You know what this actually tells us? (the ports thing)

[Plaid Adder]

We're all eating, sleeping, and breathing the War On Terror and they're not even thinking about it.

I was just explaining in another thread why I don't by the theory that this is just a setup for giving the deal to Halliburton. First of all, Halliburton can get what it wants from this crowd without going through all this rigamarole; second, if what they wanted to do was take the deal away from Dubai Ports World and give it to Halliburton, the way to do that would have been to refuse to approve the sale and make a big stink about how they had bravely stood up to protect our national security, etc. etc.

I subscribe to the theory that it never once occurred to any of them that it would become a problem. They know Americans don't care about economic stories. International companies buy each other all the time and nobody gives a shit. And most Americans, as we are all discovering, know very little about how things work at these big city ports (myself included). They looked at this as a routine business deal like a billion others they've done, and they approved it and sent it on its merry way.

They thought this would be a financial story. They did not expect it to become a national security story--which is of course the only way that it coudl possibly have interested the vast majority of the American public.

Which tells you that they don't actually see what the problem is. Or that they didn't, until someone screamed at them to point it out. And that's because they are just not thinking about how to protect America from a terrorist attack. It's just not part of their decision making framework. They don't actually think about the WOT except as a pretext to mobilize through the media at strategic points in the election cycle.

This just finally hit me: the political stupidity of this move is based in the fact that fundamentally they don't think that the war on terror is real. They don't get it that their base actually does. They actually did not see this as a potential problem for them because they are not thinking like people who are actually concerned about national security. And I guess it didn't occur to them that their base might take offense at something when they hadn't been explicitly told to.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity,

The Plaid Adder

[spuddonna]

1. You read my mind... And you articulated it much better, thanks...

I posted this earlier in another thread:"This is so incredibly insane. There is no way they can spin this. I just can't see how it is possible. The criminals in this admin. thought that this deal would slide through unnoticed. They were counting on the American public NOT knowing about this, like so many other schemes they've pulled off. But this time, they got caught..."

[babylonsister]

2. I totally agree, PA. They thought everyone would walk in lockstep,

or ignore the whole fiasco. The backlash was never anticipated. They're just plain stupid and lining their pockets is of paramount importance.

[Cobalt Violet]

3. They aren't thinking about it is right.

I think Katrina showed us that they don't care and are not prepared for a terrorist attack. It's sink or swim.

[WillyT]

4. Aw C'Mon Plaid... I LOVE The Malice Angle !!!

:hi::evilgrin::hi:

[central scrutinizer]

60. Malign neglect

is my catchphrase for this maladministration

[ThomCat]

5. Yes.

I don't think this administration has ever really cared about the safety of the American people, because to them, the vast majority of us are just rabble.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I hadn't thought of this before,

but it makes perfect sense to me. Of course they know the war on terror is phoney-if they believed in it, FEMA would have rescued 99% of the folks from New Orleans, our ground transportation system, our nuclear and chemical plants, etc, would have fully funded plans as to what to do in case of a terror attack. This leads me to think more than ever that 911 was MIHOP-because that and that alone would explain why they don't really think there is a terror threat.

[bobbieinok]

65. agree....they KNOW there is no 'war on terror' except as a propaganda

ploy to solidify their power so that they can steal everything......they do it in plain site but the base isn't watching; it's only watching 'terra, terra' 24/7

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I think you have it right. I'm still not convinced it is

a major national security issue.

In fact, because I don't belive our Gov is telling us the truth about a whole lot of 9/11, I've never been very concerned about terrorism in any context.

However, I believe much of the country is worried sick about terrorists. As such, this port deal makes no sense to Joe Blow.

[KittyWampus]

8. It's not a set up f/ Halliburton because Dubai got Britian's ports already

with nary a peep.

They definately thought this would go without a hitch.

And they need UAE as a staging ground for Iran... and the ports deal was
part of Dubai's quid pro quo.

Rumsfeld KNEW about this deal. WHERE ARE THE WAR PLANS FOR INVADING IRAN? They exist. White hats have knowledge of them.

