Government Sells Port Authority to UAE Royal Family - Page 2

Good to see there are still some Regime loyalists!

What I find interesting about this issue is the way that hard line Republicans disagree with the President on this. The Dems are expected to be critical about anything that the Regime does so their comments don't mean much, but Tom Delay?

This is also a textbook example of the Regime's arrogance.

Is that for me?

I see that you find it much easier to go all ad hominem than to actually, you know, debate issues and facts.

Gosh, I know!

Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg and that scruffy lot certainly look silly getting all fidgety when up until now they've been such blame America first conspiracy buffs!

Or, if you really want to insist on silly straw man characterizations (and apparently that's pretty much all you have these days), we could do this:

"Hey! I thought everybody on the right thinks that all Arabs are inherently violent, implacably vengeful towel heads! I'm confused! Which is it? Do we watch them like hawks, knowing as we do that they will stop at nothing, leave no opportunity unexploited to strike at the heart of liberty which they despise? Or have we suddenly gone all multi-lateral UN loving mushy join hands and sing Kum-by-ya? Steely eyed real-politik goes out the window in favor of hippy dippy trust? I'm confused! Somebody help me out here!"

i'm curious, who was in the running? what kind of competition did the UAE have?

this did scare me. not cuz i hate them foreigners, or A-rabs. but b/c i think arabs have more beef with us. [hyperbole] i'd be pissed if a nation was "rounding up" all my ethnic brethren, then beating them in secret prisons. [/hyperbole]

but considering that they won't be incharge of security makes this into a non-concern for me. i thought we were handing over the security of our eastern ports (some kind of republican conspiracy to entice "them" to take care of the NY/New England democratic population; no, i'm not serious).

OTOH, politically tone deaf or no, the Bush administration does appear to have, um, you know, broken the law:

Yeesh. I hadnt even read your post Chris. As a rule, however, I do tend to write off the extremes. Listen to Michael Moore and Michael Savage for entertainment only.

I don't think you understand, you may want to re-read that post.

I would expect this from someone like Frist, or someone 'all for' the Patriot Act, etc. I would not expect the KOS crowd to be doing the same thing since "Bush is creating the terrorists". One of those two typical ideologues are being slightly consistent, the other is being entirely inconsistent.

If you re-read that post and think about it, it will make more sense.

My point, obviously, being that absurd straw man characterizations of what "the other side" believes cuts both ways and it would be just as expedient for me to profess astonishment at the reasoning of those on the right who would defend this decision.

Your constant recourse to eye-rolling "Bush knew, it's all about oil, black helicopters" as your default position for dealing with criticism of the Bush admin is dishonest.

If you re-read that and think about it, you will stop.

Not in a millions years, if you are telling me that "oil for blood" and "there is essentially no problem the West hasn't started/aggravated/provoked in the ME" isn't the standard line towards the administration by the average lefty -- then I hereby declare you to be both off you meds and off your rocker.

Don't make me break out the wayback machine!!

dmz, I think it's consistent with the view that Bush is in bed with the rich Arab countries. That's a pretty big theme of Fahrenheit 9/11, for example. Bush has also been criticized for not taking security, especially port security, very seriously.

I'm not saying that I endorse that view. I personally don't really know what to say about this. I think I'm missing something in the whole discussion.

AFAIC, this is possibly most surreal news moment since the O.J. slow-speed chase -- weird -- I'm waiting for Rumsfeld to come out of the closet next.

and since the administration [or whomever] has caused these problems, the anti-party is therefore scared of the repurcussions.

my own initial reaction: dubya went and made some enemies abroad (arabs), and now he's inviting them to come over to his local enemies' house (NorEast US).

Its simple, its our country and we should control our ports but the neocon pro big business at the cost of everything idea is to sell out America every time every chance they get. Its more of the same from the dweebs in the whitehouse. They dont represent the citizens they represent corporate special interests. Its that Simple. If we had a democratic congress Bush would have been impeached a long time ago. Bush the Oil tycoon is looking out for his oil arab buddies and has shown over and over that he will sell us out everytime. Katrina,Iraq,and this are some very good examples. Worst President since Carter.

I actually think it's something sinister like, just in case a Dem gets elected in 2008, he can pull his ear on TV and all hell breaks loose.

There is at least one person in his admninistration who has some ties to the UAE.
This administration just oozes with sleaze and incompetence, something I can agree with board liberals on.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Bullshit.

The "average lefty" critique of the Bush admin's foreign adventures and mishandling of the so-called War on Terror center on the foolish diversion of resources to Iraq based on trumped-up, cherry picked intel and a blatantly false effort to connect Iraq to 9/11, coupled with the simply factually correct observation that the neo-con game plan called for something very much like invading Iraq long before the proximate excuse presented itself.

