Corporate Control of Ports Is the Problem -- UPDATED

The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.

The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of operational control of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.

Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic operations at the nation's ports.

In the era when the federal government sees "homeland security" as a slogan rather than a responsibility, allowing the nation's working waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work. It is no secret that federal authorities have failed to mandate, let alone implement, basic port security measures. But this is not merely a federal failure; it is, as well, a private-sector failure. The private firms that control so many of the nation's ports have not begun to set up a solid system for waterfront security in the more than four years since the September 11, 2001 attacks. And shifting control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia -- along with control over the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through the ports at Beaumont and Corpus Christi -- from a British firm, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., to Dubai Ports World, is not going to improve the situation.

|

Unfortunately, the debate has been posed as a fight over whether Arab-owned firms should be allowed to manage ports and other strategic sites in the U.S. Media coverage of the debate sets up the increasingly ridiculous Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff -- who babbles bureaucratically about how, "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint" -- against members of Congress -- who growl, as U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, did over the weekend about the need "to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else,"

There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.

First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.

Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.

Comments (263)

1. After the fiasco of huricane Katrina, Chertoff and company needs to ask "In what aisle may I find credibility ?"

   Posted by djmarch at 02/21/2006 @ 09:19am

2. oh whats all the hullabaloo? don't u crazy liberals know that as per all studies from heritage foundation and american enterprise institute and cato institute, it has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven that EVERYTHING is better when outsourced to private corporations and companies? soon we'll have an army company, a police company, hell, why not a government company? oh, we already have that - neoconco!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2006 @ 09:35am

3. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/21/2006 @ 09:35am

   hahahahahaha

   We must have a credible opposition leader -- and quick!

   Posted by adr at 02/21/2006 @ 10:13am

4. Hmmmm...Refresh my memory here...Wasn't this administration adamant in refusing to deal with countries tied to terrorism ? Comments such as, "We will deal with countries harboring terrorists as well" ??? Such as Pakistan as another example to where Bin Laden is supposedly hiding. Yea right..Pakistan is surely looking for him..Seems like this administration speaks with a forked tongue.

   Posted by djmarch at 02/21/2006 @ 10:43am

5. we will not deal with countries who blah blah blah blah terrorism...unless they are major contributors to republican re-election campaigns and furhter enrich already mega rich american poltical dynasty families...that simple....whats wrong with all u crazy libs?!?!?!?!?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2006 @ 10:49am

6. Excellent friggin' idea...let's use wolves to guard the henhouse. After all, wolves are carnivores and will want to preserve the hens from all the other carnivores, right? Yeah, right.

   How is it they get away with calling themselves "The Right" when they are so damned wrong?

   Posted by leftofcenter at 02/21/2006 @ 10:51am

7. The only thing that's surprising about this news story is that anyone on the right is surprised by this news story.

   Posted by Legba at 02/21/2006 @ 10:52am

8. and the hypocrisy of that pampered dilletante oil man (bush) running around blabbering about oil addiction...when his family has been on the payroll of middle eastern oil for so long...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2006 @ 11:02am

9. Ibble,

   Neoconco is down to 39%. Is it time to buy?

   Eric

   Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 11:04am

10. Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/21/2006 @ 11:04am | ignore this person

    no - always follow the example of the non neocon pubs (who always have good inside tips....)...dump your stock while u still can....jump like rats from a sinking ship...even the msm is beginning to report the grumblings in schmukville, usa...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2006 @ 11:20am

11. hell, dems may not even have to do that good in 06, sane pubs are beginning to buck up, making deals with dems...stupid arrogant educated-beyond-their-intelligence obverse democratic fascists...ah - better...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2006 @ 11:25am

12. I find it interesting that not one apologist has weighed in on this thread yet.

    Oh come now boys, surely after defending your Administration even though 9/11 happened on their watch, even though they havn't caught the guy responsible for 9/11. You've been steadfastly defending them through the Katrina debacle. You saw now problem in the authority to torture fight. You have less than zero inhibitions about the Constitution being bent to the breaking point so we can spy on our own citizens without warrant. You don't care that this Administration leaks CIA agents names and classified National Intelligence Estimates to build a false case for a staggeringly expensive war in terms of life, limb, money and international reputation. You don't even seem to care when the Administration turns a blind eye to the utter theft that has gone on from US Taxpayers by Corporations in that theater.

    So, please don't tell me, that this......the mere operational authority of our own ports, is the straw that's going to break your back.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2006 @ 11:28am

13. Free

    Nice to find a point that even the wingnuts find indefensible!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/21/2006 @ 11:32am

14. John

    Good post, but as you know, this administration doesn't easily admit mistakes, let alone acknowledging they've made one ...

    Here's my take today, on The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel

    Bush, To Stymie Port Critics, May Send Cheney Out For Second Shooting Admission

    Split In White House Wants VP Kept On Front Burner; Leak Says President Let Miers Pick Dubai Company

    http://puregarlic.blogspot.com

    Peace JTD

    Posted by JThomasDuffy at 02/21/2006 @ 11:34am

15. Uh, Mr Nichols (linked to other story about President Carter on Main Page)....

    Didn't President Carter on CNN state that he had "no problems" with the sale of the ports to that UAE company?

    So now the only ones favoring it...given the opposition by both the Left AND Right....are the Bush Administration and Jimmy Carter?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 02/21/2006 @ 11:44am

16. John Nichols

    Is it any wonder why your ideas are not taken seriously?

    You wrap yourself in ANY flag to make your point, bashing Bush.

    You do not care about port security, ANY measure to strenghthen them would be criticized by you, regardless. Yet this issue has some consensus among lawmakers, so you jump on it. I dont care that you bash Bush, although some will small minded individuals here will characterize it as such.

    It is that you go to ANY length to do it, even wrap yourself up in flags of patriotism. If Neo-Nazi racists called for the impeachment of Reps from all levels of govt, you or the Nation would pen a story stating solidarity with that cause.

    Does that make you a sell-out to the high minded principles you claim to have? Remember you or your magazine are NOT a nation-state, so an end justifying the means argument falls short in your case.

    Posted by CPT at 02/21/2006 @ 11:47am

17. I agree with CPT that Nichols is not raising this issue because he cares about Port Security, however I along with many conservatives have voiced our disagreement with the President on this deal with UAE.

    It is definitely wrong and I noticed yesterday that even Hannity has come out against this deal.

    I realize that you libs think that conservatives are Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to Bush. We have many areas of disagreement with him, this being the latest. The difference for us is that we realize that despite his errors in judgment on this port issue, on border security, on fed funding of education, on budget control, and a number of smaller issues, he is in our judgment far better than anyone else who has been in the running for president the past 18 years.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 11:56am

18. Conspiracy Theory 1A

    If the current lame duck administration does something soooo stupid will the republicans in the house and senate gain support from their constituents by refusing to go along for the ride, this could almost be another of gw & co manipulations to assist the incumbants in the '06 midterm elections.

    On a more serious note isn't it a wonder that the USofA is in the process of being bought by foreign interests.

    China with the biggest piggy bank has learned from the Japanese failed attempt in the 80's to buy (by putting it on the card) their way into our country. It still scares the crap out of me that we almost let china buy one of the top three oil corporations, now we are actually even considering (with the support of our esteemed leader in charge) the sale of our port security to another foreign interest.

    We take pride in the fact that we outlasted a communist government by watching them go broke yet we seem to ignore the fact that we are selling our country out from under us, and financing the deal to boot. Our trade deficit along with the treasury sales to other countries is a major slap in the face to all Americans. Anyone got a good Chinese language course. In the movie Bladerunner the general culture's language is a confluence of english and chinese this future might not be that far off the mark!

    CPT 02/21/2006 @ 11:47am

    Once again you prove beyond a doubt that you are truely a totally clueless republican. Even you have to admit that you hypocracy is showing!

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/21/2006 @ 12:10pm

19. To give any mideast country control over anything in this country is suicidal. Madness, never mind the PR night mares, undefendable..under any conditoin.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2006 @ 12:11pm

20. Thanks to John Nichols for the most concise overview of the "Sale of our ports" fiasco I have yet read. His clarity of vision coupled with precise expression of idea is much needed and appreciated. Historically, and I think exclusively, if one country took over another country's seaports, it was as result of war. Has the secretive Bush Administration received a clandestine blow from the UAE or ally resulting in the forfeiture of United States seaports? Coincidentally, according to "presidentiial advisor" Dan Bartlett, as reported in a CNN article yesterday, until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, Mr. Bush was unaware of the sale.?!

    Posted by arkough at 02/21/2006 @ 12:11pm

21. cpt, i reread the post here and i don't see one mention of patriotism. john, it seems, is talking about national security and privatization. i don't know where you get this flag-wrapping argument but he didn't mention one flag either. are you projecting here? mr. nichols and the rest of the nation staff critically think through problems and issues. you are the one who constantly brings up patriotism and flag-wrapping. how about your thorough analysis of "supporting the troops" from a few weeks ago?

    freedomplease, it seems you spoke too soon.

    at least LL admits it's a bad idea. why do you think it's a bad idea, LL? because of the security or the privatization?

    and cpt and LL--it's interesting that both of you "know" that mr. nichols does not care about port security. that is ridiculous. you really look desperate when you try this mind reading crap.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 12:12pm

22. at least LL admits it's a bad idea. why do you think it's a bad idea, LL? because of the security or the privatization?

    and cpt and LL--it's interesting that both of you "know" that mr. nichols does not care about port security. that is ridiculous. you really look desperate when you try this mind reading crap.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/21/2006 @ 12:12am

    Loveloki,

    Obviously I am stating my opinion (in reference to Nichols), just like everyone else does on this site. But after reading and listening to Nichols for years, I feel like I have formed a rather substantial opinion on his world view.

    As to the port disagreement, it is clearly security. As a devout believer in limited government, I surely would not be advocating nationalizing our ports. The level of confidence in preventing poor decisions like this one is no better with government run ports. I reference the attempt during the Clinton years when Clinton supported the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach when they attempted to turn over control of the former Long Beach Naval Shipyard to the Chinese government. It took US citizens in a diligent effort to stop that fiasco.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 12:22pm

23. Let's see. Since the actual work of running an American port has be done by people working in the USA, there's no way to export the jobs to foreign countries. Luckily there's a way to export the profits.

    Posted by Pancho at 02/21/2006 @ 12:25pm

24. LOVELOKI

    "and cpt and LL--it's interesting that both of you "know" that mr. nichols does not care about port security. that is ridiculous. you really look desperate when you try this mind reading crap"

    Well it is precisely that same penetrating analysis that Mr Nichols and his nation peers constantly give us. That allows me to make that statement

    Use the connotation of the words patriotism and flag wrapping, not so much the denotation of those words. They apply here.

    The FACT is in the Nations' propensity to wrap themsleves in ANY Flag, to make the point of simply bashing Bush. That is what Mr. Nichols is guilty of; on many occassions.

    And the Arab port company is a bad PR idea, would not do it.

    Posted by CPT at 02/21/2006 @ 12:26pm

25. Mal,

    Off topic here,

    from another thread,

    "JM,

    BTW, I am a capitalist. I started with a shitty job...worked hard...now I earn a 'comfortable' living and I 'created' 4 jobs. (Did I actually 'create' these jobs? Or did I just beat someone else, in filling a void?)

    Exxon-Mobil (Doing good) or GM (Doing, not so good) are global conglomerates; driving/buying smaller companies out, creating a monopoly, hoarding profits and trying to eliminate as many jobs as they can.

    Which better fits your concept of why capitalism is good? Which concept better serves most Americans? And which concept does this admin. promote?

    Eric

    1.- You may have helped create 4 other jobs if your efforts contributed to increased demand for your service or product. You and others in your company.

    2. By beating someone else to fill the void, do you mean you were hired over some one else or do you mean there was not job there in the first place and you created yours by showing a need?Either way, a job was created to fill some need at your company.

    3. EXXON MOBIL>>> I don't accept the premise you stated here.Nor do I believe any administion would support this type "CAPITALISM". As to the statement by me that more refineries today would actually bring more profits ,is, of course a short term stat. We have not been allowed to build a new one in years and if we had been allowed to do so, we would have had more gas available to consumers at a lower rice and the companies would have been able to sell more . Even Kartrina and speculators drove prices up and not as a result of shortage of crude. Oil companies supplied what they could. I know of no one who believe Oil companies shut down there own refineries just to boost profits or lay off workers to do so..to make more money it is better to sell more product. The laid off workers would not add much to bottom line as compared to increased sales.

    Sorry so long to get back and sorry on this thread.

    Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2006 @ 12:34pm

26. "ANY measure to strengthen them would be critcized"

    Hello, we on the 'left' have been hammering bushco, for his big talk and little action, about homeland security.

    Port security, or lack thereof, has been a major issue with many for a long time.

    Sounds more like "ANY thing bad about bushco, will be criticized" by you.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 12:39pm

27. According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

    September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

    Posted by RESE 02/21/2006 @ 12:23am

    Reese,

    It is fun sometimes to read through your postings and even visit the links you provide. I and others have pointed out a number of the contradictions in your materials (BTW, you never respond to my question regarding Dr. Zakheim in which you continually accuse him of stealing more money (2.6 trillion) than the entire Defense Budget during the time he served in the position as Comptroller).

    But your continued denial of the world wide threat of terrorism is the singular point that completes robs you of any credibility.

