If one foreign company buys another, it’s not usually a threat to national security. But the bipartisan worry is well-founded over the $6.8 billion deal that’s about to give Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, control of U.S. seaports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. This might be fine in theory, with proper safeguards. That was the root of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s assurances Sunday. But as Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, noted, the deal’s conditions don’t relate to the company’s hiring. Especially with our ports as underprotected as they are — only 5 percent of the 2 billion annual tons of freight is examined on arrival — most Americans would be wary of any port control by foreign companies, let alone one owned by the country that was the financial and operational base of the Sept. 11 terrorists. As Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday: “It’s unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history. Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- situveux1 on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
137 Comments
It is not the ports they would own, it is the Freight docks. Which are presently owned by a British company, not even an American company owns them.
Dubai Ports World also owns docks all around Asia and Europe, including Germany and Hong Kong. This company has been shipping freight to the United States for many, many years from the busiest ports in the World. They are a legitiment business operation.
Again! There are Americans owning land and developments in UAE. So what is fair? They are not allowed to do business and own businesses in the USA while American companies and individuals are allowed to in their country?
Come on! The ports are still gaurded by the authorities and coast gaurd. It’s not like they are planning on sneaking in weapons of mass destruction (because there aren’t any) or armies in.
But people will make this a political issue. Let politics control everything. “sigh”
The UAE is far from Iran or anything like that. Actually they are probably one of the friendlist allies in the Middle East.
But it will be funny to see if this is a Democrat or Republican issue or who claims it as their own.
I’m amused that the same deocrats that still can’t see the connection between pre-war Iraq and al Qeada can immediately discern a conection between UBL and Dubai!
Amazing!
Hank
The only viable solution to all this nonsense is to make peace with the Arabs and if that interferes with Israel’s grandiose plans, well that’s just too bad. America comes first.
Maybe next we can outsource airport security to a Saudi company.
I’m sure the House of Saud will happily oblige.
Or security for the Republican National Committee to a Venezuelan company.
Consistently “unbelievably tone deaf” provides one of the kindest imaginable descriptions of President Bush and his administration.
I did not even think about that Dad.
It is funny how no one on the left can even imagine a connection between Iraq and terrorism let alone Al Qeada yet they are convinced beyond a doubt that there is a connection between this transaction and terrorism…
LOL
Dad and son – how many of the hijackers came from Iraq? How many from Saudi Arabia?
Does it matter?
That is riduculous. “Does it matter?”
I would point out before this whole mess, Al-Qaeda would have HATED Iraq. Notice the differences that would arise between a group that is militantly Islam (including keeping women stuffed away in the house as a man’s property) and a country that was secular, doing such unimaginable things like educating women. Just because they both (Al-Qaeda and Saddam) are evil doesn’t put them on the same team. It just doesn’t make sense.
Yes, it matters. They came from Saudi Arabia and had connections with the other ‘oil’ states in the Gulf – including UAE.
Hehe, good one, Ben.
Trying to argue with Hank and Nathan.
The perfect Nathan-ism: “does it matter?” In other words, do FACTS matter?
Not to them they don’t. Whatever Bush says is true. And if what he says now contradicts one hundred and eighty degrees with what he said before (like “I’d never invade a country without a clear exit strategy”), why . . . there’s no conflict at all.
You know those idiots who go to professional wrestling and think it’s real, and you wonder, “my God, who could be that dumb?”
Meet Hank and Nathan . . .
Gentle people,
There is a saying in the Muslim culture, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This is no better illustrated than in the relationship between UBL and Saddam.There is overwhelming evidence of numerous meetings between al Qaeda leaders and Iraqi intelligence offices.
There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam has funneled money to various al Qaeda operatives and various terrorist groups associated with al Qaeda.
There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam provided sites and facilities in Iraq for training al Qaeda members and associated terrorist groups.
There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam has provide safe haven to various members of al Qaeda before and after 9/11.
And finally, the Saddam tapes that ABC finally released last Saturday have Saddam talking about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center. He knew the details before the attack.
No, my liberal friends, there was a connection between Iraq and UBL and it made perfect sense.
Hank
yet they are convinced beyond a doubt that there is a connection between this transaction and terrorism…
Actually nathan, the U.A.E. had Al Qaeda assets running through their system, their are also many Al Qaeda sympathizers within the U.A.E. so sayeth BILL OREILLY in todays Factor.
Oops . . . looks like that iron facade of conservative unity is starting to crack.
First it’s George Will speaking out against the wire taps. Now it’s O’Reilly hammering Bush Co on “business before sense.” You know the Repubbies are in trouble.
BTW, Hank, Iraq is several thousand miles AWAY from the nearest US port. Even if they had ties to Al Qaeda, which they didn’t, they weren’t a real danger because they were way far away.
Get it? And you know what else?
Professional wrestling isn’t real.
Sorry to disappoint you on that one too . . .
Hank, Joe sigh, once again OH so once again! This is not about left or right, Republican or Democrat, we own this so they should own that!
