Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there is

[Mr. D]

Political reality is more frightening that fiction!

So, (1.) We are selling our strategic seaport terminals to an Arab country with a mixed record related to terrorism. Not to a corporation, but to the U.A.E. where sales of elements necessary to build nuclear devices where sold out of a port warehouse. (2.) More than 95% of cargo handled by these Arab owners will be continue to enter our country uninspected by U.S. security, (3.) Our Secretary of Homeland Security says the way the decision was made is classified and cannot be discussed, (4.) The White House Press Spokesperson confirmed that our president found out about this strategic sale only when he became an issue in the media!!! (5.) Our Secretary of Defense stated on CSPAN that he was not aware of the terms and decision making in the sale.

Is it being partisan to feel frightened about this kind of leadership after the mistakes in judgement seen regarding Iraq and Katrina? Are there no American companies that can operate our own American ports? Is there nothing we won't sell to a foreign investor for buck? Do multi national corporate profits have to control every decision in this country? (Why don't we contract out the CIA to the lowest Middle Eastern bidder? I bet that some Iranian, Syrian or Saudi company would turn in a money saving bid to operate the CIA.) Silly? Isn't selling our seaport terminals to an Arab government silly? How difficult will it be to ship in a dirty bomb under these present security? I am aware that American dock workers will still unload cargo, but I don't buy that no one in the Arab ownership will ever have any connection to cargo procedures. If they didn't why would they buy the terminal? That is the exact purpose of owning your own shipping terminal, control! Hong Kong now xrays and scans for nuclear emissions every container coming into the port. We've been waiting for dock security since 9/11! We don't even look at 95% of the containers!

I don't want to be an alarmist, but this doesn't sound right! I absolutely do not believe most Arabs or Muslims are enemies of the U.S. I am absolutely against that type of thinking, but I don't think American ports terminals should be run by the governments of Arab countries in this time of need for tight national security! If this isn't a wake up call for how our country is being run, what will it take?:roll:

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Political reality is more frightening that fiction!

So, (1.) We are selling our strategic seaport terminals to an Arab country with a mixed record related to terrorism. Not to a corporation, but to the U.A.E. where sales of elements necessary to build nuclear devices where sold out of a port warehouse.

No. A UAE company is buying a British company that leases some terminals at some American ports. And they don't have a mixed record on terrorism; they're our best ally in the Middle East after Israel.

(2.) More than 95% of cargo handled by these Arab owners will be continue to enter our country uninspected by U.S. security,

The key word in your post is "continue." Will this deal somehow make us less safe? No. Dubai Ports World has nothing to do with port security.

(3.) Our Secretary of Homeland Security says the way the decision was made is classified and cannot be discussed,

Umm no. He explained exactly which agencies contributed to the decision; if anything is classified, it's only because it's part of routine classification of FBI information. According to Chertoff, "Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings."

(4.) The White House Press Spokesperson confirmed that our president found out about this strategic sale only when he became an issue in the media!!!

That's because it wasn't important enough to concern the president, until congressmen decided to use it to grandstand. I'm glad that the White House doesn't regularly spend a lot of time dealing with trivial crap like this ...although maybe it would keep him occupied and therefore less able to screw up other stuff. :smile:

(5.) Our Secretary of Defense stated on CSPAN that he was not aware of the terms and decision making in the sale.

And I'm sure that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs probably knows next to nothing about the FDA's policies on medical marijuana, nor should he be expected to.

Is it being partisan to feel frightened about this kind of leadership after the mistakes in judgement seen regarding Iraq and Katrina?

Yes. Yes it is. And this is coming from someone who hardly holds the Bush Administration in high esteem.

Are there no American companies that can operate our own American ports?

Who cares? The UAE can do it more efficiently, that's why they got the contract.

Is there nothing we won't sell to a foreign investor for buck?

And what exactly is wrong with foreign investment?

Do multi national corporate profits have to control every decision in this country? (Why don't we contract out the CIA to the lowest Middle Eastern bidder? I bet that some Iranian, Syrian or Saudi company would turn in a money saving bid to operate the CIA.)