    1. Do you deny the terrorist attacks on Israel over the past 58 years?

    2. Do you deny the terrorist attacks killing Americans on the Achille Lauro? Pan Am flight 103, the Cole, African Embassies, and thousands of other attacks. Please refute if possible from the attached terrorism timeline link

    http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212088/tertime.htm

    There is no doubt that we face a growing globalist danger not just in terms of US sovereignty, but for those who are Christians it signals the ever closer time of a one world government that will be run by the anti-christ.

    But as I previously stated, you lose all credibility when you deny there is a global danger of terrorism and instead expect people to believe that our government (with cooperation of both political parties) is behind all of the terrorism we have experienced.

    BTW2, I noticed you completely ignored my links and info quoting the Iranians and the varied analysis showing their intent on not only developing nuclear weapons, but using them against Israel once operational. I consider that even more ignorant than your conspiracy theories because of your proven ability to research.

    You ignore it only because it does not line up with your Bush scenarios and would rob you of a great deal of material you post.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 12:50pm

28. Loveloki,

    It does appear that I posted my generalization of the apologist's position too soon. Wisely, our apologist's have come to the heel of their Master's and are now in full force apologizing. In most instances, they are playing the "in this case the Administration was wrong" card, but still forgiving and thus apologizing on the Administration's behalf because of the good things they feel the Administration has done.

    In other words, we go right back to the old statement that I have made before.....this President could kiddie rape on National TV and if he kept the tax cuts coming most of these idiots would carry on voting for him.

    He's raped our Constitution, he's raped our International allies, he's stolen our kids money, he's murdered thousands in New Orlean's, he's raped the CIA and now he's raping our Port Security.....but just give me a tax cut and I'll still apologize on your behalf and vote for you!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2006 @ 1:20pm

29. Another good decision by the Bush administration.

    Sure, it's almost certainly wrong, but it's clever and gutsy.

    Is the change in ownership going to have a negative impact on our port security? Possibly. A little. It's still the same company, isn't it? One would hope that we conducted at least token monitoring of the port security prior to the sale and will continue to make sure that nothing terribly fishy goes on.

    Meanwhile, what would Chertoff rather talk about: an issue that will be off the radar screen by next week or the continuing story of how his department's ineptitude led directly to untold suffering by Gulf Coast residents?

    At the same time, Bush finally gets to demonstrate that he doesn't hate all Muslims. He likes the ones with money, the same method for choosing friends he uses in this country. It's not racism and it's not religious bigotry, see? It's classism, pure and simple--so we can all relax. It's just business as usual.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 1:23pm

30. CPT and LL seem more concerned with couching their displeasure with the port issue in Nichols-bashing than addressing the meat of the article... (Kudos to Liberty for at least realizing that regardless of what Nichols thinks, the port issue is still a major Bush fuckup and worth addressing... - at least I think he acknowledged this - it's hard to tell)

    CPT posts:

    "Well it is precisely that same penetrating analysis that Mr Nichols and his nation peers constantly give us. That allows me to make that statement"

    And your credentials, education, and experience in reporting world news for a major national publication are...?

    You write, "And the Arab port company is a bad PR idea, would not do it."

    Bad PR??? PR???

    How about bad for the interests of national security???

    Unreal. Can you ever just say that the misadministration is doing a poor job without qualifying the indictment?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 1:27pm

31. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2006 @ 12:34am

    John,

    1. Depends on how you define "create", i guess

    2. I meant, just because I set up shop, wouldn't somebody else have done so too. Perhaps, eliminating the demand, my business fills. The question was about small American business vs. large multi-national corporations.

    3. Your kidding right? This administration, is outright owned, by multi-nationals. This style of "CAPITLISM" is the money engine that drives this regime.

    Capitalism, may be 'good', but it has no national allegance. Why are republicans such big fans of Americas right to secure her interests anywhere, by any means. But not to secure our governance from companies, that not only will twist the law to drive up profits, but will not even contribute to the American economy with these profits. Through tax revenue or salaries.

    Of course, these are the first people to question the patriotism of those who disagree. And the first to wave the flag. Or ban burning it. Anything that smacks of patriotism, except defending the constitution or the American middle class.

    It is a hollow point of view.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 1:29pm

32. LL

    Your point is that we should all be afraid of "terroism". How was terrorism dealt with pre-bush?

    These terrorist acts were done by small groups who usually fought as much against themselves as they did against the freeworld.

    The powers that be at the time usually went after the small groups, quietly removing them and on with life, now we have a "War on Terror" we have established a much higher profile for terrorists and they are flocking to the cause.

    Is the threat global hell yes, did our actions stem or elivate that danger? We have taken what was once a semi controlled threat and turned it into a much larger threat with an emphesis for increasing recurtment to their cause.

    W has taken what was an annoiance and turned it into a major threat to world stability and you and those who continue to blindly support that fear mongering have dug a hell of a hole, not only for us but the rest of the world.

    It's time to quell the fear and resolve the issue yes we will take a few lumps but in the end we will survive. The cat is out of the box but, the least we can do to correct the situation is to stop making martyers out of the fools who created it.

    Posted by dycel8r at 02/21/2006 @ 1:37pm

33. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/port.security/ index.html?section=cnn_topstories

    Chertoff's predecessor Tom Ridge, said,

    "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security.

    So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."

    CPT -

    I'm quite interested in your scholarly analysis of Tom Ridge. Flaming liberal wackjob who fails to understand national security? Traitor to the Republicans for talking against the misadministration? "Flag-wrapper"?

    Please, elaborate.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 1:37pm

34. You don't suppose our great friends the Israelis are really the ones who they plan to appoint as the state owned company for this new security contract, and what they are really doing is standing up a strawman to enable it, do you?

    They wouldn't do that would they?

    I mean it's not like they nominated Bernard Kerrick as Homeland Security Director knowing full well of his checkered past, only to insert Chertoff with flying colors.

    Remember thinking to yourself at the time..."How could it be that these guys did no background check on Kerrick?"

    Of course they did!

    Nor is it like they claimed to select Harriet Meirs of all people as their preferred nominee to the Supreme Court, only to install their REAL CHOICE in the aftermath...making each new prospect look excellent by comparison.

    I mean how Rovian can you get?

    Surely Karl didn't suggest a strategy of proclaiming that port security would be turned over to the Arabs, only to make the choice of an Israeli firm look like a magnificent option by comparison.

    I mean they wouldn't do that, would they?

    There's no history of that type of behavior, is there?

    Hey Karl...Your Busted!

    I'm onto your shit!

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 2:24pm

35. Posted by PLUNGER 02/21/2006 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person

    Hey, PLUNGE....got a spare copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" I can borrow? I'll take hard-cover or paperback, even one of those you've used Highlighter on...or one of the other 3-4 copies....Thanks!

    Posted by Mask at 02/21/2006 @ 2:29pm

36. "Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 2:42pm

37. So when has this administration done anything by the book? Guilt by association, harmful ramifications? Like the Saudi's, 9/11 and Bush?

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html

    "The process was done by the book," Bartlett said. "If you start deciding these issues in a guilt-by-association method, you will have a situation which has deep and harmful ramifications to the economic interests of this country."

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/21/2006 @ 3:05pm

38. Again....

    I wonder if Mr Nichols can explain why former President Carter supports this deal?

    Posted by Mask at 02/21/2006 @ 3:06pm

39. Posted by PLUNGER 02/21/2006 @ 2:42pm

    Oh I think they want to fool people too.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/21/2006 @ 3:07pm

40. RIO,

    Seek your doctor's advice to control your AADD. And calendars are handy things to reference once in a while.

    MASK,

    Make up your mind. Do former politicians matter only when you think they something scandalous or do they also matter when they something intelligent? You enjoy playing the "so and so said" game that some of The Nation's less thoughtful writers employ, but by playing that same game you look like a crank.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 3:19pm

41. Here we are, talking about Clinton and Carter again, as if George W. Bush hasn't been our President since 2001.

    Fallacious arguments about the dangers "nationalizing" the ports by bringing them under the control of the Federal government aren't going to wash here, boys. We're talking about allowing a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, one that in the past has aided and abetted terrorists, to quite literally buy the keys to the front door. How's THAT for nationalization?

    All of the hoopla does seem to miss a central point, though -- port operators, foreign or homegrown, are not responsible for security. The DHS and the Coast Guard are charged with that task, and would most certainly not be relieved of their duties. It's sad to note, however, that programs to adequately provide security measures in our ports have been consistently and repeatedly underfunded by this administration. The scarcity of security measures, coupled with the idea of a relying on potentially hostile foreign government's proxy to comply with what security forces we do provide, makes this whole idea a non-starter.

    But in a broader context, winger concern about our open borders tends to concentrate almost completely on Central and South American illegal immigrants -- where's the concern about our open ports? You'll pay to build a fence but not to inspect cargo? People crossing the desert aren't unloading shipping containers directly into major cities...

    Posted by breasonable at 02/21/2006 @ 3:32pm

42. Rese,

    I posted that question about Zakheim twice to you on other threads here. No, I am not Mask.

    You still confuse a lot of issues, like the jesuit anti christ thing. That would be impossible since the anti christ must be jewish in order to be accepted as Maschiah.

    And the 2.6 trillion is about accounting deficiencies; here is my original post question to you from a KVH thread:

    WE NEED TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT ZAKHEIM DID WITH 2.6 TRILLION DOLLARS! RUMSFELD ONLY JOKES ABOUT THIS UNANSWERED QUESTION!

    Posted by RESE 02/07/2006 @ 06:09am

    Rese,

    Perhaps with your peculiar brand of logic, you can also explain how Zakheim managed to take more than twice the amount of the entire defense budget during the 1997-2001 period in which he was in his position and during which the testimony came.

    Somehow I don't remember hearing about the entire military not being paid, all the civilian employees, the military purchasing contracts not being paid, bases being maintained, and on, and on.

    Please enlighten us; it should be a doozy.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 02/07/2006 @ 10:51am

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 3:34pm

43. Bottom line is your market ideologues will sell their "terrorists" the rope that's used to hang people with, and have demonstrated that time and again through their manipulations and games in the world arms trade. Why shouldn't the waterfronts be up for sale? Everything else is.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 02/21/2006 @ 3:44pm

44. NEW DAWN

    It is compleltely appropiate to say that this has more to do with PR than National Security.

    The FACTS are that the original UK company, in charge of the port operations, has been sold to a Dubai firm.

    Responsibility for running the port operations go to that company.

    Security, which is the big issue, is and ALWAYS has been handled by customs and the Coast Guard. There is nothing that is changing about that. Nothing.

    Everyone up in arms is making more of this than what it really is, the problem with people is that it is an ARAB firm. The crux of the matter is people are getting a ARAB-phobic.

    Should Bush explain the operational details of this deal more fully? sure; thats reasonable.

    But politicians from both sides of the aisle are playing to an irrational prejuidice in making this an issue, the way they have.

    So this is ALL about PR, my original statement is true, it is not so much about port secruity, but more about the perception of port security.

    But as perception tends to become reality, the pandering politician thing to do here is cave in and move on.

    Posted by CPT at 02/21/2006 @ 4:00pm

45. BREASONABLE/NEW DAWN

    The port security issue? Well they do check certain cargo from certain ports, but it is a TARGETED search, and of course they do searches when intell leads them to do so.

    All the talk of scanners and x-ray machines for every piece of cargo is REACTIVE. Our current terror prevention methods, if you want to call it that, are based on proactive measures, ala the terror surveillence program and i am sure others.

    All the talk of securing the borders, while much of it has merit, is reactive and does nothing to address the real issues at hand, they are distractors.

    Posted by CPT at 02/21/2006 @ 4:09pm

46. It's not only Dem's that are clearly worried about this:

    "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.

    "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.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/21/2006 @ 4:13pm

47. U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being "Guarded" by Israel American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems--owned in part by the government of Israel--is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.

    The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)--which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.

    What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.

    Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps America's closest ally on the face of the planet. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms.

    Be that as it may, however, Magal's global interests are quite broad-ranging. Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern "space age" technology, Magal has now branched out internationally. Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia.

    In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London. What's more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems.

    Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards. There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.

    Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.

    However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.

    And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties--even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel--Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries--will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/nukesguardedbyisrael.html

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 4:16pm

48. CPT: Your point is well taken -- there is a bit of a knee-jerk element to the general response here.

    Nevertheless, the Arab firm in question is owned by government of the UAE, which, as Mr. Nichols notes, is a country that served as an operational and financial base of operations for terrorists.

    We're not talking about a replacing one corporation with another that just so happens to be Arab -- the latter is an entity controlled by a foreign government. That's a little more than a simple PR issue.

    Posted by breasonable at 02/21/2006 @ 4:18pm

49. Reese,

    BTW, I'm sure everyone enjoyed your mention of Bohemian Groove and the suggestion that Bush hangs out there engaging in child sacrifices, homosexual orgies and other satanic actvities. Many of the people you like to link to like Alex Jones swear that Bush goes there. Of course the only problem with that is that Bush has never traveled to San Francisco or Oakland during his presidency (which is how he would travel in Air Force 1 in order to drive up to Marin)

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/22/154643.shtml

    But I'm sure that he found some satanic way to get there without the media noticing. Much like the way the same Alex Jones posts links on how JFK and Elvis are in Rosewell NM.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 4:19pm

50. Stop the Press, whoa, Bush just issued a strong veto threat on the port deal.

    Calling lawmakers to put up or shut up! Oh yeah, I like this, the POTUS throwing down, this is Bush drawing a line in the sand saying, if its ok for the UK company; why not the UAE?