[AntiFascist]

39. I never associated this deal with the War on Iran....

but this sort of makes sense. They've mentioned on CNN how important UAE ports are to the Navy. Also, UAE has allowed WMDs and nuclear components to be transshipped to Iran, now we may be going to war with Iran for WMD reasons. Our right-wing Muslim Brotherhood "allies in crime" have arranged for this power grab to prevent Euro/Chinese/Russian interests from gaining control of more oil resources.

[leftstreet]

9. UAE has "vast quantities of oil cash"

They've been on a shopping spree for some time now. And no one has raised the "terra" flag. Interesting that the Ports contract is the one the corporate media are letting us talk about.

some snips

http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060216:MTFH70989_2006-02-16_22-45-22_L16210059&symbol=TWX.N

* March 2005 - Tussauds Group, owner of the famous waxwork museums, is sold for 800 million pounds to a private equity firm owned by the government of Dubai.

* August 2005 - Dubai's Dubal, owner and operator of the largest aluminium smelter in the Western world, says it will take a 25 percent stake in Canada's Global Alumina Corp.

* October 2005 - Dubai investment house Istithmar PJSC says it has acquired London office building One Trafalgar Square for 155 million pounds.

* November 2005 - Istithmar says it has bought New York property 230 Park Avenue for $705 million.

* November 2005 - Dubai-owned Tussauds Group says it is buying British Airways Plc's stake in the London Eye to give it majority control of the city's most popular tourist attraction.

* November 2005 - Dubai Ports World agrees to pay 3.3 billion pounds in cash for P&O, the 165-year-old British maritime icon, to create the world's third-largest ports company.

* January 2006 - Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Colony Capital agree to pay $3.9 billion for Canada's Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc (FHR.TO: Quote, Profile, Research), trumping an offer by billionaire investor Carl Icahn.

[holboz]

47. The London Eye!

My husband is English and he was well pissed off when I shared that bit of news with him.

So why is Dubai buying UK tourist attractions?

[EuroObserver]

61. Middle-East oil money

has been investing in prime central-London property for years now. Though I hear the smart rich Islamic investors are looking mostly at EastAsia, rather than EurAsia or Oceania, these days.

Me, I'm not so worried about the money (that by its nature has to flow), more about who may be pulling the strings behind it.

[holboz]

48. They're also DaimilerChrysler's third largest share holder

According to the article mentioned,

January 2005 - The government of Dubai buys a $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler AG (DCXGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), becoming the auto maker's third-largest shareholder. The purchase was made through the government's Dubai Holding company.

[IronLionZion]

54. The oil won't last forever (think Syriana)

They are going to need something to sustain them as their oil is gradually depleted. Economists often say that oil is the greatest natural resource known to man. I disagree, I think innovation is. These oil countries would do well to find something, tourism, investments, whatever to replace oil. The oil gave them the capital to do such deeds.

Emiratis don't work. About half their population are poor foreigners with darker skin who do all their manual labor for them.

I suspected it might be any generic arab country, but everyday I am more convinced that Syriana is about the UAE.

[leftstreet]

69. Yep, that's why they're creating a Dubai World for the wealthy

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/07/sinister_paradise.html

Precisely because Dubai is rapidly pumping the last of its own modest endowment of oil, it has opted to become the postmodern "city of nets" -- as Bertolt Brecht called his fictional boomtown of Mahoganny -- where the super-profits of oil are to be reinvested in Arabia's one truly inexhaustible natural resource: sand. (Indeed mega-projects in Dubai are usually measured by volumes of sand moved: 1 billion cubic feet in the case of The World.)

Al-Qaeda and the war on terrorism deserve some of the credit for this boom. Since 9/11, many Middle Eastern investors, fearing possible lawsuits or sanctions, have pulled up stakes in the West. According Salman bin Dasmal of Dubai Holdings, the Saudis alone have repatriated one-third of their trillion-dollar overseas portfolio. The sheikhs are bringing it back home, and last year, the Saudis were believed to have ploughed at least $7 billion into Dubai's sand castles.

[NanceGreggs]

10. I think you've just hit the proverbial nail ...

... squarely on the head, Plaid Adder!

Had they thought they were going to get the reaction this got from their own base, they would have been much more cagey about the PR leading up to it -- the old 'softening of the blow' with some carefully worded pre-announcement crapola over a matter of many months.

