GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Bush Goes All “Harriet Miers” In UAE Port Decision

by

Someone at The White House has lost his or her mind. Or Karl Rove is being investigated again and doesn’t have time to do gutchecks on stupid Administration decisions. Remember, we got Harriet Miers last year during the period where Rove was under intense scrutiny in “Plamegate.”

Whatever the reasons, those of you who think we never criticize President Bush on anything (and you are wrong) are going to love this from me today: Bush is nuts for threatening a veto of the United Arab Emirates port deal and defending this stupid decision. Nuts, nuts, nuts! These were Bush’s comments aboard Air Force One. (Hat tip – Michelle Malkin)

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly.'”

Well, since we also should have been holding Middle Eastern-looking airline passengers to a different standard since 9/11, why not the company controlling our major ports? If we profiled at the airports, maybe 97-year olds and babies wouldn’t be getting frisked and our odds of catching would-be terrorists or those here illegally would be much higher. The ironic thing out of all of this is…. those whining the loudest about the UAE port deal are those also shouting the loudest to NOT do profiling at our airports. I say, DO BOTH!

I don’t care about the convoluted economic explanations as to why the deal might actually be good. And I know that it has nothing to do with actual security of the ports, but management of them. Doesn’t matter. Even Fred Barnes last night on FNC’s Special Report was doing mental gymnastics to try to rationalize this deal.

Not me. This is not only stupid, it is obviously stupid and makes me wonder who the hell is in charge right now at Homeland Security and, frankly, The White House as a whole.

All I need to know is this: we cannot have a Middle Eastern-run company running our ports when we are at war with much of the Middle East (either in a “hot” or “cold” way). We cannot have those who burn down neighborhoods over a cartoon suddenly overseeing one of our most vulnerable places of entry in our post-9/11 world. As someone said on the radio this morning in Charlotte, “that’s like having Bill Clinton provide security at a sorority party.”

President Bush…. what is going on?

Now that I’ve taken a stand against the President on this issue (among others), I suppose this makes me a liberal, Andrew?

*UPDATE @ 7PM: If CAIR, John McCain and Jimmy Carter are all for the port deal, there’s another good reason to be afraid… be very afraid!*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. At last! You notice.
    Here’s someone who agrees with V.

    “I have to part company on the hysteria over the so-called port sale. Port operations are an economic function, not a political function. There is no earthly reason the government should be managing port operations. There is arguably a legitimate government role in port security, but only a socialist would argue that the government should manage logistics and operations. ”

    Right.

    http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation.

  4. No one was upset about “foreign countries” managing port operations when the company was British. So, now, we’re going to slap one of our closest Arab allies in the face just because… well, just because they’re Arabs basically? (And let’s be honest about that.) Just because we don’t trust ourselves to adequately monitor the security of our own ports? What message does that send to Arab governments whose cooperation, like it or not, we need in this war?

    Consider the implications carefully about this. (And, yes, I’m biased partly because I’ve been to the UAE and I don’t like seeing them bad-mouthed.)

  5. Amen Bruce. Sorry, but I do not believe the UAE is such a great ally. They are a nominal ally, much like the Saudis. But, like the Saudis, they talk out of both sides of their mouth and make perfidious deals with the devil in order to placate the Jihadists in their midst.

    Two 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE. It is fair to assume many more of their citizens remain either loyal to or in the employ of Al Qaida. It is easy to see how such a person could find a way to circumvent security at Dubai Ports World and exploit security procedures and vulnerabilities at ports in this country under their management. God help us when this occurs.

    I do not know what in the hell is going on in the White House right now, but this is pure BS! For the President to dig in on this ridiculous matter–perhaps using what I think is his FIRST PRESIDENTIAL VETO, is staggering. The good news is, it looks like this will be an easy override! I just cannot imagine the poltical calculations behind this.

  6. And for the record. I despise Jimmy Carter. I despise John McCain. And I despise CAIR. But I love common sense and reason. And I love not making a judgment until all the facts are in. And I love thinking through what the ramifications of decisions are before committing to a course of action. I’m not saying this deal is good or bad, or if it should go through or not go through, but I don’t think the tone of the discussion so far has been helpful (and I mean, generally, not just on G-Patriot).

  7. Although they may be dodgy, I would argue that the government of Dubai has both done more to help us in the WOT and poses a signifigantly lower security risk than either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It’s unfortunate that we can’t package them in on the deal.

  8. Good point, Bobo. The ACLU has done far more to undermine our security and thwart us in the GWOT than the UAE whose capital is Abu Dhabi, not Dubai, although Dubai is its commercial center. It’s kind of a DC/NYC thing, and it’s telling to me that a lot of people weighing in on the debate aren’t even aware of that.

  9. So far I have not seen a strong case against the UAE corporation taking-over the currently British-owned P&O operating company. The USCG and Homeland Security still provide the overal security, planning and execution on the docks; the operating company is handling the loading, distribution and marketing of the docks; the dock employees are overwhelmingly still going to be Americans; and the US longshoremen will still be manning the cranes and the trucks.

    Besides, it actually provides a multi-billion-dollar hostage for the UAE to remain allies…they can’t just take the docks away, back to the Persian Gulf with them. And we have massive military assets in place through much of the UAE already…all the airbase and support facilities that we moved out of Saudi Arabia are in UAE member-state territories. And they have massive LNG stocks that they want to sell to the US home-market that they need our aid to build, and distribute.

    Right now, the whole “scandal” just smells of knee-jerk xenophobia; at the same time that the West needs to be critical of Iranian Shi’ite, and Saudi Wahabi’ist, anti-Semitism?

  11. It would be nice if they quit recognizing the Taliban as the official Government of Afganistan though. But who knows, perhaps that’s what makes them useful in the WOT. The bad guys may feel safer that they really are there, we may have UAE citizens working as double agents, etc.

  12. At this point in time, with Muslims all over the world declaring war on the west, do we really want to cede contol of our ports to this “ally”.
    And, if we do in the future find that we no longer need their oil, will they still be our ‘dear friends’?
    I’ve been to the Vatican, but I’m not going to become Catholic.

  13. V: For clarification, isn’t al Qaida’s mouthpiece, al Jazeera HQ’d in UAE? I ask you ’cause you’ve been there and I’m too lazy to look it up 😉

    But from a general point, I agree somewhat with the point you seem to be making about giving the wrong impression by singling out one nation or one area of the world to say ‘no’ to. To that, and to W’s point:

    “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company”

    Um, not to be a protectionist xenophobe, but shouldn’t we, in this world climate these days not allow any foreign nation to run our ports? Would we allow a foreign country to run a LaGuardia and Dulles? If I told you, don’t worry, we’ll run the security check-points, but UAE [or enter any foreign country here] is going to run the rest of the operations, wouldn’t that bother you?

    This isn’t about UAE for me, it’s about all foreign activities in this area. But then again, I voted for Tom Tancredo!

  15. Don’t faint, V the K, but I agree with all your posts on this issue (and you, too, Ted #9).

    Would I prefer an American company operating these ports? Yes. But since a British firm currently operates the ports at issue, there must not be many American companies in the business. (American longshoremen will continue to do the heavy work.)

    Now that a UAE-owned firm has been named it would be a slap in the face of a Middle Eastern ally of some measure at a time when we need every ally we have. (It’s possible — even likely — with so many questions being raised, the UAE firm will be more sevcurity conscious than another firm might be.)

    Let’s face it, there’s a security problem at our ports because the Bush Administration hasn’t made it a priority or insisted on spending the money that’s necessary If biological weapons or nuclear devices are slipped into the United States on container ships it won’t be because of which firm manages ports.

    And may the political gods forgive me for being on the same side as James Earl Carter!

  16. I’ll throw my hat in with V, Ted and Jack.

    and to Jack specifically:

    there must not be many American companies in the business

    Are there any American companies in this business? I don’t know.

  17. What I want to know is, why does the Prez insist on a Dubai-based company to manage port operations when there is bipartisan support AGAINST such a measure?

    I said this before during the Clinton administration and I’ll say it now, regrettably, since I thought we were getting a better administration: follow the money.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

  19. So far, I’ve not seen anybody go APESHIT over the fact that Emirates Air still flies into the U.S.

    Why not?

    Another thing to consider, if Bush personally flew those plans into the towers and the Pentagon, then what they hell do they care about whether or not the UAE conducts operations at our ports?

  21. Hmmm…two 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE? Big Deal. In Oklahoma City, two terrorists were from the USA. Not sure, but isn’t that #2 on the all-time list of terrorist strikes on US soil? This is a business deal, not a big deal, and Customs, Coast Guard, and all our other Federal friends will still be active in monitoring the port activities. If you have a problem with Homeland Security, then say so. The port operations…that’s just business.

  23. I’m of two minds on this one. I think the president handled the P.R. aspect of this terribly, but may not be wrong on this. At present, I don’t know enough to post intelligently on the port deal, but given that Jimmy Carter is almost always wrong, so his support doesn’t help matters.

    But, then again, Jimmy Carter did appoint Paul Volcker to chair the Fed and working with the Gipper’s blessing, Volcker helped create the economic expansion of the 1980s. Thus, Carter has been known to be right. Though not often.

    Two bloggers I respect have compiled roundups of views on the topic: Instapundit and Polipundit’s Lorie Byrd.

  25. For clarification, isn’t al Qaida’s mouthpiece, al Jazeera HQ’d in UAE?

    Al-Jizz is based in Doha, Qatar.

    But I don’t think that’s a compelling argmuent. The BBC hasn’t been much better in covering the war, and no one objected when the British were managing the ports.

  27. On Meet the Distressed (Press) this past week…Sen. Lyndsey Graham (R) said it made no sense to have UAE in charge of our port security…Well, irresponsible statements like that is what gets everyone screwed up mentally. Port security will still be the sole responsibility of the US government…local authorities..US Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Let’s all take a step back…have all the hearings Congress wants and then move one way or the other. Anyone have any ideas why NO US company put in a bid for this assignment??? Too bad this is an election year because this deal was made back in November and what…no one knew it until now?…Frankly, after hearing so many make false statements like the genius Graham it makes me wonder if the Congress has any clue…sure as hell many lack facts and they still make decisions…pathetic.

  28. I dunno know… but did W actually say

    “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”???

    Great British? This one will go down in the books of W-isms for sure. The man is such a Texan. Gheez

  29. Anyone have any ideas why NO US company put in a bid for this assignment???

    I am hearing, but I have no confirmation, that there simply aren’t US Firms in this particular line of business.

    By the way, did y’all know that the UAE is one of Daimler-Chrysler’s largest shareholders? Guess you better be checking for terrorists in the back seat of your Durango.

  30. Matt, please. You say “Texan” as if it was an epithet. If we’re going to go there, I will say a few things about Meeeeeeechigan’s politics, people and subpar college football teams.

    On behalf of all us Texans on this board, I would respectfully ask that you clarify your remarks and/or apologize if necessary.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

  32. I’m with dan on this one, in that I don’t feel I know enough to make an intellectual argument one way or the other, but….

    My biggest problem is how staunchly Bush is defending this idea. He hasn’t vetoed one damn thing in his entire presidency, yet he’s prepared to bust it out over this? Something about that just doesn’t sit well with me.

  35. Malkin: The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn’t. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

    James Lileks: arguments about the specific nature of the Dubai Ports World organization’s global reach and responsible track records don’t matter. Because it feels immediately, instinctively wrong to nearly every American, and that isn’t something that can be argued away with charts or glossy brochures. It just doesn’t sit well. Period. It’s one thing for an Administration to misjudge how a particular decision will be received; it’s another entirely to misjudge an issue that cuts to the core of the Administration’s core strength. That’s where you slap yourself on the forehead in the style of those lamenting the failure to request a V-8 in a timely fashion. Doesn’t matter whether it was a deal struck between the previous administrators and the UAE; that’s not how the issue will be seen. And it certainly doesn’t matter once the President gets all stern on the topic and insists he’ll veto any attempt to keep the deal from going through. At that point, millions of previously resolute supporters stand there with their mouths open, uttering a soft confused moan of disbelief.

    The White House isn’t merely tone-deaf on this matter. It is stone-blind.

    And before we start hearing “racism”. Let’s remember that Islam is a religion, not a race.

  36. Bush took a giant step into Texas-sized horse hockey on this one.

    The only reason I can see for opposing the sale is whether you want to consider our ports business or national security assets. At the moment, I think they are more treated as business. But maybe they need to be treated more as points of entry into our borders that must be secured. I don’t know. But this may be one of those times where whats good for business is not good for the country as a whole.

    One side point I would like to make is that since all the corporations running these ports are giant multi-nationals anyways, it matters little whether or not a company is based in the US. So it would not make any difference if it were to be bought instead by a “U.S.” company. Of course, mult-national corps always look out for themselves, not a specific national interest. Any loyalties to the country its based in are secondary to the interests of its stockholders.

  38. Why don’t you explain this to me, Hank:

    — Chuckie Schumer and Hillary Clinton freak out when the management of port facilities, which has been outsourced to foreign companies for years, with all security provided by the US military, goes to a company with ties to the UAE, screaming that doing so is “lessening national security”.

    — Chuckie Schumer and Hillary Clinton freak out when people advocate civilian patrols of the US’s southern border, a barrier covering thousands of miles through which literally thousands of people slip per day without ANY checks, credentials, or others required — and then insist that these individuals be automatically granted the rights of US citizens — calling it “racist”.

    My hypothesis: The UAE does not pay them, but Hispanic special-interest groups do.

    Furthermore, they know that most New Yorkers know little to nothing about port security — and think even less about the US’s southern border. THAT’S how they can use scare tactics over nothing up north while pandering to special-interest groups and money down south.

  39. Matt, #29, in defense of Bush I’ll ask whether it’s possible “Great British…” was the media’s fault. The MSM may have erred in capitalizing the word “great”. The president may have been complimentary toward a “great British” firm.

    After all, where I live we all say nuc-u-lar. 🙂

  40. First of all. I can’t stand Hillary Clinton , and can barely abide Chuck Shumer. But I woulldn’t use hyperbole when trying to make a logical argument against them. ‘”Freak out: screaming”. It dilutes your point.
    They are not alone in objecting to the port sales. You do realize that Frist is onboard don’t you? As well as the Governors of every port State.
    It seems ridiculous to use “racism” in either case to me. But particularly in the port sale. With the Muslim world declaring all out war on the west, why should we make ourselves more vulnerable by handing over valuable information to the enemy. I’m talking about Muslims. Is that racism? Islam is a religion. If they happen to be Arabs, tough shit.

    And you very wrong to assume that New Yorkers are unaware of what goes on in The Port of New York. You don’t live here. I do. And I swear to you, that this city is up to the minute on this topic.

  42. According to Rush (he’s not nearly as irritating in transcript, trust me) the port deal was handled and approved by the people in charce of handling and approving the port deal. Normally this would not involve the president at all. So this wasn’t his idea. It wasn’t politically motivated at all. The people incharge of approval made sure that all the requirements were met and approved the business transaction.

    That said… I think this is very like the Harriet Meyers thing and should suprise no one that Bush will stand behind it. It’s in his character. He does it again and again. Cheney? Rumsfield? It’s not in his character to go with popular opinion on anything. It’s his character to dig in and stand firm.

    Malkin, as much as I know people here like her, is a song with a melody line only, and it never changes. Lileks, who tends to be far more reflective about things, more of a close harmony guy, is talking about US public opinion… and I don’t think Bush cares about US public opinion. I honestly think he cares about our reputation in the world, with our allies and our enemies.

    And as I’ve explained in the past to all various sorts of anti-Bush types, reputation is *not* popularity. It doesn’t really matter if *anyone* likes us so long as we have a reputation to mean what we say and say what we mean and follow through reliably, faithfully. He *can’t* being saying out of one side of his mouth that no matter what noise the anti-war folk are making that we will stay the course in Iraq and expect to be believed if he allows congress to reverse a done deal with this port thing. He can’t say out one side of his mouth that we want Iraq and Afghanistan free and prosperous, equals in the world with any other free country, and stick up a big “NO ARABS NEED APPLY” sign at our border.

    This isn’t appeasment. It’s integrity. It means we can be trusted by our Allies and trusted by our *enemies*.

    Clinton was abysmal. We’d start stuff in a half-*ssed manner and not finish. If things went poorly our policy changed. Bush the first wasn’t a whole lot better. People in Iraq acted on what they believed he would do in Desert Storm and we just… left. Left them. I think that Dubya is painfully aware of that.

  43. I’ve got no idea about what type of ally UAE is but this much is true they are not managing Port Security. This f(x) has been and remains a US govt. responsibility. So unless someone in Customs, the Coast Guard or the numerous security gathering individuals falls down on the job, this is not a terrible deal. If we were so freaking afraid and concerned about security then we would not let foreign companies manage other ports in this country.

    And given that it is a known fact that I am not conservative, I will point out for the record this post is motivated by my pure capitalist MBA self. Don’t give a da*n about what it would mean to deny the deal because it is an arab country. What are we going to do sit around and start denying business to people who are 1/16th arab. please. only color I am concerned about is green.