    Let see who the first is to be labeled the "bigot" The tone is going to radically change here, from port security to bigotry.

    Posted by CPT at 02/21/2006 @ 4:20pm

51. CPT,

    Apparently you didn't read the blog. It doesn't matter that it's Dubai owned or London owned. It matters that it is corporate owned. Pursuant to 9/11 new port security measures were enacted that affected every port operator. The mandated security is provided by the operator at the operators expense. The oversight of this program is weak or non-existent and thus since it is a cost, the vigilance of the compliance is less than stellar (newsflash: money making enterprises could give a shit what gets past so long as it doesn't cost them money).

    But don't worrry, the new head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Miss Julie L. Miers, who was so inexperienced that not even Senate Republican's would accept her nomination so the beloved Administration just appointed her in reccess, will keep us all safe!

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2006 @ 4:22pm

52. BREASONABLE

    I understand that sentiment, and i am all for more details about the parameters on this deal coming out to Congress.

    But should we hold the government of UAE to account for a few of its citizens? The UAE is not the Taliban or Saddams govts who give either explicit or implicit orders to help terrorists.

    My first instincts is to void the deal as well, but looking closer at it, there might be a valid point here.

    Posted by CPT at 02/21/2006 @ 4:26pm

53. Plunger,

    As usual you can be counted on providing more anti-jewish hate. The entire world knows that the Israelis are the best there are at security. Therefore unless someone lines up with you and Rese in your Jewish hate program, most people would want to have the best security possible for our airports, nuclear energy facilities, and water supply.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 4:27pm

54. CPT -

    I think calling this a "PR problem" is a rampant oversimplification...

    There are several 9-11 connections to the United Arab Emirates. Many of the hijackers entered the U.S. via UAE, much of the attack's planning was done there, and the FBI says money for the operation was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system.

    _____

    How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? My guess is you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan -- and be determined to prevent it from happening.

    Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001. In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility.

    Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans -- to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract. _____

    Arab takeover of U.S. ports seen as security 'insanity'

    WorldNet Daily Article

    Excerpt:

    A company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over six U.S. ports, a development that has local and federal elected officials outraged.

    A merger deal approved by the federal government has the company currently running the ports, London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, getting acquired by the Emirati firm, Dubai Ports World. UAE has known ties to terrorists and 9-11 hijackers, raising concerns about security issues at the ports involved: New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

    "On its face, this looks like [expletive] insanity to me," the Republican minority leader of the New York City Council, James Oddo, told the New York Sun.

    "This shouldn't happen. It really boggles the mind," Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy told the New York paper. She said the United Arab Emirates is "a big hub for all kinds of terrorist activities. ... We know that terrorist money is being laundered there."

    Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also spoke out against the merger, which is scheduled to be finalized March 2.

    "Should we be outsourcing our own security?" Schumer said on the Fox News Channel. "We have to have hands-on control of things. And to have United Arab Emirates – I mean, they are a country that's allied with the U.S., but at the same time a whole bunch of the (September 11) hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates."

    Continued Schumer: "I think there ought to be a full and public review before this company is allowed to control security up and down the East Coast. The issue is not the head of the company. I'm sure he's been checked out. But how good is their security? How good do they check on their employees? Could people infiltrate this company a lot more easily than they could infiltrate an American company?"

    Monday, Schumer called on the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to review the deal. It was OK'd by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a federal panel composed of the secretaries of 12 federal agencies. Dubai Ports World said in a statement the committee "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection."

    The senator claimed the committee's approval "seems to have been unnecessarily fast-tracked." Other's have called it a rubber stamp for the Bush administration... _____

    According to the Sun, Ali Al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, noted the United Arab Emirates "has been fueling the insurgency in Iraq. They have hosted a lot of the Sunni insurgent supporters and Sunni insurgents.

    "If they're allowing this to happen in their country – al-Qaida activities and Sunni insurgent in Iraq activities – why shouldn't they allow it in New York, where it's going to be more and more valuable?"...

    _____

    And didn't this administration mention something about "countries that support or harbor terrorism" being on our shit list?

    I don't mean to be knee-jerky (comes in assorted flavors), but this whole deal stinks.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 4:32pm

55. Love Liberty:

    Google your namesake...

    "USS Liberty"

    Now Google:

    "False Flag"

    And finally Google:

    "Dancing Israelis"

    Then come back and preach to me about the benefits of a foreign government handling US Homeland Security.

    Are you insane?

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 4:35pm

56. President Bush can't see the difference between a company based in Great Britian owning US ports and a company OWNED by the UAE owning US Ports.

    I'm sure that Great Britain is delighted by our President's comparison.

    Collassal Faux Pas.

    Wedge issue to drive Republicans away from Bush.

    Heads up Karl...you're hosed!

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 4:42pm

57. Plunger, I trust the Israelis over most anyone but our own military to guard these areas and our Constitution will not allow the military to do so. Therefore Magal becomes the best choice in my mind. I just don't hate Jews and suspect them of every evil the way you do.

    Posted by love liberty at 02/21/2006 @ 4:54pm

58. Liberty:

    What did you learn when you performed the recommended Google Research? Which articles did you read? Why not post some links to educate all of us how you arrived at your opinion that Israeli-owned Magal should be responsible for guarding our US Nuclear Facilities.

    This ought to be good...

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 4:57pm

59. Hypothesis.

    Let's see you're the Administration and you have secret energy meetings in 2001 that make up your mind that you need to be in Iraq.

    So you ignore the PDB's that scream OBL going to attack etc. and you ignore your terrorist czar who's screaming for a meeting and you ignore the out going Administration that tells you about OBL / AQ etc., so that the attack can happen and then you can make your case to invade Iraq.

    Now as an Administration you want to go into Iran, but you know that the USA population and the world will need more convincing than just Iran becoming nuclear and you know that unlike in 2001 your most vulnrable attack avenue is the port infrastructure so you wave a UAE takeover through and you appoint incompetents like Julie L. Miers (the Michael Brown playbook to gentrify New Orleans).

    It's starting to fit. Looks like our port(s) is going to be attacked......thousands, tens of thousands will be killed, but it will give a green light to nuking Iran.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2006 @ 5:07pm

60. sorry all, but i have to do this. LL in your conversation with rese you said that christians like yourself know the day is drawing near when the world will be ruled by the anti-christ. so, is the anti-christ here yet? do you know who he/she is? is it obl? is it david blaine? who is it?

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 5:15pm

61. freedomplease, interesting hypothesis...as is plunger's. but i think you're wrong to accuse the current administration of doing something sneaky or underhanded. they would never do that.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 5:18pm

62. http://planetquo.com/Bad-Company

    ICTS UK Ltd is another Israeli-run 'transportation security' company with offices in London. Although the company's registered address is listed as 8 Baker Street, they operate, however, from an office on the first Floor of Tavistock House South. Curiously, this is the exact same location that Fortress GB operate from. More curious still, Tavistock House is the exact location where the number 30 bus exploded on 7th July.

    Given that both companies provide 'transportation security' services, operate from the same floor of the same office complex, and given that both are owned and run by Israelis, only a hardened 'coincidence theorist' would deny that there is evidence indicating tangible links between the two. Indeed, one could be forgiven for believing that the same people are behind Fortress GB Ltd and ICTS UK Ltd.

    As Christopher Bollyn points out, these companies merit being investigated because "they provide 'security technology' for the tube lines that were bombed." Bollyn also points out that these Israeli companies perfect their 'security' skills in Israel and Iraq and then apply them in Britain and the USA.

    ICTS International were the company who ran the security arrangements at ALL the airports from where the hijacked airliners departed from on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 5:31pm

63. Frank:

    I like your thinking, but I'm of the belief that the wolves are at the door and it's Wild Cornered Animal Stage for Bush and his coconspirators who are on the verge of being turned against with a VENGENCE.

    If Bush's cronies stop obstructing justice and start putting people under oath, this administration is toast.

    They are guilty of war crimes, treason, obstruction, conspiracy, and God knows what else.

    The only thing protecting them is their majority power structure and their control of the media. The media will smell the sea change and jump ship.

    Watergate revisited (times ten).

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 5:36pm

64. Greed and Arrogance are terminal.

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 5:38pm

65. Posted by LOVELOKI 02/21/2006 @ 5:15pm | ignore this person

    has there been a century since the 1st when a bunch of christians were not sure the end was near? at the turn of the first millenia a bunc were so convinced they neglected to plant crops, because, why? later, of course, a bunch starved to death...every day is judgement day...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2006 @ 5:39pm

66. yes ibble, an example can be found with the catholics who did not bother to organize or start to form an actual theology for 600 years because the second coming was at hand...any second now....

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 5:42pm

67. i just want LL to let us all know who exactly satan is...

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 5:43pm

68. Loki -

    Okay, I'll admit it.

    It's me.

    Blah!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 6:00pm

69. Blah!

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/21/2006 @ 6:00pm

    Booga Booga Booga

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:05pm

70. hey everybody I have a great idea

    Let's sell our ports to the terrorists.

    What! You mean the deal is almost ready to sign?

    eggscellent

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:07pm

71. and if anybody opposes the deal.

    Let's call em racists and then go high five the president for being decisionally

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:09pm

72. cheney is at 29%?

    wow

    Posted by ZERO 02/21/2006 @ 6:03pm

    Yes, Zero, it really is THAT high. Imagine that 3 out of every 10 Americans approve of the way he is doing his job. I wonder if the survey followed with a question for those 3 out of 10 asking them to define Cheney's job.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 6:11pm

73. "3 out of 10 Americans will approve of just about anything."

    And 4 out of 5 dentists agree that 1 out of 5 dentists is an idiot...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 6:14pm

74. 3 out of 10 Americans will approve of just about anything

    Posted byZERO 02/21/2006 @ 6:11pm

    A recent example of that phenomena: selling our ports to the terrorists

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:16pm

75. Back to the port security issue, why was it that only Kerry seemed concerned about this issue a year-plus ago? I might be dense (no comments, please) but it was never an issue that occupied me to any degree--it seemed not only to be a politically dead issue, but something that was/is virtually unsolveable. I don't recall GOP candidates nodding their heads when Kerry spoke of needed adjustments to our port security.

    Is this a sign that the GOP is sidling to the middle to grab those votes that the Dems' perch in the middle is intended to garner?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 6:19pm

76. And 4 out of 5 dentists agree that 1 out of 5 dentists is an idiot...

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/21/2006 @ 6:14pm |

    but only because he provides operational planing facilities and a cash conduit to the nine eleven highjackers, a transhipment point for the nuclear weapons components supplied by AQ Khan and a distributiuon point for Afgahbi opium on its way to the west.

    And two of his hygienists were part of the attack on nine eleven.

    (so since he makes such a crappy dentist... waddaya say we sell him half a dozen or so US ports)

    are you with me?

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:24pm

77. EXACTLY.

    Will, sometimes, yer a purty smart feller.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 6:26pm

78. The right-wing apologist talk show host I listen to in the afternoons is now crying "racist" about those who don't want an Arab country (never mind those pesky 9/11 connections) anywhere near our ports...

    Unreal.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 6:28pm

79. dawn, i knew it was you all along.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:30pm

80. Sounds like there's money being made and the BC BS regime has a cut in the deal somewhere.

    BY MICHAEL McAULIFF DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

    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.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/21/2006 @ 6:33pm

81. http://waynemadsenreport.com/

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 6:33pm

82. Will, sometimes, yer a purty smart feller.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 02/21/2006 @ 6:26pm

    sometimes I wish I were just shctoopid enough to put a big vapid smile on my face, skip off into hamsterland and wait for the rising sun (because the sun is always rising in hamsterland)... with it's associated neutron pulse, blast wave and George Forman grill like qualities.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:33pm

83. will and dawn, of course it's racist to be against selling our ports to terrorists. i mean who wouldn't want to sell our ports to terrorists? i thought freedomplease was on to something when he/she said the righties would be silent on this issue because it's indefensible...but alas, no dice, they'll defend anything these people? do.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:36pm

84. bushfools, thanks for the info...sickenly it is not surprising.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:38pm

85. sorry, i meant to say sickeningly.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:38pm

86. is that a word?

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:38pm

87. people?

    Posted by LOVELOKI 02/21/2006 @ 6:36pm

    Freudian slip but nevertheless...Well put! Insert the term "pod" in front of "people" and I would have to answer yes

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:39pm

88. it wasn't a freudian slip, i just had a hard time referring to them as people.

    pod-people is a much better description.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:40pm

89. the pod people of hamsterland...dawn, i have a feeling you're behind all this.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:41pm

90. you have to remember that the pods are what's connected by the yellow plastic runways in the habitrail matrix.

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:45pm

91. a bit of hamsterland trivia for any of you interested in creating your own board game

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:47pm

92. :)

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 6:48pm

93. Loveliberty:

    Why did you run away?

    Here's a timely interview regarding the country you are happy to have guarding our US Nuclear Facilities...ENJOY!

    http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsEnnis.html

    Daryl Bradford Smith interviews James Ennis

    Officer of the deck on the USS Liberty tells the truth about how Zionist Israel tried to murder his entire crew and blame it on somebody else. A clear act of war.

    They were even trying to murder the sailors in the lifeboats. A war crime according to Geneva conventions.

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 6:49pm

94. 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.

