Don't Jump on the anti-Dubai Port Deal Bandwagon
Sunday, February 26, 2006 at 11:45AM Let’s examine past experiences of Republicans jumping on board recent bandwagons: Ann Coulter calling extremist Muslims "ragheads" was met with swift Conservative excommunication. Denmark is being praised as a champion of free speech by Conservatives, despite the fact that what this type of free speech can do for you, it can do to you.
With these "don’t look before you leap" bandwagons overloaded with Conservatives, let’s do a review of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -owned company, Dubai Ports World, and the contract with the London company to manage U.S. ports. First, here is the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company who currently manages the ports. Here is the Dubai Port company.
MYTHS
Myth: President Bush contracted the UAE to manage US ports.
Fact: The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments has approved a pending contract with the state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage U.S. sea ports. The Committee on Foreign Investment includes representatives from 12 government agencies and departments, including Defense Department, Homeland Security and the White House National Security Council. It took 90 days to approve the deal. The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), currently manages the ports and is selling the management of the ports to Dubai Port. The White House is backing the contract.
Myth: The U.S. will be less safe with the UAE managing the ports instead of the British.
Fact: The private British company currently manages the ports in question. The ports are already managed by foreigners; in light of the Muslim presence in Britian and the vow from extremists to continue attacks like the ones in London, it could be suggested that US ports managed by the Brits is a riskier venture than to sell the work to Dubai.
Myth: The U.S. would be safer managing its own ports.
Fact: The U.S. has had more domestic terrorism than the United Arab Emirates. Consider these home grown American terrorists who carried out domestic attacks:
-Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols on April 19,1995 used a truck bomb at the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 Americans, including many children. McVeigh was executed for his crimes in early 2001.
-Eric Rudolph, known as the Olympic Park Bomber, killed 2 people and injured 111 after setting off a bomb in Atlanta, Georgia’s Olympic Park during the 1996 Summer Olympics.
-Anthrax attacks beginning Sept. 18, 2001. Five Americans were killed by Anthrax which was delivered to news stations in NYC and 2 Senators in Washington, DC. The crimes are still unsolved.
*Domestic attacks within the United Arab Emirates since it’s conception in December, 1971: ZERO.
Yet we trust the US to safeguard our ports over a country, that happens to be Arab, with a better track record on security.
Myth: The Bush Administration is outsourcing the security of our ports.
Fact: The U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are in charge of security of our ports.
Myth: The Bush Administration hid the deal until it was exposed by the media.
Fact: DP World announced its intent to purchase P&O on November 29, 2005. Even before the official announcement, the press was reporting on the possible transaction as early as October 30. Between October 2005 and January 2006, there were at least 162 mentions of the transaction in the press.
Complete Fact Sheet from the White House
Tackling the concerns
-Two 9/11 hijackers "had ties" to the UAE: All eleven 9/11 terrorists learned to fly in US flight schools, lived in US hotels, used American banks and used the US as an interface to pull off their plots. The United States is no more guilty by association than the UAE is. (keep in mind domestic American terrorists)
-The UAE approved the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan. The UAE was one of only 3 nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. Political analyst Abdul Khaleq Abdulla said the recognition of the Taliban was aimed at putting an end to a civil war that ravaged Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, and that the Taliban appeared to be in the best position to control the country. "Little did they know that the regime would turn out the way it did," Abdulla said.
In addition to the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also recognized the Taliban after they seized the Afghan capital Kabul in 1996. All three countries cut ties with the Taliban after it sheltered al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
WHO’S SUPPORTING THE DEAL:
-Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security Director.
-Joe Lierberman, Dem. CT-Sen .
-Dan Bartlett, White House counselor.
-John Snow, Treasury Secretary.
-Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
-Donald Rumsfeld, Sec. of Defense.
-Tommy Franks, Retired Gen US Army: "We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port outside the United States. We know he difference between an enemy and a friend. The Emirates is a friend. That is the best run port that I’ve ever seen."
WHO’S OPPOSING THE DEAL:
-The Usual Suspects
-Dissenting Republicans (like SC Sen. Lindsay Graham, who also broke ranks from the President on the war in Iraq and the surveillance program)
-American Unions (Teamsters Union, full photo)
It didn’t take long, but the demagoguery has begun. Now that Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton ("We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports. This is a job that America has to do."), are coming out and officially blaming the President for outsourcing national security, it seems clear that Conservatives erred in siding with Democrats. The UAE has been our ally for years and the UAE has graciously offered to postpone the contract to ease US concerns. The UAE gave $100 million in aid for Katrina Hurricane relief last year… because that’s what allies do. The aid from the UAE was nearly four times as much as it received from all other countries combined. Other countries, including some in the Middle East, also pledged large contributions but have not yet sent the money.
WHY WE NEED THE UAE
The UAE, according to military officials and former CENTCOM GEN Tommy Franks, has one of the safest and best run ports in the world and currently accommodates US ships for our activities in the Middle East. The UAE has been an outstanding ally on the war on terror with the United States. The map speaks for itself.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that religious and racial bias, not a legitimate concern for security, are behind the opposition to Dubai Ports World managing six U.S. ports:
"Most Muslims would agree that underlying this entire issue is an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bias that says, ‘Muslims and Arabs are somehow less trustworthy than other people.’ People are saying, ‘Don’t sell — sell our ports to the Arabs.’ Well, that’s not what’s happening at all. The [Department of Homeland Security] is still screening the cargo, the Coast Guard is still protecting the port, the union longshoremen are still loading and unloading the cargo and I believe the majority of the employees of the company are British and American. The [Chief Operating Officer] is American."
Although Democrats may not intend to, they are engaging in the worst case of racial profiling in their effort to take political advantage of a complex situation. Democrats do not have public confidence on the issue of national security and they have contradicted themselves in an effort to cash in on an opportunity of misunderstanding. While decrying tight security checks at American airports as "racial profiling", they have proceeded to label an entire race of people because of extremist Muslims within the religion. In fact, the possibility is that religious Muslims aren’t truly behind the terrorist movement; rather, it is a political and ideological movement draped in the guise of religion (i.e., al-Qaeda, the Taliban) to gain global Muslim support that taints the image of Muslims. Certainly there are elements of passion in the Arab culture that frighten Americans, but just as it is wrong to stereotype an entire race, it is even wronger to carry out a stereotype of an entire race for political purposes.
While the jury may still be out, next time, let’s give OUR President the benefit of the doubt. Be suspicious of any bandwagon filled with liberals.