Of course, it makes me smile to think how their respective heads must have exploded when the Freeper community et al started screaming bloody murder!

Great piece of writing - succint and dead-on!

[DinahMoeHum]

11. Yep, "never attribute to malice. . ." or conspiracy. . .

something that can adequately be explained by stupidity.

:evilfrown:

[seabeyond]

12. i watched this from another thread. neocons lying in 80's exactly

how they did with the middle east. it is an hour. good to watch. really good

Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/6kya9
"Baby It's Cold Outside"
Description: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

[upi402]

13. they forgot to hide that they don't care, and the base REALLY does

BushCo has been bit on the ass by complacency.

[joeunderdog]

25. I think they underestimated the backlash.

This is some serious damage to him politically. The mantra of National Security had the lemmings following in lock step.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=492884&mesg_id=492884

[moc]

14. Brilliant. I completely agree.

K&R

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

15. I always appreciate your succinct and insightful posts. K&R.

:toast:

[TahitiNut]

16. The WoT has always been a pretext.

First and foremost, these people are global corporatists. Governments around the world exist SOLELY to create and enforce the economic entitlements of global corporatism. The WoT is nothing but a handy pretext for usurpation of vast executive powers and fleece the public to pay for the global security forces without which the necessary coercion that enforces an entitlement couldn't exist. The problem with explaining this is that the very terminology has become banal. Entitlement. How many people really comprehend this term? Most think of it as welfare of social security. While technically true, it's nowhere nearly as significant as the title to stock, title to property, title to natural resources, and the titles, licenses, and contracts to operate in a limited liability capacity. A global corporate conglomerate is nothing but a vast web of entitlements - including an economic system whereby more than 2/3rds of the wealth created by labor is pocketed by wealthy owners (i.e. the entitled).

The Dubai Ports deal has nothing to do with "the people" in the minds of the corporatists. It's business, not personal.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Thanks for stealing my post!

:toast:

Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.
Internalize profits. Externalize cost.


It's business. Not personal. Except it's very personal.

[TahitiNut]

36. Ubetcha.

I can almost see people's eyes glaze over when this (pinko-commie-crapola) is described. All the terminology is so banal and so many people (including me) have been seduced by the comfy, exciting, prestigious corporate life that it literally takes digging down to some long-held assumptions and examining some of our false beliefs. The most pervasive false belief is that "the system may not be fair, but what is?" We can hold this belief while we drive our Volvo along avenues littered with homeless and impoverished - comforted that our ox wasn't (yet) gored.

Now I begin to realize what it means to ... comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

A basic fact of modern life: there is no limit, either legal or systemic, to the portion of the wealth a worker creates that can be 'legally' collected by the owner for which (s)he slaves. None.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

God, I love feudalism!

[bobbieinok]

67. 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable' is a conclusion drawn

from the NT (and maybe the OT)

for example

http://www.catholicexchange.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=3538&sec_id=5

....

It has been observed that Christ came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Our tendency is to comfort the comfortable (as any tyrant surrounded by sycophants bears witness) and afflict the afflicted (as Job's friends did). Part of this is due to our inveterate itch to play the prophet and claim to "know" that this blessing is a sign of God's favor and that trial is a sign of his disfavor. But, of course, we are not prophets and usually have no more idea what events mean than does Paddy's Pig.

more....

[stevietheman]

56. I prefer the term "global locusts". n/t

n/t

[Rex]

17. It all boils down to the bottom line - money money money.

Maybe the BFEE feels it is time to cast aside the illusion of who they work for.

[WiseButAngrySara]

18. I agree. Rove's Machiavellian tactics on the largely invented WOT

relied on "Fear Never Fails" (to quote Machiavelli)...They, being the creators of this fear, forgot about it.

[rman]

21. One doesn't get to be Machiavellian by way of stupidity

I think they full well "get it" that 'we' (or most of us) think the war on terror is real. And indeed they act as though it isn't real - because they know it isn't. It's what Machiavellians/Straussians do: manufacture enemies and deceive the people.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. Exactly. It's enough to drive sane people mad...certainly to try their

souls. Oddly, I think it was Machiavelli who stated that you can tell the corruption of society/government most clearly when words change their meaning. (Maybe it was another political philosopher...it's been a while since I read it, and didn't understand it until recently) Let's try just a few words that have so lost their meanings under this maladministration...there's one of them...administration. Freedom. Truth. Christianity. Moral Values. Democracy. Uniters.