    Posted by BUSHFOOLS 02/21/2006 @ 6:33pm

    These are certainly pretty tight ties. But I don't understand what we/the administration/Bush has gotten out of it. It kind of seems like we've been doing the giving. All quo, no quid. Do we know what forms of quid might be out there?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 6:50pm

95. you know, i'm going to say it again...we can't go a single day without a major scandal with these pod people. every single day they've done something new, shocking and mostly illegal. maybe that's their tactical approach...overdose the american public with shocking scandals and they'll remain so dazed & confused they'll never be able to stop them let alone slow them down.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/21/2006 @ 6:50pm

96. "Poppie" Bush is called that with good reason. He's been accused of dealing heroine through the CIA. One of the largest transshipment ports for Afghanistan's Heroine trade is through UAE's port.

    Now, ask youself...why would Bush be adamant about this port deal?

    Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 6:56pm

97. Myabe it's just me, but the sight of politicians who revolt me from the moment of the first syllable out of their mouths jumping up and down about this issue makes me think that it isn't much more complex than we know. These are simple-minded folk, in general. They like things easy and this seems easy. Which makes me think it isn't.

    I don't know. I just don't know. It seems stupid to have federalized airport workers while doing the opposite on ports. Yet what entity is capable of really ensuring the safety of a major port? What else do we know about the Dubai company? Where else are the securing ports?

    Is this a situation like Saudi Arabia, a country that in many ways works with us in spite of the fact that many of their citizens would like us to take a flying leap? And what are we to make of Gonzalez's announcement of the Toledo Trio supposedly plotting to assist terrorist causes? Eight tunnels found near San Diego this year? Is the port security issue worth this level of political hairpulling?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 6:58pm

98. Do we know what forms of quid might be out there?

    Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/21/2006 @ 6:50pm

    Fuck quid. How about some green backs. DP world bought the ports for 6 and a half billion. We have 300 or so milion people in our country. We pass the hat around, half the country throws in fifty bucks (it would be twenty five bucks if all of us chipped in but I figure the cheap skate conservatives will all cry poor) and we buy it back.

    Since the bush administraion doesn't want to spent jack on port security (other than spend those few minutes selling our ports to the terrorists) maybe we need to step in and do the right thing

    Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:00pm

99. Whoops! Big mistake! I meant "...makes me think that it is much more complex than we know."

    By the way, McCain is now suggesting restraint on this issue. And '08 is so very far away.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 7:00pm

100. have I mentioned lately that conservaitves are insane!

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:06pm

101. have I mentioned lately that conservaitves are insane!

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 7:06pm

     I keep forgetting. Curt Wheldon is talking very sternly about the port issue right now (stern, port--need to work bow into the next sentence). A rough quote: "With all the talk about port security...", indicating that Congress has been talking a lot about port security prior to yesterday. Now, I don't tune in to C-SPAN every day, but I don't remember Congress talking about port security a lot. Or at all.

     What we are seeing most of all is the disintegration of a presidency. Cheney couldn't shoot straight and then wouldn't shoot straight. Bush is now treating Congress not just like his bitch, but is doing the unthinkable: ignoring his bitch. And without Bush's attention and stroking, without DeLay's ability to rally the pack to the master's side, we've got a friggin' mess on our hands.

     And we've got three years of this mess to get through. Heaven help us.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 7:14pm

102. dawn, i knew it was you all along.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 02/21/2006 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person

     Hee hee hee Busted by my own big mouth.

     Well, I do drink, smoke, and debauch with young women like the devil himself... Does that count?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:19pm

103. I feel we've gone long enough on this thread w/o someone pointing out that Clinton got a BJ in office and then - gasp - lied about it.

     Posted by skeletonman at 02/21/2006 @ 7:23pm

104. the pod people of hamsterland...dawn, i have a feeling you're behind all this.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 02/21/2006 @ 6:41pm | ignore this person

     It's all part of my evil plan. The sooner all of us hedonists arrive at hell in a handbasket, the sooner we can start the party...

     There'll be booze and pretzels and all of those other nasty liberal ideals, like education, civil rights, security, honesty...

     "I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil's work." - Otis B. Driftwood

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:23pm

105. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/21/2006 @ 7:14pm

     I was watching Hardball when I came home today and the congresswoman from florida, Ileana ros..somthing, was saying she opposed the deal but that the congress needed to review it and maybe it's all above board(my paraphrazing). And my first reaction was ah ha! So thats' that how your'e going to do it. Give the issue some republican kangaroo hearing and then say it's all on the up and up.

     These guys have made some incredibly schtoopid moves since coming to power, but this,if it goes through, is certifiable insanity.

     I don't care how good an ally that the UAE is in the GWOT. If we do this we cam never talk about port security again because there is no point in worrying about whether the front door is locked if the thief is already in the house... and we were the ones that let him in, gave him own room and the spare set of house keys.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:24pm

106. Frank,

     I think it was MASK who a few days ago referred to the Cheney hunting story as a little, shiny thing that distracts the easily distraced people (he implied democrats, I think). I think there is a very strong link between this story and some of the things bandied about on Peter Rothberg's blog about media bias. This is an important story, but clearly the presses have stopped. And any lack of coverage is good right now for the administration.

     The News Hour is currently featuring the US Ambassador to Iraq continuing his threats to pull back support (could we do less?) if the US feels as if the sectarian disagreements are not resolved to our satisfaction. He wants to "work with them" to resolve these differences, but insists that Iraq is a sovereign country. Ugh!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 7:26pm

107. "Poppie" Bush is called that with good reason. He's been accused of dealing heroine through the CIA. One of the largest transshipment ports for Afghanistan's Heroine trade is through UAE's port."

     Just a friendly pointing-out, not a ball-busting, Plunge...

     Lara Croft is a "heroine". "Heroin" is a nasty street drug.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:26pm

108. to save time, why don't we just nuke one of our own cities. I'd love to see a real live nuclear explosion. If we beat ossama and his boys to it, that way we'll all get to stand around and watch.

     everybody could wear those silver fire suits hold out their hot dogs and marshmallows on stick and let the heat pulse cook'em just like you like'em

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:28pm

109. Strangely, I am far less concerned about what shipments might make it into the U.S. than I am that the people who work for the country may be suspect. If I were a foriegn terrorist willing to lay low and make myself appear harmless for a few years, what better job to seek than as a cargo loader (or offloader) on a ship that comes into American ports...?

     And working on those docks here will allow them to see inside how we check out suspicious cargo...

     Kinda like handing a fox the blueprints and procedural manual for the henhouse...

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:31pm

110. Too bad this is so serious.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/21/2006 @ 7:28pm

     Cheney shot a seventy eight year old man... in the face

     a week later the republican party is about to shoot itself... in the face

     (Cheney must have been doing a little R & D for them)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:32pm

111. BWAHHAHAHahahahaahahahaaaa

     heh

     heh

     No, wait, this so isn't funny.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:32pm

112. Frank -

     I don't know about all of the controlled demolition conspiracy theories (if tinfoil hats aren't required for these theories and there is the remotest chance they could be true, then I'm moving to Mars)...

     but I do know that having any foreknowledge at all, however slight, of such an impending event and "allowing" it to happen (even via apparent negligence or "bad intelligence") would be a perfect opportunity to enact the PNAC agenda in its entirety...

     We were, after all spoiling to go into the Middle East since before the Shrub got into office and well before 9/11...

     Now, I'm not saying anything. I'm just saying...

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:37pm

113. Anybody notice any similarities between Bush and that dumbass president on the show 24?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/21/2006 @ 7:42pm

     Anybody ever notice the similarity between Bush and a bag of hammers?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:45pm

114. Bush similarity numero uno:

     Bush=Bonzo the Chimp

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:47pm

115. C'mon, righties, even if you like the guy (go figure), you gotta admit the resemblance is remarkable.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:47pm

116. Bush=Bonzo the Chimp

     Posted by NEW DAWN 02/21/2006 @ 7:47pm

     and that's about as close to Ronald Reagan as he is ever going to get

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:48pm

117. Frank -

     It's just like getting tucked into a warm bed by your terrorist-supporting mother, ain't it?

     What a lovely lullaby...

     "Trust us, little babies, trust us, trust us, and just you go to sleep."

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 7:50pm

118. yeah those nineteen highjackers obeyed all the rules too.

     Right up to the point were they highjacked the planes.

     After that... it was too late

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:51pm

119. and that's about as close to Ronald Reagan as he is ever going to get

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person

     For some reason, I read the above line as:

     and that's about as close to Ronald Reagan's ass as he is ever going to get.

     Weird, eh?

     Posted by skeletonman at 02/21/2006 @ 7:51pm

120. Posted by SKELETONMAN 02/21/2006 @ 7:51pm

     If it wasn't for his Texas Head Prophylactic (cowboy hat) he'd spend most of his life with his head up his or someone elses ass

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:58pm

121. The Texas Head Prophylactic: It takes a ten gallon hat, to keep a conservatives head out of their nine gallon butt holes.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 7:59pm

122. Mahmoud: What do you think of our new jobs, Khalid?

     Khalid: I love America! Smell the sea air. Isn't it refreshing?

     Mahmoud: Better than the smell of my unwashed, secular neighbor in my new neighborhood in New Jersey. If not for the work visa, I would not have been able to come here. Allah bless George Boosh!

     (both laugh)

     Khalid: My cousin Ali is coming to visit next month. I will be giving him the layout of the port's holding facility and the copies of the manifests for the last year.

     Mahmoud: He can make our shipments, inshallah, look innocuous, perhaps like ones from days past? Hide them?

     Khalid: Inshallah, this will be done.

     Mahmoud: This is good. And how long until our shipment is ready?

     Khalid: Less than one year.

     Mahmoud: Soon. So soon. Inshallah.

     (The preceding horrifuckingfying conversation brought to you by the Bush Administration, copyright 2006)

     All I'm saying is that if I'm hearing the news right, Bush himself didn't even know about the deal til it was done, Rummy didn't know, etc. How about a public explanation of what vetting took place and why we should all feel so assured?

     Are these small concessions on the part of this big ol' governemnt too much to ask for either the right or the left?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:00pm

123. oh and Texas... I'm messing with you

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:01pm

124. The Texas Head Prophylactic: It takes a ten gallon hat, to keep a conservatives head out of their nine gallon butt holes.

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 7:59pm | ignore this person

     It never ceases to amaze me how they can fit 20 gallons of liquified BS into a 10 gallon hat. Any ideas?

     Posted by skeletonman at 02/21/2006 @ 8:04pm

125. It never ceases to amaze me how they can fit 20 gallons of liquified BS into a 10 gallon hat. Any ideas?

     Posted by SKELETONMAN 02/21/2006 @ 8:04pm

     they turn it into shrubery first

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:05pm

126. Under the brazilnuts, with the last of the cashews?

     With dubya in Reagan's...nevermind.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 8:08pm

127. Are these small concessions on the part of this big ol' governemnt too much to ask for either the right or the left?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 02/21/2006 @ 8:00pm

     You know as patient as these guys are in coming after us, even if it took them a decade to worm their way into the operations of the ports, to them it would be right on schedule.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:10pm

128. they turn it into shrubery first

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 8:05pm | ignore this person

     It all comes back to Monty Python and the Holy Grail in the end, doesn't it?

     Perhaps somebody said 'nee' to the wingers and they got all a-scard, yelling 'run awayyyyyyyyyyyy'

     Posted by skeletonman at 02/21/2006 @ 8:12pm

129. Perhaps somebody said 'nee' to the wingers and they got all a-scard, yelling 'run awayyyyyyyyyyyy'

     Posted by SKELETONMAN 02/21/2006 @ 8:12pm |

     don't forget the rabbit.

     (He's a terrible beast with sharp pointy teeth)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:15pm

130. "they turn it into shrubery first"

     Seems to me that the Shrub is surrounded by bullshit, and feeding on it, to boot.

     And in the spirit of "compassionate" conservatism, he's kind enough to share it with the American public.

     I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that he isn't entirely stupid at all, not even really as dumb as he is misguided by what he really, really believes are his true principles. To say he is a man of principle and conviction wouldn't be out of the realm of truthiness.

     And I'm the first to admit that I never met the guy, can't say what he'd be like to "have a beer with" (though I'd expect a shit-kicking, good ole boy redneck persona).

     But I do know a couple things... like who his handlers are and advisors are... Hardcores and neocons and hawks and PNAC-friendly types who don't realize that global domination belongs in sci-fi movies and not in American policy.

     I think this fairly pleasant, "howdy"-friendly, well-meaning fellow (never mind his laughing at a condemned woman for finding God on death row) has been a little hijacked, and wouldn't know to say "no" to a bad idea presented to him in the same vein that his followers refuse to call him to task on most of what he gets away with by playing dumb.

     It's a circle-jerk, really. Emperor's clothes. Willingly blind yes-men and yes-women trying to out-yes one another. "Oh, yes, his coat is beautiful!"...

     And the Democrats (who have lost my vote, by the by - I may not vote for the first time in forever this year...) are now getting in line to try and out-yes the yessers.

     Fuck.

     (Apologies to Len and Liberty and the other gentle-eared folk on the board, but if know a better word to sum up my feelings as I feel them, lay it on me)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:15pm

131. You know as patient as these guys are in coming after us, even if it took them a decade to worm their way into the operations of the ports, to them it would be right on schedule.

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 8:10pm | ignore this person

     Exactly. I just don't see the wisdom in allowing not-just-any-but-one-with-significant-9/11-connections Arab country to gain such a foothold in any way.

     Didn't some of the 9/11 guys live in suburban neighborhoods and mow their lawns in flip-flops and t-shirts (Good morning, Khalid! Good morning, Frank!) for quite some time before they passed through airport security?