Once again, THIS IS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY AND THOSE THAT WISH TO DESTROY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I wish there were so graphics so the rest of us could draw you a picture.
Give me a link on the ABC tapes that have Saddam talking about 9-11 before it happened.
What about the footage that showed Palestinians, Iraqis and Indonesians singing and dancing and praising Allah in the streets chanting “Allahu akbar!” (God is great) celebrating the attacks on 9/11? Those F***ers.
Writerdog, the same people and management running the the freight docks will be running th operation. DBW are just investors and shareholders.
ProudLib? You still on this blog you troll? This is not a place for trolls. Please leave.
“No, my liberal friends, there was a connection between Iraq and UBL and it made perfect sense.”
Do you have any credible evidence of this? I think Dick Cheney was the only other person in this country to believe this fantasy.
The Bush administration is not so much a bunch of liars as they are victims of their silly fantasies. And, the public by extension are victims, too.
“The greatest enemy of truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, pervasive and unrealistic.”John F. Kennedy
Dear ProudLib,
Don’t you ever get tired of contributing nothing but name calling? I said that Saddam was recorded talking about the attack on the World Trade Center. He knew that UBL was going to attack it again. I never said that he was specifically talking about the date.
Most of the information so far have Saddamtalking about his WMD programs and their abiity to hide them from the UN inspectors. I heard Bill Tierney a former UN inspector talking about them on one of the talk shows and he mentioned that Saddam was talking about al Qaeda attacking the WTC again.
Do a GOOGLE search, you can find a bunch of info yourself.
Hank
PS Why don’t you walk up to the Undertaker and tell him face to face that wrestling is fake?
Dear DD,
Of course I have credible evidence of this! Just because you have to go to UK newspapers or page A33 of the NYT to read about it doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist!
Hank
Hank,Please provide some links.
PL,just because our enemy is far away doesn’t mean that he would no longer be a threat to us.
Dear DD,
Why don’t you do a GOOGLE search if you are really interested in the truth?
Do you want links to evidence that Saddam supplied money to al Qaeda or terrorists organizations connected to al Qaeda? Or do you want links to evidence that Saddam provided safe haven to al Qaeda operatives?
A very good place to start would be all of the evidence that is referenced in the Senate committees 9-11 report. Or perhaps you could start with all of the evidence that the 9-11 commission referenced.
There is a very good book by Richard Miniter called ‘Disinformation’ that would open your eyes.
I’m just flabbergasted that anyone could possibly believe that Saddam was not working with UBL!
Good luck with your research!
Hank
Bin Laden’s latest tapes compares American act in Iraq to Saddam’s. Bin Laden and Saddam were not in league.
Bush will be putting out an urgent call to Patsy Roberts to cover his ass on this one too.
Bush hasn’t secured the ports in the 4 yrs. since 9/11 so what’s all the fuss about. Bush has them on the Honor System.
This may be the link Hank Priceless is talking about. The terrorism threat he is talking about is very generalized. It is about as startling as somebody telling you that you will die someday. It is really a reach. But what do you expect from somebody like him?Priceless.http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996If you are bored with Hank’s spin on the Saddam and Iraq, his 2nd favorite news source tells where Al-Qaeda is… and it isn’t Iraq.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=855866&page=1
Chertoff says he’s on top of this, not to worry.
When not even Fox is backing Bush on this one, you know it stinks!
CrusaderX, here’s a link for you about the celebrating, which was done in Palestine.
http://snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm
RD,I know I saw that report before about the Brazilian student’s claim. I reiterate what I said about those who celebrated the 9/11 attacks. F***ers!
This may well be the acid test, or the asshole test. This port deal may finally decide just who and who is not American.
Predictablly, Joe Williams is for it. Joe Willaims’s concept of loyalty is who is paying him. Economics is his master.
Of Course hank weighs in affirmative. hank might be a good guy but for his slavish devotion to the idea that all Americans (even such as Joe Wiliams and the bush Admisnistration) are for America. But then Hank lets rush tell him what to think.
Well folks us liberals said this “war on terror” was a sham. This proves it.
The United Arab Emirates would control these ports. The “company” in question is a government arm of the UAE.
The UAE was one of only 3 nations on this planet that recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan.
UAE banks funneled the funds that made the attack on 911.
Granting the UAE this control of our ports. ( are they still our ports?) would be akin to holding wide the door to terrorists. Of course with an open Mexican border this is somewhat akin to adding a firehose to a flood.
Bush has given this a pass. Cash is king. I wonder how much he is in for?
Making money is more important than human life to Darth Shrubious! It is disconcerting to know that the Emperor values monetary wealth over the expendable lives of his subjects!
Down with the Emperor!Ex nihil, Nihil sunt
AAAARRRGGGHHH!!!This pisses me off! What the hell was all that talk about keeping America safe from terrorists if that gutless coward of a President won’t act on securing the borders and seaports!? He can wiretap the citizens but he can’t keep our ports under American eyes? God! What a f***ing moron!
Crusader, you are seeing bush as he is now.