Expose the Left Stop the ACLU Righting America Sister Toldjah EIMC Jo’s Cafe Conservababes Don Surber Flopping Aces
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/397076
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (133)
I copied and pasted your port comments into this thread.
THREE THINGS.
1. How about the fact that this U.A.E. port deal was ILLEGAL?
>>>"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:
"Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Legislative Cite. Section 721 of Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, made permanent law by section 8 of Pub. L. 102-99, 105 Stat. 487 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) and amended by section 837 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2315, 2463.
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.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation
2. Homeland Security was AGAINST THIS DEAL INITIALLY!
>>>Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account.
"We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances," Baker told the AP.
Officials from the White House, CIA and Departments of State, Treasury, Justices and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports.
"We had the most obvious stake in the process," Baker said.
Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.homeland26feb26,0,170464.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
3. George W. Bush once again, didn't even know what was going on.
>>>"Faced with an unprecedented Republican revolt over national security, the White House disclosed yesterday that President Bush was unaware of a Middle Eastern company's planned takeover of operations at six U.S. seaports until recent days and promised to brief members of Congress more fully on the pending deal."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html
This is the President you're telling me that you "trust?" He was CLUELESS!
How about Rumsfeld, the DEFENSE Secretary?
>>>"In detailing the evaluation process the Bush administration purportedly undertook before agreeing to permit a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage port terminals in six major U.S. cities, several media outlets reported that the administration approved of the deal only after a thorough review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). But none of the reports noted the glaring inconsistency in the administration's account: that Donald Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602220009
Or how about the Treasury Secretary John Snow?
>>>"Treasury Secretary John Snow, who heads the panel that approved the sale, said he didn't know about the issue until the furor erupted this week."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-22-bush-ports_x.htm
My question to you pro-port folks is this...
Why are you so TERRIFIED of questioning the actions of this Administration? We've seen their track record on this war on terror in Tora Bora. We've seen their track record on the DISASTER that is Iraq. We've seen their track record on the FIASCO of the Hurricane Katrina response.
NOW, we have OTHER REPUBLICANS...Prominent ones...Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Peter King, Dennis Hassert, J.D. Hayworth, et. al come out AGAINST or at least QUESTION this port deal, and some of you can't bring yourselves to do it.
What is all this blind loyalty about? Bush is NOT the Messiah. He's a C-student politician and failed businessman who couldn't get elected to Scout Leader if his last name was "Smith".
Don't you think that there are some issues in this post 9/11 world that are worth following the rules and asking questions about?
--Cobra
The White House broke the law AGAIN, Cobra? Even Dem. politicians aren't saying that. I wonder why. You assume to know more than all Democratic politicians in the Senate and Congress. Remember that Pres. Bush isn't the one who contracted the deal. He approved it. As did the other 12 gov. agencies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060225-1.html
"MYTH: The Administration is ignoring the law.
FACT: Just as was the case under the first Bush and Clinton administrations, the CFIUS process has required a Federal agency to register a security concern before a further investigation can be launched. When there is a consensus of CFIUS members, the transaction does not proceed to an extended investigation. A Committee consensus means that no member saw any national security threat, or there were no unresolved national security concerns to prevent the transaction from going forward."
"2. Homeland Security was AGAINST THIS DEAL INITIALLY!"
Right, initially... until the UAE gave assurance and proof of its' compliance with all regulations and stipulations. Then Homeland Security, being convinced there was no terror threat by the UAE, approved it.
"3. George W. Bush once again, didn't even know what was going on."
Cobra, you have some anger management issues. Deals of this sort are run through the various agencies... Donald Rumsfeld and the rest also didn't know that the deal was approved. This isn't the Clinton Administration; there's trust within the administration that things are being done properly; low and behold, they are.
Bush isn't the Messiah? Republicans know that, but apparently you liberals don't. He's responsible for Hurricane Katrina. If we thought we was the Messiah would Republicans be questioning him? In fact is it DEMOCRATS who NEVER question their leaders because they're immature players in a political game that they cannot bear to lose, yet they continue to do so. They will stand up for their own no matter how wrong or depraved. Thank God Republicans are here to keep it real.
You didn't read what I posted. Of COURSE Democrats are raising the fact that this deal was illegal. You need more proof. OK.
>>>""This is not a matter of which country. It's a matter of whether any country wanting to take over an asset, which is as sensitive as our port facilities, has a solid record of fighting terrorism over a long period of time. The law says we investigate that. The administration bypassed and short-cut our law." - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
>>>""The diplomatic problem has been brought on by this administration's tone deafness. ... They should have gone through this thoroughly and showed everybody what was going on." - Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.
"This process has been flawed from the beginning, and it needs to be fixed." - Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
"Whatever happens in this United Arab Emirates deal, if we get more focus on port security, which some of us have been trying to do in the Congress for years, some good will come out of this." - Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13968835.htm
You want more indepth?
>>>"Senators from all points of the political spectrum — including Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Norm Coleman, R-Minn.; Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; Olympia Snowe, R-Maine; Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.; Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Jack Reed, D-R.I. — said they will push for a fast vote on legislation that would block the takeover of port operations while the administration conducts a national security review of the transaction's implications.
The secretaries of Homeland Security and the Treasury would have to brief members of Congress on their findings, and Congress would have the authority to reject the deal.
"A brief period for the company to continue lobbying without the full 45-day investigation that should have been done from the beginning is simply not enough," Schumer said. "If the president were to voluntarily institute the investigation and delay the contract, that would be a good step. But a simple cooling-off period will not allay our very serious concerns about this dubious deal."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3684530.html
So when you state that CIFUS doesn't have to investigate a foreign government's investment in matters that affect national security for 45 days, you're flat out WRONG. I posted and cited the LAW FOR YOU TO READ. Where are you getting information to the contrary?
2. Homeland Security OK'd this? LOL...
>>>"By Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
Published February 24, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was not aware a Dubai-owned company was seeking to operate terminals in six U.S. ports and that his agency was leading the review until after the deal's approval, an administration official said yesterday.
Mr. Chertoff's spokesman, Russ Knocke, told The Washington Times the issue rose no higher than the department's assistant secretary for policy, Stewart Baker."
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060224-103036-9307r
The DIRECTOR of HOMELAND SECURITY didn't KNOW the deal was going down. So when you write:
>>>"Then Homeland Security, being convinced there was no terror threat by the UAE, approved it."
