Bush faces presure to block port deal

[Guest tres-b]

I finding it extremely amusing watching the demz politrixtas become HAWKS,,overnight......acting all tough and "concerned". Going after Bush for racial profiling, then profiling an Arab nation while saying we need to make more friends in the world if we wanna win this war on terror.......

Are you lost yet? nuff said!

Lots of people are against this from both sides.....but only one side has been bitching about not being racists or not to profile.......LOL Do today's demz have the slightest clue how they come across to all NON-MONGOLIC Americans?

I am against this deal for many reasons. Having said that, I have never made any bones about use of racial profiling or stating that Muslims are the enemy.

Dems have issues with both of these issues yet they are coming out against this deal based on the fact that...DING DING DING...the company getting the deal is from the UAE, a Muslim county and therefore MUST be tied to terrorism. Classic Democrat move.

Anything Jimmy Carter is in favor of, the other choice is the right one. ;D

[Guest obby]

if this deal happens terrorists are going to see a free tickect to US,

True. And us knowing this can also be a key strategy in drawing them to our talons.

JIMMY CARTER who gave away our control of the Panama Canal believe this UAE deal is a good one?????????

If Jimmy thinks it's good????????? It must be bad!

NUFF SAID!

LOL

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-02-22T181114Z_01_L22174752_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-ARABS.xml&rpc=22

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FU9QQO0.html

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

if this deal happens terrorists are going to see a free tickect to US,

True. And us knowing this can also be a key strategy in drawing them to our talons.

LOL

But if they know that we know then we know that they know. So now we have to pretend that we don't know so that they won't know but we'll really know. Is that what you're getting at Obby Wan? LOL...

[Guest obby]

if this deal happens terrorists are going to see a free tickect to US,

True. And us knowing this can also be a key strategy in drawing them to our talons.

LOL

But if they know that we know then we know that they know. So now we have to pretend that we don't know so that they won't know but we'll really know. Is that what you're getting at Obby Wan? LOL...

Kind of yeah. My main point is that when I see the left come out attacking the right on security issues, a red flag pops up in my music infested brain. It's like wohhhhhhh. The demz on security....like wohhhhhhh The demz want to stereotype......like wohhhhhhhh The demz want audio tapes to be made public....like wohhhhhh

IMO their main goal after the elections has been to undermine our Prez and his admin. I can only assume that they are at it again.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

if this deal happens terrorists are going to see a free tickect to US,

True. And us knowing this can also be a key strategy in drawing them to our talons.

LOL

But if they know that we know then we know that they know. So now we have to pretend that we don't know so that they won't know but we'll really know. Is that what you're getting at Obby Wan? LOL...

IMO their main goal after the elections has been to undermine our Prez and his admin. I can only assume that they are at it again.

Isn't that what the opposing political party is supposed to do? I thought there was a term for that called 'checks and balances'? When the Liberals get back into power, I'm sure the Conservatives will do the same thing. That's not a bad thing. It's needed in order for our system to work the way it does (when it works that is).

[Guest JMT]

if the goal of having 2 parties is for one to oppose everything the other did, how is anything ever supposed to get accomplished?

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

if the goal of having 2 parties is for one to oppose everything the other did, how is anything ever supposed to get accomplished?

OK so if we only havce one party then what kind of government is that? It sure as hell doesn't sound like a democracy to me. Does it to you?

[Guest JMT]

if the goal of having 2 parties is for one to oppose everything the other did, how is anything ever supposed to get accomplished?

OK so if we only havce one party then what kind of government is that? It sure as hell doesn't sound like a democracy to me. Does it to you?

that doesn't answer my question. btw, i am the one who once posted, "a two-party system is only one more than a dictatorship."

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

if the goal of having 2 parties is for one to oppose everything the other did, how is anything ever supposed to get accomplished?

OK so if we only havce one party then what kind of government is that? It sure as hell doesn't sound like a democracy to me. Does it to you?

that doesn't answer my question. btw, i am the one who once posted, "a two-party system is only one more than a dictatorship."

Well why don't you look at the current structure of our government. It's not totally made up of just 2 parties. But it might as well be. And it seems to be functioning fine even though it can seem disfunctional at times especially within the last 7 years...

[Guest drlogic]

Info which might provide perspective:

Osama bin Laden didn't have to buy the World Trade Center to blow it up.

Why would anybody throw away 6.8 to 8 billion, whatever this deal is? Why would anybody throw away $8 billion for the purposes of blowing it up when you don't have to? All they'd have to do -- they own so many other ports -- is just load a container with something's going to blow up when it gets here and send it on its way, and then buy what's left on the cheap.

