| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Port Jihad Update. Drudge has a siren up with this headline, as yet unconnected to any story: "BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL."
Has Bush gone mad? The UAE may be the most reliable ally the United States has ever had (and of course it isn't remotely that) and there would still be no way for it to ensure that Dubai Ports World hires no one with jihadist sentiments. The situation in the Islamic world, compounded by the Administration's inability or unwillingness to come to grips with the reality of the jihad ideology, indeed make it quite likely that Dubai Ports World will be sending at least a few mujahedin to work in these American ports, and that they will be able to work there unhindered. After all, no one in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues.
Why would Bush want to be so obstinate on this? Doesn't he realize that it does immense damage to his position as being, for all his faults, at least tougher on Islamic terrorism than his opponents? If this deal goes through, will the United States have the luxury of undoing it before it undoes us?
UPDATE: Drudge has just added this:
Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.... MORE... MORE...
I'll be happy to step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard. It has to do with the prevalence of jihadists and jihad sympathizers in the population, the lack of any mechanism, on the government level or any other, to vet them properly, and the consequent likelihood that they will end up working in the American ports in question.
Is that so unreasonable?
SECOND UPDATE: Drudge has just added a link to this brief Reuters story.
Posted by Robert at February 21, 2006 3:40 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Cons vs. Bush! That should be fun to watch.
Who will the dimwits follow now? Hannity or Bush?
Enjoy!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 21, 2006 3:53 PM
"Has Bush gone mad?"
In a word, yes
at February 21, 2006 3:54 PM
Impeachment.
Posted by: Chatillon at February 21, 2006 3:57 PM
Obviously he did more drugs than anyone ever imagined. The Bush Administration has hit a new low.....just when you thought they were just stupid. Can't even think of a word for it. Time to lock and load people.
Posted by: Siciliano at February 21, 2006 3:59 PM
Bush is backed into a political corner by the Left, internationalists, and jihadist supporters - distinction? Schumer and Clinton have been forced out of hiding for New York, only. The mainstream media is trying mightily to pin this on the Republicans anyway.
Safety comes after politics. I no longer think any event can serve as our mythical "wake-up call." Anything strong enough to shake people out of their pre-conceived notions of how the world works will also serve as a knock-out punch.
Posted by: Beagle at February 21, 2006 4:00 PM
Bungling Bush - Harriet Myers, now the Dubai Ports takeover of American ports? Truly you can only conclude Bush is stupid or is surrounded by stupid people or both.
Posted by: John Sobieski at February 21, 2006 4:07 PM
The sad truth is that the ports are almost as insecure with British ownership of the company.
Bush is trying to send the message, "We're not at war with the Islamic world."
While I understand why he'd want to send such message, getting it across will keep getting harder and harder, because more and more Americans realize that "Moderate Moslems" are virtually nonexistent, and that Islam is not what we should call a religion...and that a big part of the Islamic world is indeed at war with us.
Posted by: Ivan Lenin at February 21, 2006 4:08 PM
Bush appears to believe he must show, at every step, that there are no hard feelings, no mistrust, no nothing when it comes to Muslim states that appear not to be firmly in the camp of the "extremists."
He is wrong. First, he is wrong because even Kuwait and Qatar, that have provided Americans with temporary bases, have done so only in order to ensure their own protection from the three Big Bullies in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the once-and-future Iraq.
In Qatar, the modish Al-Thani ruling family allows the Americans in, but also gives space to Al-Jazeera which all over the world works against the United States and other Infidels, and has been responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq. A member of that same family that is supposedly so trustworthy warned an Al-Qaeda member, who then escaped, when he was just about to be seized by the FBI in Qatar.
The U.A.E. may not be, as a state, quite as malevolent as Saudi Arabia. But it is malevolent enough. It is part of the enemy camp -- the camp of Islam.
Obstinately, Bush wishes to show to the Arabs and the Muslims and to all the world, including his long-suffering countrymen who do not relish the sums he is making them pay for his own incompetence in gauging what can, and cannot, be achieved to usefully further Infidel -- not Iraqi, but Infidel -- interests in Iraq, and to continue to pay the Jizyah of foreign aid to Egypt, to Pakistan (based on the exaggerated attention being given to "getting" Bin Laden, when Bin Laden is not terribly important, nor is Al Qaeda the only game in town).
How obstinately foolish he is. How much that obstinacy and foolishness is costing all of us. And how foolish too those who attack him but for all the wrong reasons.
Of course the deal should be cancelled. It has great symbolism, beyond whatever security risk there might be. Even if there were no security risk at all, the mere fact of permitting rich Arabs to think they are not regarded with distrust is exactly the wrong signal to send. Let them be semaphored our distrust, our hostility. Let them begin to change their ways. The only way they will do so is if they feel that the Infidels are responding in ways that will threaten them, and their interests, and the ability of Muslims to conduct Jihad, through all the instruments now available and proven most effective.
This is an important test. Some continue to insist, despite all the evidence, that "Bush knows exactly what he is doing." This is nonsense.
Posted by: Hugh at February 21, 2006 4:10 PM
"He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge"
Talk about mixed signals, we invaded Iraq on the ASSUMPTION that they were developing WMDs. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea are not even trying to hide their nuclear aspirations.
But he is afraid of sending mixed signals over THIS?!
To answer the first question posted, this dimwit will follow Hannity on this.
Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at February 21, 2006 4:10 PM
Let's be sensible about this. Unless we as a nation are willing to get tought on Islam itself and the whole Middle East, we should trust the judgment of the President. The UAE is an ally until otherwise. Until I hear more info that's not sourced from the MSM then I will not pass judgement on the President.
I don't what to hear any talk about impeachment. This affair is much greater than the simplistic version you are hearing from the media.
However, I kept thinking the same thing. What is the President doing? It looks like a trap that he laid out for the democrats. You know, the President could come out and accuse the Dems of being racist and Islamophobes. In light of their previous stance for the terrorist bill of rights the whitehouse could counter.
at February 21, 2006 4:19 PM
Now is a good time for me to come clean: I was a McCain supporter against Bush.
I have been completely vindicated today.
I thought Bush had a handle on the real issues beyond the scenes when it came to the "War on Terror" but evidently I and thousand more of us were very, very wrong. 2008 can not come quickly enough. Let's hope it isn't too late.
Posted by: Foehammer at February 21, 2006 4:22 PM
I predict a unanimous or near unanimous support of a bill that will be veto proof. If Bush uses the veto on this, I am guessing some will try to impeach him. This is incomprehensible unless there is something below the surface that has not come out yet.
Disclaimer: I did vote for Bush, but have since become an independent.
Posted by: Founding Forefather at February 21, 2006 4:26 PM
lonely soul,
I had a similar thought. When this story was on our local news last night, our esteemed senator, the (dis)Honorable Barbara Boxer went into her usual Bush bashing tirade taking the position we can not sell out homeland security. My jaw hit the floor when she said that. If Bush really supports this sale, he is a bigger idiot than I ever imagined. But if he is Dem-baiting, Boxer's comments proved it.
Posted by: Lisa at February 21, 2006 4:32 PM
The common people of the United States must defend the nation. It has to start with us.
The working men and soccer moms have to understand the threat.
The politicians won't 'get it' until we force them to 'get it'.
The people reading this are the ones who have to get the word out.
It's a matter of survival for Western Civilization. The trends in place cannot be allowed to continue and its up to the common people to make sure that happens.
Nobody takes care of you like YOU!
at February 21, 2006 4:34 PM
This administration has been asleep, or worse, since the get-go.
Cheney's hunting mishap is an appropriatte metaphor for the misaimed policies of the White House, both in Iraq particularly and the war on Terror generally, not to mention the convolved financial entanglements of the Bush family with the Saudis. If the American public is OK with special interest groups, such as the Carlyle Group, then it will be OK with the comfort that the Bush clan has had historically in trading with the enemy (Prescott Bush, anybody?). But I'm guessing most people don't know because they don't want to know, because the truth is just too appalling.