You're saying something that doesn't make sense, because the guy allegedly in CHARGE of Homeland Security wasn't INVOLVED in the "convincing." You're putting ABSOLUTE BLIND FAITH in mid-level bueraucrats you probably have absolutely no knowlege of as far as competancy, qualifications or track records. And if you think that's just "Bush bashing" by me, look at some of the other famous Homeland Security appointments, like Michael Brown and his FEMA staff.
Amy writes:
>>>"They will stand up for their own no matter how wrong or depraved."
That's precisely what YOU'RE doing. You're standing up for Bush no matter what the facts are, no matter what the conditions on the ground are, no matter how clueless he is, and no matter how many other Republicans are against him on this issue.
You're like the baseball fan who doesn't care what illegal activities or drugs her hometown hero does...as long as he's playing for your team.
--Cobra
The hoople wouldn't know a shia from a kurd. GWB has them so scared, they see turban and they're diving under the sheets screaming, "Save us Rummy, Save us!!!"
The fear mongering chickenhawks are reaping what they've sown on this one. It is to laugh.....
If Dems are saying it's illegal (I'll read your sources tonight when I can concentrate), they're wrong. Bring on the impeachment hearings. I could use a good laugh at their expense.
Cobra, I'm not terrified of standing against the administration! Could it be that people AGREE with this deal? Which, by the way, is not Pres. Bush's baby. Been over all this already.
I didn't stand with the President on Harriet Miers, and I questioned him initially when this story broke. I then used my brain and did a TON of research.
Why is it that you Democrats ALWAYS criticize this administration? Why is it that you NEVER criticize your own politicians? Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
But I'm not going to argue you extensively. If he's wrong, he'll be put in jail. He won't be. He won't be censured or impeached. And I'm not ashamed to say that I believe the President to be a great man and a great President. I have only one Messiah, and it isn't President Bush, but I still think very highly of him.
****************
WarChick, I have to disagree with you that the UAE is DEFINITELY our enemy. They truly have given the US a hand up in the war against terror. Seeing as how it is a mostly Islamic country, there are bound to be trouble makers, but no more than we’ve had in our own country with Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph and the anonymous anthrax killers.
The UAE is not unlike Kuwait: a progressive Muslim country that is modern with many western accomodations. They have tasted the richness of prosperity and don’t wish to revert to a Taliban state, or any other number of Muslim countries in the Middle East that are constantly in unrest. Been there, done that.
As for Islam, it does seem that many if not most Muslims appear to support the riots, protests and violence, but there’s really no way to KNOW that for sure. The media covers the riots, and rightly so, and surely Islam itself is flawed at it’s roots. It’s easiest to make generalizations and I am personally torn over how to view Muslims, but here are two things:
1) My husband is active duty Army. He knows and works with Muslims. He knows a Muslim Chaplain (he’s a combat ch. assistant in the Chaplain’s corps, my husband is) and several Muslim soldiers. They are good people, although he knows them, I don’t. I think American Muslims are probably different than Middle Eastern ones in that they are grateful to be here and not there.
2) My husband served in Iraq for a year and met and befriended many good Muslims. They, by and large, wanted to raise their families and live in peace.
When Saddam went to war with Iran in the 1980’s, he went to war as a secularist, claiming “pan-Arabism”. Iranians are Persians and Saddam claimed solidarity of the Arab race to conquer Persian Iran. Then, when it came time for Saddam to fight the US in the 1st Gulf War and in Operation Iraqi Freedom, he changed his tune: it was no longer a secular war, but a religious one: the evil Satan against Islam. Saddam was photographed everywhere on his prayer mat and in worship to suck in good Muslims against the evil Western empire: the US.
When my husband talked to Iraqis, he found that they disdained Saddam and knew him to be a faker, “using” Islam when the war called for it and using “pan-Arabism” when it called for that.
That being said, it isn’t uncommon for Arabs to “use” Islam to suck in Muslims to support their cause against what they consider religious enemies. It is a tactic as old as the hills and Saddam is a master of it.
So… although I’m still grappling with the issue of what Islam is truly about, I know it is a religion whose foundation is warped but there are some good followers who are not fanatics. How many, I do not know, but according to my husband, there IS a distinction between the violence we’re seeing and “good Muslims”. What muddies the waters is that Mohammed was such a skunk.
Amy, I strongly suggest you change the wording from <i>"manage US ports"</i> to "manage some terminals within some US ports"; because that is the reality. Dubai World Ports will not be managing ports, they will be managing some terminals at six ports.
Since the elevation of this issue by our illustrious MSM, I have been opposed to any foreign company or government managing any aspect of operations where people or cargo may enter our country. I still basically maintain that belief, but I guess I have moderated on the amount of passion the topic now excites; next to none anymore.
I certainly do not advocate closing our country in paranoia like the old USSR. In order to maintain of free moving society, we must build trusts and relations with those nations that desire to be an ally. UAE certainly has not been openly hostile toward us even though they voted against us 62 times in 2004 (at the UN).
My primary concern right now is that the Dhimmicrats have moved to the right of the president on national security based upon this issue. I believe most people see through this ploy, but the GOP and WH must mount a unified campaign to counter this perception; and they need to do so quickly.
Thanks for a great post. Keep up the great work.
1. When Clinton gave a contract for Long Beach, California to China ( whose government really is our enemy) Not a peep was to be heard from the same people who are squawking now.
2. Why is it we shouldn't profile STRANGERS in an airport, but we SHOULD profile businessmen who we have checked out from a nation who has shown us assistance in the war on terror?
3.Do you think the teamsters beef is just a ploy to raise salaries for port workers and support Democrats who they hope will fight to raise "minimum wage" again [and thus their salaries as they are based on a percentage over minimum}?
Being a conservative means THINKING things out and not just REACTING. Thank GOD our president is a conservative and not a kneejerk liberal.
>>>"If Dems are saying it's illegal (I'll read your sources tonight when I can concentrate), they're wrong. Bring on the impeachment hearings. I could use a good laugh at their expense."
How are the Democrats "wrong?" You also seem to think that Republicans aren't against this also. You are incorrect. I've given you a list of Republicans opposed to this deal or at least questioning it. Is it possible that yet again, you feel that the Bush Administration is above the law?
There won't be an impeachment of George W. Bush as long as the House of Representatives remains in a Republican majority, and...whoops...2006 is a mid-term election year.
You made a statement about people WANTING the U.A.E to get this deal?
