Jump to content

Bush has lost it


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What the hell is he thinking? Turning over 6 major ports to a country with ties to terrorists? Duh.

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2542124.html

Bush says he will veto any attempt to block this.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...tssecurity.html

I was wondering when this would be posted here. Who the hell knows! How about we sell off the NSA FBI CIA HLS to Osama and be done with it.

A bit much?

Also in the news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735570.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually respect Bush for deciding to use his veto if it comes up for a vote. What he's basically saying is that he isn't going to pick and choose which countries can do business in America. By doing this, he also has to fight off all the trade protectionists, as well as the "racial-profiling" people who deem the UAE to be full of terrorists. It's a tough stance to take, but I'm happy he took it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually respect Bush for deciding to use his veto if it comes up for a vote. What he's basically saying is that he isn't going to pick and choose which countries can do business in America. By doing this, he also has to fight off all the trade protectionists, as well as the "racial-profiling" people who deem the UAE to be full of terrorists. It's a tough stance to take, but I'm happy he took it.

Racial profiling? Trade protectionists? It is not about doing buisness in America, it is about giving up American control of those ports. Ok not control but ownership. It's like you owning a home and having someone else control your driveway and garage (cah powt). Are you sure that is a right move?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is he thinking? Turning over 6 major ports to a country with ties to terrorists? Duh.

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2542124.html

Bush says he will veto any attempt to block this.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...tssecurity.html

Agreed newbie,

Bush is doing something really stupid and it may hurt the Repubs at the mid-terms. Lots of right-leaning americans that I've met here on vacation think it's bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is about giving up American control of those ports. Ok not control but ownership.

Hi. Possibly we can get the facts striaght before the discussion goes south on us.

The ports have not been under US control for years, rather British. And, will also remain under British control after this goes through with financing and control over those companies by the UAE. The ownership of the ports will be US.

What has happened here is that the companies who have controlled the ports will now be bought by a UAE company and undergo no personel or policy change. Unless the British and a few US companies suddenly turn 'terrorist' on us, then things will remain the same. The security for these ports will still be provided by the US authorities as per whatever breakdown would occur if they were owned by anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is about giving up American control of those ports. Ok not control but ownership.

Hi. Possibly we can get the facts striaght before the discussion goes south on us.

The ports have not been under US control for years, rather British. And, will also remain under British control after this goes through with financing and control over those companies by the UAE. The ownership of the ports will be US.

What has happened here is that the companies who have controlled the ports will now be bought by a UAE company and undergo no personel or policy change. Unless the British and a few US companies suddenly turn 'terrorist' on us, then things will remain the same. The security for these ports will still be provided by the US authorities as per whatever breakdown would occur if they were owned by anybody.

How can you be certain there won't be a personnel change? It is basically a takeover situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy, it would violate the contracts the British and US companies have with both the US and the UAE. If they invest all this money and then have to forfit the contract for union reasons, it would embroil Dubai Word Ports into a legal batle that would probably destroy the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if Ports World is completely legit and staffed entirely by Brits, or even Americans for that matter. It doesnt' matter if the UAE has been America's best friend in the war on terror and has provided countless tidbits of anti-terrorism info, and deserve to be rewarded for it .

I think the best analogy for any help the UAE has given is the prison snitch: someone who is in the bad books and is using the knowledge gained by being in league with the outlaws to better his own circumstances. And like a prison snitch, there are rewards which are appropriate and rewards which are not. Going to bat for him, declaring him a trustworthy and model citizen, at the expense of your own future reputation, is not appropriate no matter how helpful he has been. But this is the path Bush has chosen to follow.

This is political poison for the Republicans, and it will come back to haunt them. If the Dems are smart (which is currently a topic for debate, and this will be a good IQ test for them) they'll ride this story all the way to November. Bush saying that he'll go so far as to veto any bill against the sale (when he hasn't vetoed anything else!!) only adds fuel to the fire. In the week or so since this story became front page news, the Republicans have gone from facing a divided Democratic party still lacking a serious foreign policy platform, to handing the Democrats the perfect foreign policy end run.

Here's the easy-to-follow scenario that Middle American grasps intuitively: there is a large likelihood that at some point, maybe even years from now, terrorists will succeed in mounting another attack on US soil. If any of the materials used in that attack came into the country through a port under the financial pervue of a UAE government company, do you think that will be good for the Bush administration's legacy and the Republicans in general, or not so good? Do you think the fact that Bush was confident that US Customs and the Coast Guard had it all under control will change the optics after another attack?

Yes. It will probably make Bush and his supporters look more idiotic that anything the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd have managed come up with on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political poison? Well for koolaid drinkers I suppose. Duabai Ports is the third largest port operator in the world, and operates in dozens of countries such as Australia, Hong Kong, China, Europe, South America, India, Saudi Arabia and so on. Hardly an Al Queda nest.

It is a financial deal, not a procedural one. In which the personel remain the same, doing the same things in the same way and subject to the same work and immigration laws and such. In fact, the only thing that is likely to change is Democrat blood pressure.

staffed entirely by Brits, or even Americans for that matter.

If you walk into a Micky D's in Moscow, are the staff all sixteen year old girls from Nebraska? Nope, all Russian. the P&O which will still operate the terminals uses US labor and management and will continue to do so even under their new ownership.

Your idea is an 'also ran' prize to a party that, if Bush did not go with this, would decry racism and shout that the administration was anti muslim. I am sure that the backroom deals contained more for national security assurances than a couple of bags of cheetos. Being state run by Dubai, the company may have possibly have facilitated the expedition of US bases, more proactiveness in aprehending terrorists at home and in other countries of the region, a cancellation in funding to regimes that we deem unsavory and on and on. Who knows? The main thing is that foreign ownership is here to stay in all our countries, even Muslim ones. To not allow it to go both ways is hypocrasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Tough issue. Selling port control contracts to any foreign country doesn't seem like the brightest move. I'm not concerned about terrorism, Dubai Ports World is a legit company.

A bigger concern is having a state-owned foreign company having ownership in a trade resource. If it was a private-company, ok, its just foreign investment. This is a country buying up the US ports... definitely troubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shifless Sand People cannot be trusted. Every Liberal knows that. Time for some racial profiling too. Box up all the 7 - 11s, taxis and ship 'em home!

Heil Hillary!

Funny: the people kicking up the most fuss over this are from the right side of the spectrum. Witness the teeth gnashing of professional gnasher Michelle Malkin.

Dubai media outlets are calling critics and skeptics of the port sellout "Islamophobes."

If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an "Islamophobe," and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an "Islamophobe," I plead guilty.

I just linked to Malkin. :blink: Excuse me whilst I go flog myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental question here: why allow foreign ownership of port facilities in the first place? Especially when ports are such an abysmally weak link in national security? Ports security has been an issue warming on the back burner since 911, and while this sale has brought the issue to the forefront, it didn't create it.

I think Lileks has captured the sentiment best, and essentially restates what I posted above, better than I did:

James Lileks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny: the people kicking up the most fuss over this are from the right side of the spectrum.

I'd say it's about even. As for quoting Michelle, what next, Savage? One thing I must say that is interesting about all this is how the Left finally acknowleges that there is an enemy to be feared. Albeit, to profile an entire race is a side the Left would rather have kept secret for a bit longer I'm sure, but, anything to get Bush. And, wrong country to boot.

The fundamental question here: why allow foreign ownership of port facilities in the first place?

Aggh! They don't OWN anything but the companies that operate the ports. Nothing American is changing hands. Why them? There are no US companies that can do the job. Kinda like trying to handle the reconstruction of Iraq by Haliburton with Ottawa local builder Minto. That's not the fault of Bush, rather the way things go in a capitalistic world and, has been going on for decades. This port deal goes back at least to the Clinton era.

From your Lileks Article

“How much Arab control over American ports are you comfortable with,”

The Shifless Sand People again. Better than the Slops right? Or worse? See, the other two bidders for P&O were both Hong Kong based (PSA and Hutchinson) both one and two respectively. DPW, (who were seventh) outbid them and are now number three in the world today. So, to a zenophobe, it either would have been armies of Yellow Men being smuggled into the USA in containers or a few guys with bombs in their turbans.

This is a country buying up the US ports... definitely troubling.

Please get your facts straight. The ports are owned by the US. The workers are all Archie Bunker type Americans who may or may not hate Arabs, Orientals, Black people or whatever and are unionized. If changes are made they don't like, the port shuts down and DPW goes into the tank mode and bankrupt. The people who manage it will be British and American based companies and the overall owners of the operational responsibility of those people and companies will be DPW of Dubai, who wish to make money.

The security will be provided as it is now by whatever US agency does that, not a turban wearing guy with a sword. Hence, what changes here is the money, not procedure, not security, not ownership and definitely not personel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fundamental question here: why allow foreign ownership of port facilities in the first place? Especially when ports are such an abysmally weak link in national security? Ports security has been an issue warming on the back burner since 911, and while this sale has brought the issue to the forefront, it didn't create it.

I think Lileks has captured the sentiment best, and essentially restates what I posted above, better than I did:

James Lileks

That is the feel I get from it as well. Why would you even have the British manage your ports in the first place? They are US ports, on US soil under US control, but owned by someone else. Does he not trust his own American people to handle the job ? Or is this more outsourcing to save money.

Might be good in a way, if the US economy tanks, and since the UAE company owns the ports, they will take a financial hit as well. Selling off America to the hightest bidder. It just does not make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extremes to which a Bushbot will go to back that megalomaniac is incredible. I hope that for once the Republicans in Congress don't do what they do best... drop their pants and bend over for a butt massage from the little Adolf Hitler of the 21st century!

To think that there isn't any danger in a UAE state owned corporation having access to all information about those six ports is just plain STUPID... I'm sorry... ignorant is simply not strong enough.

But every dark cloud has a silver lining and if his lowly majesty king George the Devious Dubya doesn't back down or get his way blocked the American people will hand this corrupt, cowardly Republican party its just desserts come November.

Americans will rue the day that they ever gave the reigns of power to the A-rab's favorite little bought off monkey man puppet. I hope this debacle makes him as lame a duck for his remaining time as he is mentally!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the feel I get from it as well. Why would you even have the British manage your ports in the first place? They are US ports, on US soil under US control, but owned by someone else. Does he not trust his own American people to handle the job ? Or is this more outsourcing to save money.

First, get the ownership word out of there. Second, between DPW, PSA and Hutchinson, they manage over four hundred foreign ports worldwide. It is not a strange thing at all as most ports are managed by international companies.

As for trust, I'm sure he does. However, lets ask Clinton as it was in his time that P & O took over operations in New York. Really though, there are no US companies that can do the job as these companies are set up far better to enable it.

To think that there isn't any danger in a UAE state owned corporation having access to all information about those six ports is just plain STUPID... I'm sorry... ignorant is simply not strong enough.

That's right, they're Sand People. Not to be trusted. All of them. Time we showed them how we feel and make this an all White club by keeping the British in there. Oh, hang on, the British just got bought by them so let's get the Slopes from Hutchinson's in there. Yellow guys are so much more trustwrothy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, get the ownership word out of there
Thank you. Yes, there is no transfer of ownership. And the security of ports has and still remains with the Coast Guard, Border Patrol and Customs. This is much ado about nothing.

This is not much ado about nothing. It's insanity! The U.S.C.G. and Homeland (in)Security only check about 4% of the cargo that pass through our ports. The physical guarding of the port will be performed by personnel of Dubai Ports! That company will have access to all scehdules and layouts of the Ports! The American public was not aware that Americans were not in charge of our ports. NOW it's public knowledge and the AMERICAN PUBLIC doesn't want a bunch of mooseslimes in our ports! George Bush isn't America and is but one of about 300 million. We don't give a damn about his stinking rag-head friends! No mooseslimes and no Brits... Americans in charge of American ports! And should we not have an American based company either willing and/or able to do the job then pull our troops out of the 140 or so nations where we have them stationed and bring them home to do it! Each state's National Guard could also do the job.