The largest company in this business is Hong Kong's Hutchinson Ports. They refuse to invest in the United States. They don't want to buy our ports. You know why? Because they don't want to mess with the unions, and they don't want to mess with the political land mines that go along with it. The second largest in this business is Denmark's APM Terminals, (whispering) and those are white European foreigners and you know what those white European foreigners did to the Indians, and you know what they did to women, and you know what they did to animals, and you know what they did to the land. And the second biggest company is Denmark's APM Terminals, white European foreigners. The next largest is Singapore PSA, owned by Singapore. (whispering) That's Asians, "yellow people." You know about them. And then, of course, Dubai World Ports, that would move them into fourth with this deal. And you know about them. (whispering) Arabs. Bombs! Blown-up ports! So we got the Hong Kong people, (whispering) the communist Chinese! Everybody knows the commies, the ChiComs, run Hong Kong.

Mr. Bush issued a statement on November 4, 2004, mourning the passing of 'a great friend of our country,' 'a close ally,' who built the Emirates 'into a prosperous, tolerant, and well-governed state.'

Do you recall any protest from Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Schumer or Ms. Boxer when President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced in May 1998 that America was selling 80 F-16 fighters to the UAE. Nor did these politicians protest back in December 1996, when the Clinton administration's assistant state secretary, Robert Pelletreau, went on UAE television to announce: 'On the international stage, the UAE is universally respected for its generosity and commitment to regional security and fair-dealing. These qualities reflect the exceptional character of Shaykh Zayid, who is truly the father of his country, and a respected statesman.'" That's the Clinton state department speaking in 1996.

[Guest drlogic]

"The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed 'great concern' about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians. Schumer: $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen."

Peter King also got some: $5,500 to his campaign. Senator Clinton: $4,500. Senator Dodd: $2,500. Congressman Fossella: $9,500. Senator Boxer: $6,000. Senator Lautenberg: $9,000. Jerrold Nadler, "another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000." As we've always said on this program: "Follow the money, ladies and gentlemen," and the Democrats, of course, seeking this opportunity to make themselves look tough on national security. But can I mention something today that I also asked you to think about yesterday? Isn't it ironic that we have this dumb, Texas rube, frat boy defending tolerance and the rights of minorities, and we have the Democratic Party and the nuanced elitist, smarter than everyone else in the room liberals acting on blind racism and profiling?

Isn't that fascinating? It shouldn't surprise you, because this is who they are. They are the first ones to notice somebody's skin color when they see them walking down the street. They are the first ones to notice their gender. They're the ones that notice the differences among us, and they're the ones that tell us we are to ignore it but act on it. They are the ones who claim to represent minorities, stand up for the downtrodden, the hungry, the thirsty. Now, I know this is not the description of the UAE and this port country. They are not hungry and they're not thirsty, but they are minorities in this country. The same people that tell us we cannot profile Sahib as he strides through an airport are the same people telling us we can't allow these people to come in and have any relationship to the port operations because of where they're from. Do you realize, to be consistent, any airline that takes off from the United Arab Emirates should not be allowed to land here. The United Arab Emirates should not be allowed to own property here, they should not be allowed to send any cargo here from any of their ports around the world, if they are unqualified and pose a serious terror threat in buying the operations of these ports.

BUSH: If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security, the security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and the customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative on the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis. I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port.

[Guest trancepriest]

If the ports deal is blocked because the new company is Arab owned... when the previous company was British owned... to the UAE this will come across as an anti-Arab policy. The UAE could retaliate by blocking the supplies for our troops from going through their ports. Due to the unstability of other ports in the region... this would be a serious blow to our occupation in the area. Basically the President is in a bind... he can't come across as being anti-arab when we need arab help.

Not many politicians are in the position of the president... so they are adamantly fighting against this deal.... but the negative repercussions of this deal will fall on the President. How can the president pursue his policy without Arab support? If the previous company wasn't British owned it wouldn't look so bad to the Arab world... but the previous company was British. This war against terror... needs Arab support...we need bases/ports in the region. Because of this... the deal will go through.

[Guest trancepriest]

"The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed 'great concern' about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians. Schumer: $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen."