>>>"Most Americans, however, are not willing to accept a Persian Gulf state running the nation's ports. A Rasmussen Poll released yesterday found that Americans oppose the ports deal by a huge 64%-17%."
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/394602p-334479c.html
Grumpy has it just right. I will agree with you that there is a degree of anti-muslim thought going into this feeling. Absolutely, because this President, along with Karl Rove and company has done more to ratchet up hatred against middle easterners than any other Administration, which is amazing, considering Bush is simultaneously in bed with the House of Saud, Prince Bandar et. al.
Look at your OWN WRITINGS in this thread:
>>>"So… although I’m still grappling with the issue of what Islam is truly about, I know it is a religion whose foundation is warped but there are some good followers who are not fanatics. How many, I do not know, but according to my husband, there IS a distinction between the violence we’re seeing and “good Muslims”. What muddies the waters is that Mohammed was such a skunk."
Come on, Amy. You're not a fan of these folks anymore than the congressmen and senators opposing Bush on this deal. But Bush is your guy, and he's in trouble on this one, so you're doing your part to defend the indefensible.
Another reason why it's indefensible?
>>>"Lawmakers Told Coast Guard Fleet 'Has Been Pushed to Breaking Point and Beyond'
Three years have ticked by since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, yet Washington has done little to address the vulnerability of U.S. ports to the threat of terrorism, according to a panel of homeland security analysts who testified before a House subcommittee last month. The nation lacks a comprehensive transport security plan, clear-cut oversight among congressional bodies or enough funding to protect maritime facilities, they said.
Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - also known as the 9/11 Commission - which investigated intelligence and security lapses that failed to prevent the 2001 attacks, told House lawmakers no "top-down" strategic look at resource allocation has been conducted since the attacks. He added that 90 percent of transportation security funding goes toward aviation safety, with a mere 10 percent left to pay for port security and other efforts"
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200410/ai_n9426270
This is a Republican White House, a Republican House and a Republican Senate. You cannot blame the Democrats on this one.
But, hey, go ahead and support all of this. Support the U.A.E. deal where a Hereditary Monarchy (no democracy there) rife with human rights violations (human trafficking for prostitution...small children exploited as "camel-jockies") with ties to Al Qeada oversees terminal operations at our most important ports while the Coast Guard, the people providing security is being UNDERFUNDED.
We know what will happen if things go bad. Right wingers will blame it on Clinton, pro-choicers, Ray Nagin or "Brokeback Mountain", etc....
--Cobra
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The PRESIDENT hasn't done anything wrong despite your attempts to accuse him. I'm not going to repeat everything I've already said, or everything I've written in my orginal post. The President APPROVED it, he didn't create the deal. What's illegal about approving a deal that was already blessed off on by 12 US agencies, which are the normal proceedures?
I'm not "BLAMING" the port deal on anyone. I don't think there's anyone to blame. It looks like a good deal to me. There's little to blame the Dems for since they rarely actually DO anything but demagogue.
Carl Rove! What about Halliburton? You didn't mention them yet. Not that there's anything wrong with Rove. You guys can't stand him because he's so good.
Again, I'm not blaming anyone for anything "going bad." Especially not Brokeback Mountain. It looks to me like this is a good strategic deal, but time will tell.
If it brings you such pain, don't feel obligated to post here. Your bad attitude is really a downer. If you can express yourself in a more collected way, wouldn't that be more productive?
I don't understand why liberals go to unapologetic conservative blogs and bloviate about the same ol' tired stuff we've heard before, debunked before and honestly don't give a rip about.
The time you took to even reply to some of his stuff is admirable, though - more than we have time or patience for. I mean, shouldn't Cobra be posting on Democratic Underground or Daily Kos where he'd at least have an admiring, loyal following? I don't get it.
Raise your hands if you've ever gone specifically to a liberal blog or 4 and argued with these people? Anyone? Didn't think so. Me neither.
Sorry, Amy - off topic, I know, but Cobra visits us often, too and I wanted to express my admiration for your thoughtful responses to him. We appreciate our liberal commentors/readers, but sometimes I just don't understand why they feel the need to post their ignorance on our blogs for all the world to see?? Isn't it...embarassing? A little? Especially if it's the same ol' thing over and over? (I did a HaloScan search of all of Cobra's and other liberals' comments and they seriously are all the same...)
Happy Monday,
DP
Patriotette, I have seen Cobra various other places. The thing about it is that if libersals would just drop the attitude we might be able to have some decent discussions.
I signed up so I can comment at Daily KOS, but I haven't. It's been a month or so. My intent is to occassionally, and POLITELY, give some inside facts that they may not be privy to (or rather are ignoring), particularly on military issues. But I haven't been because... I don't know... I guess I feel until I have something positive to offer that they might receive, it's pointless.
I heard on FOX that it was actually the UAE who were instrumental in nabbing the terrorists responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
Old Soldier, great point about managing terminals WITHIN the ports, not the ports themselves, and as anyone with a brain can see, security will be managed by US Customs and US Coastguard as it always has.
The sky is NOT falling.
Keep up the good work. Wish I had something more inspiring to say. Sorry.
Ruth, I found this link to the CounterTerrorism Blog:
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/a_jihad_window_.html
But then I heard that the 45-day investigation was obligatory in a situation like this, and I got annoyed. (And, according to the same language quoted by Cobra, I believe it was obligatory.) If the extended investigation is required, why not just perform it even if nothing turns up? It would have been insurance against just this kind of uproar. I can't imagine a good enough reason for ignoring this rule, it just doesn't make sense and it jeopardizes a completely legitimate contract that's good for foreign policy.
You make an excellent point, and the news today from about the U.S. Coast Guard is also very interesting.
>>>"Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.
The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3689459.html
Nicole, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, IMHO.
Detroit Patriotette writes:
>>>'Sorry, Amy - off topic, I know, but Cobra visits us often, too and I wanted to express my admiration for your thoughtful responses to him. We appreciate our liberal commentors/readers, but sometimes I just don't understand why they feel the need to post their ignorance on our blogs for all the world to see??"
Patriotette, truth be told, I like posting to sites that don't always agree with my position. Especially in light of the fact that many of these public blogs have large readerships. As far as my "looking ignorant", I sincerely doubt I fit that description given the fact that I SOURCE darn near everything I post on most subjects.
