Freeper and neocon websites unable to put a spin on the UAE port takeover

[tjwash]

As a matter of fact Hannity and Limbaugh are not even trying.

Looks like the neo-cons, favorite right wing tools are being close mouthed on all of this insignificant “Bush administration defending the approval of a $6.8 billion sale that gives the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports” nonsense. Sure, if you want to read about how Rush is continuing to gush on what a great albeit, misunderstood guy that Dick Cheney is, or that permalinked article he has on how the ultra wealthy 1 percent in this country are still overtaxed, by all means head over there right now. I’ll wait. Same for Sean. If you want to hear about all Saddam all the time, or this chickenhawk little punk beating(off) his war drum for Iran now, head on over there.

Are you back? I went over there to see if they had any possible conserva-friendly spin about how Bush could possibly back letting a Theocratic Sheikdom with an awful human rights record take control of six of our ports. I won’t get into the canings, and beatings, and the human trafficking and modern day slavery trade that goes through the UAE. Oh, and this “spreading freedom across the middle east” bullshit that this administration loves to shove down our throats during every canned press conference, and photo-op? That’s funny. It seems that they are allowing OUR PORTS in OUR COUNTRY on OUR SHORES to be taken over by a country that has NO democratically elected institutions or political parties. As a matter of fact, traditional rule in the emirates generally has been patriarchal, with political allegiance defined in terms of loyalty to the tribal leaders.

So is this the face of our new America?

I know this may seem like a strange concept to a lot of neo-cons, but some of us here actually still GIVE a shit about our country. We actually think it’s a bad idea to approve a blatantly treasonous act like this, because your corporate masters care more about their own bank accounts then the fact that the United Arab Emirates, are one of the three Arab countries that officially recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

In case any lurking neo-cons reading this have forgot, the Taliban is associated with Al-Queda. Remember them? The ones that bombed the World Trade Center? Al Qaeda idiots! Not Iraq, not Iran, AL-FREAKIN QUEDA. Saudi Arabian and Egyptian nationals. Get it through your thick skulls.

But I digress. How does AL-Qaeda tie into the the United Arab Emirates? In several ways actually. As with everything on this planet, follow the trail of money. Or in this case: gold. Al Qaeda in the past has used diamonds purchased in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, tanzanite from Tanzania and other commodities to launder money and hide assets. But gold is playing a uniquely important role in the group's financial structure. "Gold is a huge factor in the moving of terrorist money because you can melt it, smelt it or deposit it on account with no questions asked," said a senior U.S. law enforcement official investigating gold transactions." Why move it through Dubai? Because there is a willful blindness there. Dubai, which one of seven sheikhdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates, has one of the world's largest and least regulated gold markets, making it an ideal place for Al-Qaeda to hide their assets.

Great idea. Hand over control of our ports to an Al-Qaeda money laundering dictatorship.

So my next question, how much more of this are we going to take? Or are we content to keep being distracted by Cheney's hunting accident?

[bluerum]

1. !

[KingFlorez]

2. Democrats better pound them with it

If they don't, they are stupid

[malaise]

35. I asked before

Are these companies owned by Bushco et al and just located overseas?

[incapsulated]

42. If they can't capitalize on gifts falling into their lap, I give up

I couldn't imagine even BushCo. doing something so stupid that completely undercuts their "National Security" bullshit.

This should be on every Democrats lips from now to Novemeber.

[Nothing Without Hope]

45. Hellary has been calculating and sees this as an opportunity to score

some points - but I don't care WHO it is, I'm glad to see some resistance to this treasonous deal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x452192
thread title (2-17-06 GD): Excellent! "Democrats plan bill to block Dubai-US port deal"
Comment/excerpt: Reuters: “Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.” Hillary is calculating that the GOPs and Dems will like this position and it will boost her presidential chances, but I wouldn’t care WHO was calling for sanity in this.

[bvar22]

50. If they don't....

...they are part of it!

[Darknyte7]

3. Nice post

[Earth_First]

4. I sent an email to my father concerning this...

I have yet to recieve a response.