I'm slightly brain dead at the moment, but under normal circumstances I'd be able to come up with a better list of "double-speak" examples.

[northzax]

19. of course, on the flip side

there is the possibility that this really isn't that big of a deal, and that's why no one cares.

The reason I think it really isn't, besides my knowledge of port operations and contracting in general, is that this is an insanely stupid thing to do politically,so I think no one thought about the domestic poltical implications in a fairly meaningless deal.

[bonito]

20. LOL

We're all eating, sleeping, and breathing the War On Terror and they're not even thinking about it.
Now how about those cold war negotiations.

[Gregorian]

23. Which is also why I believe when Bush is gone,

so will the mess we are in. Including verifiable election methods, reasonable economic planning, along with a lot of other things that we can actually thank the Bush administration for making us aware of. Really, this mess might actually be some sort of blessing in disguise. And this is coming from a big pessimist.
But yes, all along I knew terrorism meant nothing to this gang of criminals. After all, they ARE the terrorists.

[president4aday]

24. The "War On Terror" is for useful idiots.

It's architects don't seriously believe in the Arab-Islamic-UAE-global-what-have-you terror threat.

Even in 2001, you were 5 times more likely to be offed by a god fearin' american motorist than an islamic 9/11 hijacker.

The W O T enthusiasts are not unaware of this, which is why for all their "Remember 9/11" bullshit, bin Laden is still at large. If bin Laden's out of business, they'll need to promote a new hobgoblin to keep "their U I base" frightened, gullible, voting republican, and killing people with a) oil and b) who don't do as we like. The UAE allows US troops and oil company's on their territory. The UAE does as we like and, of course, bin Laden has no oil. Saddam and Iraq meet both criteria.

It's the malice, stupid.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. "5 times more likely?" Its worse that that.

US Auto deaths 2001: 42,196
US Terrorist deaths 2001: ~3000.

In 2001 it was more like 14x more likely you would be killed by or in a car. And 2001 was a banner year for terrorist deaths. Since then its been zero/year. Currently your chances of getting killed in a car are approximately infinitely greater than your chance of getting killed by al qaeda.

But then again, if the administration doesn't take the WOT seriously, as it appears it doesn't, then the logical conclusion is that the WOT is bullshit and they know it. Where does that leave 9-11?

[Catrina]

64. Thanks for the statitisic. I have tried to use that logic with righties

many times but they are so indoctrinated, it is stunning. And if you multiply that Auto death number by 4, the chances of dying in a terror attack diminish even more.

US Auto deaths 2001 - 2006: Over 170,000
US Terrorist deaths 2001 - 2006: 3000

And that doesn't include murder, deaths due to hospital mistakes, among other things.

I have never been all that worried about terrorism either, (even though one of my neighbors died on 9/11.) I know of way more people who have died in road accidents.

That's a great article, Plaid Adder.

There is only one of two conclusions to Bush's lack of interest in the ports.

1) He was lying all along about the terror threat so he need not worry about it, or ....
2) He doesn't care about it.

Which is it? All the rest is apologetics, more lies, spin, hyperbole, rightwing talking points.

The rightwing talking point is that if you object to the sale, and you're 'left' you're a racist!

No, we're calling him now on the so-called 'War on Terror'. If he admits to using this as a ploy to frighten the base into supporting his war, then as far as I am concerned, the sale is of little consequence.

If he really, really wants this sale to go through, put him in that position. Make him, and his followers, choose and don't let them avoid the question by veering off into their talking points.

[canichelouis]

26. They framed the issue of

Pre 9-11 mentality

Post 9-11 mentality

Surprise!

[Robeson]

27. As Deep Throat said in "All the President's Men"....

..."Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

[LisaLynne]

28. Once again, I bow to your logic.

The vague thoughts that were in my head would have possibly congealed in several months to what you have just said. I think they just didn't think it would be a problem or that anyone would even notice. It just shows that, as you said, while they've set us up to think of 'Terra Terra Terra', they themselves do not believe the rhetoric to the point that they let this slip by them.