  44. Because it feels immediately, instinctively wrong to nearly every American…

    First of all, I don’t think this is true. If the discussion here and elsewhere is any indication, there is a wide range of opinions on the port deal. Most of the honest debate is taking place on the right because on the left, the only question is “How can we use this port deal to slam Bush.”

    Second, it’s odd that those who oppose the port deal but support same-sex marriage would hang their hat on the visceral reaction of a majority of Americans.

  46. #47, “does ANYONE here live in one of these port cities?” Is that kind of like the chickenhawk thing without the cole slaw… eg, if we don’t live in one of the affected port cities –like you do, all-seeing-all-knowing one, we should just be quiet? That’s rich; but perfectly Left.

    And please, no froggie lessons as reply.

  47. born and reared in bmore, don’t live there now but all my family does, as well as a buttload of people that i would call more than associates. don’t know their thoughts, guess they are wide ranging. i personally don’t think this deal is bad for their safety. anthrax, beltway sniper, corner boys are more tangible threats to security.

  48. #38 GrampaGryph, “Of course, mult-national corps always look out for themselves, not a specific national interest. Any loyalties to the country its based in are secondary to the interests of its stockholders.”

    Some in America (like union pensioners) think that those corporations need to work better at protecting stockholder interests and insure accountability of corp leaders. Some in America think the ruse of the Left in moving corps toward good citizenship, socially responsible corp investing and the like is wasteful of stockholders’ investments and erodes competitiveness. Just think of all those corp concessions given to unions over the years to avoid expensive strikes?

    That spin works well in the DNC headquarters to whip up the anti-World Bank nutjobs, but like lots of investors I’d rather have corps act in the stockholders’ interests than cater to govt or national interests –like they do in Japan and Korea and Russia.

    But we do agree on one thing: it doesn’t much matter where the company is hd’qrted; I’d say if safeguards can be put in place (like in-country storage of company files), the deal is a Go.

  49. #43 Yes he said “Great British. But he was just “catapulting the propaganda”.

    #44 Malkin is “a song with a melody line only (actually I like that) but you qoute Rush?

    “According to Rush (he’s not nearly as irritating in transcript, trust me) the port deal was handled and approved by the people in charce of handling and approving the port deal”.

    Now there’s a statement which say NOTHING!
    http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN22395330

  50. First of all. I can’t stand Hillary Clinton , and can barely abide Chuck Shumer. But I woulldn’t use hyperbole when trying to make a logical argument against them. ‘”Freak out: screaming”. It dilutes your point.

    You’ve evidently not seen either of them in person.

    They are not alone in objecting to the port sales. You do realize that Frist is onboard don’t you? As well as the Governors of every port State.

    Amazing what happens during election years, isn’t it?

    And with Frist, you have to be kidding. The man’s gone off the deep end in pursuit of the Presidency; he’s trying to triangulate like Bill Clinton, but he doesn’t have anywhere near the ability.

  52. #51 What was I supposed to see int he Reuters article?

    Yes, yes, I know that paraphrasing Rush is a bit much. I find him beyond irritating for the most part but I was serious that in transcript he’s not so bad… it’s his voice or something. I *did* think it was interesting that he wasn’t blasting the port deal. Usually he’s big on border security, isn’t he? Well maybe not, I really don’t pay much attention to him.

    Anyhow, the Reuters thing… is it the part about it being Bush’s “administration” that approved the deal? The article doesn’t make any mention of what level that happened at. All Rush had said was that the office in charge of that sort of foreign purchase made the decision. (Actually he named the office specifically but I don’t remember what it was.)

    And I was thinking last night… Bush (or any president) has people traveling all over the world doing negotiations and every single time those people, from Condi on down, have to be able to look the local ruler in the eye and say that *yes* they have the athority to make the agreement they are making. The office that approved this did not overstep their authority, and even if Bush’s first reaction was “They did what!?” it’s going to undermine every single other negotiation happening on the planet if he doesn’t back up the decisions of the people entitled to make them.

    And I wonder, I really do, just how *immediate* this issue has been for him ever since he was elected and he had to start doing business in the world. How many leaders said, “We don’t trust you. America always changes its mind.” How hard was it, really, to convince anyone that they could trust the word of someone from our country?