If Amy thinks I have a "bad attitude", that's fine, but she also knows that I make clean posts, and never attack those who disagree with me personally, or use ad-hominem slurs or derogatory language against them. I debate with facts, direct quotes and intellect. You should know that already if you did that search of my posts you said you did.
One would think, with the vast conservative movement sweeping the nation, that right winged bloggers would welcome a challenge.
One would think. :)
--Cobra
You post crap. Just because you have a URL doesn't mean it is true. You make yourself look like an arrogant, ignorant racist with many of your posts.
If your answer is that that might have been a bad move. Where does racism come into it? Those guys are good Northern Europeans.
Once again the right puts up a bunch of straw men to knock down instead of actually addressing the issues raised by non-"True Believers". Not to mention that the arguement's are inconsistent with other statements the right defends: If Timothy McVeight, et al, are part of the problem, why are we "fighting them over there instead of over here?
"While the jury may still be out, next time, let’s give OUR President the benefit of the doubt. Be suspicious of any bandwagon filled with liberals."
My suggestion is that espeically since it's clear Democrats are politicizing again, we give the President the benefit of the doubt. Question all we want, sure, but be cautious in the type of criticism issued.
I think any Arab country will be problematic in one way or another. Look at Kuwait: our ally, BUT, one of the reasons Saddam hates Kuwait is because Iraqi girls were sold into Kuwait (presumably by Kuwaitis in the sex industry, probably with the aid of some Iraqis) as sex slaves. Kuwait is our ally.... this is incredibly bad. When my husband went to Baghdad with the 82nd ABN in March '03, he learned that MANY Christian girls (we're talking very young girls), something like 6 per day (I'll have my hubby verify it) were simply disappearing on their way to school or in the neighborhood. They were being sold into the Kuwaiti sex slave industry. As I said, clearly this is a problem.....
However, we can really benefit from the UAE. They are a United ARAB Emirate which means there will no doubt be some problems... perhaps just as Arab allies might see our porn and entertainment industry as a problem. But logistically they are really an advantage for the US. This doesn't mean we have to give them the port deal, but I suspect it helps. Remember that the British company is the one selling to the UAE, not the USA. We're approving it.
I do see the Israel issue as a problem. No doubt. I also know that at the end of the day I have to trust somebody, and I choose the President over the tide of criticism which INCLUDES ALL Democrats. Red flag.
Old Soldier above made excellent observations:
"Amy, I strongly suggest you change the wording from <i>"manage US ports"</i> to "manage some terminals within some US ports"; because that is the reality. Dubai World Ports will not be managing ports, they will be managing some terminals at six ports.
Since the elevation of this issue by our illustrious MSM, I have been opposed to any foreign company or government managing any aspect of operations where people or cargo may enter our country. I still basically maintain that belief, but I guess I have moderated on the amount of passion the topic now excites; next to none anymore.
I certainly do not advocate closing our country in paranoia like the old USSR. In order to maintain of free moving society, we must build trusts and relations with those nations that desire to be an ally. UAE certainly has not been openly hostile toward us even though they voted against us 62 times in 2004 (at the UN)."
The only question ever brought forth is that of a STATE RUN COMPANY, and that state being one of the intermediaries through which funds were diverted to make 9/11 possible. Additionally, a couple of the hijackers were from that country; were they not? Again, they don't recognize Israel, either - unless that has changed.
Let's look at the real issues here though: Cronyism and lack of due dilligence on the part of the Administration. You cannot say the same thing about the Clinton/China deal can you?
"Bush is a lying fearmonger who only cares about bilking this country for the benefit of himself and his friends--he grew up thinking that the norm was to sell access to power, that he would never be called on to account for his many failures, and that you use the government to enruch yourselves..."
Please, keep typing!
@ Mike F: Duh. We should get out WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE SAFE.
56: the # of US Navy ships docked in UAE ports.
0: the # of attacks by terrorists against them.
$100 million: the amount of money donated by the UAE to assist in the humanitarian relief of Hurrican Katrina victims.
6: the number of ports that contain terminals that will be run by the UAE sponsored corporation.
0: the number of ports that will be 'run' by the UAE
100%: the percentage of ports with security and operations run by the US government.
51 million: the # of Muslims liberated since 2001 by US-led Coalition Forces.
12: the # of US gov't agencies that approved the deal.
Do the math.
-DPW is owned by a foreign dictatorship/monarchy. The fact that it is an Arab foreign dictatorship is irrelevant. This idea that someone is racist if they oppose this deal is offensive and dishonest. Dictatorships are notoriously corrupt and unstable. I don't want one any where near our ports, and neither to over 80% of this country. So much for the "bandwagon filled with liberals". Seems more like a bandwagon filled with everyone.
-Ports are a collection of terminals. All materials, good and bad travel through the terminals. The inspection and security operations of a port happen in the terminal. When you give up some control of the terminal, you give up some control of the port. Obfuscating this fact by saying that DPW will only gain control of TERMINALS, not PORTS is, again, dishonest.
-Unfortunately for the right, the blame for this debacle rests firmly with the administration. I don't know how you can spin it any other way. The fact remains that the agencies who did make the deal are directly under GWB's control. Whether he "created" the deal or just enabled it, does that make him less culpable? But it's a good deal, right, so why not just give him credit? But then apparently he didn't know anything about the deal. Hm... strange. I'm confused.
-This administration bills itself as the "security administration". But when it OKs a deal that may undermine our port security, you immediately go to the "well Clinton did it" defense. I don't care what Clinton did or didn't do, he never claimed to be the "security administration"! The important point is that this self-styled "security administration" will sell our security down the river to line the pockets of a few oil rich monarchs. That is what the outrage is about. This administration is reaping what it has sowed. Live by the "security and fear sword" and die by the "security and fear sword".
-A little bit of well-informed difference of opinion (i.e. "truth") on this blog is clearly something to be feared. Cobra has offered some well reasoned and referenced arguments and instead of debating him on the merits of his arguments he is personally attacked. What are you afraid of?
The Bush Administration has been painting Arabs with the same black & white brush for the past five years. To whit, the invention of WMDs in Iraq to start the war. Osama, Hussein, what's the difference?
Now, suddenly, we have Bush coming out and trying on the "nuance" approach?
Come on. The Bushites (not the liberals) have been fostering and feeding irrational hatred of ALL Arabs for so long, now they are hoist on their own petard.
And, Amy, why don't you focus on the teachings of catholicism a little more, you know, like charity, compassion, and honesty?
oh really.
"Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/February%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports.htm
so much for that.