Funny how everything in this "post 9/11" world is still for sale, security be damned!

[tjwash]

15. And this is giving control of the ports to the very people that...

...launder money for the Taliban.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Sure why not?

I feel safer now. :sarcasm:

[myrna minx]

5. This is such an outrage. n/t

[wakeme2008]

6. Good news/ Bad news for the Freepers

First the Good News. UAE will bust all those silly unions working at the ports.

Second the Bad News. Bush will give as many Guest Worker permits for third world workers to come in and work the ports


:grr:

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. THIS is the story the MSM should focus on...not Elmer Fudd. K&R

[tjwash]

17. Page fucking 6 of the U-T this morning (San DIego's fishwrap)

Elmer was front and center page 1.

Pisses me off.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

22. Unfreakin' believable...

:banghead:

[Burning Water]

8. I think they are

appalled. This was a major mistake by the Bush administration.

But it won't hurt them. They'll hold firm for a while, then reverse course. Who remembers old Harriet whatsername now?? Once they've flexed their muscle and gotten their way, the base is ready to forgive and forget, because after all they got their way.

[zanne]

9. I like your style, tjwash.

That was a thorough, analytical assessment of the situation, yet still smartass enough for me to understand it. I especially liked AL-FREAKIN QUEDA. I think this is another Harriet Myers story. Bush will HAVE to change his mind about it. His base will revolt if he doesn't.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. They're going to keep ignoring it

This will only make this worse for them I think. Even the freepers are upset about this (as they should be).

[tjwash]

13. Not as many as you would think.

A lot of the freeps actually think that handing over the control of our ports over to the UAE is good simply because B* has ordered them to think it.

It is absolutely sad and sickening.

[mwb970]

64. It's hard to believe even Freepers will support this insanity.

Let me see if I've got this straight. First, Bush does nothing to protect the ports after 9/11. Then he allows the responsibility for keeping the ports safe to be given to a foreign company from an Arab Muslim nation with ties to the Taliban and the 9/11 hijackers.

On the face of it, it sounds like treason. I would like to hear a Freeper/Bushbot defense of this move.

[Initech]

11. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Dubai = tax free

Of course the fact that there's no taxes to pay in Dubai means that our government wont be able to follow the money trail. Dont you guys realize the main motive behind this?

Our government gets almost $7 BILLION in tax free income. From companies that actively support our enemy.

This fact is some seriously scary shit.

[AntiFascist]

38. Look at what's happening to the U.S. we are becomming our trading...

partners. Most of us will end up like we are working in "communist" China, while 1% (or less) will make out like Arab sheiks.

[Julius Civitatus]

12. If only it had been Clinton...

imagine the screams. Imagine the calls for insurrection. Militias organized everywhere. Wingnuts calls to arms.

But it's their boy, so it's OK if they sell the security of our ports to a country suspected of supporting terrorism.

As my friend would say these idiots would fuck up a cup of coffee.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Who is willing to call in to a rw hate show

and ask about this? You'll have to tell the screeners you want to talk about something else, I'm sure, or you won't get on at all.

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. Bush is a Uniter afterall!!!

Not what we had in mind, but still....

[The_Farouk]

18. Problem with this....

The real issue that Dems and progressives should talk about is outsourcing the control of our ports. Instead it looks like its the "who" thats the problem, not why. The UAE is just as capable as any other country in taking on this project and I can guarantee that they would not allow any funny business to take place. They are really careful when it comes to protecting there profits.

To me this is being spun into its the "evil arabs" want to do business here.

As far as launder money, im sorry to burst teh bubble but many US Banks and Corps have indirectly laundered money for drug kingpins and terrorist, as well as, looked the other way on shady deals. Im not saying this is right, but lets be cautious when we jump all over the UAE.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Norquist Nemesis]

21. Not bursting any of my bubbles here

and really, I'm not jumping all over the UAE either. I was merely pointing out that the two other networks have been covering this for the last two days.

I don't agree with the "evil arabs" perception you refer to. I think there would be the same reaction if it were France, China, or Japan. JMHO. The people I've heard talk about this are focusing on the outsourcing of our jobs and national security.