     And we're helping to create them in more countries than just the sandy ones. Not to mention that they're now inflamed at other countries and threatening to join Al Quaeda in significant numbers who will then use the new recruits to act against us.

     This isn't f'ing calculus.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:19pm

132. they turn it into shrubery first

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 8:05pm | ignore this person

     "But what about the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch? It's one of the sacred relics Brother Maynard carries."

     Book of Armaments Chapter Two, Verse 3

     ...then shalt thou lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

     "Amen"

     You know, W is about as clueless as Arthur, King of the Britons was. And his stateregies are about as well thought out. But perhaps if we built this large wooden badger...

     Posted by skeletonman at 02/21/2006 @ 8:23pm

133. You know as patient as these guys are in coming after us, even if it took them a decade to worm their way into the operations of the ports, to them it would be right on schedule.

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 8:10pm

     The patience part is scary.

     They have a population, that's been breeding anti-American sentiment for decades.

     We have a divided electorate. More than ever, in my experience. Who want to elect 'opposition' parties, who are only paying attention to their political careers, every four to eight years.

     Americans refuse to evacuate for hurricanes, if there's been a few false alarms and no big storm in recent memory.

     How many election cycles will it take, for Americans to forget to "never forget". (Aside from those who lost someone, of course, who will truly never forget.)

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 8:24pm

134. I was even pissed off when I learned the Brits had held the contract.

     I support Bush, but this is not acceptable.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 8:24pm

135. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/21/2006 @ 8:15pm

     I agree with that. There is nothing these guys have done that hasn't been exactly what they wanted to do. The only problem is they are willing to lie, cheat, steal, scare, and villify any one who stands against them to get what they want.

     And the ony thing that makes it all possible is a cadre of squeeling hamsters who will instantly chirp out the party line coupled with a population that still has trust in the workings of it's government even after all these years of republican sliming of our government.

     It is the last point that gives me any hope that we can turn this thing around and get back on the road that 9-11 so viciously pulled us off of.

     Because the road were on right now... goes no where

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:26pm

136. You know, W is about as clueless as Arthur, King of the Britons was. And his stateregies are about as well thought out. But perhaps if we built this large wooden badger...

     Posted by SKELETONMAN 02/21/2006 @ 8:23pm

     If only Gee Dubya wasn't smart enough to count to five.

     Cause he ain't stopping at three.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:29pm

137. WILL, I wouldn't go that far. Having said that, it was most disturbing to hear the POTUS say he supported this move to secure our ports.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 8:32pm

138. Having said that, it was most disturbing to hear the POTUS say he supported this move to secure our ports.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 8:32pm

     Dude it doesn't matter what they do. You're going to keep voting republican.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:37pm

139. Of course it's acceptable. It's business, the free enterprise system. The ports are up for sale. Aren't the dollars from Dubai as good as any other dollars? They didn't "worm their way" into anywhere. It's all dollars and cents. Unless you are of course suggesting that the marketplace be accountable to the public for reasons of public safety, which is ridiculous. Clearly if something isn't in the interest of national security, the market will generate consumer forces that will buy safer ports upon more economical terms, and wealth will rain down on everyone, citizens of Dubai and the United States alike. How would you like it if you had a port and some socialist regulations guru came along and told you how to run it, or that you couldn't sell it to someone the regulators didn't like? Why, they'd be infringing upon your rights as a business person, moreover, they'd be getting in the way of the creative energies of the marketplace. Laissez faire, baby. The invisible hand will distribute goods efficiently. Don't interfere.

     Posted by Legba at 02/21/2006 @ 8:37pm

140. Hi Legba

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:40pm

141. " and wealth will rain down on everyone, citizens of Dubai and the United States alike."

     Posted by LEGBA 02/21/2006 @ 8:37pm

     Oh yea...that ever growing pie thing....

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 8:40pm

142. Another issue I have is the lack of border control.

     And yes, "dude", I will always go to the right.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 8:41pm

143. Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/21/2006 @ 8:40pm

     Cow pie...

     home to turd blossom

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:42pm

144. And yes, "dude", I will always go to the right.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 8:41pm

     Then there really isn't any point to you disagreeing with the president.

     It don't mean shit

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:43pm

145. yo y'self, Will C.

     Hey, look. Dubai is only trying to make the pie higher. I'm glad our port commissioners is really learning. Don't misunderestimate them. They've all got good edumacations. NO child left behind. Make the pie higher. Sell the ports! Sell the forts! Sell community sports!

     Posted by Legba at 02/21/2006 @ 8:44pm

146. LEGRA,

     Big business makes the world go round. Never met anyone who got a job from a poor person.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 8:45pm

147. Having said that, it was most disturbing to hear the POTUS say he supported this move to secure our ports.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 8:32pm

     Dude it doesn't matter what they do. You're going to keep voting republican.

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person

     USAPRIDE -

     You and I don't agree, friend, I mean as close to "ever" as ever gets.

     But check this out - something fundamentally important that we can all agree on is bringing us together...

     It is this fundamental war on terror thing that we think is being handled all wrong, and this is just another nail in the coffin for critical thinkers... One that makes us shake our heads that anyone can even support this guy on all of the other little quibbly shit.

     Cuz a big enough terrorist attack wipes away all of the little shit, like on 9/11. Remember? We are your fellow Americans, not the terrorist-loving enemy that this misadministration keeps calling everyone who speaks up or out or makes thoughtful, pragmatic sense.

     Join us sooner than later, USA. Before later is too late.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:47pm

148. Posted by LEGBA 02/21/2006 @ 8:44pm

     So your saying dubai wants a pie in the sky for for those high flying swine in the sty.

     (was that too cornball?)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 8:47pm

149. Will - It's that, way-lesser of two evils thing.

     Nothing is perfect.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 8:47pm

150. And yes, "dude", I will always go to the right.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 8:41pm | ignore this person

     USAPRIDE -

     This isn't "right" in any sense of the word and we both know it.

     It's just plain wrong.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:48pm

151. New Dawn:

     Thanks for point that out...

     Assuming you are a woman, you are my Heroine!

     In the event you're a man...my Heroin.

     Posted by plunger at 02/21/2006 @ 8:49pm

152. Yeah, USA Pride, Joe Stalin used to say the same thing. Look it up.

     By the way, if that's the case, how did things turn before there was business? Is this one of those creationist theories?

     Posted by Legba at 02/21/2006 @ 8:54pm

153. What's "right", USA?

     Skyrocketing deficits? Wars without end? Erosion of civil liberties? Bigger government? Plummeting education standards?

     How about these, from Wikipedia's entry on conservative ideals:

     - Order over chaos (see war, above)

     - Orientation toward the past rather than the future (Clinton got a blowjob)

     - The rural over the urban (But fuck the Alaskan wilderness and its inhabitants)

     - Unity and homogeneity, over discord and fragmentation (BWAHahahahahaha - he said homo, and you KNOW we ain't having that)

     - The natural over the artificial and technological (God over science)

     - Existence over possibility (WMD's, Iraq/Al-Quaeda connection)

     - Slow and incremental change over utopian projects (BWAHHHAhahahaaahhaah - let's go build us a nation or three)

     - Social stratification over egalitarianism (look up these words - I had to)

     - Sovereignty over union, in matters regarding the European Union (and the United States of America, apparently)

     Okay, USA, I sit corrected. You're a conservative, all right.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:57pm

154. New Dawn:

     Thanks for point that out...

     Assuming you are a woman, you are my Heroine!

     In the event you're a man...my Heroin.

     Posted by PLUNGER 02/21/2006 @ 8:49pm | ignore this person

     All male here, pal. Your heroin, huh? I once knew a woman who told me I was her "fix".

     I took it as a compliment.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 8:58pm

155. Will C:

     The swine in the sty will opine as they cry, sing hey lalli lalli hey hey they will bay all damn day as the world goes their way sing hey lalli lalli hey hey they will bitch and will rant and write missives with cant they'll kvetch, throw brickbats and will tell us we shan't they will slobber and bobble and dribble their pants sing hey lalli lalli hey hey

     Posted by Legba at 02/21/2006 @ 8:58pm

156. I got a rehearsal to go to, gotta fly. Keep swinging, Will C.---

     th' trick'stah

     Posted by Legba at 02/21/2006 @ 8:59pm

157. Name a domestic terror attack post 9/11.

     Sleep tight.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 8:59pm

158. Will - It's that, way-lesser of two evils thing.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 8:47pm

     Right, because the guys who have us an a never ending war, an 8 trillion dollar national debt, can't respond to natural disasters or protect us from terrorist attacks, turn their back on americans in need, can't supply the troops with body armor, lost about eight billion in cold hard cash somewhere in Iraq, want to eliminate the legislative and judicial branches of government, and civil liberties, lied about WMD, meetings in Prague, connections between Saddam and Ossama, the specter of mush room clouds and are now selling a half a dozen or so US Ports to a country that has verifiable ties to the guys who carried out the attack on 9-11... are the lesser of two evils.

     Go back to hamsterland. It's almost time for your alfalfa pellets.

     (and later... the wheel)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 9:00pm

159. Name a domestic terror attack before 9/11.

     Don't let the bed bugs bite.

     What's your point?

     Because I put my left sock on before my right one this morning, you didn't get into a car accident?

     Is there some logic in there, somewhere? A cause and effect, perhaps?

     Too much to ask?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:01pm

160. Posted by LEGBA 02/21/2006 @ 8:58pm

     He He He He

     I like that

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 9:01pm

161. All these downside things you cite about Dubya can be said of any president, any administration.

     Your point?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:03pm

162. All these downside things you cite about Dubya can be said of any president, any administration.

     Your point?

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:03pm | ignore this person

     They aren't in power, and you can do something about the present, but not the past?

     Not to mention that no other president in history has run up a deficit of this size or been on vacation during the largest domestic terror attack in United States history (while setting a record for vacations, by the by).

     Pretty salient points, really, and not easy ones to miss.

     Are you drinking or on something tonight, USA? You're a little slow on the catchup tonight...

     I'm worried about you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:07pm

163. All these downside things you cite about Dubya can be said of any president, any administration.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:03pm

     no they can't

     Unless you think that peace, prosperity and a hummer that will live in the annuals history are the Clinton equivalent to my list of the Bush administrations collective retardation

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 9:11pm

164. Another issue I have is the lack of border control.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 8:41pm | ignore this person

     And this blows a Cole-sized hole in the "fighting them there so we don't have to do it here" argument...

     Don't you see, USA? You can lean right and still acknowledge that this President isn't doing jackshit (and that's being generous) to protect you, and if anything, with his ham-handed and misguided Middle Eastern adventures, is helping piss off more deluded young men and turn them into angry young zealots.

     Personally, I'm absolutely shocked that there hasn't been another terror attack when any terrorist can fly from Jordan or Egypt to North America (but not necessarily into the U.S.) and then just cross the border. No papers, no tracking of movements, just cross and poof!

     Where will he pop up next? New York? Silicon Valley?

     Maybe mowing the lawn next door to you and yours?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:15pm

165. Things would be better if Gore, Kerry were the Prez?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:16pm

166. OK, I tried an experiment here. I "ignore-listed" all of the usual conservatron apologists. (Note: the fact that I had to "ignore-list" them in order to run this experiment means that I had not "ignore-listed" them before. Sure, I pretty much ignored what they said, since it was pretty much nonsense, but I didn't officially "ignore them.")

     Guess what? I discovered that there are five pages of comments on this site. When I "ignore-listed" the cranks, these pages were reduced the THREE.

     OK, after I post this, I will "unignore" everyone. But in the certain light of commentators who think before they post, can you guys tell me this: Are these wingnuts actually attempting to justify the outsourcing of our port security to a foreign government with ties to Al-Qaida?

     No, really. It's not possible. Even I wouldn't have made fun of those crazy illiberals in such a cruel, insulting fashion. C'mon, lefties. ADMIT that you're just making it up. No serious con or neocon could ever actually support this, could they? HAHAHAHAH! Tell me that everyone's just kidding!

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 9:16pm

167. USA, in case you missed it:

     Mahmoud: What do you think of our new jobs, Khalid?

     Khalid: I love America! Smell the sea air. Isn't it refreshing?

     Mahmoud: Better than the smell of my unwashed, secular neighbor in my new neighborhood in New Jersey. If not for the work visa, I would not have been able to come here. Allah bless George Boosh!

     (both laugh)

     Khalid: My cousin Ali is coming to visit next month. I will be giving him the layout of the port's holding facility and the copies of the manifests for the last year.

     Mahmoud: He can make our shipments, inshallah, look innocuous, perhaps like ones from days past? Hide them?

     Khalid: Inshallah, this will be done.

     Mahmoud: This is good. And how long until our shipment is ready?

     Khalid: Less than one year.

     Mahmoud: Soon. So soon. Inshallah.

     (The preceding horrifuckingfying conversation brought to you by the Bush Administration, copyright 2006)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:16pm

168. USA posts, "Things would be better if Gore, Kerry were the Prez?"

     Again, from the list of standard conservative ideals...

     - Orientation toward the past rather than the future (mention Kerry, Gore)

     The American people (and media) would have never let John Kerry tell them to go fuck themselves, and would have demanded transparency, I think, but that's beside the point.

     Remember, I posted, "They aren't in power, and you can do something about the present, but not the past?"