So let me put this out there for discussion: Bush is a traitor to the West because he has always and continues to put his own interests and those of his cronies first, before the trust of the people who foolishly elected him (once). The people of the West need to recognize their own responsibility in holding their governments to account. You know: "When in the course of human events..."
Posted by: Chatillon at February 21, 2006 4:34 PM
Having read the FOX news story, there is more to this story then the way the MSM is spinning it. The Republican leaders of both the House and Senate have
come out against the deal. So I wonder why Bush would risk political capital to support it? I think it's very possible a Presidental veto would be overridden.
Disclaimer: As long as we are all being honest. I voted for Bush and there is absolutely no way I'd vote for McCain unless there was no other alternative.
Posted by: Roxane at February 21, 2006 4:34 PM
"the 'War on Terror'"...
-- from a posting above
The phrase "War on Terror" is a good example of what is wrong with Bush's view of things, and of the way he has failed to educate the public. He is timid and ignorant. He cannot identify the enemy but merely one of the tactics of the enemy. He apparently does not know how to use synecdoche.
Someone please send him Arthur Quinn's little handbook "Figures of Speech."
Posted by: Hugh at February 21, 2006 4:34 PM
"The people of the West need to recognize their own responsibility in holding their governments to account. You know: "When in the course of human events...""
Chatillon - you rock dude and I second the motion.
Let's clean our own house and then clean theirs next. This must not be allowed to continue. Dar-al-Islam will hate us no matter what we do or say.
Vote people into power who will name the enemy.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 21, 2006 4:43 PM
Bush has gone mad...just when you thought the administration could not be any further out of touch with the people who put them in power,this comes along!!
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 4:43 PM
This is political suicide.
Posted by: mississippimud at February 21, 2006 4:53 PM
I have been a Bush supporter up until now, and trusted that he knew more about Islam then he had been letting on.
I've always understood that as the president he could not paint the entire umma with one broad brush when it comes to fighting terrorism. He had to allow himself some wiggle room when dealing with the Islamic world.
I'm sorry, but this is entirely unacceptable on perception alone. America must protect its ports at all costs and at all levels, even if we have to subsidize them at some local, or national government expense rather than privatize their control and managament to an Islamic country, that's right all businesses are controlled by the country of Dubai who has been easily influenced and intimidated by Iran recently.
There is a great deal of connective tissue with terrorism when it comes to Dubai and there should be no influence here at all.
This is like helping to open the gates for the trojan horse.
THIS ACTION IS OUTRAGOUS AND MUST BE STOPPED.
Posted by: Mackie at February 21, 2006 4:55 PM
Its not Islamist inflitration of the company by a lacks secretiey plan,its that the company owners the UAE are simpathetic to in some degree the Islamists agenda.Which if this has to be recongnized by the backers of the trade deal would nesaseraly mean theres more of a problem then there able to acknoldge.The protest against the deal is the Isolationism the Pres. was hinting at in the State of the Union speech.The global trade ageanda is being looked at and felt more and more directley by the American people and many are saying NO.For the bakers of the Global trade plans this type of check on the agenda is plainly not exeptable.That is at the heart of this deal.If its rejected the Arab world will protest,accuse some kinda bigotry etc.. But either way the Global traders can not expept this type of reality check on there powers.Wheter or not global trade is a plus or a soverntey aroding minus.There willing to role the dice,on the hypathetical possblity of a terro attack in some way connected to this deal.There agenda is at risk.And they assume to know best.
Posted by: Rench at February 21, 2006 4:55 PM
Inexplicable....depressing.
Posted by: Cornelius at February 21, 2006 4:58 PM
This goes right along with the policy of leaving the borders WIDE open.I live in SoCal and I see the people coming through each and every day!
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 4:58 PM
We can vote.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 21, 2006 5:00 PM
The only alternative to a Republican government is a Democratic government, and back to appeasement mode. This led to 9/11.
Stop the world, I want to get off.
Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2006 5:00 PM
We are functionally literate. We can write scathing letters and emails. We can get the word out.
Never
give
up!
at February 21, 2006 5:03 PM
I think that GW is going to score a triple whammy knock-out with this.
1. He's not running again and doesn't care about the domestic blowback but will score big points with the emirs and other Arab leaders that he wants something from. He can always say that "I did everything I could."
2. The Dems have to 'fess up that there really is a WOT or why would they be so concerned about port security. Also, it's a lot harder to scream the horrors of profiling airline travelers, or overseas telephone callers when that's exactly what they're doing with the UAE owners.
3. The only US company that can handle the job is probably Kellogg-Root, Brown which is the corporate parent of Halliburton.
Is George mad? Like a fox, my friend. Like a fox.
Posted by: Peter Boston at February 21, 2006 5:05 PM
I gave Bush some credit. I apologize. I understood about working through Back Channels and all that diplomatic bull@#$%. Okay, I could look past his references to the 'Nobel Religion' because I assumed he was playing the game in public and working behind the scenes. Commendable - shrewd.
But he has fallen down now and in my estimation he can't get up.
He doesn't have the understanding of The Problem that we need in our leaders. He can't connect the dots between Port Management contracts =========> United Arab Emirates =========> Jihadi sympathizers in management ===========> New York Harbor go BOOM!
at February 21, 2006 5:10 PM
"Is George mad? Like a fox, my friend. Like a fox."
no way.... don't give him credit.... his day planner is so overloaded and all the minutae and political 'crises' each day have his attention span reduced to less than a couple of minutes.
Long-range planning? A plan? No way.....
I made the same mistake.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 21, 2006 5:14 PM
I truly believe that Bush pushing this through is payment for something the UAE did for the U.S. so to speak....the other half of the deal with the devil Islam. I wonder what the U.S. received upfront from the UAE for Bush to defend this second part...pushing through their control of our ports.
Posted by: Abby at February 21, 2006 5:23 PM
I could not roll my eyes any further back in my head without being able to look at the watercolour on the wall behind me. This is unbelievable- not the part about Bush doing this, because unfortunately that is entirely believable.
What is unbelievable is the reaction from various conservative blogs/chat forums. So far, I have heard Bush's decision explained thusly:
1. Bush has threatened a veto to get the Dems so riled that they will all vote against the sale.
2. Bush has threatened to veto the bill (knowing that there will be an override) so that he can still negotiate with various countries in the Middle East- he wants to be seen as trustworthy by the Saudis et al.
3. Bush Knows What He Is Doing - this used by anyone who cannot justify this nonsense any other way.
Anyone else for a gin and tonic, extra lime? I've written, called and emailed as many people as I've been able to find, and Bush's reaction is past insantiy, it's dangerous.
Posted by: libbysmom at February 21, 2006 5:23 PM
First; it is unclear what exactly the Dubai Ports World will do and not be able to do under this agreement. It has been stated that they will not be involved in providing port security, however if they are approving and supervising personnel who are at the port they will be in a position to do damage. If they are following the directions of Homeland Security and/or the coast guard they are in a position to learn how to circumvent that security and use that informtion ( even at another port thus diverting the blame from themselves).
Secondly, as far as "mixed messages" (read political correctness) there is a big difference between the old UK company and Dubai Ports World that even a dhimmi can appreciate; the former is a private company and the latter is owned by a government (read family). W need not fear appearing Islamophobic if he points to this difference, (not to mention all of the other problems with the UAE).
at February 21, 2006 5:24 PM
If Islam doesn't kill us, multiculturism will. Bush has always been a staunch multiculturist. Remember, Bush opposed the California law years ago that would have denied illegal aliens benefits such as welfare etc. YES, OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORTS ILLEGAL ALIENS RECEIVING WELFARE!!!
Islam may be more deadly, but multiculturism is deeply embedded in western societies.
Posted by: GFB at February 21, 2006 5:31 PM
Quit talking about impeachment.
Get a hold of yourselves. your falling for a trap set by the MSM and the dems. I'm on the record stating that I still support Bush, meaning that the Dems are not a viable option. I won't be suckered into this. No one has mentioned that thest are not ports at all but loading docks.
Please do Mr. President, accuse the Dems of being racists and Islamophobes.
Posted by: lonely_soul at February 21, 2006 5:32 PM
From the Fox story: "Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Tuesday he will introduce legislation to delay approval of the pending deal. Frist's decision is a major break with the White House as he is the highest ranking Republican in Congress to oppose the deal and personally vow legislation to delay approval unless the president intervenes."
From Frist's press release, also the opening slavo in his run for the Presidency:
"News that a Middle-East based firm is seeking to purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports - from New York to New Orleans - raise serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.
"Post 9/11 prudence warrants - at the very least - a more extensive review of this matter. As Ronald Reagan used to say: 'trust, but verify.' And that's what we need to do. The simple fact is, there's no such thing as being 'too careful' in a post 9/11 world.
"As of today, I'm requesting briefings on this deal. If the Administration does not put the deal on hold, I will introduce legislation doing so ... to ensure that this decision gets a more thorough review.
"Common sense warrants it; our national security requires it."
Amen Bill, amen.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at February 21, 2006 5:35 PM
This is only an issue if you believe it means that the security guard's name will switch from Bob to Abdul. That just ain't going to happen. Security will still be provided by the Coast Guard, the US Port Authorities will still be in charge, and the workers will still be US Longshoremen. The only thing different will be the ownership. There are no US companies to do this work and the British company that's selling is doing so to get out of the business. Since that's the case, what country's companies would you approve of? China? Russia? Japan? Canada? Mexico?
This issue has been so blown out of proportion. Bush is not stupid. This deal was signed off on by the Treasury department and DHS.
I do think it's interesting how the no-profile dems are now out there profile companies in the UAE.
Posted by: Big G In TX at February 21, 2006 5:37 PM
I agree "Big G In TX", thats why the President should just come out and accuse the Dems of racist and Islamophobes.
Posted by: lonely_soul at February 21, 2006 5:41 PM
Before everyone goes completely nuts over this...
According to former CIA chief James Woolsey, on Scarborough Country MSNBC last night, this is the same British port management company that's been doing this work for the last (I think) 5 years.
And, apparently they did such a good job that no one even bid against them. Yes, they were the sole bidder!
Now, the fact that they've since sold to United Arab Emirates ownership, state ownership no less, is definitely something to be concerned about. But if one has even minimal confidence in the President's terror fighting credentials, which I believe is warranted despite his insistance that Islam is such a noble faith, then there are undoubtedly safeguards in place to oversee this operations deal.
Apparently the Homeland Security Department was in on the decision, as well as (one hopes) the CIA, though sadly neither agency is exactly foolproof (there are a lot of fools in both). But my understanding is that Congress was not informed on any of it and they're ticked off big time. Plus this does go to the secretive and rather imperial attitude of Bush/Cheney where they do what they'll do and don't like to be questioned or second-guessed. Even Bush supporters are getting tired of these surprises, as with the Harriet Myers nomination etc.
But the main point is that-- according to James Woolsey on MSNBC last night-- this is the very SAME company that's been doing this work for the last (five?) few years, albeit under new ownership. Granted, that's a pretty big "albeit" considering the new ownership, but do we know all the facts yet? no, and this is definitely Bush/Cheney's fault for being so damn opaque.
CNN is going crazy with this story today and so are democrats in general. They think they've finally got just the right noose to slip around Bush's neck and strangle what's left of his legitimacy while at the same time puffing up their own sorry security credentials. Admittedly he gives them a lot to work with.
at February 21, 2006 5:42 PM
This is only an issue if you believe it means that the security guard's name will switch from Bob to Abdul.
Exactly, I do believe that will happen. When I heard that the Prez said we shouldn't punish the middle east, I wanted to scream. Who was it that killed over 3,000 souls 9-11-01? The islamists are going to use any crack in the wall of our defenses....if it is a shipping container with a nuke, Abdul will help it along.
at February 21, 2006 5:45 PM
According to Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO's The Corner, the deal is payback for the UAE's inestimable help in the war on terror.http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Sound more like a pay OFF to me.
Posted by: scaramouoche at February 21, 2006 5:47 PM
Why in the hell can't the US take care of it's own ports?
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 21, 2006 5:47 PM
All it would take are some altered cargo manifests by some arab execs in the company for some "contraband" to come through.Bush IS stupid if he allows this to happen, and the GOP will stop this if they don't wish to commit political suicide.
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 5:48 PM
Really a big mistake - Bush is losing a lot of credibility over this. That is the problem in not having a good DHS advisor. Ridge was not perfect, but look what has happened since he left.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at February 21, 2006 5:52 PM
First it was his non support of Danish free speech in the cartoon issue. Now it is a sellout to the UAE. By the way, Australia has issued a travel advisory against the UAE for terrorism. Bush is not a conservative and never has been a conservative. I am appalled, sickened, pissed off, and other nasty adjectives that I shouldn't use here over this. I have already emailed by congress critters over this. Enough is enough!
Posted by: Caratacus at February 21, 2006 6:03 PM
You folks are looking at the small picture. We need to encourage Arab investment! When the **it hits the fan all of the Arab resources (money) will be in this country. Bush can then just confiscate their assets. Wallah!! National debt is paid, free healthcare for everyone and money left over.
Posted by: Hillbilly at February 21, 2006 6:04 PM
Sometimes, to the uninitiated, bovine dullness resembles madness. But no, he is not mad; just dimwitted.
Posted by: 00Buck at February 21, 2006 6:06 PM
Bush is in a tough spot, if he reneges on the deal, he will lose face with military allies in the mid-east, and gain world-wide ire as the "free trade, global-economy hypocrit." Obviously, the administration has studied the problem. The real question is: how much control would this UAE company have over the security of the ports?
It seems Bush has decided to take domestic heat to achieve foreign policy objectives.
at February 21, 2006 6:08 PM
How far he's fallen since 911. Say it ain't so. I voted for W, twice. Is he the best of a sour patch, maybe, but he's getting worse. What possible reason is there to support such a ridiculous deal. How can anyone support it, but a Jihadist, or Jimmy Carter. This mindset of seeking approval from the Arab world, while they, sell us out our security. Maybe W's already looking at his post prez business ventures in the middle east. The one thing he had going for him was the 'war on terrorism' and he's a moral guy. This deal brings both issues into view. I'm disgusted.
Posted by: biorabbi at February 21, 2006 6:10 PM
He made a deal with the devil and now we are seeing the harvest.
UAE took in the US military bases that the Saudi's had but would not allow us to operate from to attack Iraq. So we moved our bases to UAE and spent alot of money. Promises were made and now we see what one of them was. I can guarentee we will see more.
The US sold its soul to get a piece of realestate to launch from.
These back room negotiations are not diplomacy, but payoffs.
The questions then lies in, just how many of our allies are acutally compensated to be our friends? How many countries are getting paid? And in what form of payment, contract, or compensation? And which countries are they?
I remember a speech not all that long ago "you are either with us or against us". How badly do we need friends and how much does that friendship cost? And at what cost to National Security?
i.e. The first Iraqi invastion we asked for Egypt to participate. They said no. Then they said if we erase their U.S. debt then they would. So, $8 billion erased, and then we saw their troops. But as the Scuds were landing on Isreal, Egypt said that if Isreal tried to attack or even defend against incoming Scuds Egypt would change sides and join with the Iraqi's. That was why the U.S. troops were manning the Patriot missile batteries. Expensive friendships don't make friends.
These negotiation are orgastrated by the State Department and agreed on by the standing President. The diplomacy that we view across the world is fake, but it is paid for.
It kind of puts a new spin on the phrase "freedom ain't free".
One then has to wonder why we keep referring to "the religion of peace". We may have our leaders using this phrase because that is part of the agreement.
Also brings back into light the Saudi Accountability Act (another spineless dog with no teeth). What has been promised and paid in order to keep the Saudi's out of the spotlight?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 21, 2006 6:11 PM
If the company has ANY control over port security then I would be just as appalled as the next patriot. I doubt that they do or would. Does anyone know for sure?
Posted by: Hammer_Time at February 21, 2006 6:13 PM
Whatever perceived foreign policy objectives Bush achieves with this, if he forces this through, he will effectively become a lame-duck having lost the support of Republican leaders as well as any Democrats. He might as well resign, because his leadership ability will be gone.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at February 21, 2006 6:15 PM
One poster above noted, "Now, the fact that they've since sold to United Arab Emirates ownership, state ownership no less, is definitely something to be concerned about. But if one has even minimal confidence in the President's terror fighting credentials, which I believe is warranted despite his insistance that Islam is such a noble faith, then there are undoubtedly safeguards in place to oversee this operations deal"
Ok, while I trust that W's heart may be in the right place, what about the judgment. I don't think the UAE is going to send in a hit team to the ports, BUT have you considered that the UAE will be privy to all our security safeguards??????????????????? As OWNERS, they will have inside information on SECURITY DETAILS. Am I missing something? Has adequate due diligence been done on this deal--by the same gang who said it would be hunky dory in Iraq? Come on. One of the pilots who knifed into the WTC on 911(remember that) came from the UAE who has not been helpful with the bin laden financing ect. What the F $$## CK IS GOING ON?
Posted by: biorabbi at February 21, 2006 6:17 PM
I do know that the UAE still does not recognize Israel, and still supports the taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afganistan.So lets let them control some of our main ports,great idea!
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 6:17 PM
He already IS a lame duck president, he cannot run for re-election, he can do what he wants.
Posted by: beav at February 21, 2006 6:17 PM
Congress needs to pass a bill veto proff to NOT ALLOW ANY FORGIEN COMPANY TO RUN OUR PORTS!!
WOULD WE TURN OVER OUR PLOICE FORCE TO A FORGIEN COMPANY??
CONGRESS DO YOUR JOB PASS A BILL TO NOT ALLOW THIS TO TAKE PLACE!!!
OT
But not really what kind of nut is this Judge??
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_PLOT?SITE=WABCAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Feb 21, 5:30 PM EST
Judge Tells U.S. to Say if It Eavesdropped
By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- The government must disclose whether it used any information from the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program in its case against a man convicted of joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate the president, a federal judge has ruled.
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee postponed the man's sentencing at the request of defense lawyers who suspect that Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 24, of Falls Church, was illegally targeted by the eavesdropping program.
In a ruling made public Tuesday, the judge gave prosecutors until March 9 to submit a sworn declaration from a government official to say whether any information from the eavesdropping was used in Abu Ali's case.
YES MORE LIB'S??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP TOGETHER TO FIGHT THIS EVIL
PS
Does the UAE Openingly see the State of Israel as a Neighboring Country or are they like the other states who Denie they have a right to be???
at February 21, 2006 6:24 PM
Here we go again. "Should Bush resign?"
Once again, the UAE will not control security.
They're not even ports. Please continue to support Bush. Don't be suckered.
at February 21, 2006 6:28 PM
What the hell are you talking about "they are not even ports"? Why don't you explain to us what exactly they are.
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 6:32 PM
The UAE is little more than an oil company run by people NOT from the UAE. I sincerely believe, we will need the hospitality of the emirates in the near future. This does not mean we should not watch them like a hawk, but since we should watch our ports like a hawk anyway, the added risk, in my opinion, is not that great.
Posted by: beav at February 21, 2006 6:33 PM
biorabbi, I agree that GW's judgment is defintely at issue, and I am not rushing to endorse this dubious ports development. I just think we ought not to blindly rush the other way either without knowing all the facts. But then, GW and Co. make knowing the facts difficult, so they brought this one on themselves. Actually I'm anxious for the end of this bumbling Bush Presidency, but am even more anxious about what we get next. Security is the one area where I cut him some extra slack. Just trying to be fair. But at the very least, as Hugh says, the symbolism is terrible, agreed.
Posted by: Hammer_Time at February 21, 2006 6:35 PM
President Bush has shown again that economics out weighs the safety of America.
If President Bush vetoes the bill then he should be impeached for failure to protect America.
Hopefully, Congress has the ability to pass a veto proof bill.
President Bush if you continue down this road, you should be impeached.
We can not fight Islamic terror and the bumbling of the Whitehouse also.
The Texican,
Freedom. The only choice at any cost.
at February 21, 2006 6:40 PM
I thought that in '98 when China wanted to control the Long Beach port in California, there was legislation that prevented a foreign government from controlling a port? How can this come up again?
Who knows something about this?
Posted by: Kay at February 21, 2006 6:41 PM
The only possible reason that I can think of for Bush to do this is that he has plans to deal with the Iranian situation, which is fast approaching a make or break decision. Maybe the military needs the UAW bases to launch strikes against Iran, or maybe he just does not want to ruffle any feathers in the Gulf at this point. I do not know.
Posted by: GFB at February 21, 2006 6:41 PM
that's what I think GFB
at February 21, 2006 6:43 PM
Interesting link at LGF posted by savage_nation:
Coincidence???
Iran and UAE explored here Wednesday ways of expanding bilateral trade relations.
President Bush - reconsider and cancel your support of this deal!
Posted by: justamomof4 at February 21, 2006 6:45 PM
Now the plot thickens. Let's say W caves on this issue(he's caved on far less). Let's say UAE gets pissed. What will they do? One thing they can do to make life hard on us is to kick out our bases within the UAE which are, I believe, staging bases for Iraq. Good. Maybe it will be a way to force W to withdraw from Iraq. I'm sorry. Yes he's a good, decent guy and yes Carter, Clinton and Gore are scoundrels, but this is too much. Time to clear the deck and bring in some talent as advisors. I say W should clear the decks, starting with Condi, bring in some freaking grownups. This constant mistep, misanalysis, retreat, weakening of his administration is not good. I say this as a conservative republican who has never voted democratic. We need better.
Posted by: biorabbi at February 21, 2006 6:46 PM
Well George, since your loyalty is obviously with UAE, then resign your post as President of the United States and go be be President of UAE!
Posted by: witness at February 21, 2006 6:52 PM
I don't see why we would need the bases in UAE for an attack on Iran, since we control the country next door.
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 6:53 PM
I confess that I didn't vote for the SOB (wrote in Leiberman-McCain in '04, and McCain-Leiberman in '00) but his supporters were right when they said the man is a "uniter, not a divider" Might find myself in the same uncomfortable creepy bed with the likes of M. Moore and S. Sarandon on this one.
By the way, I plan to write in a Tancredo-Romney ticket in '08, unless the dodering demi-publican party actually conjurs up a ticket I can vote for without vomiting.
Posted by: Infidel33 at February 21, 2006 6:55 PM
Even if every reviewing committee declares that there is "no security threat" there are three considerations.
1) The Administration, and the government generally, no longer is trusted to know what is best. The warnings before the 9/11 attack were clear; Condoleeza Rice's attempt to fudge all of that should not be forgotten. The inability to figure out, 30 years ago, that Saudi Arabia was not our "staunch ally" and that an energy policy needed to be forged that would cause the price of oil to go up because we would tax ourselves, and not wait for the Saudis to raise prices, thereby possibly saving, oh, about a trillion dollars (for more on this, google "Posted by Hugh" and "recover oligopolistic rents"). No "security threats" today does not mean that there will be no "security threats" tomorrow.
2) People living in New York and Baltimore will be made distinctly uneasy knowing that their ports are controlled by a company whose owners are Muslims from the United Arab Emirates, a collection of statelets -- Abu Dhabi and Dubai being the best known -- which are full of people who loathe us as Infidels. Some of them are distinctly unpleasant; the Maktoum ruling family, for example, that took such an interest in those tiny camel jockeys starved and then tied onto the backs of camels, who so often were thrown and maimed or killed on the spot. But who cared -- they were from Asia, they weren't Arabs, they were expendable, and camel races are such fun, after all. That is the level of moral development in the United Arab Emirates.
3) The spectacle of Bush using, for the first time, his power to veto, in order to protect the United Arab Emirates, instead of agreeing that Americans are perfectly justified in mistrusting, and wishing to discourage, any Arab control of any sensitive business. We would not dare to sell the running of any airports to, say, an Algerian company, or a Saudi company, or any other Muslim-owned company, would we? Why are the ports different?
This deal has symbolic importance. To Bush, the symbolism is: we have nothing against that fine religion of Islam, and in the "war on terror" which is all we are told, repeatedly and idiotically, we are fighting, the U.A.E. is a "staunch ally." This attitude, this desire to curry favor with Arabs and Muslims, will always get us in trouble. It gets us in trouble as we overlook so much of what Pakistan, that incubator of the Taliban and its diplomatic and military supporter, pretends to fight on our side against Al Qaeda while half the Pakistani army, at least, would choose Al Qaeda over the Infidel Americans any day, and 85% of the Pakistani population would readily do so.
The symbolism is there. CAIR is attempting to bludgeon the Congress by claiming that opposition is "anti-Arab bigotry." Let them try to bludgeon. But if Bush shows he cannot figure out that many people in this country are far ahead of him in comprehending the nature and menace of Islam, and at this point it is doubtful that he can, he should simply get out of the way, shut up, and not dare to use that veto. We are all getting fed up with his obstinacy and inability to figure things out, and to respond coherently, articulately, cleverly. I don't care that he came out of Andover and Yale knowing nothing. That's his problem. But he has been President for five years. His inability to come to grips with Islam, to stop being sentimental about a "world religion," to cleverly re-connect to Europe in a campaign devoted to halting, and reversing, the influence of the Islamintern International at the U.N., at the E.U., in the European press and televisison, and in halting, and reversing, the Muslim presence that in the Lands of the Infidels has everywhere created a situation that for Infidels is much more unpleasant, much more expensive, and much more physically dangerous, than it would be without that large-scale presence.
He doesn't have to say it quite like that. But he has to grasp its undeniable truth.
Posted by: Hugh at February 21, 2006 7:02 PM
McSeamus
I think the point is to have many options. Who could have predicted in advance, that the Iraq operation would in fact, be head-quartered in Qatar?
at February 21, 2006 7:04 PM
lonely_soul said
thats why the President should just come out and accuse the Dems of racist and Islamophobes.
Whenever someone stands up and says something direct and clear about jihad, they are accused by CAIR and the MSM of being racist and Islamophobic. That is not good. In fact, that is bad. That stifles the truth from getting out about the jihad that is going on. Now you are asking our President to endorse that policy, and again stifle those who are speaking out against jihad? And the benefit of silencing critics of jihad is that then we can have an Arab-owned company in charge of U.S. port security? I have to admit, that plan is far too tricky for someone like me to follow.
Hammer_Time said
Before everyone goes completely nuts over this...
Too late.
But if one has even minimal confidence in the President's terror fighting credentials, which I believe is warranted despite his insistance that Islam is such a noble faith, then there are undoubtedly safeguards in place to oversee this operations deal.
I doubt that there are safeguards in place to oversee the overseers of port security. I truly, honestly, swear to god doubt it. Every fragment of bone in my body doubts it. I have limitless and unbounded quantities of doubt about it.
Posted by: special_guest at February 21, 2006 7:07 PM
IMHO, there is more here than symbolism. Concerns no doubt are being back channeled by Bandar, wealthy Saudi's and UAE big wigs to Bush's Father and to W. Do this deal or else get your troops out. This could turn into a crisis--UAE could--and will make this a big issue--if we can't "invest" in the US--then forget your bases. It doesn't matter. We cannot allow any sensitive information to go to UAE. I also find myself in the strange, foreign situation of being on the same side of the political spectrum as Susan Sarnandon and company . . . but every dog has their day.
Posted by: biorabbi at February 21, 2006 7:08 PM
beav
I agree with you in that many options is a good thing.I think we have enough options already that we don't need to risk port security over one more.
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 7:10 PM
Is George mad? Like a fox, my friend. Like a fox.
Posted by: Peter Boston at February 21, 2006 05:05 PM
Gold Star for you today and he will once again show the mulsum world that the USA is United Both Democrats and Republicans in the Safty of the American People no one can sit on the side lines one party or the other because the Ruber[clinton 12 pac]hits the road this bill to be passed will have to be Veto prof??
Another thing the MSM is not talking about with the UAE running these ports will they have control over who can come in and out of these ports??
Yes this is a big thing. Think about NOW with Denmark and the Cartoons what if these new owners don't want any ships from Denmark will they beable to stop trade with countries that they don't like??
What about if Israel comes up wit a Vac. for the Bird Flue and the UAE doesn't want the USA doing business with them??
will they have that kind of power??
CONGRESS MUST PASS A VETO PROF BILL THAT SAYS NO COUNTRY OR FORGIEN COMPANY CAN OWN THESE KIND OF COMPANYS THE OTHER COUNTRIES DO IT ALL THE TIME!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND TOGETHER TO FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
PS
Remember it will show that the American People are together again Yes Democrats and Republicans together to protect the USA!!
PSS
KJ will have a heart attack but I am for hiliarys bill about the ports??
at February 21, 2006 7:19 PM
These small Arab principalities are extremely important to US foreign policy. Why? because you only have to convince ONE person or at the most a small group of related individuals to allow us to operate. Can you imagine what would happen if Iran was attacked from an Iraqi base? The fragile legitamacy of the Iraqi government would go straight down the toilet. Same thing for attacks from Afghanistan. They would lose any semblance of control over their own country. This is not what we want, and this is not a problem with the small pricipalities. There is no bureacracy, and information does not leak.
Posted by: beav at February 21, 2006 7:25 PM
I'm so boiling angry with Bush right now... I'm so disgusted I voted for him. I hope the Dems impeach him for this - he deserves whatever he gets now.
The Republicans better be loud and clear in opposition to the jackass phony in the Whitehouse on this issue, or they'll be losing a LOT of supporters starting with me.
Posted by: Tapper at February 21, 2006 7:26 PM
It doesn't matter how well "insulated" port security is kept from the UAE owners, the unlovely image, during a "War Against Islamic Terrorism" is:
- a President selling our national security to a potential jihadist supporting "emirate" (not even a state or country or nation, an "emirate").
Whatever the financial advantages or secret intelligence sharing deals may be, the politcal idiocy (and everything is political when you are in office) of this move will only weaken the (already too weak in this battle and only one even minimally anti-jihadist) Republican party.
The arrogant insularity and unreality of the move shows Bush is a third-rate piker when it comes to finessing such strategic geopolitical deals. We could have promised the UAE mineral rights in Wyoming or something equally obscure and lucrative, and not directly related to national security, if they needed payback for favors done.
The good thing is this demonstrates the utter failure, post-9/11, of the government to take security seriously in the ports, and elsewhere. How can any foreign owner be allowed the potential for a gaining a stranglehold on our lifelines of food, materials, trade goods and exports during a time of war?
I wish Barney would bite George on the butt hard and wake him up.
(The only "fox" here is the UAE one trying to wriggle into the 6 henhouses.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 21, 2006 7:27 PM
Can we now admit that most Americans do distrust and/or loathe Muslims and culturally Islamized Arabs? And we have good reason to do so. Trust Muslims/Arabs?! Puleeeze!!!! We aren't smoking the CAIR crack-pipe. We know that all Arab countries have been conquered and subjugated by Islam, and we know Muslims hate America. And guess what... most Americans hate Muslims. And this is just the beginning of our expression of this emotion. Our politicians can dance their little diplomatic tango, but We, The People, still rule the roost for now.
Posted by: mulder at February 21, 2006 7:28 PM
KJ will have a heart attack but I am for hiliarys bill about the ports?? - posted by Catherine
I don't care if this deal is stopped by Howard Stern in a leopard-print thong, as long as it's stopped. I've been a supporter of Bush for a long time, but this is beyond unacceptable.
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 21, 2006 7:29 PM
Well the UAE is nothing but a Global City State, where the Elites of the world can live in style and have the world's poor bring them their refreshments by the pool. Remember the Elites are a Global People....flying between each others beautiful resorts......and sleeping with their beautiful men and women.
So........having the UAE run a few of our ports in America makes perfect sense to these Elite Politicians. Remember they are GLOBAL ELITE CITIZENS OF THE ENTIRE WORLD........you are not invited into this club. The goal is to manage you the average Joe. Keep the masses uneducated and dumb........fighting with each other......and when we finally figure things out..........well they will have plenty of Global Military Forces to take care of you and I.
Follow the money...........is it in your pocket?
Posted by: rumoret at February 21, 2006 7:40 PM
I don't care if this deal is stopped by Howard Stern in a leopard-print thong, as long as it's stopped.
Posted by: Shinoliite
Even as sickening as this image is, it pales in comparision to President Bush's continued failures to protect America.
Open borders since 9/11.
Turning our ports over to our enemies.
The fisaco in Iraq.
9/11
President Bush's appearance to the world is more important than America's safety.
The war with Islam is inevitable.
Impeach Bush and let a real warrior - Chaney - fight the war with Islam. At least Chaney knows how to hit what he aims at.
The Texican.
Freedom. The only choice at any cost.
at February 21, 2006 7:53 PM
I am absolutely livid over this. W hasn't vetoed a single bill in six years, and now he's threatening a veto? What the hell does he have to gain by alienating *BOTH* parties over this issue??? It's not like the UAE has ever done anything for the United States.
Every Republican up for reelection in November had better tell the President to back the F up on this. All he's going to do is cut his party's political throat. They stood by him in the nasty 2004 election, and he has a lot of nerve pulling an Arlen Specter back-stab on this issue.
at February 21, 2006 7:54 PM
I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, but I have lived near the Texas/Mexico border for 32 years, waiting and watching for him to (first as governor and then President) "rescue us" from the frightening open border and the alarming illegals invasion. It has become a long-term humiliation. I think Juliani (New York City?!!) is the only person with the cajones to do the right thing.
Posted by: Veritas Regina at February 21, 2006 8:01 PM
I've had enough. I going now to read some hopeful news on the International Association of Near Death Studies web page. The appearance of death is not the experience of death.
Posted by: bobalharb at February 21, 2006 8:22 PM
Hehehe...
Both parties are just window-dressing. Choice is an illusion.
They only throw out some superficial bones every now and then to keep up appearances.
at February 21, 2006 8:25 PM
I can't argue this one with you Hugh, this is a National Security issue that everyone else seems to understand, but not our President. It's damned embarressing. Imagine frieght cars of God-knows-what being craned from ships and onto rail into the heartland and it's easy to see what could happen. But hey, why not? We have the Mexican Army patroling the border. Add this to Gore,Clinton and Carter's recent comments and it really makes you wonder what the hell is going on?
Posted by: kevin at February 21, 2006 8:26 PM
Right now a British company manages these ports and you have to be certifiably insane if you think we let them manage either port security or our national security.
First of all, this is a private transaction. But it -- according to law, the government is required to make sure this transaction does not, in any way, jeopardize the security of the country. And so people responsible in our government have reviewed this transaction.
The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs.
at February 21, 2006 8:29 PM
Spoken like a true Whitehouse spokesman.
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 8:38 PM
Bush calls Islam the religion of peace, UAE is our friend and ally on the "War on Terror" (shouldn't it be The Crusades, Part 4?), journalists should respect islam.....yak, yak, yak.......
Here's the "duh" moment that would be funny if it didn't have such scary conequences:
"Karen Hughes reveals her Islamic studies booklist"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010335.php
God help us all if this is where Bush is getting all his counciling.
Posted by: No_Mooselimbs at February 21, 2006 8:39 PM
Most commentators on this issue do not have a clue about how ports operate. If they did, while they still might be against this deal, they would not be blowing a gasket about it. I live in the city with the 3rd largest container port in the country and I frankly can care less about this deal. I do not feel threatened anymore with this deal than I did 3 weeks ago before it was announced. Get over it...
Charleston, SC
Posted by: Don at February 21, 2006 8:42 PM
When Jimmah Cartah supports President Bush on anything you just have to wonder!
But Napollary and Shumah are against it!
They're playing pure politics. Next thing you know they'll be calling for the closing of the borders!
Continuing coverage of the cartoon riots, portgate, et al. at The Dumb Ox:
All the best,
D. Ox
at February 21, 2006 8:46 PM
Catherine-
You're sure singing a different tune lately, girlfriend!
I thought I'd seen it all with Dubya holding hands with Saudi princes and having Eid suppers with CAIR goons, but this atrocity surprises even me!! "Security" in the ports is a different issue than "Unrestricted Access," which surely will happen if UAE gets the contract.
It's not that Dubya's mad, it's just that he's dim and lacking a spine.
Posted by: kafira at February 21, 2006 8:46 PM
Don’t really care how they operate Don, beyond security and jobs. The issue is control. I don’t want any Islamist or Islamic country in control of anything in the US. Not the ports, not the schools, not the media, nothing. You feel that you frankly could care less about this deal? Good for you.
Me? Islam is my enemy.
at February 21, 2006 9:35 PM
Don -
It's basic: you don't let the fox into the henhouse. And, of course, you don't let the fox guard the henhouse.
Posted by: 00Buck at February 21, 2006 9:37 PM
Jesus Christ! I have been a Bush supporter because I felt he was a better choice , the only choice, over the Democrats, but this is enough to pull my support!
Madness. Madness, gross misunderstanding of the nature of Islam!
We can not count on the Democrats the are beyond clueless and we can not count on President Bush who at least took some of the right steps.
Do we have to find someone else or start an anti-Jihadi parti.
Posted by: El Cid at February 21, 2006 9:40 PM
Don
I would not be afraid either if I lived in Charlestown,SC.If the jihadis manage to sneak a nuke in,I highly doubt Charlestown is very high on the hit list.Stop thinking only about yourself.
Posted by: McSeamus at February 21, 2006 9:40 PM
Posted by: kafira at February 21, 2006 08:46 PM
No, no different tune Just pointing out that it will take the whole country to win this war not Just our President all by himself!
This Problem is due to our laws and who makes the Laws Last time I cked it was the Congress and Senate?
Well the congress made the law that left the back door open so it is Congress who must make the Law that closes that Door?
I see if it is the Democrats that make this law good thing because can they cry about their own bill??
I like to think out of the box.
Americans will they walk to the store for their food and shopping because of no gas because the gas needs to go to our jets and ships?? [I think they will will the bicth about it yea.]
The democrats have been a thorn in the side of this war on every issue so if they want to change the law I say do it!
because this is the only way to stop this deal from going through!
We don't have a king and it is not Just the President but the People and we the People have a repisventive goverment that is Congress SO AGIN I SAY CONGRESS DO YOUR JOB AND PROTECT THE USA.
Now if you think This is a different thought prosses you have not been paying attion to what I have been writting?
Remember President Bush can not run again for President in 2008 his term is up and the Next guy comes in this is the way our system works is it perfect NO but tell me a better way and which country you would prefer?
This country is addictided to oil and because congress wont let us drill in our own country?
And look at in the way of selling a house and if you didn't like the buyer for he was green well the law says you have to sell to that green man any way?
This is what Bush has said the Law allows Forgien Companys to Buy this kind of Business well again it is congress who write the laws?
Me I don't think Congress has the balls to do what needs to be done but the Democrats follow where Hillary leads so if that is what it takes to protect this country?
Remember it is at every turn the Democrats are against everything from Getmo to the Pariot act to drilling in ANWAR now all these thing help protect the American People would Hilary's bill make me vote for her NO but would I support her bill to stop all forgien companys from owning Business like this Sure no problem.
I want the safty of the American People this is what I want.
I don't see how you think this is a change in thinking?
Like I have said I don't think all mulsums are savages but the more they show their hate and hardly any mulsums stand up against this evil I am begining to have my doughts about even those who claim to want to just get along.
I do not just support President Bush on all things and have agreeed with KJ before but only in protecting Americ and my SHORT SKIRTS!!
I am more worried about the UAE being able to stop ships from docking because they don't like the countries who we do business with or what if they don't want the Militay ships to port like what is going on in some states who are not arabs but lib's?? what if they would see more activaty [miltary] would they keep quite these are the things I want answers to?
Until Americans are willing to get off of Forgien oil with real answers maybe back room deals like this will have to be made YES IT SUCKS BUT WE WILL WIN THIS WAR!!
The people I have talked to about this understand it is only Congress who can stop it.
Now you being a Bush hater anyway I'm not surprized at your comments???
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND TOGETHER TO DESTROY THIS EVIL AMEN
at February 21, 2006 9:50 PM
One has to wonder what the hell this guy thinks he's doing. As well as wonder whose interests he's under the illusion he is serving.
The UAE has known ties to the global jihad warfare and mujahideen. In fact all Islamic countries do. Which is why no western democracy should ever trust any of them or place them in a situation whereby they could inflict civilian casualties on American soil. The Bush Administration has done both with this sale of US ports to the UAE corporation. "Extremists" can now (it would seem)smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the country much more easily--and use them.
It is still painfully clear that Bush hasn't yet bothered to open a copy of the Kuran. He is as clueless about the Kuran and its contents as well as the true (and malignant) nature of Islam as any liberal (read "multi-culturalist") idiot could hope for. John Kerry might as well be running the country with this move!
At this point Bush's ignorance of Islam is almost certainly being used by the Arab-Muslim jihadists in a big way. Just open up US ports to islamic control! Under the guise of a legit corporate sale.
Everyone: It's time to call your representatives and explain to them calmly and clearly that Islamic warfare or jihadism never ends, targets American people for death, and the US government should NOT be creating opportunities for jihadists to penetrate our land and massacre our people. The Bush Administration is doing all that with the approval of this sale. That another stated objective of islamic jihadism is the destruction of the United States of America should give them pause.
The US governmment's basic responsibility is to defend the liberty of our people and, hopefully, keep our people alive. The government is abdicating these basic objectives with this sale. Explain to your representatives this is hwy this sale must be voided ASAP!!
at February 21, 2006 10:10 PM
To all MSM Reporters looking for a good scandal -
If you want to really embarass Bush, all you gotta do is get someone in Dubai to visit one of the stores selling CD sermons and books by Dubai imams. I'm sure there are just hundreds of vile statements about infidels and the West. Show those sermons cursing the infidels with translation. Oh yes, rest assured. It's there by the bucketful of CDs.
Posted by: John Sobieski at February 21, 2006 10:12 PM
Is there any mechanism for the GOP to expel the president from his party? Or at least strip all his appointed (or annointed) party officials from their party posts, and let the rank and file take it over?
Too bad the president can't be extradited to Dubai.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 21, 2006 10:14 PM
What I'd like to know is this: Who is paying whom, and how much?
Posted by: Mark Alexander at February 21, 2006 10:19 PM
As of today, I am going Independent. President Bush has taken my vote for granted. This whole deal opens a can of worms and worse.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 21, 2006 10:25 PM
Fabled Dubai. Dubai of the fabulous hotels, where some suites are said to cost rich Arabs $100,000 or even more for a night, une nuitee, nochleg. Dubai, Land of the Dubai Tower. Dubai, Land of the Malls That Never Close. Dubai, Land of the Gold Souk. Dubai, Land of Shopping, and More Shopping. Dubai, where Las Vegas and Disneyland and all the other shopping malls of the Western world, in all their glittering emptiness, are rolled up into one, and then outdone -- in fabulous Dubai.
Where does the outside investment money come from? Not from the Saudis or the Kuwaitis. No, Dubai has attracted several hundred billion dollars in investments from from Iranians, from Iran. Dubai is now full of Iranians. A paradise for the businessmen of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is their favorite place. A goldene Medina. An investment Mecca.
That is Dubai.
Posted by: Hugh at February 21, 2006 10:27 PM
President Bush has sold you out!
He is a traitor!
What are you going to do about it?
CD 'Bar' Baric
Posted by: blazar-jet at February 21, 2006 10:28 PM
There's nothing surprising or "inexplicable" about this.
The PC pathology is sociopolitically dominant. It would be surprising if any American President, Left or Right, were not infected by it.
Stop being surprised, for God's sakes, and recognize this problem for what it is. Then figure out how to deal with this problem.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at February 21, 2006 10:35 PM
How does anyone feel about China running some of our ports?
They run more than half of the Los Angeles terminals.
When China plays war games, we are the enemy.
More than half of all US ports are owned by foreign companies.
If this UAE company is good enough to fix our Aircraft Carriers from the 5th fleet, I say they are good enough to manage some of our ports.
Posted by: Bar at February 21, 2006 10:48 PM
I disagree Pepper. Whatever the rhetorical bones Bush has been tossing to the Muslims...("RoP," "highjacked," etc), no one can deny his foreign and security policies have enraged Muslim and lefty alike.
The Port debacle is different. It mirrors the non-existent border security policy, but at least THAT policy can be attributed to a sociological and political payoff, i.e., the incorporation of significant numbers of Hispanic-Americans into the Republican fold. The Hispanic vote essentially tipped the scales towards Bush in 2000 and 2004. Instead of the typically feeble 25%, the President captured over 40% of it in 2004.
The Port policy does nothing to enhance his party's political fortunes, in fact it is a gift that gives the opposition traction on its weakest issue, national security.
Meanwhile, the President's wiretap policies, though of dubious legality, are a slap in the face of the security-complacent and politically-correct who want to pretend we live in a pre 911 world.
The port policy IS inexplicable. It is a betrayal of the one issue - besides tax cuts - that Bush has exhibited consistancy: national security.
Posted by: Cornelius at February 21, 2006 10:55 PM
Hehehe...
Both parties are just window-dressing. Choice is an illusion.
They only throw out some superficial bones every now and then to keep up appearances.
Posted by: kentim [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 21, 2006 08:25 PM
kentim, you weren't supposed to notice :-)
Posted by: kojak at February 21, 2006 11:01 PM
There's some reason to think the President is not crazy--first and foremost that Schumer and Napollary are opposing him...
I've put a poll up at The Dumb Ox for voting on what you think should be done with these contracts. Poll in the sidebar.
direct link to news links:
http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/02/portgate-or-tempest-in-teapot.html
All the best,
D. Ox
at February 21, 2006 11:01 PM
Don-
"I'm not worried about it" doesn't hold much water as an argument.
Do you have some actual FACTS on port operations that you want to share?
at February 21, 2006 11:05 PM
China, as far as I know, doesn’t issue fatwas, mutilate female children, have institutional slavery, or believe the whole world is theirs.
Posted by: butterfly at February 21, 2006 11:12 PM
Good Lord.
I swear I must be writing this from some parallel six dimensional universe, because I am just that confused.
Too many posts to separate. I am so glad that people are paying attention to this though -- so glad.
Yeah, shock number one is that I agree with Hillary. Shock, shock, shock. Shock and Awe even...
There was talk of a bullet proof veto. IF only that WAS W's thinking! I would love to believe that he cleverly orchestrated this to get all the opportunities to show how unbiased he is, while making the American public rise up in outrage, and getting his opponents to do his "dirty racist" work for him. But, *sigh* I don't. It's kind of like that old Saturday Night Live Skit that should a doddering old fool Reagan who, once the press left the room snapped to as brilliant Machiavellian! Let me keep that one though -- don't take it from me, I don't want to think he just sat there counting jelly beans in a jar...
I usually don't stoop to picking on Bush, but I just keep thinking that he must think Dubai is prounouced (W)Dubbya and so thinks this is secretly HIS company.
I know, it's low. I'm a REPUBLICAN for God's sake. See, I told you this was a six dimensional parallel universe...
I don't know what to say.
I really don't.
Except, maybe, God help us all. UAE and Iran are talking about increasing their trade, now, this week, with all that's going on with the UAE and the ports, and Iran and the Nukes, and, and, and,
the sixth dimension is hurting my brain.
I think I should go to bed.
at February 21, 2006 11:17 PM
Hugh
I think there is an interesting fact which might leave you pondering. Narendra Modi, the Hindu nationalist chief minister of Gujarat state of India has excellent relations with the Iranians and hosts regular Iranian businessmen as guests. But he really is on a crusade to make Gujarat compete with Western nations economically as it has faaar surpassed other Indian states. Economics makes strange bedfellows.
Peace
at February 21, 2006 11:21 PM
READ READ READ
______________________________
Khaleej Times - Online
UAE, Palestine to set up a joint investment firm. DUBAI — The UAE and Palestine
have agreed to the establishment of a new joint investment company, ...
www.khaleejtimes.com/ - 69k - Cached - Similar pages
That is the copy and past of my google results of a search for "Dubai" "UAE"
It is the fifth result. When I go the the page I cannot find the article that resulted in the hit. Is this because in the sixht dimension that we must be living in right now my savvy computer skills have abandoned me? Or was the story pulled? The date was 2/5/2006. After we all were starting to look at that Hamas victory.
So, UAE is going to have a joint investment with a known terrorist organization (sorry Palestine, while I feel for the people's plight I gotta call them like I see them).
PLEASE READ THIS. GO TO GOOGLE YOURSELF. FIND THE STORY IF YOU CAN. IF YOU CAN FIND OUT IT IS MORE INNOCENT THAN I THINK let ME know. If you find out it is as bad as I fear it might be LET EVERYONE ELSE KNOW.
Posted by: toleranceorappeasement? at February 21, 2006 11:31 PM
As far as China is concerned, it is a more manageable adversary. Unlike al-Qaeda and similar groups, China is a country in a fixed place with cities, ports, and other infrastructure to lose in a war, if it came to that for whatever reason, whereas the jihadists can just fold up camp and go elsewhere.
In addition, their main priority right now is not to make the world Maoist by force, but to make as much money as possible. They need to keep their economy booming to minimize threats to the regime from internal dissent and general discontent, as well as to fund their military, which tends to be big on manpower, but small on technology.
True, they'd like to be the world's superpower someday, but many variables stand in their way, including the possibility of democratic revolution, the Taiwan issue, any antics North Korea may pull, and, of course, the jihadists on their western border. They're fooling themselves if they don't think they're already being targeted for dawa, with more to come.
Posted by: Shinoliite at February 21, 2006 11:34 PM
http://www.dubaiinternetcity.com/
http://www.vida-espanol.com/links/hotels.asp
http://www.vida-espanol.com/dubai.aspx
http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/bird_flu/more_stories/10020137.html
Published: 02/20/2006
'Ban on poultry imports will not dampen sales'
By Ashfaq Ahmed, Aftab Kazmi and Fuad Ali
Dubai: Recent reports of bird flu in India and Egypt need not worry residents in the country because poultry meat from both countries is not imported to the UAE, said importers and retailers.
Poultry importers said only eggs are imported from India but the ban on imports from that country after the bird flu scare is unlikely to have any impact in the UAE market.
Mubarak Ahmad from Al Jazira Poultry Farm said local market needs can be met by eggs produced locally and those imported from Saudi Arabia and Oman.
SEAMS THEY ARE VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE BIRD FLUE??
SO AS THE MULSUMS ROIT OVER CARTOONS BUT SAY NOTHING ABOUT 170,000 DEAD IN SUDAN AND 300,000 DEAD IRAQIS ALL KILLED BY MULSUMS JUST MAKES YOU WONDER??
NOW THIS SIGHT HAS A VERY INSTERING NAME??
DUBAI WORLD TRADE CENTER??
http://www.dwtc.com/Kiosk/news864.htm
YEP WOMEN IN BURKAS??
OT
Was watching Cspan and turki from SA was on and when someone Q? him about the cartoons he said yes those who insite must be punished BUT he when on to say the ones who published the cartoons were to blame for the insightment not the clerics who made their people go and what was it nasseem said beat up pillows full of hay??
was speaking at the Kenndy school on 2/15?
And this is the reform coming to a town near you?
Did they ever punish the artist who had the Christian figures in animal dung and urine guess I missed that one??
OT
But I heard yesterday that a town of 20,000 on the Yancy had a spill and no water was going to the town?
Now this is the 2nd time just thinking about the Bird Flue in china just makes you wonder??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
PS
Rumsfeld for President
I would take Cheny but he has said he wont run??
But I really like Rumsfeld I even have a Coffee mug!!
Posted by: Catherine at February 21, 2006 11:36 PM
Big G In TX, you are wrong on this one. Let me tell you that having DHS there only works to a point. As someone who has working knowledge on this issue, I can tell you that DHS can only see and know so much, as in airports security, they must trust and depend on the company to compliment and support their efforts.
The rank and file workers who are longshoremen and Americans are not the problem, but if this government company is allowed to introduce their nationals as supervisors and administration staff there is no way to filter out Jihad supporters. They will be their and watching the DHS as they work. JUST WHAT WE NEED JIHADI SPIES TO WATCH OUT FOR.
Let's get real, this is Arab government run company, that is our ally only out of convenience, and in which a majority support Bun Laden and think he is a great man.
Do you propose that we make what is already a tough job, and one that we are not doing very well at. even harder for the brave men and women who everyday fight a desperate battle to keep us safe.
This is probably the weakest link in our defenses and you support allowing an Arab government owned company which is riddled with al-Qaeda sympathizers put there people in our ports. After the sale they will have the right and DHS will have a harder time keeping them out.
I can see it now, four suspicious Arabs are spotted walking around one of our ports, call the DHs, call the FBI, call the NSA, oh wait! it's a mistake they own the joint!
Sell this to the UAE and you give access to our facilities to their employees.
I say Big G in TX, be a true American speak out about this.
Big G in TX, if you support this them you are selling away this countries security and you should be prepared to live with the consequences. I'm not!
I HAVE BEEN A LIFE LONG CONSERVATIVE AND VOTED TWICE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH, BUT WOULD DEMAND THAT HE BE IMPEACHED IF HE IS ON THE WORNG SIDE OF THIS ISSUE.
This will destroy the conservative movement in this country,
God HELP US1
Posted by: El Cid at February 21, 2006 11:53 PM
I don't know how this thread go so out of control.
I is not within the duties of the President to turn down deals just because they are Muslim. I support Bush and so should you. I am well aware of Islam but come on officially Islam is a religion of peace. Our laws, I might remind you, forbid discrimination on the basis of religion. There is no grounds to deny this deal. I for one am not going so be suckered into the same democratic talking points that went out the same day. I smelled a rat when the story broke. And when the smoke clears, the dems would have won at dividing and demoralizing the republicans, taking the real story with them. Because some are so blinded by this simplistic view of this. I hope you guys can calm down and see there is nothing the Prez can do at the moment. Maybe someday...
at February 21, 2006 11:57 PM
Cornelius,
"his foreign and security policies have enraged Muslim and lefty alike."
That's not because Bush's foreign and security policies should enrage then: Muslims and Leftists are pathologically irrational -- they would be enraged (for slightly different reasons) by Bush no matter what he did. He's obviously better than them, but he's stil
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)