On the attack at Hoth Darth Vader declared of Admiral Ozzel:
“He is as clumsy as he is stupid”
this is declarative of bush in this matter.
Nah, f**k that! If this deal goes down, i’m voting DEMOCRAT! If not just to keep a$$hole presidents like this one out of office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/port_security
uh oh… looks like the fit has hit the shan folks!
If ever there was an issue that should be bi-partisan, it is this one. If we can’t unite to keep our ports out of foreign hands, then we are doomed.
Something that really pisses me off is they have been ’studying’ this sale for a month, thought it was a done deal, then lets the public know the results. Not the kind of govt. we should have.
No steve, but it is damn sure the govt we got!!!
To even consider turning control of our ports over to any Arab-owned company is NUTZ! Bushco has lost it’s mind. After the mess we’ve made in the middle east, I don’t trust any Arab company to run any port in the US.I’m shocked that republicans would support such a thing. They’re supposed to be so strung-out about national security, but they’re ok with handing over the “family jewels” to Arabs?
Anything King George says is ok, right guys?This should be something that we all agree on. Thank God our governors have a little more sense than the administration (or Joe and Hank/Nathan).
I agree that this sure sounds like a stupid idea on its face, both practically and politically. The administration had to know that.
It makes you wonder about what else is involved in the deal that was worth paying the political price.
Hank–
1. You say Saddam knew we were going to get hit by OBL / Al Qaeda because he had ties to them and you claim that ABC has “tapes” of him saying it.
Where are the links? Quit spinning and give us the links.
I know this is not true. Why? Because if it were true or even seemed true, Bush Co would have had it plastered in 84 point typeface on every front page in the country.
2. You ask if I ever get tired of name-calling. Actually in my previous post, I didn’t engage in name-calling. But to answer your question, when it comes to you, Nathan, and Joe W., NO, I never get tired of name-calling.
3. Your post on “calling the Undertaker” seems to indicate that you really believe that ProWrestling isn’t totally staged. Do you think Pro Wrestling is real?
Given that you believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old instead of its true age of 4-5 billion years old, I suppose anything’s possible with you . . .
Oh, and to dumb-it-down so you can understand it, Hank:
1 and 3 were questions that you can answer either “yes” or “no” to. 1. “Yes, I have the links and here they are” or “No, you caught me pulling more crap out of my hat.” 3. “Yes, I’m not an idiot. I know professional wrestling is fake” or “No, I am an idiot. I think professional wrestling is real.”
See if you can answer a “yes-no” question with a yes or no for once. Leave the mealy-mouthed spinning for the President.
Graham’s “unbelievably tone deaf” is just a more polite way of saying the Bush administration often resembles The Gang That Coudn’t Shoot Straight.
This is just more of what you get when you elect a Prez who’s far more interested in exploring the mystic contexts of his own series of spiritual epiphanies than in actually turning good ideas into good policy. What I mean is that the President often presents good ideas (the ideas come from his spiritual journey); where he goes wrong is that he’s completely inept in the implementation.
That’s where the vacation time probably fits in, too. The president takes so much vacation because his own personal road to spiritual enlightenment – the journey that to him probably resembles a series of spiritual epiphanies – requires it. In fact, I suspect that Bush is obsessed with his spiritual journey to the very real cost of the US as a whole.
The extraordinary amount of vacation taken by President Bush is probably just a manifestation of his spiritual obsession.
I just wish we had a President who could do stuff right, especially when he insists that we’re at war.
Etc.
Dear XXX,
First of all ‘control’ of our ports is not being sold to Dubai. Dubai World Ports is a management firm. A UK company that previously owned the management rights to these ports has been bought by Dubai World Ports. Control of the ports still resides with the individual State’s port authority.
This approval by the White house has been carefully vetted with the knowledge of the administrations of the individual states. Any shock and outrage you now see by the local politicians is nothing but political cover.
The security of our ports has not been sold to Dubai. The security and sasfety of our ports still is in our hands. Local state governments and the Coast Guard are still responsible for our security in the ports.
The management of the ports will not change. The same managers that are in place now will be in place after the sale.
The workers in the port will not change. The ILA will still be in charge of the union labor.
The profits from the operational management of the ports will now go to Dubai instead of the UK. This is the only change. Since no US firm was getting the profits before, for all practical purposed that is not a change that affects any American.
No American company exists that can manage these ports. There was only four companies in the world that did this sort of port managerment, The UK company has been sold to the Dubai company. Mersk is one of the companies and it is Danish. Not big enough to make the purchase and not interested. The other remaining company is Chinese.
Dubai World Ports has an excellent record in managing ports world wide. Dubai was the first port that allowed American inspectors local access to their port. Allowing us to set up security measure at the source of shipments from UAI to the US.
The liberals and politicians that are week on defense; the same ones that act as defense attorneys for al Qaeda; the same ones that rejoiced at scoring political points for “killing the Patriot Act”; the same ones that will defend the right of a NYT reporter to sell out our countries secrets to sell a book; these are the politicians that now are using your and others irrational hatred of ‘everything Bush’ to try and score another cheap political point.
So, now I ask you. If not Dubai World Ports, who? The only option left is placing management control in the hands of the very politicians that you hate!
Hank
Outlander “It makes you wonder about what else is involved in the deal that was worth paying the political price.”
I guess that is what we get when the preznit is so consumed by his delusions that he and his “reality based community” are above the law, above reality, above the media, above the voters and above the truth.
He already knows he wont pay a political price. The hank/nathan/barb/joe’s etc of the world will let him do whatever he wants with no penalty. I wonder if bush had designs on their wives/mothers if that would be ok with them too?
I said several weeks ago, it looks like bush gets a free pass, no matter if they find a live boy, a dead girl, or a hammered kitten in his bed. Or Ossama’s GPS coordinates.
It is all ok if bushco does it.
Dear ProudLib,
You add nothing to the discussion. Your lame attempt at sarcasm is becoming tedious.
I still love ya, hell you even make Ian look good!
Hank
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
If you wish to be taken seriously in the debate, you must get past your contempt for opposing viewpoints and your irrational hate of Bush.
Referencing names in your posts witout any intelligent attempt to refute their arguments makes you no more influential in the debate than ProudLib.
When are you coming to get your truck washed?
Hank
The problem with DWP is that it’s state-owned. The state is UAE. UAE either brokered or sold parts and/or plans for nuclear devices to Iran and maybe North Korea. (plans courtesy of AE Khan, the infamous Pakistani nuclear evangelist)
UAE’s financial system allowed some of the 9/11 al Qaeda terrorists to hold and withdraw funds prior to the attack.
Since DWP is state owned, and since the state is an Arab one with very real ties to terrorism (including valid ties to nuclear terrorism), who will control the kinds of DWP employees who will be visiting US ports as a normal part of their job?
Ans: UAE, not USA.
To put this in a perspective the administration claims to understand well, allowing DWP to manage US ports is akin to chucking “just say no” as a primary method of birth control.
After all, no DWP, no immediate access of UAE citizens to US ports.
To further complicate matters, DHS Sec. Chertoff – the Bush administration cabinet officer now in charge of “homeland” security – insists that good trade policy (allowing DWP to do port security work) is on a par with US national security. Which both he and the administration claim is his job number one.
Madness.
Dear flike,
You must take a deep breath and get a grip.
The United States still controls access of foriegn citizens to our country. Management of the ports will still be centralized in the UK. The same British managers that were in charge last year will be in charge next year.
Hank
Dear flike,
What is your option? Our management control of the ports was lost years ago when Carter allowed the British to take control.
What is your solution, government control?
Hank
Jimmy Carter supports this. That’s all I really needed to confirm it’s a horrible idea.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation
Dear Todd,
Yea, I wasn’t going to mention Carter’s support. That’s the only thing about this deal tht scares me! If little Jimmy is on your side, you’re probably on the wrong side!
However, the Arabs bought Jimmy years ago. He’s an honest politician, when you buy him he stays bought!
Hank
I don’t have one, Hank.
But if you’re telling me that the Bush administration can spy at will on American citizens but we are forced to cede control of our ports to UAE through DWP, then I’m thinking we have far more serious problems than the one you present.
I’m sure the same country that put a man on the moon in 1969 can think its way out of this “problem.”
True flike,
But we must think!
Again your irrational hatred of Bush is clouding your thinking! There is no evidence that Bush was spying on American citizens.
You are behind. Even the politicians that scored there political points on the ‘domestic spying’ have now been briefed by the AG and have moved on.
The polls don’t support the fight, and the liberals with no plan, no sense of patriotism, and no values have to move on.
DWP doesn’t have control of our ports! They merely have bought the right to profit from our port’s operations. They earn this profit by the management of the ports.
Nothing else will change.
The very first step and the most important step to the solution of any problem is to define the problem. Think! If we allow the liberal politicians to define the problem in terms of political trouble for Bush, then we might not like the solution.
Think! What is the problem?
Hank
“There is no evidence that Bush was spying on American citizens.”
No Hank, no evidence other than their own admission. After all, it was a wide net and honest and innocent ‘mericans had nothing to worry about if they got wiretapped.
I wont be washing my truck until I see my lawyer and I need money to do that!!
Gee Hank, everybody but you is calling it “control of our ports”. Believe it or not, I watch Fox News. Not 10 minutes ago, they refered to it as “control of our ports”. Since Fox said it, you’ll probably want to back up on your assertion about control. Or maybe you’d rather admit that Fox might be wrong?
So who’s right Hank? You or Fox News?(This should be interesting)
I think the problem is that the President’s going to lose this one.
I also think that, in this instance, his losing means the US wins.
This is a no-brainer.
$0.04
“The United States still controls access of foriegn citizens to our country.”
Hey Hank, aren’t you usually one of the guys complaining about what a bad job the u.s. does in terms of boarder control?