That would be hypocritical for someone to hold pose two apparently antithetical positions, but who is advocating this? As I explained before, most people oppose this deal because OUR PORTS WILL BE RUN BY A AUTOCRACY (UAE is technically an autocracy, not a monarchy as I previously stated), not because they are Arabs. It certainly does not help that that this particular autocracy has in the past been connected to terrorism. There is nothing hypocritical about that. It's common sense. And no, Saudi Arabia (or Syria) should not have control of our ports either, because it they are AUTOCRACIES who also happen to be connected to TERRORISM. You do understand the difference between a privately owned company beholden to shareholders and an company owned by an autocratic state beholden to no one? That is the crux of the argument against this deal.
And who, who opposes this deal, has advocated anything remotely like "[cutting] off ALL ARAB nations from trade and investment in America"? Who is advocating this position? NO ONE! You are damning and railing against a position held by NO ONE!
And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, how can you overlook the hypocrisy of the Bush administration. It stokes anti-arab/muslim fears, conflates Islam and terrorism and continues to indefinitely and unlawfully hold and torture muslims (many without cause) and then has then gall to pull the "racist" card when people oppose a cush port deal with one of his dictatorial oil buddies. A deal that may undermine the very security policy he has staked his entire administration on.
The GOP is still whom the majority of Americans trust on National Security.
Remember, "Let's get out now!" was the Democratic rally cry just 2 months ago...
The tipping point is clearly the bush effort to have his family and friends make millions off of a deal that would turn over our international ports of entry to a country run by a dictatorship that HAS strong ties to 911, recognizes the Taliban, excludes all rights to women (except to be owned) and boycotts Israel.
This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with allegiances of a dictatorship. These are not Americans of arab descent we are talking about.
Perhaps some free and fair elections in Dubai would alleviate fears, but that's not going to happen while that country is a Friend of George.
I for one am not happy that bush wants to sell national security just so brother Neil Bush can make a few million. There must be an S&L for Neil to raid instead...
Do all of you really need the bush/cheney families to make more money off of insider government deals and war profiteering?
Judging by the postings at this site, I'm sure some here would answer 'yes'.
You're kind of proving my point. Re the Bushes: George 2 was given money to prop up his failing enterprises (Arbusto, Harkin) by people who wanted access to his father, the Pres, ditto the guys who hired him to be a partner in the Texas baseball franchise (where he offered people way-below-market prices for the farms they had lived on for generations--when they turned him down, he used the texas gov to declare eminent domain and condemn the properties--nice guy huh? The taxpayers paid for the new stadium and george and his friends got to keep the profits. Then there's Jeb, who made miilions when his father the Pres okayed a loan to Nigeria on the condition they use it to purchase heavy equipment from Jeb's company. Last but not least there's Neil who started a savings and loan in Denver, paid himself a huge salary and ran it into the ground. then his father used his influence to get the Small Business Assoc. to give Neil another loan and he promptly did the same thing again, bankrupted a company after paying himself a huge salary--all this at taxpayer expense! And guess who's involved in the Dubai port company? Why, good old Neil.. Not to mention the guy Bush 2 just apointed head of US ports used to work for the Dubai company and John Snow, whose former employer was just acquired by the Dubai company all signed off on the deal with to all reports a very hasty vetting process--which is actually illegal, since they are required to have a 45 day process. So, why don't you face facts? George "I'll Keep You Safe" Bush doesn't even bother to keep informed on the fact that our most vulnerable means of entry to terrorists is going to be run by a gov (who owns Dubai Port Co) whose members have actually hung out with bin Laden and may continue to fund his operations...that's because, as so amply demonstrated by his continued indifference to those battered by Katrina, he doesn't give a shit! This is why I think Bush supporters must come from disfunctional families--they can't face reality--it's too threatening for them to acknolwedge that Bush is an alcoholically brain damaged boob--(See the first Bush Kerrey debate tape if you still doubt this--the man can't put together two sentences at a time). That's why they bend over backwards to defend his every failure.
"No longer is the GOP 'trusted' over the Democrats on National Security as recent polling has just shown."
One whole poll over 2 Presidential elections! That's proof alright.
"The tipping point is clearly the bush effort to have his family and friends make millions off of a deal that would turn over our international ports of entry to a country run by a dictatorship that HAS strong ties to 911, recognizes the Taliban, excludes all rights to women (except to be owned) and boycotts Israel."
The UAE is NOT a dictatorship. Bush didn't create this deal: it was a deal between the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), and Dubai Port. The Committee on Foreign Investment includes representatives from 12 government agencies and departments, including Defense Department, Homeland Security and the White House National Security Council. It took 90 days to approve the deal. The White House is only BACKING the deal. You're criticizing the 12 agencies, not Bush. It wasn't his job to approve it or not; that's the beauty of a Democratic REPUBLIC; the government runs itself from within itself. This is not a monarchy nor a dictatorship.
Oye with the conspiracy theories! You cannot be serious! Did I understand you to say that Pres. Bush and his friends are making money off of this deal? If so, you've just blown your credibility and revealed that you have not only no understanding about the approval process of the deal, but that you don't WANT to understand. You believe Operation Iraqi Freedom is a cover for the Bush dynasty to make $$ from oil, right? (No, that would be the United Nations).
Fact:
Here's a salient detail from a letter written by some Congressmen to the Administration re: Ports Deal:
"We have serious concerns about the described process because, as explained by the Administration, the review occurs only if the CFIUS decides in its discretion to do so. This does not appear to be a proper interpretation of the law. Under 50 U.S.C. App. � 2170(b), the CFIUS must conduct the 45-day investigation "in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States." This amendment, known as the "Byrd Amendment" and enacted in 1993, was intended to mandate that a review occurs if the transaction in any way "could" affect our national security. Prior to the Byrd Amendment, the determination to engage in this 45-day review period was discretionary to the Administration."
So
"
Oye with the conspiracy theories! You cannot be serious!"
So you're saying you weren't aware of the White House ties to these guys?
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html
1990
April: Bush buys an additional $100,000 ownership stake in the Rangers.
October: Arlington Mayor Richard Greene crafts a deal that will go before voters and devote $135 million toward a new stadium for the Rangers by raising the sales tax by a half-cent. At the time, Greene is among a group of former executives being sued by federal regulators for his role in the widespread savings-and-loan scandal.
1991
January: Arlington citizens, by a 2-to-1 margin, approve public funds for the new $191 million ballpark. Two weeks before the vote, federal regulators dismiss their lawsuit against Greene after he pays a $40,000 penalty.