[BadGimp]

29. this is too easy an assumption to make and hence flawed (imho)

re: "They did not expect it to become a national security story.."

I disagree at a high level.

No way they missed the outcome (public mood and Congress/State Gov reaction) of this. ON Katrina, yes they failed to see how the public would react. But this charade, no way.

We are being set up. There is an end game that this is merely a part of. But it in and of itself has it's own end game. We need to try to think through and see what it is.

UNLESS: the powers behind the Admin have fractured and it's everyman for himself. Then we are totaslly screwed. Bush (according to some stories) was not aware of this deal till it hit the newswires and people started to freak. IF this is TRUE then we have learned something pretty significant. Rove was likely not behind it. If Rove was not behind it, then who was driving it? Rummy say's he was out of the loop. And this time he did not resort to Rumsfeldian doublespeak.

I need to think about this some more. Still formulating my thoughts. Sorry..

[bpilgrim]

30. they didn't see katrina either

even though it took a week to hit...

my only fear, same as usual, how are they gonna react once they realize the propaganda ain't working no more.

you know they got plans for that :nuke:

peace

[Cleita]

31. The war on terror was a chimera that they created themselves

to cover up what they really were doing. I'm not surprised they don't believe in it. But I think this little monster they created is going to grow up to be big and bad for them. I can hardly wait.

[liberalla]

33. The "free trade" agenda and big money sounds right to me,

or should I say 'rings' true to me? It was an "AHA!" moment when I read the thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x484387

The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Flap by David Sirota.

"How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.

More: http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/02/dirty-little-secret-behind-uae-port.html

[bettyellen]

34. BINGO: "it didn't occur to them that their base might take offense.....

...at something when they hadn't been explicitly told to."
:applause:

[eridani]

35. They thought that they had papered over the divide quite nicely

The War on Terra gets the bed-wetting sheep scared enough to back huge giveaways to the corporate suits. This is our wedge issue--clear and compelling evidence that the elite really doesn't want to protect them, and that Daddy George will act on behalf of his real employers, who do not happen to be the frightened tent revivalists and xenophobes who are his mass voting base.

[katinmn]

38. Yep. Bush can't have it both ways.

He plays the 9-11 terror card every time he opens his mouth. Got half the country scared out of their wits about terrorists. And then he hands the keys to one of the countries that financed the terrorists.

Bunch of nitwits.

[LunaC]

40. “They don't think that the war on terror is real”

BINGO! 911 was MIHOP so they know “the terrorists” are trumped up Bogey-Men. The port deal is a way to reward the UAE for their assistance in perpetrating the biggest ruse in history.

[nonconformist]

41. Excellent analysis. nt

[BlueEyedSon]

42. If the GWOT was "real", how come they never did ANYTHING since 9/11

to keep us safer? Every obvious thing (port security, chemical/nuke plant security, etc) was completely ignored. As I recall, just getting reinforced cockpit door was a battle.....

[malaise]

43. The saddest part is that so many people

bought the bullspit re 9/11. It was never about terror - it was always about power.

[Tin Man]

45. yep, the manner in which the WOT has been prosecuted - is a joke

Perhaps the Dubai Ports debacle will illuminate the fact that, as our Commander in Chief, Bush has badly bungled the War on Terror from nearly the day he coined the phrase.

The obvious and logical first step in the WOT would have been to secure our borders - i.e. prevent the entry of illegal/undocumented individuals and cargos; and more tightly research, identify, and track the passage of documented individuals and cargos. Very little of this has happened, and in some cases, like the recent Dubai Ports deal - the actions of the Administration are clearly making America less safe.

Under the leadership of Bush, we've been unable to accomplish even the logical first step in securing our nation from terrorists. We've bypassed all of the necessary actions, and instead gone to war with a foreign government holding no ties to terrorism. In the process we've spawned a civil war and created the greatest nursery for anti-american terrorists the world has ever known.

Bush the Bungler. (TM 2006, tin man enterprises).

[stevietheman]

59. Also include in this the increasing complaints from Bush's base...

that we're not properly guarding our border with Mexico... the right-wing-oriented Minutemen (I believe they are called) vigilantes have been complaining louder and louder that the administration isn't serious about border security (sorry I don't have any links for this, but I've read this here and there).