The Bush family has a long history of being bought off by BIG ARAB money and this is nothing short of insanity. Has everyone forgotten the attack on Israelis by mooseslimes hidden in cargo containers?

and PLEASE... will you Republicans think of something besides BILL CLINTON to EXCUSE the blunders of that monkey man idiot from Crawford! It sure does get tiring to hear you people blame CLINTON for Bush being a inept moron! Whatever Clinton was or did doesn't excuse George the Devious Dubya from what he is and does!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drew

Cut out implying racism in all of this. Nothing I or Lileks wrote is intended to be racist, no matter how you read it. Trying to cow me by playing the racism card won't work. The political reality is that average Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the government of a country that produced two of the 911 hijackers (and was the last government on the planet to recind support for the Taliban) will now be "managing" (does that word suit you?) some of the biggest port facilities in the US.

And the word is "shiftless" not "shifless". I thought you should know, since it seems to be prominent in your rhetorical arsenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell is he thinking? Turning over 6 major ports to a country with ties to terrorists? Duh.

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/0.../ap2542124.html

Bush says he will veto any attempt to block this.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politic...tssecurity.html

Havn't read the whole thread yet, so sorry if this has allready been said.

I also thought he was losing it, but since then have heard some other points of view, there is a lot more to this really. Saudi Arabia is starting to expand its business and diversify so as not to rely on oil, as they know at some point it will end.

SA gives safe harbour to U.S. ships, and allows operations from there, so how can you say its okay for the U.S. ships to be given safe harbour in S.A. but not allow them to bid on port operations. If they are trusted enough for safe harbour then surely they must be trusted enough to run the ports, which were British run before. Wouldn't that be a double standard? In other words, it would be discriminatory to say, another foreign nation can run the port but not S.A.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it isn't as cut and dried as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drew

Cut out implying racism in all of this. Nothing I or Lileks wrote is intended to be racist, no matter how you read it. Trying to cow me by playing the racism card won't work.

NOW it's public knowledge and the AMERICAN PUBLIC doesn't want a bunch of mooseslimes in our ports! George Bush isn't America and is but one of about 300 million. We don't give a damn about his stinking rag-head friends! No mooseslimes and no Brits... Americans in charge of American ports!

Know that wasn't you as you are a friend of muslims and arabs, but, just a quote that fell from allah at the right time. And, it is racism. The company has proven themselves capable of managing over one hundred ports worldwide and you and others don't like them because two hijackers came from there, their banks were used to finance same and they recognized the taliban as did Pakestan, one of the most stalwart partners in the war on terror. The British bombers came from Britain, Red Brigade came from Japan and

John Walker Lingh was from the USA. Oh, and China is communist and they would have been running the ports had DPW not bought P & O. So yes, rasicsm is an apt word.

And the word is "shiftless" not "shifless". I thought you should know, since it seems to be prominent in your rhetorical arsenal.

Spelling forum is down the hall, have fun!

Whatever Clinton was or did doesn't excuse George the Devious Dubya from what he is and does!

Actually, you seem to have a hair trigger here with Clinton. I think he was a fine president who also would have carried out an effective war on terror had 911 happened on his watch. I merely was showing that foreign companies running US ports was not a GWB invention. It happened in Clinton's time and well before so, to blame Bush for allowing this is pretty simple minded and smacks of a sort of political 'creationism' whereby the new era started on Jan 20 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Know that wasn't you as you are a friend of muslims and arabs, but, just a quote that fell from allah at the right time. And, it is racism. The company has proven themselves capable of managing over one hundred ports worldwide and you and others don't like them because two hijackers came from there, their banks were used to finance same and they recognized the taliban as did Pakestan, one of the most stalwart partners in the war on terror. The British bombers came from Britain, Red Brigade came from Japan and

John Walker Lingh was from the USA. Oh, and China is communist and they would have been running the ports had DPW not bought P & O. So yes, rasicsm is an apt word.

I will say this much: I agree that much of the knee-jerk reaction to this deal is rooted in xenophobia. I just wanted to point out that the other main contender was from Singapore, not China.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...