    It could be Condi, it could be any Ambassador, a SEAL squad leader making a promise in remote north Pakistan, or anything. Each of those people know where their authority begins and ends and it’s utterly necessary that their decisions be upheld by those above them, just like they uphold the decisions made and orders passed down to them.

    This is a very “military” sort of leadership model… this top down loyalty. Usually people only think about bottom up loyalty. It’s one of the reasons that military people tend to trust Bush when a voiciferous segment of the “left” believes that they should despise and hate him. And I should say that it’s incredibly constraining for those on the top. They can lose the trust of those under them so easily.

    (And to take off on a tangent, it’s why those with military experience are apt to tear into Karpinski at any opportunity, refuse to call her by any rank at all, or admit she’s human. Failing to take responsibility for the actions of her people makes her pond scum. )

    This may seem the worst sort of PR mistake, but I think there are other worse mistakes that would be made by reversing it.

  54. More on the money

    DOBBS: President Bush’s family and members of the Bush administration have long-standing business connections with the United Arab Emirates, and those connections are raising new concerns and questions tonight in some quarters about why the president is defying his very own party leadership and his party in defending the Dubai port deal.

    CHRISTINE ROMANS: The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush’s father once served as senior adviser and is a who’s who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

    Another family connection, the president’s brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

    Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.

    In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. “I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers.”

    Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports’ European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.

  55. Someone better elect me president. I have no connections to *anybody*.

    I don’t know hank. Joking aside, how can us normal folks know when a connection actually means anything? I’m told that the reason people go to Harvard (or similar school, I’m sure) isn’t for the education but for the connections. A rather inevitable side affect of having lots of money is going to be having business connections. And among those people you know, are going to be people who can do jobs that you need done.

    It appears that the Dubai company has recogized expertise in the area of port management, it makes sense that there would be UAE nationals who have expertise in the area of port management. Here, again, maybe I should have the job?

    I think it’s really totally bizarre that we have our ports “owned” by people who aren’t US citizens and I won’t say it doesn’t bother me a bit but it seems to be, and to have been, standard practice for quite some time.

  56. Yes it has. And it’s always bothered me.
    How can the administration work so hard to make us fear the terrorists, “You’re either WITH us or AGAINST us”. And then turn around and try to make us swallow this?

    You would be a better President:)

    Rove said today that “oh yeah , maybe we will wait a little on this deal.” It boggles the mind.

  57. Really, Hank, quoting Kristin Breitweiser? The woman might as well have a sign around her neck, “Will Whore My Husband’s Death For Publicity”. She is the only person who can give Cindy Sheehan a run for her money in terms of sheer insane hatred of Bush and willingness to slut for any leftist organization.

    Moreover, if you read through her insane ravings, her hypocrisy is evident. She screams about how money was sent to terrorists “from the UAE”, as if that means the UAE somehow sponsored the 9/11 attackers. By that logic, since they did the bulk of their plotting in, lived in, and received money in Germany, THAT nation should be banned from any future dealings with the United States.

    Do you agree with that, Hank? Or is it only the UAE that should be held to these rules?

  59. NDXXX, since hank won’t reply, let me reply for him since he was stalking me for a date… I think I can appreciate his unique “voices”.

    The voices in hank’s head say, “The UAE-based terrorists showed their moral and cultural superiority by plotting in secret on German soil. Faterall, Germany is the 2nd center of all world cultures –right after France. (Insert French phrase here about cultural superiority)”

    hank continues, sensing some movement in the sleeping throngs, “The UAE-based terrorists of 9/11 should be prasied as Euro-centrists, not trashed as misguided freedom fighters in a Holy War. Besides, they were only reacting to the excesses of W, Bush 41 and RR –who are the real terrorists with their cultural and economic imperialism.”

    hank concludes in a dismissive tone, “If you can’t grasp the complexities of this issue, then you may no longer direct comments to me. (Insert French phrase here from Les Mis)”

    hank exits, stage Left –waaaaay Left. Sorry hank, the last line just fits so perfectly.

  61. And NDT. You and I have had some very cival and interesting conversations. I didn’t mean to dismiss you out of hand. It’s just that here in NYC we’re deluged with information on this sale. And it has become an emotional issue. There is real fear here. Perhaps unjustified, but real nevertheless.
    With less 5% of cargo vessels being inspected, and with the UAE able to do the hiring (yes the Coast Guard and Cusoms will remain US), there is genuine worry in the city. I apologize if I sounded dismissive. I didn’t mean for it to come out that way.