[Joe Fields]

46. How many times have we made the mistake

of underestimating these people? There is, I believe something in the works. I don't know what it is, but to ascribe stupidity to their actions is, once again falling into their trap.

Keep in mind that they cannot control everything. If they could, then Bill Clinton would never have become president. And maybe Bushco hadn't forseen the intensity of the backlash this Dubai port deal has created. But before I just patently call them stupid, I will wait to see what else drops from the sky.

Time will tell.

[Beetwasher]

49. They Thought This "Boring Port Deal" Would Just Slip Under the Radar

n/t

[carolinalady]

50. so true and maybe some of them will realize what a phony

Shrub really is.

[Canuckistanian]

51. Very well said.

Remember John DiIulio, the guy they brought in to do some work on Faith-based projects?

He said that most of the time spent in meetings was about politics. How will this play in this region or can we get this group to speak up for us, that sort of thing.

Actual policy was ignored or hastily discussed to get it out of the way. DiIulio said that during a health care discussion, they used the word "Medicare" when they really meant "Medicaid" (or was the the other way around?). They just didn't know the difference. Or worse, it wasn't relevant to them.

Everything was about image. Image trumped substance every time.

Now this. And what do we have here? A complete failure in image making. Lousy framing. Wrong message.

And there's good old steadfast Shrub, heroically not budging an inch, which is supposedly his strong point. He's hoping he can tough it out.

Uh-uh. Not this time.

[stevietheman]

52. Agreed; Also consider the idea of Rove destroying "his guy" to...

prop up other people. When has Rove ever cooked up a scheme like that? His M.O. has always to prop up "his guy" at all costs!

This was indeed corporate scheming to enrich Bush regime insiders. Nothing more, nothing less. And you're right: They've never really considered the War on Terror to be real--in fact, it backs up my idea that the WOT has always been a farce and smokescreen for the financial raping and pillaging of our own republic.

[CabalPowered]

53. Granting them immunity implies malicious intent

"The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders.

...

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases."

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Well Done, Adder

I heartily concur. They probably are aware that the WOT is fake. And, they forgot to follow through on their own fairy tale.
The Professor

[sendero]

57. I totally agree....

..... this is no Rovian plot, this is a simple case where simple people forgot to maintain their put-on terror-scare front.

[loveandlight]

58. makes sense but raises a question for me

I agree that they thought this was handled, that it would slide through like many other things have that we probably don't even yet know about. But how did it get caught? I don't remember reading anywhere how this got to be public? Was it an Internet blog thing or from an insider who didn't want to go along or what? Does anyone know the answer?

[bobbieinok]

68. autorank's post at DU, the 2nd on DU, linked to a Forbes article

the 1st DU post to a WP article

I remember reading the post linking the Forbes article.....I definitely got the impression that the decision had been made about 1 month earlier with little discussion and was a 'done deal', ie, it could/would not be withdrawn

my impression was that the Forbes and WP articles were sort of a 'what's been going on in DC in the last month' type of article

[The Witch]

62. OH MY GOD, you are SO RIGHT. Love you, PA.

SO TRUE.

[Virginian]

63. Great Post Plaid.

But what gets me is that Bush will veto any action by congress against IT, but he doesn't know what IT is. He didn't know what was happening until it hit the MSM.

He sure has strong support for something he doesn't know about.

[robbedvoter]

66. They are beyond the need for spin. Watcha gonna do? Not elect them

anymore? This is imperial debauchery - Rome style.


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[bobbieinok]

70. full Suskind article here

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ei=5090&en=890a96189e162076&ex=1255665600&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position=

[Time for change]

71. Maybe they're not thinking about the WOT because

they were the ones who attacked us on 9-11.

[pinto]

72. I agree. The mid level true believers who brokered this deal didn't think

once about the national security possibilities or - one aspect you'd think they would be geared to notice - the possible political fallout...

It was totally outside their thinking. "Good deal, good business, lots of important principles involved in the deal. OK. We approve."

(aside) I heard there was a total of 1 CIFIUS committee meeting about the deal.

Nice post.

:thumbsup: