That is a red herring argument.
Well, considering that they ARE an ally in good standing, it’s not a red herring. While I agree that there is certainly a difference between Britain and the UAE, this difference is emotional and esoteric (but accurate) … it’s not a political difference, unofrtunately. Bush must operate on this political field and can’t defer to the “since we all know that Britain is a “better” friend than the UAE, we should block the port deal” … that’s a logical statement, but not one that can be acted upon politically … one can’t just be judicious … there’s more at play.
Wayne
As far as I’ve read, this UAE company is extremely professional and an excellent “port manager”, if you will. I agree that they’re a state-owned entity, but that has more to do with funding (ala France and Airbus) than it does political capital.
American companies either did not bid, or did not bid enough. (I’ve read that we don’t have a company that’s this large). Some have suggested setting up a company to run the ports, but that type of economic interference is what we hate the Chinese for (e.g. their stae owned oil companies) … the US leaves it to the private sector … interestingly enough, I have a sneaky suspicion that if this company were Chinese, the deal would be blocked.
Oddly enough, many of the liberals are out “hawking” me on this one … my opinion is definitely based upon my belief that the US has 1) the ability to monitor these ports extremely well (and that they’re “efforting” this) 2) the ability to monitor this company sufficiently. I’ve also heard it said that with the UAE company running the port, security could increase b/c they’re much better at running ports (which is why they’re a behemoth company) … to be sure, it’s not an easy answer.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:50 pmWorfeus,
I only asked about the typo because I hear a lot of presidential supporters talk about this as though there is no difference between the company being foreign and it being owned by a foreign government, and I think it’s an important distinction.
To be precise, I said the analogy was interesting, I didn’t say yet whether or not I liked it. But it did make me smile, and I haven’t yet come up with a flaw in it. Good one. :)
And Jane and I have been watching a lot of good Star Trek episodes lately on G4 network (every night at 8 PM and 9 PM EST). I find it hard to believe that conservatives would enjoy Star Trek because it is grounded in the belief that we can all work together for the benefit of mankind and that the acquisition of personal wealth will no longer drive our society. I think they feel that if you can’t make a buck off it, what’s the point? That’s why they will ultimately fail in their quest to dominate the world. There won’t be anyone around who wants to buy what they’re selling.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmWell mark my words.
If this deal goes through, we will be attacked again with 2 years.
And we will learn after the fact that this attack was facilitated by the UAE having access to our nations port security procedures.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmWayne, the P&O ended up managing these terminals because no American company bid on them.Of the top 25 companies which manage terminals,1(in Seattle) is American.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmAs I watched the hearings about this on C-SPAN,one answer from the guy from the State Dept. was the people from the 12 agencies reviewing the transaction are career government employees. As he said,the first consideration they make is security. They live here,too.
Now maybe you believe that they are all partisan hacks. To hear some of the talk radio,they are conspiring against GWB but now they’re conspiring with him. It just could be that there was a careful review and the unanimous consensus was there was nothing that could affect national security.
All of the UAE transgressions were pre-9/11. Since then they have cooperated. For example (see the Booman Tribune site)the anti-money laundering procedures in the UAE are the model for the UN resolutions in this regard.
If you don’t think an alcoholic can change or an ex-smoker isn’t more anti-smoking than a non-smoker,that’s fine,but I view this as just a business deal.
http://www.boomantribune.com
Wayne, if you like Star Trek then consider the implementation of the Prime Directive in US policy.
Everything I needed to learn in life I learned from Star Trek.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:55 pmIt makes sense to me that China runs our ports - they have a better reputation around the world than we do right now. How frightening is that?
February 26th, 2006 at 4:57 pmIF we are at war, then any REAL President would have Federalized the Ports, the Airports and moved 200 BILLION Dollars to defend our countries land borders.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:00 pmIf this deal goes through, we will be attacked again with 2 years.
Rubbish … Al Qaeda has much easier entries into this country than infiltrating a UAE company and planting members and shipping a bomb and getting it off ship and getting past security and … Heck, they could walk a bomb across the northern or southern border as easily as they could cross from North to South Carolina. I understand your hesitation with this deal, but you’re making a leap that’s extremely dubious. Erring on the side of caution is fine, but we must consider ALL the factors. This ins’t Iran or Syria we’re talking about …
Lastly, as we all consider terrorism and national protection … given the current debate, it appears to me that most believe that entry (or blocking it) into our nation is a pre-eminent liability. This may not be the case. As I said earlier, getting into the country is not that hard … planning and detonating a weapon is much harder than it used to be. We’re arguing about “access” … it’s not the only concern, and thus one can’t draw a line from ” I percieve that this offers “access”, and thus there will be attack in two years” … that’s, perhaps, a non-sequitur.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:02 pmOk, if you say so Giacomo.
I hope I’m wrong.
It would be a nice change.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#118 Giacomo,
First of all, you do realize that the first part of your post wasn’t me you were quoting.
Perhaps, in the end, it may well turn out that DPW is the best choice int he world for the job, but perhaps not. But an investigation into the question should have been launched as mandated by law. The fact that this administration tried to circumvent that bothers me.
And with the president constantly going around the country claiming that “9/11 changed everything”, I find it difficult to believe that he had no idea that this would not be an easy sell to the people. His initial official statement that he heard about it in the media was later contradicted by the report that Andrew Card told him a week before. Did he really think that nobody would say anything, after he went around the country saying we have to be more careful about our borders because of 9/11?
And why isn’t something like this not the subject of a treaty? It is, after all, a deal between two governments. Why was it ever made legal to do it this way if it should be the subject of a treaty? Wouldn’t this make for a way to do away with treaties altogether? Just establish a government-owned-and-controlled corporation to do whatever it is you want to say they do and have the US sign a contract with the company to do something on our behalf in exchange for something else? Now it’s a contract outsourcing a job instead of an agreement between two governments, and the US Senate would not have to ratify it.
Giacomo, with all due respect, I do not trust George W. Bush for a even picosecond. So when he “reassures” me of anything, his word is not good enough for me. He has a well-documented history of saying one thing and then doing the opposite when he thinks no one will notice. This isn’t partisanship, this is documented fact. President George W. Bush is not an honest man.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:07 pmAs I said earlier, getting into the country is not that hard …
Comment by Giacomo — February 26, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Precisely. Which is why I advocating making it hard.
What exactly about making it harder to infiltrate our borders are you opposed to?
February 26th, 2006 at 5:07 pmthat’s not saying much, Johnny Boy…
February 26th, 2006 at 5:11 pmIsn’t Iraq now free and a Democracy now that they’ve had elections? Since they’ve had democratic elections, then they too are freer than China. Maybe Iraq should be given control of US ports.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:14 pmplanning and detonating a weapon is much harder than it used to be.
Comment by Giacomo — February 26, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Exactly.
Please explain why you think providing the United Arab Emirates, the nation who financed 911, supplied 2 of its hijackers and recognized the Taliban, providing them with not only operation control of our nations SeaPorts, but classified access to security procedures and security operations, does not make that easier?
Because the truth is, it makes it a hell of a lot easier.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:14 pmThe 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 5:21 pmThats why we don’t even take the chance.
We have enough holes in our security that we don’t need to be introducing another thousand or so variables.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:24 pmThere was once a General who needed a driver to drive some dangerous cargo along a windy mountain road whose edge had no gaurd rail and dropped off a thousand feet.
Because of the dangerous nature of the road and the cargo, only 3 drivers applied for the job.
The general asked the first driver how good of a driver he was. The driver said “I am so good I can drive up the mountain at 10 miles an hour over the speed limit while only 10 feet from the edge”. The general thanked him and invited in the second driver, and asked him the same question.
“I am so good I can drive 20 miles an hour over the speed limit and just 5 feet from the edge of the windy road”.
The general thanked him and invited in the last driver. “How good are you” asked the general”. The driver looked at the general and said “I can drive right at the speed limit, and keep just as far away from the edge of that road as possible”.
Guess who got the job?
February 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pmWhat exactly about making it harder to infiltrate our borders are you opposed to?
Not opposed in the least … as I stated, the ports aren’t the optimal entry point and this deal shouldn’t change that. The borders are the issue, as I see it. UAE hasn’t bid on that contract yet …
February 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pmThe ports AREN’T the optimal entry point?
I’m sorry Giacomo, I am not trying to be difficult, but I beg to differ.
The ports right now are 1 of TWO entry points that are optimal for terrorists.
We have locked down our airports, and focused all of our attention on securing our Airports but ignored our harbors and seaports. Our pourous borders also make attractive entry points, however the ports are quicker.
Just on a boat and on into the center of town. No miles of open desert to cross. Just get lost in the thousands of ships coming in and out.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pmBob Baer, former CIA operative and Anti Terrorism Task force leader, said they present an “extremely attracitive target to Al Quaida”.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:40 pmIts the quickest way to get a large weapon inside of a major city.
I live in the Washinton DC region, and I can tell you that the harbor in Baltimore comes right into town, as do the ports in Philly and New York.
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 5:43 pmAnd remember, 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.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pmIf 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 5:48 pm#118 Comment by Giacomo
Well, considering that they ARE an ally in good standing, it’s not a red herring. While I agree that there is certainly a difference between Britain and the UAE, this difference is emotional and esoteric (but accurate) … it’s not a political difference, unofrtunately. Bush must operate on this political field and can’t defer to the “since we all know that Britain is a “better†friend than the UAE, we should block the port deal†… that’s a logical statement, but not one that can be acted upon politically … one can’t just be judicious … there’s more at play.
Giacomo, so it’s been about 4.5 years since 9/11/2001. Before 9/11/2001, UAE allowed al Qaeda financing to flow their country. They allowed nuclear materials and technology to flow through their country. Two of their people trained with al Qaeda to participate in the 9/11 attacks. They were and are non-Democratic—they are a bunch of little Islamic kingdoms. Now with 4.5 years of “good behavior” (note: not even completely “good”) under their belt, you consider them an ally in good standing, equally as good as Britain? There is a political difference between the two. That’s the very nature of politics. One CAN be judicious. Bush does whatever the hell he wants to. Any American president could treat UAE as less of an ally than Britain. The “more at play” that you refer to is money, power, and the good old boys club.
#121 Comment by TJM
All of the UAE transgressions were pre-9/11. Since then they have cooperated. For example (see the Booman Tribune site)the anti-money laundering procedures in the UAE are the model for the UN resolutions in this regard.
If you don’t think an alcoholic can change or an ex-smoker isn’t more anti-smoking than a non-smoker,that’s fine,but I view this as just a business deal.
“Since then they have cooperated”??? You bet I don’t think an alcoholic (such as Bush) can change or an ex-smoker. This is just a business deal—THAT’S THE PROBLEM. This is more important than just business. If you think everything changed on 9/11 (such as how we view countries that associated with terrorists), then this deal shouldn’t go through. If you think little has changed since 9/11 (such as the UAE allegiances), then this deal shouldn’t go through.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pmIf a drunk driver killed your husband Giacomo, how long would you make your daughter wait before going out with the drunk drivers son?
February 26th, 2006 at 5:59 pmI’ll cut to the quick. Everyone keeps saying that we are the richest nation on Earth. It is my observation that we are the poorest nation on Earth.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:30 pmThe United States went from a net asset nation to debtor nation somewhere between 1961 and 1965. That was the point in time when the bulk of our national debt was held by foreigners as opposed to its citizens. The exact date is hard to pin down because it is impossible to determine how many war bonds were lost in the debris of society.
We went off the Gold Standard in 1934 because we did not have enough gold to meet the national debt.
The silver standard went out in 1968 when the silver certificate became something based on a promise instead of the value of the intrinsic metal behind it - not enough silver.
Heard McCain was looking to get the Bush campaigns mailing lists. Heard Ken Mehlmann was getting on board his candidacy too. Look for a lot more dodging and weaving from him. I agree with one of the posters above. he is a sick, sick man. Lot of sharpp elbows in politics, but I cannot respect a man who gets into bed with someone who’s campaign attacked his wife and child in the way the Bush campaign did.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:45 pmRemember McCain is after all of GWB’s political backers of 2000 and 2004, so he ain’t about to throw any kind of monkey wernch into the deal and is willing to break out his knee pads for bush or any thing bush wants until the nomination is McCains.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:48 pmI’ll cut to the quick again - every air carrier into the United States is required to provide a passenger list and cargo manifest before leaving a foreign country. If there are any suspicions, the flight is diverted to a non-U.S. holding point.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pmNow, don’t ships take a bit longer than jets to cross the ocean?
I’m tired of hearing about what an honest straight talker mccain is. He is nothing but a useless whore and puppet for a White House who’s campaign trashed him during the 2000 primaries. Not only is mccain selling out the country, he doesn’t even have any self-respect.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:54 pmThere are no reasonable arguments for the sale of our ports to an arab country.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:55 pmMcCain is an asskissing puke, always has been, and always will be. The pukes promised him all the money in the world to campaign for the shrub, and he did.
Whether the shrub likes it or not this ports deal HAS TO BE approved by congress since it is in the form of a treaty with a foreign country, not a CONTRACT.
Check it out, consitutional scholars will be, so why dont all you trolls.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:05 pm