[The_Farouk]

23. I hear you....

I just see that spin in some of the Media reports.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. So why wasn't anyone worried when a British company owned these ports?

Sorry, the objections here are because it's the UAE. These port facilities were mostly bought by P & O during Clinton's presidency.

[tjwash]

51. Um, because Britain didn't have ties to Al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attacks?

Yeah I know that's not really a fair statement, after all because the UAE has since said that they are sorry, and that they really REALLY promise to support us in the war on terror, and since they promised, it has to be true, and if I don't snap to and believe them unwaveringly, I'm probably a racist. :eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. which is the point I was making

that people here are complaining precisely because it's the UAE. Post #21 said the reaction wouldn't be any different if it was France, China or Japan.

Now personally, I do think DU is getting worried over nothing, and there have been some racist reactions, such as "why didn't we make tolietbowl countries like them into parking lots on Sept. 12th, 2001?" - see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x405756 . 'Ties' consists of money being laundered through the country - you can also point out that the USA had 'ties' to 9/11, because the pilots trained in the USA.

[tjwash]

56. They also actively interfered with our hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

And then under intense pressure from the rest of the world, (when the rest of the world was actually behind us that is), bowed to international pressure, and decided to "support us on the WOT" afterwards.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. OK, I've never heard that before (n/t)

[FatDave]

69. Because we had no idea?

I didn't anyway. First mention I heard of our ports being run by any foreign entity was when the UAE story broke. Had I known the Brits were controlling our ports, I would have spoken against that as well.

[tjwash]

24. We have been doing business with the middle east for some time now...

...it's about this administration standing behind the selling out from under our feet of our country, piece by piece. It started out WAY before this in the early 80's under Reagan, specifically when he vetoed a bill in 1982 that would have made public every foreign transaction to American domestic businesses. He did this to sweep under the rug how much of this country was being sold out from under our feet.

One of the Bush Family's biggest business partners besides the Saudis? Kuwait which has the worst human rights record in the middle east. Kuwait, who was laterally drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and refused to cut Iraq a break on a debt they incurred defending them from Iran in the 80's. Kuwait that coincidentally has 80 billion in US treasury bonds, and a hundred billion invested in the US stock market.

And people wondered why the original invasion of Iraq in the 80's by Bush Sr. happened in the first place.

And yes, I take offense to a country that has NO democratically elected leaders like the UAE potentially telling us how we can run our ports. I would feel the exact same way if China, or Russia, was in this potential position.

[Virginian]

33. They have been bringing in H-1b for Homeland Security.

There is no secret about what Coast Guard assets are assigned to which units that guard the ports, so the potential enemy knows exactly what they are up against.

The Coast Guard is so secure about putting levels of passwords in place for the Coast Guard employees, but they bring in H-1b contract programmers with access to the back door. These H-1b workers can determine with a simple query, how many Coast Guard cutters or small boats are in proximity to a port. They can determine where the weaknesses are.

The fact that this is not a job requiring a security clearance is what makes me believe Homeland Security is a farce. Either there is no threat to our Ports or our government just doesn't care.

[AntiFascist]

39. So, in other words...

money laundering is already a big problem in the U.S., why not let big business profit from it?

[tjwash]

41. Sounds along the same lines of...

..."rich people find a way to get out of paying their taxes anyway, so why tax them in the first place?"

[mwb970]

65. I'm not sure I agree.

The UAE is just as capable as any other country in taking on this project and I can guarantee that they would not allow any funny business to take place.

This seems naive to me. Couldn't terrorist sympathizers infiltrate the company without the management - or the Dubai government - being aware? Why take the chance?

[emulatorloo]

19. kicking and sending this baby to the greatest page EOM

[Zenlitened]

20. K & R. Excellent post.

Give the right-wing sycophants some time, though, and I'm sure they'll come up with a way to explain why this is all just fine-and-dandy. Just business as usual, the-way-the-world-works, et cetera et cetera.

