« Underestimating Iraq | Main | Vatican to Muslims: Practice What You Preach »

Don't Jump on the anti-Dubai Port Deal Bandwagon

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

teamstersm.jpgWith 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

hijacker.jpg-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

uaethumb.gifThe 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

 

Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 01:45AM by Registered CommenterAmy Proctor | Comments133 Comments | References5 References

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (5)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Dick Meyer over at CBS wrote an insightful explanation of the popular uproar about the 'President Bush selling our ports to Arabs' crisis. Now, I know he's working for CBS so there goes a lot of credibility, right out the window. But even so, his points are valid, well presented and just plain make sense.
  • Response
    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.
  • Response
    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 Cons....
  • Response
    Without question, news of the UAE port deal has generated a firestorm of criticism on both sides of the aisle. I came out last week in favor of the deal, after initially not supporting it. I know there are other conservatives who initially were aga...
  • Response
    I have to get ready and go see the doctor here in a little bit, so I thought I'd post some linkage to tide everyone over until I get back.John Hawkins has two pretty good posts up on the best and worst moments in American history. Was going to link t

Reader Comments (133)

Cobra,

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
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAmy Proctor
"1. How about the fact that this U.A.E. port deal was ILLEGAL?"

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.
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAmy Proctor
Amy,

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
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCobra
Amy,

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.....
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered Commentergrumpy of fart
Cobra,

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.

February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAmy Proctor
PS.. I left this comment to WarChick on California Conservative. She wrote an entry casting a pretty negative light on the port deal...My response has some interesting things about Pan-Arabism and Islam that some of you might find interesting.
****************

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.
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAmy Proctor
<i>"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."</i>

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.
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterOld Soldier
GREAT post, Amy! My visceral gut reaction to the port deal stemmed from my former liberal days. I've been really clued into this and you have it right. A few other points to ponder:
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.
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterRuth
Amy writes:

>>>"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


February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCobra
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?
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAmy Proctor
I agree 100% with you Amy. Can you believe it?
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterGreta (Hooah Wife)
Amy writes: 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
February 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterDetroit Patriotette
Greta, I'm surprised that on THIS issue we agree. I thought you'd swing the other way. Always good to know we're on the same page sometimes!! :)

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