     This fellow needs to be reined in, USA, and he is the one in power right now.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:20pm

169. Are these wingnuts actually attempting to justify the outsourcing of our port security to a foreign government with ties to Al-Qaida? Posted by LISAJO 02/21/2006 @ 9:16pm | ignore this person

     Actually, Lisa, not defending it, but saying the President is still pretty okay by them and that they'll continue to vote "right".

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:21pm

170. New Dawn, to suggest that only the present admin. is responsible for how we got to this point is well, a lame.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:24pm

171. I know. I lame what?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:25pm

172. USA -

     DO you take the time to read through the posts that came before you so you can put conversations and follwup questions in context, or do you just dive right in when you fire up the Nation's website?

     I posted earlier,

     "I don't know about all of the [9/11] controlled demolition conspiracy theories (if tinfoil hats aren't required for these theories and there is the remotest chance they could be true, then I'm moving to Mars)...

     but I do know that having any foreknowledge at all, however slight, of such an impending event and "allowing" it to happen (even via apparent negligence or "bad intelligence") would be a perfect opportunity to enact the PNAC agenda [which came before Bush came to power] in its entirety...

     We were, after all spoiling to go into the Middle East since before the Shrub got into office and well before 9/11...

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:29pm

173. Excuse typing. Smoke in my eye.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:30pm

174. LisaJo clutching her throat and giving a fairly realistic impersonation of "having the vapors."

     There is simply not any sort of way that anyone can justify this--least of all the conservatrons who signed onto Bush's attempt to characterize himself as "tough on terror."

     You people ought to be ashamed. How can you stomach your leader's accusing people who criticize him of being "racists?" Read Bush's comments to the reporters on AirForceOne: He referred to the new owners of our Port Security as "an Arab company." He apparently is unaware that the new company is OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UAE. We are not outsourcing port security to an Arab Company. We're outsourcing port security to the government of the United Arab Emirates.

     Forgive me, a devout Christian, for resorting to such language, but JESUS-TAP-DANCING-CHRIST. What the HELL Is the matter with the people who are supporting this? I never, ever said that Bush could rape a child on national TV, and you conservatrons would find a way to excuse it. But I'm beginning to understand why other people say so.

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 9:30pm

175. "New Dawn, to suggest that only the present admin. is responsible for how we got to this point is well, lame."

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:24pm | ignore this person

     USA -

     READ.

     "They aren't in power, and you can do something about the present, but not the past."

     Don't dodge. Don't weave. Don't wander. Don't meander. Focus. Foooocus.

     "They aren't in power, and you can do something about the present, but not the past?"

     The question, USA, is what to do about what this misadminstration is doing right now.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:32pm

176. Speaking of infrastructure, the Republicans are planning to use slave labor to build concentration camps [tinyurl.com]. KBR managing, of course. Anyone who gives the slightest bit of support to this administration is a world-class traitor.

     Posted by fromredbird at 02/21/2006 @ 9:33pm

177. Jesus-tap-dancing Christ having the vapors.

     Sorry, but I may pee myself laughing.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:34pm

178. Sorry guys. What a week this day's been.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:34pm

179. "(and later... the wheel)"

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 9:00pm

     Ooooooooo....the wheel.

     That's it! The answer to personal transportation energy sources. Hamsters in wheels!

     There seem to be plenty of reserves. And if we run out, maybe we can import middle-eastern hamsters.

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 9:34pm

180. Did we consider that with the failing support for Iraq, the festering boil of Iran, and the tenuous Afghanistan, that perhaps this little "gift" of the Ports to Dubya's old friends in the UAE will help our "oil security" in the mideast?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/21/2006 @ 9:37pm

181. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/21/2006 @ 9:37pm

     I thought that was so obvious, it went unsaid.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 9:39pm

182. Sorry guys. What a week this day's been.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:34pm | ignore this person

     At least we're just chattin'. I ain't in the mood to be mad at anybody right now. Incredulous, almost every damned day these days, but not mad.

     Crack open a cool one and discourse with your fellow Americans, USA.

     You ain't even gotta like us, just don't spit any beer on us. ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:40pm

183. "Guess what? I discovered that there are five pages of comments on this site. When I "ignore-listed" the cranks, these pages were reduced the THREE."

     Posted by LISAJO 02/21/2006 @ 9:16pm

     Don't be to hard on us cranks. Rese usually carries a whole page by himself.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 9:41pm

184. Thanks for the invite Dawn.

     You guys need to know that we on the "other side" are very concerned.

     Please keep in mind, those fella's over in those caves and hills prey on that divsion.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:45pm

185. Mal

     Hamsters...that's good. Although the Syrian Hamster (source of all "regular" hamsters) has not been seen in the wild since about 1940. The other types (Russian and Chinese....well and the little Roborovski [sp] are still extant in the wild I think.) However, if we note that the origins of hamster of all types are middle-eastern, Russian, or Chinese...it becomes obvious that hamster are an Islamo-fascist / Communist Plot to destroy our way of life, apple pie and Christianity!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/21/2006 @ 9:48pm

186. Friends, I am truly exhausted, and not just because I spend 10 hours a day trying to teach public school. (And I do, by the way, and I get paid $28,000 per year. Not that I'm complaining. Oh, wait. I AM complaining. OK, moving on.)

     What I'm wondering is this. Does President Bush even realize that we are not, now, outsourcing our port security to a company? Does he even realize that we're outsourcing our port security to a foreign government?

     OK. Maybe he knows more than he's letting on in his press conferences. So, let's assume that he KNOWS we're outsourcing port security to a foreign government with ties to Al-Qaida and worse.

     OK, then he's intentionally trying to pretend that the UAE is just another company. That means he's intenionally attempting to mislead the press. In the real world, we would call that "lying."

     OK, maybe he doesn't know that the United Arab Emirates is an actual country with a government. Now, see, that wouldn't surprise me. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he thinks that UAE is just another oil company, like BP or Exxon.

     So, we're left with this Hobson's Choice: Either our persident is a liar, or he's an idiot. Which one is it?

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 9:50pm

187. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/21/2006 @ 9:48pm

     Furry little bastards. Maybe the snakes in washington could protect us from hamsters, though.

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 9:52pm

188. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/21/2006 @ 9:33pm

     It will be interesting to see if the Bush administration actually ever ends or if they will find some way to justify his continued reign at the end of his second term.

     All this crap has to be leading somewhere.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 9:53pm

189. So, we're left with this Hobson's Choice: Either our persident is a liar, or he's an idiot. Which one is it?

     Posted by LISAJO 02/21/2006 @ 9:50pm

     Choice? You mean it's not both?

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 9:54pm

190. Thanks for the invite Dawn.

     You guys need to know that we on the "other side" are very concerned.

     Please keep in mind, those fella's over in those caves and hills prey on that divsion.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person

     Then it'd be a fine idea for the administration to consider that as well and stop being so divisive.

     Labeling anyone who dissents (an American obligation and duty) a "terrorist-loving liberal nitwit" isn't exactly a handshake across the aisle.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 9:56pm

191. Don't forget what WJC didn't do - OSAMA...

     Silver platter anyone? Going once, twice - 3 times.

     Anyone; Anyone...

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 9:59pm

192. LISA JO: I'm sure our preznit is on a need-to-know program--Uncle Karl will fill him in as necessary.

     Let's all just go shopping and leave the scary details of our national security to our comic book heroes.

     Posted by rain man at 02/21/2006 @ 10:02pm

193. USA -

     I take it back. No more cool frosty ones for you. You're cut off.

     READ.

     "They aren't in power, and you can do something about the present, but not the past."

     Don't dodge. Don't weave. Don't wander. Don't meander. Focus. Foooocus.

     "They aren't in power, and you can do something about the present, but not the past?"

     The question, USA, is what to do about what this misadminstration is doing right now.

     How many times will we cover the same ground?

     Going once, going twice??? We're on the fourth time, aren't we?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:02pm

194. Has anyone noticed that government ownership of the private sector is a pure from definition of socialism. I'm saying this becuse all the wingnuts who bitch whine and moan about socialism seem to have no problem with corporate America selling our factories to communist china (a socialist country) or the Bush administration selling our ports to a socialist entity in the UAE.

     anyone see any flaming hypocracy in these actions?

     (not to mention the communist and ties to terrorism components)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 10:03pm

195. USA P:

     What you all have done if WJC had "done OSAMA"? Wouldn't that have been worse than his bj?

     Posted by rain man at 02/21/2006 @ 10:03pm

196. Broken record city, man!!!

     Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, so let's figure out todaaaaayyy

     yesterday-

     --skip

     yesterday-

     --skip

     yesterday-

     --skip

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:04pm

197. Eric:

     Good point. I accidentally fell into that either/or, black/white dichotomy that so many people take to heart.

     I was, I admit, being far too Manichean in my thinking. Allow me to admit this.

     Bush could, in fact, be the "uniter" he once claimed he aspired to be. All he has to do is admit that he is both a liar and an idiot.

     Ha-ha. Seriously, if Bush would at least admit that he is willing to believe seventeen impossible, incompatible things before breakfast every morning, he might at least get some bipartisan respect. And maybe folks would stop thinking he's an idiot.

     (The liar thing, though, is beyond redemption. In order to fix that, he'd have to stop lying, and he's not going to do that.)

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 10:05pm

198. I do commend USA Pride on being one of the few to stand by his man--have you noticed not as many wingers defending this indefensible administration on these pages lately?

     Posted by rain man at 02/21/2006 @ 10:11pm

199. Thanks for your time.

     Sleep tight.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 10:11pm

200. Don't forget what WJC didn't do - OSAMA...

     Silver platter anyone? Going once, twice - 3 times.

     Anyone; Anyone...

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:59pm

     “Throughout the world ... its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America ... [They are] freedom fighters.”

     US President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985

     Bin Ladin work closely with the CIA until '92, which was when...damn, what's that guys name...you know, the BJ guy...became president.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 10:11pm

201. Don't forget what WJC didn't do - OSAMA...

     Silver platter anyone? Going once, twice - 3 times.

     Anyone; Anyone...

     Posted by USAPRIDE 02/21/2006 @ 9:59pm

     I'll take that one. Clinton delt with bin Laden for five years when all he did was attack our embassies in third world country's at a time whenever he did anything militarily you wing nuts started sceaming Wag the Dog (or it was just an asperin factory).

     Bush on the otherhand, has had the same five years but he had complete support from the country and the world because of an attack on US soil(until he blew it in Iraq), the US military stationed in the country in which bin Laden is thought to be hiding(afghanistan), a public pledge to get'em dead or alive(I saw it) and his dumb ass still can't get him.

     But I'll tell you what,let's blame clinton.

     He ain't president anymore

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 10:12pm

202. Thanks for allowing me to join in.

     Hope tomorrow is a good one for all of you.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/21/2006 @ 10:14pm

203. What you all have done if WJC had "done OSAMA"? Wouldn't that have been worse than his bj?

     Posted by RAIN MAN 02/21/2006 @ 10:03pm

     They would have impeached him for murdering a man that was a close family friend to the Bush Family

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 10:14pm

204. Ditto, Pride.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:15pm

205. But I'll tell you what,let's blame clinton.

     He ain't president anymore

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 10:12pm

     It's Clintons fault!

     Ok...I don't feel any better.

     -----------------------------------------------------------

     " And maybe folks would stop thinking he's an idiot."

     Posted by LISAJO 02/21/2006 @ 10:05pm

     He'd have to stop being an idiot, and he's not going to do that.

     ;o)

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 10:18pm

206. And speaking of Osama--didn't our preznit say that he doesn't even think about him anymore?

     Posted by rain man at 02/21/2006 @ 10:18pm

207. have I mentioned lately that the conservatives are insane?

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 10:23pm

208. Will -

     You know what else you haven't mentioned in a while?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:27pm

209. Dawn, don't get ...in his face about it.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 10:29pm

210. Oh, yeah? Well, why don't you come over here and say that... to my face?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:31pm

211. Sigh. Our conservatrons on this thread emulate their leader in many things--but mostly in this: like their leader, they are willing to believe any number of impossible things (before breakfast!), as long as their leader pretends to believe them, and claims he believes them.

     These people are shredding the Constitution when their leader tells them to, and calling those who oppose them "traitors." These people are dangerous, the same way that all religious extremists are dangerous. Some of them even admit that they can't wait for their God to send the rest of us to Hell; they look forward to the destruction of the world. And at the same time, they want us to believe that they're the only ones we can trust to "fix" the world.

     OK, I admit I'm just talking about religious extremists. Like Santorem. Like Frist. Like Bush. Um . . .

     Why would would anyone think that those folks have the world's continuing health as a goal? They've already admitted that they look forward to seeing all of us perish in flames.

     When I started this post, I thought I was being sarcastic. Now I realize that I'm making an actual point. Now, that's scary.

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 10:32pm

212. hee hee

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:33pm

213. LisaJo -

     That very thought keeps me awake at night.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 10:34pm

214. Um, I went from an actual post to a diatribe against the religiosity of many of the conservatron posters on this site.

     I must apologize for my reductionism. Not all conservatrons on this site want to see the rest of us perish in flames.

     Most conservatrons on this site merely wish to see the rest of us robbed of our Constitutional rights. They don't need their rights anymore--so why shoudl the rest of us be whinging and moaning about our lost freedoms?

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 10:37pm

215. I'm still not certain what the big story is here. Port security hasn't been an issue since Kerry's November debacle. I don't think there has been a nation blog about the topic, even though port security had already been outsourced. Is this purchase by UAE really the "in" that terrorists have been waiting for? Are the ports secure today or were they last month? How much less secure will they be now?