And Hank, since we are on the subject, what WOULDNT you approve of bush doing? :)
This time it’s a few conservatives displaying why idealogues suck.
OMG! He couldn’t do it, Hank could not do it.
He could not say “yes, I have the link and here it is” or “no, I don’t have the link.”
No wonder he’s a staunch Republican–he’s “keeping his options open” on what is true for any given day . . .
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
First of all, I don’t think I’ve ever posted my views on border security. I might have, but I’ve slept since then and I’ve forgotten. For the record, I think our border security sucks. Bashing Bush is not the solution.
As far as Bush is concerned, I’ve been a little annoyed with him ever since he originally campaigned on his ‘compassionate conservative’ BS. Oh, I know that it was just a political ploy to win the hearts and minds of the middle moderate, but it implies that until he came along conservatives weren’t compassionate. Futhermore, I don’t consider Bush to be a conservative. He has very liberal views on both domestic and foriegn policy.
So, in answer to your second question, there is a bunch of stuff that Bush does that I disagree with.
Hank
Dear ProudLib,
I don’t like yor attitude and I have to confess I didn’t read your posts very thourougly. I read for content and I very seldom find any in your posts.
I think that professional wrestling is more real and sincere than most of the agenda of the DNC.
In answer to another of your questions, Yes.
Love ya, you’re still making me look good.
Hank
Unbelievable (well, actually all TOO believable) Hank.
I just brought up professional wrestling because you seem like the TYPE of person who thinks it’s real.
I never dreamed that you REALLY watch it and think that sh*t is for real.
As a high school and college wrestler, I can tell you without qualification or hesitation that everything about professional wrestling is utterly fake.
That’s why professional “wrestlers” have to get acting licenses.
As for the “Undertaker,” I think I could take him. I think any real wrestler could. When I lived in a frat house at college, every year they had a wrestling match between the actives and the pledges. Since I was trying out for the wrestling team at the time, they pitted me against the biggest, toughest SOB they could find. I weighed 132 lbs. This guy out weighed me by one-hundred pounds, he was solid muscle from weight-lifting, and he won a golden-gloves in boxing.
I pinned him in 30 seconds.
It’s the difference between knowing how to wrestling and not knowing.
Hank if you think that our boarder security sucks, why does saying the u.s. still controls access make a good argument for this thread? The same people are in charge, NO MATTER WHO IS PREZNIT! When Hillary is prez, will this port thing still be ok?
So, Hank, I’ll write s l o w for you from now on . . .
Save your fingers, Ksfrmgrl. Asking Hank to think is like teaching a chimp to talk.
If he could do it, he would have done it by now.
Dear ProudLib,
I lose, you win. I never said that I watched professional wrestling. I never said that I enjoyed professional wrestling or that I thought it was real. I meely said that I thought it was more real and sincere than the agenda of the DNC.
The fact that you know who the Undertaker is means you know as much about pro wrestling as I do.
So, you win. I lose. Anyone that tries to carry on an intelligent discussion with you is automatically a loser. I am a loser. You win.
Still love ya,
Hank
PS In a match between you and the Undertaker, I’ll take the Undertaker!
Hank Falstaff–no matter what he says, he can always figure out a way to “un-say” it.
Really sad, Hank. Just sad.
BTW, where are those links to the ABC footage of Saddam Hussein talking about 9-11 BEFORE it happened?
Oh, that’s right, the joke is STILL in your hand.
Sad.
As is the case with almost every topic on this blog website, Proudlib has to make it about the person and not the topic.
You don’t further your case or prove you are any more correct by making this personal.
Nathan–I’m asking Hank to prove his statement that Saddam H. knew and talked about an Al Qaeda attack before it happened. He has the ABC footage to prove it.
Except you know what, Nathan, he can’t produce that evidence.
You know why Nathan?
Because it doesn’t exist.
Now, what do you call a person who makes stuff up and tries to pass it off as true, Nathan? What did your dad call that kind of a person?
My dad called that person a “godd*** liar.”
Dear ProudLib,
You really need to read my posts more carefully. I answered the question about the ABC tapes. You’re making a fool out of yourself.
Hank
Dear Hank
Ignore ProudLib. He is a blog troll.
Humor me, Hank. Answer it again.
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
I’m not sure how equating a bunch of wetbacks seaking over the border in the dead of night equates with a representative of a company that is from a country that is an acknowledged ally in our war on terror; a representative that represents a company that has just spent 8.5 billion dollars to buy the management rights to six of our ports; a representative that if the article in the WE is true has just made a deal to buy airplanes from Boeing that he will probably fly over on in the future to inspect these ports; a representative that will be arriving with a passport from a friendly country and clearing customs in a legal way.
And if Hilary is ever elected president in this country I have a friend in Australia that I can live with until sanity again prevails in the US. A place where I can train my sheepdogs and ride my horses. I’ll herd cattle and sheer sheep until then.
But…Hilary for president? Now you sound like ProudLib!
Now, dear, answer my question.
Hank
Actually, I didn’t ask for an answer. I asked for a link.