It's a sickness they have, some sort of appalling, demented disease. They will happily scarf down whatever garbage their party elites throw at them... then brag about how they just ate some delicious garbage. :crazy:

[jimshoes]

59. In the end it would be kind of like bragging

that you're on the right side of the Titanic rather than the left side of the Titanic. They just can't see the big picture yet.

[KharmaTrain]

25. CNN Just Had Schummer & Colburn On

My head almost exploded seeing those two on the same side...and both looked pissed.

The sad deal is...this regime knows it holds all the strings and can do as it pleases and will even fuck over its own base if it means paying off political debts and making money.

Just watch...Rushbo and Hannity smell the winds and pretend they were against this thing all along. In the meantime nothing will be done...this too shall be swept under the rug. The freepers will lose interest and find another outrage (Rove's good at whipping them up with distractions) and the dirty deal will be done.

Now how well will those sheiks get along with the Jersey longshoremen??

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Seems nuts to me

and seems like the RW would just rather DIE. What's up?

[MoonRiver]

27. Lou Dobbs will keep the issue front and center.

I have some issues with Lou, but when he chomps down on a topic he just doesn't let go. :D

[tjwash]

29. I have to admit, he hammers the whole outsourcing issue pretty well.

I actually read his book, "Exporting America," and it's a decent read.

[MoonRiver]

31. I've been wondering about his book.

Thanks for the recommendation. I think I'll read it.

[canichelouis]

30. Rick Santorum was just on the radio

working crowd control, I guess. He came on a right radio show here in Pittsburgh, where callers were outraged. One did scream something about 'Where are the Dems, Hillary and Reid, Nowhere!'

Santorum is getting out front and center, reassuring the crowd that, Not Bush, but his administration got this a little wrong, and it will probably be fixed.

The Dems should get on top and ride this baby.

[tjwash]

32. Screw Santorum, Where are the Dems someone asked?

The dems are trying to block this mess, so they are a little busy right now.

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. They are trying too do just that.

"The Dems should get on top and ride this baby."

[tjwash]

37. I'm getting the feeling that the spin from Rove and the Neo-Cons...

...is going to be hammering the Democrats as racists, and xenophobes, for not allowing this to happen. The same thing they did with the Jeff Gannon issue. Remember how we were all homophobic, and hated gay people all of a sudden?

That's why the Dem's need to jump on this, and keep the repugs on the defensive about "why are you selling our country out from underneath us?" We can't let them get us in the position of having to prove we are not what they are alleging, and taking our eye off the ball in order to do so.

And of course they will probably try and blame Clinton as well...

[The_Farouk]

40. Focus

Dems to focus that this is about American jobs and not that its an Arab country.

[tjwash]

54. It has nothing to do with racism...

...and everything to do with the fact that The FBI tied the UAE has to Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. They also actively interfered with our hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It makes no difference what ethnicity they are.

After all of that, just because they promised to support us in the war on terror, we are just automatically supposed to say no problem, here's the keys to our ports?:wtf:

And if I take exception, and point out any of that I am automatically "arab-bashing" and a racist? If the ports were already owned by a foreign government with ties to terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and we objected to it then, it could be racism.

If it's not currently owned by a foreign government that is very much like the UAE is now, then racism is a red herring issue, meant only to push that hot button and detract from the real issue.

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. Here's a thread on the WH defense of the deal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2113537
thread title (2-16-06 LBN): White House Defends Port Operations Sale
Comment/excerpt: Yahoo News/AP. “The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports. Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal. The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was ‘rigorously reviewed’ by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said….”

[wordpix]

43. who the HELL is on Treasury committee that "rigorously reviewed" the sale?

These 12 people should be investigated. Who are they, BushCo board members?

snip:

The administration defended its decision. The sale was “rigorously reviewed” by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, said National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones.

The Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States received an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. Excellent post - essential background info. RELATED THREADS - LINKS:

on this treasonous deal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2454971
thread title (2-12-06 GD-P): 911 Bankers to Run SIX Major U.S. Ports—Dubai(UAE). IMPEACH NOW!!!
Comment/excerpt: “Six ports will be run and protected by a Dubai based port management company (DP World): New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The deal was approved by a “U.S. government panel coordinated out of the White House. Just prior to the deal, David C. Sanborn of Virginia was appointed as administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.…. A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.“

Even the freepers are upset about this outrage:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x446111
thread title (2-16-06 GD): Freepers JUST AS MAD About the Port Control Issue... Common Ground?
Comment/excerpt: Free Republic posts expressing concern/outrage over Dubai operating 6 major US ports.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2113537
thread title (2-16-06 LBN): White House Defends Port Operations Sale
Comment/excerpt: Yahoo News/AP. “The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports. Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal. The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was ‘rigorously reviewed’ by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said….”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x452192
thread title (2-17-06 GD): Excellent! "Democrats plan bill to block Dubai-US port deal"
Comment/excerpt: Reuters: “Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.” Hillary is calculating that the GOPs and Dems will like this position and it will boost her presidential chances, but I wouldn’t care WHO was calling for sanity in this.

[wordpix]

47. "secretive gov't panel" gave approval of sale-Treas, DHS, DOJ, DOD, DOC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021101112.html

snip:

DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement.

The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

[wordpix]

48. K&R---this is HUGE---what a bunch of traitors & money-grubbers

[McCamy Taylor]

49. WTF! WH is making me agree with Santorum on an issue!

[rodeodance]

52. Dou Dobbs was frantic tonight about this issue.

[Mnemosyne]

55. Stewart Baker, any relation to James Baker III, I wonder?

an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060217-0146-portsecurity.html
snip>
The Treasury Department's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States received an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.

“We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports,” Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told the AP. “It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted.”

[w8liftinglady]

61. No-he is an expect on electronic surveillance

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stewart_A._Baker

quote:
Civil Liberties vs War on Terrorism
"But some intelligence experts say that in a changed world, the game is already up for those who would value civil liberties over the war on terrorism. 'It's the end of a nice, comfortable set of assumptions that allowed us to keep ourselves protected from some kinds of intrusions,'" Baker was quoted (http://elvis.rowan.edu/~hartley/Courses/ArticlesComputersSociety/2002/10PRIV.html) as saying in the December 10, 2002, New York Times.

[Mnemosyne]

62. Thanks lady! Anytime I hear the name Baker

just gotta' wonder anymore!:hi:

Hope Ben is well!:hug:

[annabanana]

63. (a fair supposition, as incestuous as this group is. . . eom)

[Mnemosyne]

67. Truth. n/t

[Coexist]

58. kick

[Disturbed]

60. Who owns America?

I don't know but I am going to do some research on it. Allowing UAE control 6 ports is insane. The Bush Regime is Anti-American and needs to be Impeached. I mean every one of them from Bush, Cheney on down!

[tjwash]

66. We used to...

...but soccer mom and nascar dad, gave control to the "smaller government" conservatives. They all wanted to feel safer from terrorists, and wanted to keep the dictatorial non democratic regimes from, oh, wait, that's who's buying the port now...:eyes:

[JCMach1]

68. The UAE is not a dictatorship

It is a federal entity composed of former tribal monarchies. It is important to note that in 1974 when the UAE became independent, it was a TRIBAL society. It has moved forward quickly since then under Sheikh Zayed.

Since his death, the push towards Democracy has begun in earnest.

THE UAE held its first local elections last year (local councils) with women and men voting for the first time. Did I mention that women were elected? The steady push towards Democracy will continue with the forward looking policy to be released by this summer. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/01/uae.elections/

One of the key difficulties is how to have a democracy when 75% of your population are NOT citizens, they are expats. How can you have a real democracy unless they are accounted for in some way?

Prisons and executions... We have them... But guess who has more population and executions per capita>? It's not the UAE...

Does the UAE have problems? OF course... exploitation of workers is a huge one... Many people are pushing for unions to get the greenlight here.

Sorry my friends, but sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar and a business deal a business deal...

[ComerPerro]

70. Here's your spin: Its everyones fault

That will be the spin.

They will say it was bi-partisan.