Right, because a close ally operating the day-to-day activities of American ports and having no say in security matters, is obviously the same thing as letting enemies or unfriendly neutrals control our national security.

Silly? Isn't selling our seaport terminals to an Arab government silly?

No.

How difficult will it be to ship in a dirty bomb under these present security?

I don't know. What exactly does this have to do with the Dubai Ports World deal?

I am aware that American dock workers will still unload cargo, but I don't buy that no one in the Arab ownership will ever have any connection to cargo procedures. If they didn't why would they buy the terminal?

Umm. Because they want to provide services to make money...
Perhaps you've heard of business, commerce, capitalism, and/or free enterprise?

That is the exact purpose of owning your own shipping terminal, control! Hong Kong now xrays and scans for nuclear emissions every container coming into the port. We've been waiting for dock security since 9/11! We don't even look at 95% of the containers!

There are certainly some legitimate security concerns regarding our ports. Dubai Ports World is not one of them.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but this doesn't sound right! I absolutely do not believe most Arabs or Muslims are enemies of the U.S. I am absolutely against that type of thinking, but I don't think American ports terminals should be run by the governments of Arab countries in this time of need for tight national security!

And I generally *do* believe that most Arabs are enemies of the US. With that said, Dubai is the exception to the overwhelming rule, and won't have access to security anyway.

If this isn't a wake up call for how our country is being run, what will it take?:roll:

The media reporting on a REAL security issue that we should be outraged about. There are plenty of them.

 

[aps]

Paul Krugman writes an editorial for the New York Times. In his article today, he points out how right after September 11th, Bush and his people went out of their way to associate Iraq with the September 11th attacks. By their statements, they made it seem as though you could not disassociate one from the other. However, now he wants to distinguish between "good" Arabs and "bad" Arabs, and he want us to take him at his word? Sorry, Bushie, it doesn't work that way. I love it when he screws himself.

Osama, Saddam and the Ports

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference? . . .

But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs." . . .

But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions — a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/opinion/24krugman.html

Excellent, excellent point!

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

Paul Krugman writes an editorial for the New York Times. In his article today, he points out how right after September 11th, Bush and his people went out of their way to associate Iraq with the September 11th attacks. By their statements, they made it seem as though you could not disassociate one from the other. However, now he wants to distinguish between "good" Arabs and "bad" Arabs, and he want us to take him at his word? Sorry, Bushie, it doesn't work that way. I love it when he screws himself.

Anyone with any knowledge of geopolitics knows that these ARE the "good Arabs," so to speak. You don't have to take George Bush at his word, because the evidence is readily available. Dubai is a pro-Western nation.

Hell, over half of the people in the UAE aren't even Arabs...

 

[aps]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

Anyone with any knowledge of geopolitics knows that these ARE the "good Arabs," so to speak. You don't have to take George Bush at his word, because the evidence is readily available. Dubai is a pro-Western nation.

Hell, over half of the people in the UAE aren't even Arabs...

Of course they're good Arabs. They were only 1 of 3 countries that recognized the Taliban as the ruler of Afghanistan. Also, they are so good that the republicans, who normally support this president, have spoken out against this issue.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

Of course they're good Arabs. They were only 1 of 3 countries that recognized the Taliban as the ruler of Afghanistan.

They generally like to be on good terms with all the countries in their backyard, and after 9/11 they ran for cover like every other nation (except Pakistan). That's not to say that they were right to recognize the Taliban, but it hardly means that the recognition was done out of malice toward the United States.

Also, they are so good that the republicans, who normally support this president, have spoken out against this issue.

Grandstanding for personal political gain is not specific to either political party.

 

[aps]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

They generally like to be on good terms with all the countries in their backyard, and after 9/11 they ran for cover like every other nation (except Pakistan). That's not to say that they were right to recognize the Taliban, but it hardly means that the recognition was done out of malice toward the United States.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. And I am not necessarily against this deal.

Grandstanding for personal political gain is not specific to either political party.