You gave no link.
Should I post all the personal comments for you Proudlib?
How about your first post here, seeing as it brought so much to the table in ideas and real discussion!
Here ya go:
“Trying to argue with Hank and Nathan.
The perfect Nathan-ism: “does it matter?” In other words, do FACTS matter?
Not to them they don’t. Whatever Bush says is true. And if what he says now contradicts one hundred and eighty degrees with what he said before (like “I’d never invade a country without a clear exit strategy”), why . . . there’s no conflict at all.
You know those idiots who go to professional wrestling and think it’s real, and you wonder, “my God, who could be that dumb?”
Meet Hank and Nathan . . .”
If you spent more time on actually discussing the issues instead of trying to bash others you might get your points across better.
That is, if you actually had points…
Hank wrote “And finally, the Saddam tapes that ABC finally released last Saturday have Saddam talking about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center. He knew the details before the attack.”
Where is the link to these tapes “released last Saturday?”
Thanks for the advice Joe. I was weak for ever starting. I think I’ll go home and clean up dog shit until I get my self respect back.
Hank
Okay, whatever, but I’m on point now–if ABC released tapes, where are the transcripts, where are the downloads?
Just give me a flipping link . . . if you can . . .
Note to other thinking post-ers.
The way to shut up the right wing nuts is simply to ask them to prove their facts.
As shown so clearly in the example of Hank and the non-existent tapes, they most often cannot do it.
Hank, you brought up the boarders thing. You said not to worry about the ports because the u.s. still controlled the access. If they control access at the ports like they do at the border, we are in real trouble!!
Proudlib,
Last I checked, you did not shut anyone up so far… regardless of the truth of your statement…
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
You brought up the borders. I think that port security sucks too. Has nothing to do with the borders. This deal with Dubai has nothing to do with port security.
Airport security sucks. I could get a gun on any plane leaving ICT tomorrow. No thanks to the democrats big deal in federalizing the security screeners.
I think that railroad security sucks. Still has nothing to do with Dubai.
What about answering my question for you?
Hank
Okay, from now on, it’s no longer “Hank.” It’s “No Proof Hank.”
Since No Proof Hank won’t provide evidence for his LIE that Saddam knew that Al Qaeda was going to hit us, let me repeat my question for Marine Reservist Nathan:
why aren’t you in Iraq with all the other reservists?
Some kind of a disability problem or something?
Too fat, maybe?
Well, you have to feel bad for Bush if only because he has the sudden sick feeling that comes with realizing that Jimmy Carter (let’s give up the Panama Canal y’all) agrees with him.
If you can tell me how many Marines are in the Reserves, break down by MOS, and then how many Marines are needed in Iraq breakdown by MOS, then you have answered your own question.
If I was too fat to go to war and if you knew anything about the Marine Corps, you would know that I would be admin seperated.
I suppose this is another example of how you don’t make things personal?
Crony-capitalism has worked so well for the Bushs’ through the decades . . . why should it stop now?
W aides’ biz ties to Arab firmBY MICHAEL McAULIFFDAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAUBreaking news update: Bush says Arab company port deal should proceed
WASHINGTON – The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World – giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
“The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance – even before DP World formally agreed to buy London’s P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
“It’s particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one,” said western New York’s Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow’s Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
“It always raises flags” when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S.”
Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.
“The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security,” Fossella said.—–
Even if he is too fat to serve, so what? If he’s served in the past, he’s done more for this country than YOUR lazy ass has.
Cheney shoots his hunting partner; Bush shoots himself in the foot. Just by opening his mouth.
F***ing dipshit president!!!
Hank, what did you mean when you posted this comment above?
“The United States still controls access of foriegn citizens to our country.”
I interpreted that to mean that we still let in or keep out people we dont want. My contention, and I thought yours, is that we already do a bad job of that. So why is that a good argument FOR the Dubai people managing the port?
If I misinterpreted that comment, please explain.
Hank, I forgot and I looked back and couldnt tell what question I missed. What question do you want me to answer?
According to Reuters:WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Risking a showdown with the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush threatened to veto any legislation that would block an Arab company’s takeover of the management of major American seaports.
First veto to help an Arab country and cronies? Interesting.
I don’t have that information, Nathan. Why don’t you give it to me?
I just thought that since you are such a gung-ho backer of Mr. Bush’s war, and in a position to actually serve in Iraq, you would have figured out a way to get over there and fight for freedom.
Todd,
For the record, let me say in all honesty, when it comes to fighting in war, I’m a total chickenshit.
I don’t want to go. I don’t want anybody in my family to go. I don’t want any American to have to go.
But if I supported a war, then I’d be willing to fight in it. So far, there hasn’t been any wars since WW2 that were worth fighting IMHO. So I don’t feel too bad about not having served.
What’s the height of hypocrisy are the gung-ho warmongers like Bush, Cheney, Dan Quayle, neo-cons Feith, Wolfowitz, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove who backed the Vietnam War but made sure that they didn’t have to fight in it.