April: The Rangers shepherd through the Texas legislature a bill that creates the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), a quasi-governmental entity that is given the power of eminent domain. Shortly after the bill is signed by new governor Ann Richards, 13 acres of private property are seized for the Rangers' new ballpark, later prompting two lawsuits.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html
Please people, whenever these rants take place, take a deep breath, step back, and ask yourself, "are the voters really that stupid?"
>>>"Please people, whenever these rants take place, take a deep breath, step back, and ask yourself, "are the voters really that stupid?"
Well, let's just take a look at what President George W. Bush just recently said--
>>>The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_10_05_bush_speech2.pdf.
--And what the EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE National Review had to say about the U.A.E.?
>>>In 1980, again according to The MWL Journal, the president of the UAE, Sheikh Zayed, and the ruler of the Sharjah Emirate, Sheikh al-Qassimi, gave $4.5 million to Nation of Islam leader W. D. Muhammad, as part of a successful effort by the Saudis to convert the movement to Wahhabism. The result has been a radicalization that last year resulted in one of its leaders calling for jihad against the Los Angeles Police Department....
...In 2000, as the so-called Second Intifada began, Saudi Arabia established the Al Aqsa and Intifada Fund designed to provide direct support to suicide bombers and their families. According to Arab sources, the UAE became the second-largest contributor to the $1 billion fund after Riyadh with a contribution of $150 million. If Washington’s policies in the Palestinian conflict are in shambles today with Hamas in power, more than a little credit is due to our friends in Saudi Arabia and UAE."
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/alexiev200602241620.asp
Now, Johnny...you might want to ask that question about voters again?
--Cobra
"-The UAE was one of only 3 nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. Political analyst Abdul Khaleq Abdulla said the recognition of the Taliban was aimed at putting an end to a civil war that ravaged Afghanistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, and that the Taliban appeared to be in the best position to control the country. "Little did they know that the regime would turn out the way it did," Abdulla said.
In addition to the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also recognized the Taliban after they seized the Afghan capital Kabul in 1996. All three countries cut ties with the Taliban after it sheltered al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/230206portsellout.htm
"In 1997 the Communist Chinese government took over the Long Beach Naval Air Base, the only major deep water port that can take large ships on the west coast. In 2000, the Communist Chinese, Hutchinson Whampoa which is run by the PLA, took over the Panama Canal and has stationed between 15,000 and 30,000 troops at the facility."
1997 was the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
Could it be that investments and trading are a normal activity for the United States? We aren't isolationists.
http://hooahwife.com/?p=613
Comment by Silke
February 23, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
I like what David Brooks said on the News Hour last night…
“I think what’s happened, we’ve had some nativism, some isolationism and just mass hysteria and a lot of political pandering.
But the thing that gives me solace about this is I haven’t read of a single expert who knows what they’re talking about who thinks there’s anything to this story. There’s not a single person I’ve read who thinks the security will be changed. The Coast Guard and Customs will still be in charge of security. The American Longshoremen will still be there. The management will still be there.
This is a globalized industry and the transfer from one holding company to another, according to every expert I’ve read, doesn’t think this will make a difference.
On the other hand, there’s a tremendous sense it’s going to do tremendous harm to American interests, first in Dubai, a country that invests here, but second throughout the Arab world.
I just came back from Doha (which is in Qatar, very close to Dubai) and a lot of Muslim democrats in the conference over there, and the one thing you heard from them again and again and again, there’s this democratic wave sweeping across the whole region but it’s not warm and sunny. The democratic opportunity is being seized by Hamas and other Islamic fanatics and their main argument is that the West is filled with racists who have one rule for themselves and another harsher rule for us Arabs.
And what’s happening on Capitol Hill reinforces that. It gives tremendous strength to bin Laden, Hamas, and all the Islamists, and it’s just doing tremendous harm to America’s reputation in the West. So some time sense is going to come back.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june06/ports_2-22.html
Amy, Amy, Amy...a simple 'I was wrong, I stand corrected' works much better.
Especially since one of the reasons that Democrats are more trusted in the polls, is this very matter we're now discussing.
Since, in looking at this matter:
a) The Bush administration literally broke the law - it did not consider this matter for 45 days, NOR did Rumsfeld and Pace look at it - and they are required to sign off on it.
b) Bush said he wasn't aware of it, and then said he would veto any attempt to stop it. How does that look to an objective, impartial American? Either the President is lying and he *was* aware of it - or he's being stupidly obstinant over a decision he had no part of and no prior awareness of
Either case does not inspire confidence. I'm shocked that people still have as much confidence in him as they do. You'd think that being caught blatantly lying on VIDEO about warrantless wiretapping would be enough.
I'm beginning to wonder just what Bush will have to do, to alienate this remaining 34% of his remaining supporters.
Another 2 years to find out.
Jim, this one poll is a knee-jerk reaction to the port deal. Unfortunately, many are very misinformed.
I have done several entries taking a closer look at these polls and they're usually sexed up. Here's an example: (you have to go to my entry to access the links)
******************************
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/1/5/only-54-of-military-approve-of-president-iraq.html
Only 54% of Military Approve of President / Iraq?
A recent poll by MilitaryCity.Com (parent of the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times & Marine Corps Times) has Democrats and war opponents rejoicing. They use it to say that only 54% of the military approves of the way the President is handling Iraq. Here is the POLL. Here is the question:
10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve 54%
Disapprove 25%
No opinion 9%
Decline to answer 12%
Here are the details about the poll:
Here is the math:
1215 = 100% of poll respondents
54% of 1215 = 656.
9% had no opinion; 12% declined to answer this question. So 21% cannot be counted as against the war (a conclusion one might come to looking the the stats is that 46% disagreed; that is false - of those who expressed an opinion, only 32% disagreed).
656 = the number of military that responded "I approve of the President’s handling of the war".
960 = total number of military who who expressed an opinion on this question.
304 = total number of military who disagreed with poll question.
656 = 68% of all who expressed an opinion approve
Here is the result:
68% of all military who expressed an opinion approve the President’s handling of the war in Iraq.
It’s also worth pointing out that of the respondents, about 53% have never been to Iraq!
3) How many times have you deployed to Iraq?
Once 31%
Twice 11%
Three times 2%
More than three times 0%
Never/no response 53%
It’s safe to conclude that of the 25% of troops who disapprove, the majority have not even been to Iraq.