The "average lefty" critique of the Bush admin's moral grounds for "spreading freedom" takes note that "dictators", "freedom", "liberation" "oppression" and "democracy" seem to be mutable terms in American hands, deployed expediently rather than consistently, and therefore the childish platitudes concerning same that Bush seems to consider great truths are hollow at best and cynical debasements at worst.

The "average lefty" can't help but notice that the Bush administration seems less interested in fighting an effective war on terror than consolidating power, silencing critics and rewarding cronies, leaving them to wonder what, precisely, is the point of all this bloodshed.

And yes, there are profound ironies arising out of this most closely tied to the oil industry of administrations running wars of aggression in oil rich countries for professed reasons that history has proven utterly without merit. At least enough to make a reasoning person say "hmmmm".

But I know it makes you feel better to reduce all of that to Bush knew, we heart terrorists and black helicopters, because of something you saw on a blog.

But hey: Ann Coulter thinks we should have invaded the Middle East and forcibly converted them to Christianity, so I guess the next time anyone on the right has second thoughts about a military adventure I can roll out my hilarious take on being bewildered that the same people who reflexively favor a global theocracy wherein the people who decline to participate are sent to work camps or summarily executed have somehow come around to backing the UN.

These forums are rife with everything I've mentioned. 'Bush is fabricating the WOT, and we need to show deference to Muslims and the problem would go away.'

Now, I think that is a pretty common sentiment, on the left -- and I waded through a lot worse [not from you], and not on 'some blog' either, to find that.

So, comparing this sentiment to the visceral reaction on the UAE deal is a confusing comparison.

Huh. Well, I guess if you can read what I had posted earlier and get 'Bush is fabricating the WOT, and we need to show deference to Muslims and the problem would go away' out of it, I can see where you would feel the way you do, since apparently something happens to the written word between the screen and your eyes.

I still think Bush's prosecution of terrorism is a sham, clearly intended more to frighten and bully Americans into compliance than to increase any actual metric of security, and I still think understanding something about the motivations of the people who want to kill us, beyond "they're crazy and evil and bloodthirsty and hate freedom" is a good idea should you be sincere in your desire to avoid having them kill you.

I know, I know, you read that and see "If we were nice to the terrorists or pandered to middle easterners the problem would go away", I can't do anything about that, and I don't really care. It's such a commonplace of right wing rhetoric, to turn every statement short of "kill all terrorists fast and hard" into some species of simple minded naiveté (at best) that the whole thing is pretty tedious, at this point.

However, having said all that, the real problem with your formulation is that it proceeds from the standard, nonsense talking point that liberals don't think terrorism is a problem and don't think we should do anything about it.

And of course, the truth is, we think Bush is doing a really terrible job of fighting terrorism and going about it the wrong way and pretty much making things worse, which is quite a bit different from your fantasy version of some feckless hippie ninny.

So when we go "Shit! He turned the ports over to the UAE? WTF?" it is entirely consistent with the notion that the Bush White House is just making it up as it goes along, its self promulgated reputation as steely eyed evil fighters notwithstanding, and that who it picks and chooses to demonize has much less to do with actual threat assessments and everything to do with politics and larger regional ambitions.

Just like we've said all along.

Well, if there is an explanation for the 'feckless hippitude' -- that might be it. Point well taken -- with the caveat -- that I think the underlying situation, the sizing up of Islam®, what to do about the underprivileged in the ME, etc., has not taken a back seat to the left's agenda, but actually has been pushed out the car in favor of reflexively reacting to what Doobie-Ya is up to. So much so that the 'return to relevance' has been something of a shocking experience.

I like it when you proudly admit that you don't bother to read or think about what is said or thought when it comes from someone that you've already categorized.

That clears things up so much.

pfflam, you're too old to be missing the subtle* stuff!

















*That previous post meant that addabox had a pretty good point -- that the left isn't totally off in the Age of Aquarius**, but that I can't go all the way with his explanation, due to both the paucity of solutions offered by the left and the mendacious, and incessant beleaguerment of poor Doobie-Ya (President Bush)


**watch the end of this satire for an explanation of the Age of Aquarius and 'feckless hippietude'.

According to Bush today: "People don't need to worry about security."

Great! Comforting. Now I can take all that duct-tape and plastic sheeting back!

Anyhow, this guy is all over the board this week.

I trust nothing Bush or his loyalists say. It's very sad to have no trust for your President, but so be it. Nod on , loyalists.

I have to agree, after voting for him once which iam very sorry for i came to the conclusion after his first term that he and all his buddies are big business puppets and have little interest in the people of United States. He is little more then a big corporation stooge who has sold us out on the mexican border, the ports, pharmaceuticals,oil,energy,enviroment,katrina,,,,, ,,,,the list doesnt stop. Iam 100% ashamed that he is representing our country. Trust nothing that spews from his corporate mouth.

Um . .. reread our post . . . your too old to try and pretend that there is subtlety where there simply isn't any.

You clearly create cartoon positions and then admit to discounting posters here as being merely bound to those catagories.