Surprisingly, both Gore and Kerry served in Vietnam.
If it were as easy as just getting on a plane and flying over, I would have.
Once again, you seem to have no understanding of how deployments work.
Okay, I googled it. Apparently, only about one in six reservists are on active duty, in the neighborhood of 200,000 out of 1.2 million.
However the trend is to send more reservists to Iraq as recruitment and re-enlistment plummets.
So you may get your chance yet.
Lucky you . . .
Nope, I don’t see myself going anytime soon.
Nathan,
If shrub spit in your face, you would thank him and call it morning dew!
White, Christian and Proud!!
Dear ksfarmgrrl.
“The United States still controls access of foriegn citizens to our country.”
This particular little gem of wisdom from my keyboard was in response to a comment by flike who wrote:
“Since DWP is state owned, and since the state is an Arab one with very real ties to terrorism (including valid ties to nuclear terrorism), who will control the kinds of DWP employees who will be visiting US ports as a normal part of their job?
Ans: UAE, not USA.”
I apologize for badgering you about the unanswered question. I looked back and found your answer. It was about your dirty truck. I’m looking forward to sushi.
I post during the day mostly while my computer is doing a print job or something else. Whenever you see one of my posts I am goofing off at work. If my boss catches me goofing off I will be a homeless person.
I do have a serious question for you, that seems only fair. Has Bush ever done anything that you have agreed with?
Hank
If Dubya can turn over protecting nuke suitcase shipments to an arab company ……. maybe someone should check Dubya’s anus …… there could be a brain in there somewhere? I serious doubt there is any sign of intelligent life in there anywhere!
What did your post have to do with the topic Sam?
Unlike your anus,Sam. That’s where we could find your head on any given day.
Hey boy, call me. You off Thursday?
Too bad Bush cant be Impeached or at least invited to a Dallas motorcade
Well, at NRO’s Dubai/port online symposium, President Bush is down 0-3-1 so far, maybe 0-4-0.
This comment is probably closest to the way I see this (fwiw):
“This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it? Just as her wit and wisdom were beside the point, so Homeland Security’s careful negotiations with the new owners have nothing to do with the main issue, which is that only a tone-deaf bureaucrat would turn over the operation of our ports to a company from Dubai. Not only does it add new security burdens to an agency already overwhelmed by its impossible mission, but it puts one of Iran’s closest partners in a most sensitive position inside the United States. As I’ve had occasion to note over the past few years, Dubai is home to billions of mullahdollars, and the black market through which all manner of illegal arms shipments and money-being-laundered have passed. I’m sure it will have the same outcome as the Meiers fiasco. Faster, please.”–Michael Ledeen
http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200602211008.asp
This should get interesting. ;)
Woops, make that 0-4-1 at best.
James Dobbins seems to call it a tie; his argument seems to hinge on “fair play” call vis a vis UAE’s help in Iraq.
“There is a lot on the other side of the ledger too — particularly a thank you statement from Hamas to the UAE in July 2005 for all the support — but given the way relationships work in the Middle East I can see Dubai expecting favorable treatment in return for its recent cooperation in the effort to combat terrorism, and especially for supporting the war effort in Iraq. It is the way of things.”
The way of things my ass. I have no idea how anybody can think trading US port security for help in Iraq is “the way of things.”
That said, the idea that US port security was traded for UAE’s help in Iraq, in a sort of gentleman’s handshake deal by the administration, would certainly seem to account for Bush’s misguided and newly dogged loyalty to UAE.
It is not US port security… sigh.
“This is the way the world endsThis is the way the world endsThis is the way the world endsnot with a bang but a whimper.”
T.S. Eliot, “Hollow Men”
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Ok
Enough is enough. Even almost all Republicans are troubled by this port deal. And well they should be.
This story is just getting started. Nevermind that it does not pass the smell test for all but the most slavish bushies just on its surface.Economics over security should sicken anyone and we find it goes deeper.
Officials complicit in this bad decision revealed as members of the very corps that benefit. Bush sticking his thumb in the eye of his own party.
I thought bush would waltz out of this like he did with the Miers thing. But today he dug in his heels. This deal is what he wants and he is by god or veto gonna get it.
Now I don’t know what or who is behind this. I suspect if we dig it will out.The first clue was bush’s attitude about our southern border.This sellout of our security absolutely cannot be allowed. Real and true Republicans, any true American knows this. To let this pass would make the entire “war on terror” no more than a joke.It would mean that more than 2,000 Americans truly have died for nothing but the promotion of a politician and a corporate agenda.
This is mean and it is nasty and it is of national importance.
I am pleased that real Republicans are opposing this. Thank you for doing so.
And for the rest? The hanksnathans, and the rush’s and oreillys? You are traitors. You would sell out the safety of your nation and its people for the slavish devotion to one very bad man.
Henceforth I will ignore Hank and Nathan. I cite their unthinkig embrace of bush and call for the entire blog to ignore them as well.
You mean “No Proof Hank”, JR?