I honestly don't think that the republicans are doing this for political gain. Apparently, their constituents have been calling nonstop about this because they are against it, and they are there to represent their constituents. Also, the White House has conceded that it should have discussed this earlier with Congress.

 

[scottyz]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

They generally like to be on good terms with all the countries in their backyard, and after 9/11 they ran for cover like every other nation (except Pakistan). That's not to say that they were right to recognize the Taliban, but it hardly means that the recognition was done out of malice toward the United States.

They had financial and operational ties to 9/11. They have been funneling millions if not billions into terrorist activities for years. I see it as basically letting their trojan horse in thru the gates.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

They had financial and operational ties to 9/11.

So did almost every globalized country in the world, including the United States.

They have been funneling millions if not billions into terrorist activities for years. I see it as basically letting their trojan horse in thru the gates.

How exactly have they been "funneling millions"? This makes it sound like an act of malice, when in reality the only tie they have is that terrorists used some of their banks. When you're a successful commercial nation surrounded by closed nations averse to the banking industry, some illicit funds are bound to travel through your banks. That's just a fact of economics.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

Paul Krugman writes an editorial for the New York Times. In his article today, he points out how right after September 11th,

And Paul Krugman is an idiot. The administration went out of it's way to NOT say Saddam was involved in 9/11. We had no evidence he was directly involved and the adminsitration made that quite clear, what ever Mr. Krugman CHOOSE to PRECIVE he did of his volition. For him to state the administration was doing it is a flat out lie.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Political reality is more frightening that fiction!

Kandahar did an excellent point by point rebuttle of your post but I will add this as to the "secrecy" and process. It was done EXACTLY as congress mandated in the law the created the process which IS secretive by design. Now unless you want the administration to go outside the law..............

 

[scottyz]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

So did almost every globalized country in the world, including the United States.



How exactly have they been "funneling millions"? This makes it sound like an act of malice, when in reality the only tie they have is that terrorists used some of their banks.

Terrorist groups have often gotten much of their funding from Saudi Arabia. They funded the Taliban and Hamas. It's not just use of their banks. I didn't think this was new news... Wahhabism started there.

 

[aps]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

And Paul Krugman is an idiot. The administration went out of it's way to NOT say Saddam was involved in 9/11. We had no evidence he was directly involved and the adminsitration made that quite clear, what ever Mr. Krugman CHOOSE to PRECIVE he did of his volition. For him to state the administration was doing it is a flat out lie.

Stinger, you can't be serious. Maybe for someone like you, Stinger (and me ), know that there was no a connection. But many people who aren't bright enough to read about this issue and learn the true facts don't know.

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh denied that anyone has ever suggested a connection between Iraq and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and claimed that those who voted for President George W. Bush believe in only a general connection between Iraq and terrorism rather than a direct connection between Iraq and 9-11. In fact, a recent study indicates that 20 percent of Bush supporters believe in a direct Iraqi connection to 9-11, and an additional 55 percent believe Iraq at least provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda during the Saddam Hussein era. Limbaugh made the false claim on November 8, after a Democratic caller remarked that many Bush supporters believe Iraq was directly involved in the attacks.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411100008

In the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Osama bin Laden quickly became America's leading enemy. But as the Bush administration prepared its case for war against Iraq in the first half of 2002, officials began to avoid mentioning Osama bin Laden's name in public. At the same time, administration officials increasingly linked Saddam Hussein with the threat of terrorism in an effort to build public support for war. By the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks it appeared that this public relations effort had produced results beyond all expectations: several polls released around the time of the anniversary revealed that majorities of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=257333

Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Sorry, Stinger, but your saying that they never made a connection is just totally bogus. Wake up.

 

[Kandahar]

Re: Bush says he will have Dubai firm man our ports no matter how much dissent there

Terrorist groups have often gotten much of their funding from Saudi Arabia. They funded the Taliban and Hamas. It's not just use of their banks. I didn't think this was new news... Wahhabism started there.

Great. But we're talking about Dubai here.