You would rather cut off your right hand than even try tp understand the reasons involved in any of the people's positions you have allready defined as 'Liberal' on these boards.

. . . don't worry, no matter how subtle you pretend to be, what I stated above has been obvious to many for a long time.

There's only one thing we can be sure about, and that is the constistency of the Bush Adminstration's inconsistencies. Their central theme all along is "the "terrorists" are out to get us from all quarters", while at the same time the Mexican border remains wide open, The Dept of Homeland Security is exposed as an expensive sham courtesy of Hurricane Katrina, and now he wants 6 major US ports controlled by the UAE.

The terror threat is no greater now than at any time in the past. Should it be as real as BushCorp pretends it is, then we would hearing about incidents and attacks on a daily basis.

Then there really should be any problem with this deal...from a security or terror perspective.

You seem to be ducking the issue entirely -- and come on pfflam, when you make statements like that, it makes this no fun at all. I'd be inclined to believe you a little bit, if only you went after my original point (the way addabox did.)

Why not take a stab at the Gordian Knot -- why the left is acting like the white liberal dad who freaks out when his daughter brings home a black guy?

Do tell. And watch the movie already, sourpuss.

I agree with you 100%. Bush is an embarrassment to this country.
2008, where are you!?

Well I agree with a earlier post. The Bush administration is a train wreck. This is exactly the kind of bad press the republicans don't need. As a matter of fact the press is having a field day with this one. But I know Bush isn't done yet.

This is just one in a series of selfish bad moves he'll make in the last part of his final term.

You don't have to say I told you so.

Look forward to a democrat ( maybe one that can do some good ) in the Whitehouse next time.

Oh well.

I tend to agree with you. Can you explain whats going on here? Why is it that the Islamic/Arab/Muslim world is being divided almost arbitrarily by the Bush Admin as being either "out to get us", such as Syria, Iran, pre-2003 Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... or OK enough to be entrusted or allied with, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE etc? The latter group have a record in foreign affairs that is no better than the former, when it comes to conforming to America's stated aims in the region. And to top if off, here we are, getting our panties in a bunch regarding Iran ('s nukes), while Pakistan (another hardline Islamic nation under military rule) already has them?

The "War on terror" is a bogus and open-ended scam that relies on constantly sowing the seeds of paranoia. The public are so distracted by the the last 4.5 years of irrational scaremongering that this little taster of reality has gone by unnoticed; namely that Arab nations are really no greater security risk than non Arab ones. Bush even said it himself today: "its not about America's security".. ..and that from the mouth of a man whose entire Administration's policy set has been about "security" (!). The wool is still being pulled and the public is still buying it.

Having said that, I disagree with the idea of outsourcing the running of America's ports to any foreign nation. Its just another gravy-train for corporate welfare queens. Corporate welfare is bad enough when the recipients are domestic.... but foreign?...screw that 100%.

America really needs a Democrat in the whitehouse just as a check and balance on the crazy fiscal spending of the republican congress and all the pork.

To be fair, we democrats pursue our share of pork too. Its just that our pork projects are generally socially responsible ones like helping the helpless and providing opportunities for the less fortunate. Or so I'd hope.

This kind of thinking makes me wonder if we should go back to having literacy tests to allow people to vote.

hahahaha.....ha...ha...Stop! You're killing me!

Why is it "selfish?" And what problems do you have with the deal exactly?

On this issue, I disagree with most of the people "on my side of aisle." It just seems that both Republicans and Democrats want to jump on this because they think it will help them politically. I've listened to all sides and I've still not seen a good reason to disallow the deal.

But a politician views it differently. In their minds, it can only help to oppose "Arabs running the ports." It certainly won't hurt politicians if the deal doesn't go through. They view it as win-win, because they know there is no real threat from the deal. And if that does happen...if the deal still goes through, they can say they opposed "Selling our ports to the Arabs."

So far, my problems with the deal are this:

Why was it something that was attempted to be done without serious review?

And yes, I must admit that I do have some problems with international entities (particularly an entity which is not really purely an economic entity but also is a state) owning and operating entry points . . . I guess I just kinda believe in the idea of a nation rather than simply flows of International Capitol without roost or responsibility . . . .

here is a question: why were we soo up in arms when Chinese state-owned Gas-Prom wanted to purchase ours? is there a similarity here? Are some of the people who were suspicous about that also suspicious about this sale?

Now that people are pointing out issues with relationships between UAE and 'terrorists' I have to wonder about it, att leastt up to the point of wanting a far more in depth level of circumspection.


. . . . but really, at some point before I take a vitriolic stand either way, I'm gonna do a little research . . . right now = too busy

The reason people are upset is because the the U.S.A. is being sold out by its own govt, by the corporations to the point they cant even see why its wrong. Same thing is going on with the mexican invasion, millions of illegals and bush & the republicans took 5 years just to start talking about it during a time of so called war.