You got it.
I heard Snow had done a deal with his last company with one of the companies involved, don’t remember if it was with the seller or acquiring company. Smacks of cronyism.The only bill bush will have vetoed is one favoring our national security. Let him veto away, looks like this one will be veto proof. Also learned today that communist china runs some of the terminals in California. How crazy is that? Next time we should have a bidding war between North Korea, Syria and Iran for the control of our ports!
Nathan and Hank, Has Bush ever done anything that you disagree with?
Dear Damoon,
You come late to the discussion, we’ve already covered that.
Hank
Dear Damoon,
Since we are asking, has Bush ever done anything you agree with?
Hank
Here’s what I was referring to:”It is no secret that this administration has pursued an aggressive antiregulatory agenda, and it has elevated corporate leaders to its highest positions. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department convened the panel that approved the ports deal, came to government after serving as the chief executive of the CSX Corporation, which was a major port operator when he worked there. (After he left, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports World.)”
More reasons why the deal sailed through: ” >”
>
>
Hank, seriously, I am thinking about the question. I cant think of anything he has done that I agree with, other than the math and science initiative, which has only been talked about with no action. So it really isnt anything he has DONE, just something he said.
I also agree with his WORDS about us being addicted to oil and needing alternative energy. I am suspicious about his energy words for obvious reasons. But again, no real action has been taken since SOTU, so the jury is still out on what he has DONE in this regard.
I think that is about it, but I will keep thinking Hank. Knowing me as you do, is there something you think I should agree with?
And I remember when the “Sandniggers” were dancing in the streets and celebrating when 9/11 happened. You dont like it…go back home!
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
Well truly, me coming from the right and you from the left, it would seem to me that any thing I disagreed with you should be OK with.
So, heres two things I think were some of his biggest blunders:
The “No child left behind crap” He basically caved in to the liberal nitwits and they are still beating him over the head with it. I think the federal government should be completely out of education.
The ‘McCain-Fiengold” bill. He basically let the left-wing Supreme court make the decision on its constitutionality. It is basically an incumbant protection bill. It made campaign contributions even more corrupt. Opened the door for the 527 organiztions to dump as much money as they could get their hands on into the process.
I am a conservative. He’s done a lot I aggree with, but really there is a lot more that I don’t agree with. As far as the war on terror goes, he did start treating terrorists like terrorists instead of criminals. They need to be killed instead of tried.
Hank
Hank, seriously, the very far left and the very far right often have much in common. (I am not saying you are “very far right” that is for you to decide.)
I just know that for myself, I am so far left that I find myself sometimes agreeing with the limited govt and fiscal conservatives. And sometimes, those folks side with me on social issues in the sense that we dont think govt should be involved in a lot of things.
I rarely agree with you Hank. But I agreed with Ian twice last week. I guess it all proves what my dad used to say about how “even a stopped clock is right twice a day!”
YES!
Proudlib and Jr are going to ignore me!
Since most of your posts have been nothing but personal insults, this will finally clear up this blog for some well thought out posts.
Thank you!
If Bush hasn’t fallen off the wagon, then he’s damned sure fallen off the bike one too many times!
Other than invading Afghanistan ( a no brainer, which he screwed up), and reviving the economy to some degree (at a cost of trillions), I can think of nothing else he’s done right.
Back to the subject . . .Bush via McClellan is sounding more conciliatory about the Dubai deal. The position now is something to the effect of “you guys just don’t understand, let us explain it to you; now, don’t you see that this deal is okay?”
The above position evolved after the Bush House recognized the large opposition to the Dubai deal from their own party. I wonder why Bush initially reacted with the Veto threat, and now belatedly is wanting to try to get along. Would it be wrong to try to understand your opposition’s concern before you start making threats — that are obviously checks written with your mouth that your butt can’t cash. How can anyone claim that Bush runs good campaigns — he doesn’t.
The other Bush defense is: he did not know about the deal until after it was done. Good leadership, huh?
Welcome aboard Proud!
Ksfarm? This blog is now ignoring unapologetic, brain dead bushies. Their names are not worthy of mention here.
Treat them with the ignore they deserve and they will slink back under the rocks where they belong.
Condition of this deal with Dubai was that UAE not be investigated! And check out the links to the bush family and UAE! I do not have ability to post links but Lou Dobbs defined it quite well.
“indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them.”
American Anthropological Association
the truth shall set you free brothas and sistas!
OTCrusaderX,It is considered very difficult to determine race from skeletal remains. Interestingly, there is a guy at WSU who is considered one of the foremost experts on this topic in field of Physical Anthropology. This professor’s name is Peer Moore-Jansen. He does a lot of forensic work for Law Enforcement.
There are pockets of excellence at WSU despite their seeming efforts to stamp them out.
Brother American DD,Does he his own website?
Hank, I think he was right to visit the troops on Thanksgiving and serve the turkey to them (even though it was just a photo op and he really didn’t serve it). Other than that, I can’t think of anything.I think he should go to Iraq to play his next golf game.