Looks different when you actually read the poll, doesn’t it?
********************
(JOHN MURTHA'S 80% DATA)
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2005/12/13/the-80-myth.html
The 80% Myth
Over the weekend Democratic Congressman John Murtha-PA, who cognified the "cut and run" platform for Democrats, said:
"The sooner we’re redeployed the better it’ll be and the more chance for stability. The progress I measure as long as we’re there, the Iraqis, you have to give them an incentive. They’ll let us fight forever."
Yet Murtha has been saying ,
"80% of the people in Iraq want us out, 45% say it’s justified to kill Americans."
This schizophrenic logic is that Iraqis want the U.S. out of Iraq but they’ll let the US stay and fight forever if we let them.
The truth is that, as usual, Democrats have been blatantly lying about the poll and the results. Here’s the entire recent poll and accompanying article. Democrats use the expert below to say that 80% of Iraqis want the U.S. out:
Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week’s election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).
This survey was sponsored by ABC News with partners Time, the BBC, the Japanese network NHK and the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, with fieldwork by Oxford Research International. It consists of in-person interviews with a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis from early October through mid-November.
(note the source of the survey)
80% of Iraqis say we should leave now? John Murtha needs a refresher course in Math 101. 26% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave now. 71% of Iraqis want the U.S. to stay until Iraq is stable. 3% are undecided. 100% of Americans want the U.S. to leave eventually. The "two-thirds" of Iraqis who supposedly "oppose the U.S. presence" are broken down into categories in the subsequent paragraph. It is the "two-thirds" figure that Murtha and the Democrats have been using.
This is the real news in the poll, which has not been widely reported:
Economics
-more than 60% (6 in 10) of Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40% (4 in 10) in a poll in June 2004
-average household incomes have soared by 60% in the last 20 months
-70% of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country
-in early 2004, 6 % of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it’s 62%
-ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58%, up from 44 %), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances
Politics
-70% approve of the new constitution, and 70% (including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike) want Iraq to remain a unified country
-preference for a democratic political structure has advanced to 57% of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14% (the rest, 26 %, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")
-69% of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there
-76% of Iraqis express confidence that this week’s elections will produce a stable government
-interest in politics has soared to 69% today, up from 39 % in November 2003, 54 % in February 2004
-99% of Iraqis support women voting or working as medical doctors
Iraqi blogger Sooni in Baghdad said,
"It was like a dream to be freed by the US Army and the chance is very big right now for us to be a real free and democratic country and this is the only way for Iraq to evolve."
and
"We know and appreciate what the Americans have done and still doing in Iraq and if you hear some of the Iraqis saying (Leave) let me tell you that there are millions of the Iraqis saying (Stay) and you will see them tomorrow when they will march to defend the democracy you brought to this country"
and
"I saw you (Pres. Bush) defending your decision saying ‘As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq’ well Mr. President let me tell you that your decision will change the world as we know it. You gave Iraqis freedom that they wouldn’t have gotten in a thousand years, and the ‘Iraqi effect’ started to affect the region and this is why everyone around us is trying to ‘kill’ this young born democracy."
It’s time to believe Iraqis, the military on the ground, the President of the United States and the facts. Doubt those who lie.
*************************************
And that Zoby military poll is crap as well. We're an active duty military family. My husband is an Operation Iraqi Freedom vet (a year in Iraq). We have lots of friends over there now who volunteered to go back because they believe in the mission. Re-upments for guys IN THEATER is over 100%. My own husband re-uped in Baghdad. I don't trust polls that are obviously wrong. Have you seen this poll going around? (CBS poll)
**********************************************************
http://newsbusters.org/node/4211
CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats
Posted by Greg Sheffield on February 28, 2006 - 08:57.
In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.
Brent Baker also noted how CBS failed to highlight a key portion of its poll on the Feb. 27 "CBS Evening News." 66 percent of respondents thought the media devoted "too much time" to Cheney's hunting accident.
UPDATE 12:31. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has a helpful table in this report (page 13) on what percentage of Americans consider themselves to be Republican or Democrat. It shows that in both 2004 and 2005, 30% said they were Republican compared to 33% who said they were Democrats. The new CBS poll (even after being weighted) had a population of only 28% Republicans to 37% Democrats.
UPDATE 13:21. Aside from their bias, Jason Smith notes how mid-year polls are often unreliable predictors for future elections.
**************************
My favorite was the EXIT POLLS OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS!!! Remember those?
http://texasrainmaker.blogspot.com/2006/02/if-election-were-held-today-democrats.html
Sunday, February 26, 2006
"If the Election Were Held Today"
Democrats love to pretend that polls matter more than actual elections. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that if midterm elections were held today "Democrats would win the five seats they need to draw even in the Senate..."
I can understand the wishful thinking, since the only time Democrats have been capable of securing control of the Senate in the last 10 years, it required a candidate disenfranchising voters by switching parties after being elected as a Republican.
Going back a few years, Democrats have clung to the hope that random polls throughout the year were indicative of actual election results. Maybe it's that faulty reliance that gives rise to such shock, when their candidates go down in flames at the hands of voters, instead of "a representative sample teenagers at the grocery store" or "a statistical sampling of elderly Lakers fans".
Over and over again, they build their dreams on the false hopes...
October 31, 2003 - "An independent poll released this week by the non-partisan William C. Velásquez Institute (WCVI) confirmed that Hispanics are growing increasingly frustrated with President Bush’s policies and performance. According to the Institute’s research, if the election were held today, any Democratic presidential candidate would beat Bush by a margin of almost two to one, or 55 percent to 28 percent."
February 3, 2004 - "Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry would defeat President Bush if the election were held today, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll that shows serious vulnerabilities for the president."
February 18, 2004 - "US President George W. Bush would lose to either of the two leading Democratic presidential contenders, if elections were held today, according to a new public opinion poll."
May 5, 2004 - "So, the bottom line is if the election were held today, Kerry would take 51% of the vote to Mr. Bush's 36%."
October 5, 2004 - "If the election were held today, John Kerry and George Bush would tie in Ohio, according to an exclusive WKYC-TV survey."
And if building false hopes wasn't enough for them, there's this:
June 16, 2005 - "Here's a poll whose results I'd love to know: a do-over of the presidential election, six months later."
Unfortunately for Democrats our country is not governed by mid-year polls and media surveys. But I have no problem if they want to keep thinking they mean something.