Peter King also got some: $5,500 to his campaign. Senator Clinton: $4,500. Senator Dodd: $2,500. Congressman Fossella: $9,500. Senator Boxer: $6,000. Senator Lautenberg: $9,000. Jerrold Nadler, "another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000." As we've always said on this program: "Follow the money, ladies and gentlemen," and the Democrats, of course, seeking this opportunity to make themselves look tough on national security. But can I mention something today that I also asked you to think about yesterday? Isn't it ironic that we have this dumb, Texas rube, frat boy defending tolerance and the rights of minorities, and we have the Democratic Party and the nuanced elitist, smarter than everyone else in the room liberals acting on blind racism and profiling?

Isn't that fascinating? It shouldn't surprise you, because this is who they are. They are the first ones to notice somebody's skin color when they see them walking down the street. They are the first ones to notice their gender. They're the ones that notice the differences among us, and they're the ones that tell us we are to ignore it but act on it. They are the ones who claim to represent minorities, stand up for the downtrodden, the hungry, the thirsty. Now, I know this is not the description of the UAE and this port country. They are not hungry and they're not thirsty, but they are minorities in this country. The same people that tell us we cannot profile Sahib as he strides through an airport are the same people telling us we can't allow these people to come in and have any relationship to the port operations because of where they're from. Do you realize, to be consistent, any airline that takes off from the United Arab Emirates should not be allowed to land here. The United Arab Emirates should not be allowed to own property here, they should not be allowed to send any cargo here from any of their ports around the world, if they are unqualified and pose a serious terror threat in buying the operations of these ports.

BUSH: If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security, the security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and the customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative on the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis. I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port.

Good post! I agree with the commentary on the Democratic Party.

[Guest slamminshaun]

"The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed 'great concern' about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians. Schumer: $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen."

Peter King also got some: $5,500 to his campaign. Senator Clinton: $4,500. Senator Dodd: $2,500. Congressman Fossella: $9,500. Senator Boxer: $6,000. Senator Lautenberg: $9,000. Jerrold Nadler, "another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000." As we've always said on this program: "Follow the money, ladies and gentlemen," and the Democrats, of course, seeking this opportunity to make themselves look tough on national security. But can I mention something today that I also asked you to think about yesterday? Isn't it ironic that we have this dumb, Texas rube, frat boy defending tolerance and the rights of minorities, and we have the Democratic Party and the nuanced elitist, smarter than everyone else in the room liberals acting on blind racism and profiling?

Isn't that fascinating? It shouldn't surprise you, because this is who they are. They are the first ones to notice somebody's skin color when they see them walking down the street. They are the first ones to notice their gender. They're the ones that notice the differences among us, and they're the ones that tell us we are to ignore it but act on it. They are the ones who claim to represent minorities, stand up for the downtrodden, the hungry, the thirsty. Now, I know this is not the description of the UAE and this port country. They are not hungry and they're not thirsty, but they are minorities in this country. The same people that tell us we cannot profile Sahib as he strides through an airport are the same people telling us we can't allow these people to come in and have any relationship to the port operations because of where they're from. Do you realize, to be consistent, any airline that takes off from the United Arab Emirates should not be allowed to land here. The United Arab Emirates should not be allowed to own property here, they should not be allowed to send any cargo here from any of their ports around the world, if they are unqualified and pose a serious terror threat in buying the operations of these ports.

BUSH: If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security, the security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and the customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative on the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis. I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port.

Good post! I agree with the commentary on the Democratic Party.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up, especially about how Democrats are the first ones to notice someone's skin color being different from their own....

[Guest slamminshaun]

Someone asked me this today at work. Should we give back the $100 million that the United Arab Emirates donated to the Katrina relief effort?

[Guest obby]

Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Published: March 1 2006 23:50 | Last updated: March 1 2006 23:50

Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

ADVERTISEMENT

It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.

Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to Americaâ€, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman.

Ports backlash makes Arab investors wary

Click here

On Sunday, DP World agreed with the White House to undertake the lengthy review, a move which has assuaged some of the opposition from the US Congress.

However, Mrs Clinton remains a leading voice against the deal, and this week proposed legislation to block it, arguing that the US could not afford to “surrender our port operations to foreign governmentsâ€.

Tide of populist anger swells in US heartlands

Click here

Mr Clinton’s spokesman said: “President Clinton is the former president of the US and as such receives many calls from world leaders and leading figures every week. About two weeks ago, the Dubai leaders called him and he suggested that they submit to the full and regular scrutiny process and that they should put maximum safeguards and security into any port proposal.â€

He added that Mr Clinton supported his wife’s position on the deal and that “ideally†state-owned companies would not own US port operations.

Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 (€252,000) to address a summit in Dubai.

The backlash against Dubai’s takeover has seen some lawmakers in Washington highlight the UAE’s alleged role in helping to finance September 11.