Let's get rid of the dead weight or irrelevant or wrong "facts" Port Redux

[lostexpectation]

democrats follow the monkies too

Do I think that Dubai, its royal family and Dubai Ports World are some kind of angelic creation capable of doing no wrong? Absolutely not. But I've yet to see one iota of proof that having Dubai Ports World manage terminals around the world has caused any harm whatsoever to those countries' security.

If you want to use their previous actions/associations against them to prevent them from doing any business in the USA, then just stand up and say so but don't make out like the management of some ports is somehow radically different than owning a big share of Daimler-Chrysler.

http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-02-23/Port+Redux.html#69256

[Libby2]

1. Have you seen any proof that they haven't caused harm? nt

[PBass]

2. Uh pardon me

Is the right wing expecting the public to make a "nuanced" interpretation of the port issue?

Don't you know how FRENCH that is?

:sarcasm:

[aquart]

3. The argument is irrelevant.

1. What they have DONE is not the problem. It is the potential for huge harm as the situation changes internationally.

2. There should be no foreign management of American ports. Period.

3. This is not a private corporation, which would be bad enough, this is a STATE RUN corporation. Why is another nation running our ports of entry? It is an outrage. That's the fact you need.

[ingac70]

4. This is more than enough for me.....

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/are-summary-eng

I'm hoping this is an opportuntiy to nationalize our ports. Other NATIONAL companies should NOT be running them, no matter who they are.

[Minnesota Libra]

5. There is good news and bad news.......

.....so we will go for the good news first. You are right that nothing catastrophic has happened yet from outsourcing the jobs at our sea ports to Dubai Ports.

On the other hand, there is always what could happen. I'm of the opinion that "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure". Anyone with any gray matter at all figured out right away that Bush didn't "draw a line in the sand" so to speak for no reason. He wanted/wants this deal bad but the obvious question is why? Why this and not any number of other potential "fairness" issues?

Here, read on..........

This David Sirota piece really nails what is behind this Port-gate story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/truth-about-uae-port-secu_b_16133.html
The more you read about the UAE port security scandal, the more it becomes patently obvious this is about far more than just one deal with one company or one country. The harsh reaction from the Bush administration to the proposal to rescind the deal should be a red flag. This administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled administration in recent history, meaning its reactions are usually tied directly to the reactions of Corporate America. And the fact that the White House is ignoring its own security experts and reacting so negatively to Congress’s opposition to the deal means this cuts to the much deeper issue of global trade policy – an issue that trumps all others for Big Money interests, even post-9/11 security.


Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html

[blm]

6. It's the global fascism. It doesn't help that UAE was 77% owner of BCCI -

the grand-daddy of all terror banks.

[lostexpectation]

7. yes

its about money not nationality

[blm]

11. Get real - it's about LAUNDERED money from drug and arms dealing.

You think Poppy Bush woke up one day and decided to stop running drugs and arms? Nope. They just figured out a way to do it in an institutionalized way - they just thought they had built up enough control on the media to get away with it. The media still might be the ones to pull the deal through - Russert sure is trying to push it through for them.

[Toucano]

13. C'mon! Stop crimping the CIA's slush funds!

Just how to you expect them to fund their illegal wars? By selling arms to terrorists or something?

UAE = CIA bank.

[mac56]

8. Um..okay...

I want to use their previous actions/associations against them to prevent them from doing any business in the USA.

And the management of ports IS radically different than owning a big share of Daimler-Chrysler.

[annabanana]

9. no different than owning a share of Daimler-Chrysler?

If you own a share, you are not involved in day to day operations..
A port operator IS the day to day operator. It could not be any MORE different.

[fasttense]

10. So Dubai Ports world operations of ports around the world has

not caused any harm? I'm not so sure the Unions would agree with weblog. But aside from stealing Country specific jobs, do we know for a fact that these ports have not been used to smuggle drugs and terrorists? I mean considering how lax the US government is about looking into this deal, do they know for certain, have they even investigated? True bombs as yet have not exploded at seaports but have they been used to move terrorists equipment and supplies? What proof do we have?

"If you want to use their previous actions/associations against them to prevent them from doing any business in the USA, then just stand up and say so."

Ok. I'm standing up and saying so. The UAE has been supporting and assisting terrorists around the world. If they get unhindered access to our country what's to stop them from using our ports to assist terrorists? Certainly the "secret agreement" doesn't have any specifics about terrorist support. The agreement also has no ramifications if they did support terrorists through our ports.

[90-percent]

12. Presidential Daily Breifings

Does anybody know if there's a stack of about 60 or 70 PDB's on GWB's desk that have the title:

Dubai determined to buy ports in the United States so they can strike the US with home grown terrorist attacks.

I hope they don't consider it merely "historical reference material" this time around!

-85% jimmy

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

14. Strawman: "prevent them from doing anny business in the USA".

No one has suggested preventing Dubai from doing any business in the USA - just from controlling a significant national security risk.

[spanone]

15. Like your president says, they only have to be right once.