     What do we want from port security? To feel as secure as airports feel now? Would the airports feel less secure if there were a company out of Saudi Arabia that owned the security operations?

     And I don't want to ask this, but I'll toss it out--is this very obvious anti-Arab bias going to make it more or less likely that the ports will be targeted? I just can't imagine that the UAE would risk its annihilation by allowing a terrorist attack to occur under its direct watch. They might not like us a whole lot, but I'm sure they like dollars and don't like the looks of what's happening in Iraq.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 10:43pm

216. Some of them even admit that they can't wait for their God to send the rest of us to Hell; they look forward to the destruction of the world.

     Posted by LISAJO 02/21/2006 @ 10:32pm

     And you think a place where I never have to see an evangelic conservative again is hell?

     I have all my friends from the nations blog to hang with. It's warm. All we need is a blanket, a frisbee, some burgers and dogs (I hear there's a big one outside the gate) smuggle in some ice cold beers.(Alcohol was invented by the devil)...

     Heaven baby!

     :)

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 10:50pm

217. is this very obvious anti-Arab bias going to make it more or less likely that the ports will be targeted? I just can't imagine that the UAE would risk its annihilation by allowing a terrorist attack to occur under its direct watch.

     First off, TJ, I wonder why you're buying into the administration's line that people who question this transaction are guilty of "anti-Arab bias." This is not an Arab-owned company. This is a company that has been bought by a foreign government.

     A government that has clear and demonstrated ties to terrorism.

     I don't mean to be obtuse, but you seem to be willfully obtuse yourself. Please explain why you are buying into the administration's dodge. We're not talking about an Arab-owned company. Surely you know this.

     If you know better, please fill us all in. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Explain why objecting to allowing a foreign government (with clear and proven ties to terrorist organizations and hostile nations) to have any amount of control over our ports amounts to "racism."

     Would you be happy if we turned these contracts over to China, or Liberia?

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 10:51pm

218. I just reread my post, and realize that it sounds as if I'm just the sort of "racist" that Bushco, and apparently you, TJ, think that I MUST be if I object to allowing any sort of foreign government to control our ports, in even the most "benign" way.

     But TJ, I'm kind of thinking that you've read these posts, and not Mr. Nichols original article. There are all kinds of legitimate objections to this scheme, and all kinds of reasons to be appalled that this is the ONE THING over which Bush is willing to exercise his swooning, vaporous veto.

     I think you're being overly reductive, when you buy into the "racism" argument. If you disagree, so be it. I hope that I haven't been rude or unkind, but I do think that your response is simplistic.

     And, no doubt, you think the same of mine. Sic semper cum frogs.

     Posted by LisaJo at 02/21/2006 @ 10:58pm

219. I don't think there has been a nation blog about the topic, even though port security had already been outsourced.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/21/2006 @ 10:43pm

     True, it was outsourced. But we were never in any danger from the British army smuggling in a few regiments of redcoats in shipping containers for the purpose of storming Washington and burning the White House again.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 11:01pm

220. First off, TJ, I wonder why you're buying into the administration's line that people who question this transaction are guilty of "anti-Arab bias." This is not an Arab-owned company. This is a company that has been bought by a foreign government.

     This spin is already in full swing, everyone. Watch for it, and expect it to be the bullshit item of the day for the next few days. Now that the terrorist-lover label won't fit the left-leaners situation, this is the new slur. Now, we're racists for NOT supporting a terrorist-supporting nation.

     I'm running out of room to place all the labels on my ass.

     TJ -

     You missed the imaginary conversation I kept posting, I think. it's very current and real considering the port issue and the recent Dubai acquisition:

     (sorry to those who have read it already)

     Mahmoud: What do you think of our new jobs, Khalid?

     Khalid: I love America! Smell the sea air. Isn't it refreshing?

     Mahmoud: Better than the smell of my unwashed, secular neighbor in my new neighborhood in New Jersey. If not for the work visa, I would not have been able to come here. Allah bless George Boosh!

     (both laugh)

     Khalid: My cousin Ali is coming to visit next month. I will be giving him the layout of the port's holding facility and the copies of the manifests for the last year.

     Mahmoud: He can make our shipments, inshallah, look innocuous, perhaps like ones from days past? Hide them?

     Khalid: Inshallah, this will be done.

     Mahmoud: This is good. And how long until our shipment is ready?

     Khalid: Less than one year.

     Mahmoud: Soon. So soon. Inshallah.

     (The preceding horrifuckingfying conversation brought to you by the Bush Administration, copyright 2006)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/21/2006 @ 11:03pm

221. LISAJO,

     I know what you mean about Nichols's original post. I don't understand why this isn't something that either the US Govt. oversees directly or, if not, owned by a US corporation. I guess I just get jumpy when I see so many congressmembers getting on their high horses about an issue they honestly don't give a crap about.

     Make us safe. Protect our jobs. And stop wasting our time with this issue that probably affects neither of these. I think the perception of anti-Arab or anti-Muslim surrounding this is real. It might not be justifiable, but it will exist. I am not accusing anyone of harboring these feelings, but the foreign ownership issue did not become an issue until it involved an Arab country.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 11:11pm

222. When I started this post, I thought I was being sarcastic. Now I realize that I'm making an actual point. Now, that's scary.

     Posted by LISAJO 02/21/2006 @ 10:32pm

     That's how I felt after I reread my first anti-religious diatribe on this blog. I just came out. (But you say you are a christian, so it must be getting worse than I thought.)

     I hope I don't offend, but I think taking things on faith, as a habit, is pre-requesite to supporting bushco.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/21/2006 @ 11:14pm

223. I saw your post earlier, NEW DAWN. I will be truly angry if the change in ownership replaces American jobs with UAE workers. If this is permitted, all bets are off for me.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/21/2006 @ 11:19pm

224. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/21/2006 @ 11:19pm

     Dock Workers are part of those hated unions and there are lots of poor arabs who are willing to work for low wages, live in old shipping containers and work the docks while those evil dock workers are out on strike, siding with the terrorists and trying to grub more of their unfair share of money out the pocket of some poor poor international port manageing corporate CEO.

     Posted by Will C. at 02/21/2006 @ 11:32pm

225. Part of the BC BS is that we're still going to be in charge of security, coast gaurd, customs, etc. Well guess what--Dubai Customs:

     http://www.jafza.ae/jafza/content/section1/Dubai_Customs

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 01:31am

226. Yep, our ports will be run by a sultan and how soon will they be 100% foriegn owned, controlled, and tax free? Perhaps Bush will eventually want a change in title a couple of notches above sultan, not shielk, no mu'allim or malik, sharif, oh yeah Caliph!

     http://www.jafza.ae/jafza/content/section2

     Jafza Dubai Business Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem Executive Chairman, Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation

     Chairman's Message

     I say with pride that the UAE is the safest area in the world for investment, and Dubai, the most successful.

     ********************************

     Incentives for Your Business

     Jafza (Dubai) offers many incentives to make doing business with us easy and profitable.

     * 100% foreign ownership: The ability to operate your business as a wholly owned entity, without any need for local partnership

     * Corporate taxes are not applicable for a period of 50 years, a concession that is renewable. Companies may transfer any capital as required

     * No import or re-export duties

     * No personal income taxes

     * No currency restrictions

     * No restriction on hiring foreign employees

     * Owned premises on leased land can be mortgaged: A company established in the Free Zone that has built its own facility may mortgage its premises to any bank or financing company for any of their debts or obligations

     * Access to abundant energy makes it cost-effective for clients to conduct production operations

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 01:55am

227. The issue here is that most of us were not aware that the protection of our ports was being outsourced to a foreign country. If progressives who supposedly stand up for working Americans believe the Bush spin about anyone objecting to this secret contract as being anti muslim and a racist then, indeed, we are just a pack of sheep who enjoy being led around by this arrogant, closed-minded administration. Doesn't anyone get the Bush connection to the Carlyle Group and the prominant involvement of the United Arab Emirates to the Bush family? Also, that Treasury Secretary Snow was involved with the Dubai business connection? This president says he needs to wire tap Americans in order to capture terrorists, but he outsources the most important security undertakings to private companies. You think maybe this is just more of the disdain this administration has of hiring unionized American workers? Maybe?

     Posted by Trueblue37 at 02/22/2006 @ 02:29am

228. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/21/2006 @ 9:33pm

     It will be interesting to see if the Bush administration actually ever ends or if they will find some way to justify his continued reign at the end of his second term.

     All this crap has to be leading somewhere.

     Posted by WILL C. 02/21/2006 @ 9:53pm

     The last thousand-year reich survived for about ten years.

     Posted by fromredbird at 02/22/2006 @ 02:32am

229. Last May Cheney appeared on Larry King. He stepped in it big time, but few people caught it. I alerted Rude Pundit and he wrote about it.

     an excerpt:

     Then Cheney made this statement: "In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with." So, like, if, in a sense, the Gitmo campers are "prisoners of war," then, in a sense, don't they get Geneva Conventions protections?

     Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since "war" was never formally declared. It's pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it - so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they'd be committing.

     Bush tells us every day that we're at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we're not REALLY at war.

     Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding "prisoners of war."

     The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.

     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/lkl.01.html

     KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.

     D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with."

     So this is the war without end, and these prisoners will be held forever?

     WAR CRIMINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

     Posted by plunger at 02/22/2006 @ 05:03am

230. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact

     New Yorker

     From the article:

     Yoo believed that the President's role as Commander-in-Chief gave him virtually unlimited authority to decide whether America should respond militarily to a terror attack, and, if so, what kind of force to use. "Those decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make," he wrote in a law article.

     A top Administration official told me that Yoo, Addington, and a few other lawyers had essentially "hijacked policy" after September 11th. "They thought, Now we can put our views into practice. We have the ability to write them into binding law. It was just shocking. These memos were presented as faits accomplis."

     In Yoo's opinion, he wrote that at Guantánamo cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees could be authorized, with few restrictions.

     "The memo espoused an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the President's Commander-in-Chief authority,"

     My Take:

     So this same approach was used across the board. Addington effectively sought to obtain "legal opinions" which were in fact illegal, with the specific intent to provide Bush and Cheney with sufficient legal cover to behave as Dictators and Kings, as there were virtually no laws that applied to them, as determined by edict.

     This is where we stand today. There is not one single law that applies to Bush or Cheney. They have found lawyers who were willing to craft opinions stating that they were above the law, and in so doing, have subverted the Constitution of the United States.

     This activity was intentional, willful and treasonous.

     They were sworn to uphold the constitution.

     Given this information, others in a position to do something about it (who also swore under oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC) now have an obligation to fulfill.

     They must call for the impeachment of this administration. It is their legal obligation given the evidence before them.

     Time to choose sides, folks.

     Posted by plunger at 02/22/2006 @ 05:04am

231. I'm sorry, am I the ONLY one who noticed this monumental IRONY?

     That in the SAME WEEK that John Nichols posts an article about how we should "listen to Jimmy Carter on the issue of Hamas".....

     he posts a story about how terrible the sale of port management to a Dubai company is....

     which Jimmy Carter said on CNN he had no problem with?!?!??!

     Posted by Mask at 02/22/2006 @ 08:51am

232. Posted by MASK 02/22/2006 @ 08:51am | ignore this person

     well, don't see hypocrisy so much in terms of the hamas thing, but do see some hypocrisy here. after contemplating the whole thing, i'm not so sure denying business with arab companies is such a good idea. the previous company was british, britain being the home to plenty of terrorists...as is the united states of america, like the al queda mouthpiece and those dudes that got arested in toledo...

     the hypocrisy, other than that mentioned above? well the company is a state owned company...isnt that supposed to be an unfair violation of the cardinal mantra of neocon economic thought? private private private? government bad bad bad (unless "we" are it), outsource outsource outsource...(especially outsource to companies "we" or our buddies own stock in)...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/22/2006 @ 09:04am

233. Mask,

     Ok let's say you're right that John Nichol's is talking out of both sides of his mouth. So what? What do YOU think of selling our ports to a company owned by the UAE government? Is it a good idea or a bad idea? Are you with Carter on this issue or are you against Carter on this issue?

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 09:52am

234. Nailed it, Mr. Nichols, nailed it. The first rule of business is that no corporate enterprise will ever do anything because it's good for the customer. The observations about corporate control of the ports prooved out for airline baggage and passenger screeners. Ever-higher utility rates will proove Mr. Nichols right for all users of gas, electricity and water. They are prooving out for internet communications. For real progress where corporations, the government and the public work together in partnership, one must look to -- gasp! -- Japan.

     Posted by rttedrow at 02/22/2006 @ 09:52am

235. MASK

     Are you really suprised about liberal hypocrisey? esepcially on this thread and the writers of the Nation?

     This has been their mantra for sometime.

     While I disagree on this issue with W. with the port operation contract. God Bless Bush and that Patriot Act which he has advocated he forced, 3 Ohio men arrested for terror plotting.

     USAPRIDE: you go brother, but I have learned that when some of these lefties get in the kissing each other's butt mode, its best to let them think they are legends in their own mind. Otherwise you dont get rationale discourse, but rather childish insults.

     From some, not all. All rationale leftys excluded, of course.

     Posted by CPT at 02/22/2006 @ 10:32am

236. Hey Mask:

     This is about the third time you have tried to cry "gotcha!" Is it really so hard to grasp that Nichols (or anyone else for that matter) possibly could agree with Carter on one issue, and maybe, just maybe, disagree with him on a different issue?

     Or do all liberal commentators have to agree lockstep with everything coming from the mouths of any Democrat, and conservatives have to agree with every stance taken by Republicans?

     Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2006 @ 10:45am

237. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/22/2006 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/22/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

     Posted by HMAN23 02/22/2006 @ 10:45am | ignore this person

     Just proposing a RADICAL idea.....that Jimmy Carter MIGHT be "right" about something involving foreign and domestic policy...hehe!

     No, seriously, why does President Carter's opinion on a matter of foreign policy hold great weight with Mr Nichols (and others) on the matter of Arab governments and how to deal with them (like Hamas)....

     but NO weight on the matter of Arab governments and how to deal with them (like the UAE)?

     Posted by Mask at 02/22/2006 @ 10:55am

238. Yes, Mask, obviously if Jimmy Carter says something is acceptable, all people on the left should agree. I just think it's funny that the right is looking for ways to support a friendly takeover of the country's major ports. I can hardly wait to see what they say when China pulls the plug on its support of the U.S. economy, which, by investment standards, isn't looking like such a hot item with its perpetual debt service. What true believer horse shit.

     Posted by Legba at 02/22/2006 @ 11:02am

239. uhh . . . maybe because it is an opinion article and he would disagree with Carter's conclusion here.

     BTW - Nice attempt to frame the two issues using similar language, but they are obviously much different. Hamas concerns the internal politics of Palestine, the UAE issue concerns our domestic ports.

     Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2006 @ 11:04am

240. Mask,

     Thanks for avoiding the point, which is where do you stand on the PORT ISSUE. I'm well aware where you stand on the issue of credibility of Nation writers, but I've yet to see whether you think it's a good idea or a bad idea to have some of our ports in the control of a UAE government owned enterprise.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 11:05am

241. Taken in the context that Jimmy Carter is a reflexive peacemaker, his "this is probably okay" soundbite on the port control issue is not such a huge surprise. You know, let's make a deal and we'll include the guys with mustaches and fancy headwear too. I still wonder what he was thinking - maybe he was just trying to sound intelligent about something he really knows nothing about.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 02/22/2006 @ 11:21am

242. "Are you really suprised about liberal hypocrisey? esepcially on this thread and the writers of the Nation?

     This has been their mantra for sometime.

     While I disagree on this issue with W. with the port operation contract. God Bless Bush and that Patriot Act which he has advocated he forced, 3 Ohio men arrested for terror plotting.

     USAPRIDE: you go brother, but I have learned that when some of these lefties get in the kissing each other's butt mode, its best to let them think they are legends in their own mind. Otherwise you dont get rationale discourse, but rather childish insults.

     From some, not all. All rationale leftys excluded, of course.

     Posted by CPT 02/22/2006 @ 10:32am | ignore this person"

     _____

     Now, let's translate all that...

     "Are you really suprised about liberal hypocrisey? esepcially on this thread and the writers of the Nation? This has been their mantra for sometime."

     =

     God forbid I should start a post without bitching about Nation writers, even though they are far from the only writers in town. God forbid I should just use the Nation website as a jumping off point to go do my own research, then come back, armed with information, and debate my fellow posters.

     _____

     "While I disagree on this issue with W. with the port operation contract. God Bless Bush and that Patriot Act which he has advocated he forced, 3 Ohio men arrested for terror plotting."

     =

     Bush has committed a major blunder that may further threaten and undermine the security and safety of our nation and particularly domestic ports (as well as continuing to neglect those giant, porous north/south borders that terrorists can just walk across), but he's still okay-swell because his Patriot Act isn't an infringement on civil liberties or anything... Oh, and don't forget to mention God's blessings under Bush, like massive deficits, unending wars, illegal detentions, abandonment of due process, and on and on and on, ad nauseum.

     _____

     "you go brother, but I have learned that when some of these lefties get in the kissing each other's butt mode, its best to let them think they are legends in their own mind. Otherwise you dont get rationale discourse, but rather childish insults."

     =

     Talk about holier-than-thou high hypocrisy and the pot calling the kettle...

     _____

     Apologism makes me ill.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/22/2006 @ 11:52am

243. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/22/2006 @ 11:05am | ignore this person

     MY view?

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

     and I'm afraid in all the "hoopla", nobody has commented on the fact that ...port security, which is what's REALLY important here, is a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT matter, not upto the corporation that controls the loading and un-loading of containers.

     Posted by Mask at 02/22/2006 @ 12:16pm

244. maybe he was just trying to sound intelligent about something he really knows nothing about.

     Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/22/2006 @ 11:21am | ignore this person

     Agreed...that WOULD BE typical Jimmy!

     Posted by Mask at 02/22/2006 @ 12:18pm

245. so mask, do you think port security should be a government matter or should it be privatized?

     Posted by loveloki at 02/22/2006 @ 12:23pm

246. When CPT learns how to spell the word RATIONAL, he can lecture us on what it is. So long as his thesis doesn't involve his RATIONALE for a neo-fascist order. Meanwhile, the president is adamently defending the selling out of U.S. ports to companies quite susceptible to "moles" from the very forces the president claims to be fighting. Not that it's any skin off my nose, by the way, or even if it is. I just want to vent my spleen before these jackasses get us all blown up. And this morning, the Seattle Post Intelligencer reports this that the FBI and other security agencies have been keeping an eye on non-violent dissenters in the Puget Sound area. I mean, if Ionesco had written this scenario, it wouldn't be more absurd.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 02/22/2006 @ 12:36pm

247. Mask,

     You are a politician if nothing else. I take you are not opposed to the sale, but correct me if I'm wrong.

     As to port safety being a government issue I (for one) addressed this yesterday. Recapping....pursuant to the 9/11 attacks new regulations were introduced that required the berth operators to provide additional security (as it was considered that the Port Authority plus Coastgaurd security was insufficient in post (/11 environment). In practice the regulations have been half heartedly implemented at best. There is little or no oversight of these regulations so the business interests operating the facilities have done the minimum or less than the minimum. That is what happens when the government tells profit minded interests to increase their bottom line cost structure.

     In short, pre 9/11 our ports were not safe enough for a post 9/11 world. Now, they are no safer.

     In addition, let's not forget that even our government is hardly any better at providing the security for which we taxpayers pay $440Billion a year (not including additional Iraq / Afghanistan war appropriations) to the pentagon for when the person that they put in charge of this particular issue (Miss Julie L. Miers, neice of Gen. Richard Miers) was so inexperienced that she was recess appointed to get her past the normally docile rubber stamp Republican controlled Senate!

     The Bush Administration doesn't want corporations to be burdened with the cost of security, yet they don't want to spend taxpayer money on it either. In addition, they are more concerned with cronyism than actual competence where our safety is concerned.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 12:41pm

248. I have to say in all honesty though that I'm unsurprised by any of this, I think I saw it coming when they locked the waterfront workers out of the ports four years ago. Looked like the opening phase of privatization and union busting to me, but nobody could tell the hacks of the ILWU that at the time. In fact, they even sat back while the local media span it as though the workforce was out in strike, when they had in fact been locked out. These fuckers are absolutely shameless, replaying shit they did back during the robber baron days. But let them play. Push the workforce even harder, and we'll see how inconsequential socialist politics stay in the United States. Some of you rightie fucks are in for some rude surprises, may they find you sooner rather than later.

     Posted by Sweetdaddy at 02/22/2006 @ 12:41pm

249. OK, the issues with the ports' control are security and hypocrisy. The BC BS regime stress security to the tune of loosing our own rights, but now ‘we're' asked to trust an oligarchy when our own ‘democratic' country doesn't trust us. Bush is hell bent on spreading democracy and the free market, but not if they're rich buddies that control nations. If they're not rich buddies, but weak and will benefit their buddies, then it's ok to destroy them and call it democracy on the march. If you're a rich buddy, then civil rights, the constitution and democracy don't matter and that's really the point isn't it--these guys only care about making money. Get the point, they don't really care about anything else except money. If you don't have it, you may as well be a terrorist. It is an ‘us-or-them' war, only it's not democracy –vs- terrorism, it's the ‘haves' and the soon to be ‘have-nots', us. The hypocrisy is glaringly obvious.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 12:51pm

250. should read: that's really the point 'is' it--

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 1:00pm

251. we often hear about how China, who owns huge amounts of our debt, could turn around and cash in their bonds, and thus seriously destabilize our economy.

     just a little bit of logic shows that this is never going to happen. why? because they want their money. destabilizing the US would result in their getting neither interest or their capital back. you don't bankrupt a guy who owes you money. no China and the US, are locked in a tight embrace, and geo politically speaking it's a good thing.

     we will however be obliged to share some of our hegemony with the chinese, but fret not we got lots to spare

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/22/2006 @ 1:26pm

252. ignore my previous should read: it should read the original way I wrote it: I read it wrong in the proof and I should've proofed before I posted: should read:

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 1:52pm

253. "just a little bit of logic shows that this is never going to happen. why? because they want their money. destabilizing the US would result in their getting neither interest or their capital back. you don't bankrupt a guy who owes you money. no China and the US, are locked in a tight embrace, and geo politically speaking it's a good thing"

     I do think as they(CHINA) enter the 21st century and become more advanced and as they develop their own capicitys to inovate that they will become the world dominant power..they can muster an army larger that our entire population, can use much more resources and will be able to muscle their way any where in the world. We will not be able to stop them. Now the question for me becomes..will they be conerned with the rest of the world or the west, "have a can we all get along" attitude? Given their history I think not and we need to learn Mandarin..The long term future belongs to the Chinese and the world will be what ever they want it to be. Probably non democratic.

     Posted by john maasch at 02/22/2006 @ 2:10pm

254. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/22/2006 @ 12:41am | ignore this person

     Want to improve port security...I'm all for it....but not the point of this new "scandal" is it? The port security is Federally controlled, not "UAE" controlled.

     I just think Jimmy Carter may be (oddly I know) being "non-partisan" on this one.

     And I'm not REAL sure how the logic of "This hurts our security by letting a Dubai company 'run' our ports" plays out.

     Does the Dubai Ports company "allow" a nuke to be shipped in and destroy the port...and then see their $8 Billion dollar investment get taken away in an American Government take-over of the ports?

     Does the United Arab Emirates risk being "Talibanized" with US troops occupying their country and putting the emirs into Gitmo?

     How do they "get around" Port Security, controlled by the Fed, anyway?

     Posted by Mask at 02/22/2006 @ 2:17pm

255. Calling all apologist's.......seems your boy broke the law....again.

     What apology spin do you have for this one?

     ____________________________________

     Administration Failed To Conduct Legally Required Investigation Before Approving UAE Port Deal

     In ordinary cases of foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day "review" of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgment as to whether a 45-day "investigation" is necessary to address national security concerns.

     The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer. From the CFIUS website:

     The Dubai World Ports purchase triggers the automatic investigation. First, the company is "controlled" by a foreign government. Second, it's undeniable that port operations "could affect the national security of the United States."

     Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials "could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."

     Filed under: Homeland Security

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 2:18pm

256. Who remembers that in the panic after 9/11 and as part of the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq there was lots of Anthrax hysteria? Despite Senators being targeted the whole thing has been essentially forgotten.....much like OBL himself.

     It seems increasingly likely that the anthrax was an "inside job" and now I see that it looks like the US Army is replenishing their stocks by making more in their Utah labs.

     We're going to nuke Iran, I have no doubt about it anymore, but just look at the stuff that is going to happen internally before an invasion of Iran becomes politically possible.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 2:53pm

257. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/22/2006 @ 2:18pm

     It's not surprising. They don't care if it's not a money making scheme. We, the people of the USA could blow up in another 9/11 and they'd make more money. Look at all the profits made on our backs already, deficits forever, tax cuts for the wealthiest, and 9/11 happened. Why not another one, more war, more profits, less freedom, less civil rights, the haves have more control... Why take the chance? I say nip it in the bud.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 2:58pm

258. Oh and BTW, nipping it in the bud would entail also getting rid of the BC BS regime before they allow another 9/11 for profit and control.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 3:04pm

259. Bushfools,

     Unfortunately the power grab has already gone too far and the Constitution and institutions of the USA are now no longer capable of "nipping it in the bud".

     Once again, the Administration has broken the law....in this case it was a law that mandated a 45 day National Security investigation of this foreign government takeover of ports. Already, Bush has come out and said....."I didn't "personally" know anything about the deal". In other words, he's not going down for this one. So which of the lackey's is going to take the rap and then be pardonned by Bush now that Libby's already spoken for in terms of rap taking?

     Are any of you apologist's getting in the least bit queasy because the rest of us are hurling chunks?

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 3:18pm

260. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/22/2006

     I disagree that the congress is totally neutered. This port issue may be the hormone injection needed to grow a backbone up and all the way down.

     As for the brains and responsibility for the decision if Bush continues to want it both ways, I wouldn't put it past Chaney-- the bigger, tougher, killer, go fuck yourself, president.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 3:45pm

261. Bushfools,

     If you don't think that the branch of government called congress is now completely subservient to the branch called "executive" then how on earth do you explain the NSA spying probe being dropped, when clearly the Law WAS broken.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2006 @ 3:47pm

262. FP,

     My understanding is that it was pushed over to the fisa court for review and there's a court order to release the papers describing the system for review.

     http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002698174_spying22.ht ml

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 4:46pm

263. Another reason to believe that congress will come through on this:

     http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060222_chicken_teeth.html

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/22/2006 @ 4:53pm