Gary Hart, Jimmy Carter, Wesley Clark: Why so calm about Ports Deal

[Inspector77]

These are leaders I respect. They all each able to be calmly analytical about the Ports Deal
while being evisceratingly critical of Bush security and foreign policy.

Is there something they know, some strategy they are following, that we should pay attention
to? Seems a some very smart and principled leaders are holding off on the rants.

[Ilsa]

1. I think Carter already said he was for the deal.

Shocked me and other DUers. I haven't heard from Wes Clark about this. I might go check his site/blog.

Here's a link to the transcript from an interview with Clark on Fox:
http://securingamerica.com/node/620

SNIP

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I know the company, but I think we have to be very concerned about port security in this country. We know that we're not checking an adequate number of the containers. We've got agreements with a number of ports around the world. And I think what you're sensing in this is two things. Number one is Americans have a right to be concerned about port security, because it's one of the major unchecked areas that's still out there. Hasn't been fully resourced. Hasn't been fully diagnosed.

David Asman: Well, of course-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And secondly, it's the decision- it's the process.

David Asman: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You know-

David Asman: There, but there- But let me just stop you there. You say you know the company. Are Americans right to be concerned about it, can be concerned about a company from the United Arab Emirates being somewhat involved in our security?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think Americans are con- right to be concerned about a process, in terms of consultation with Congress and port security which springs surprises. So, the truth is that we haven't put the resources into port security we need. It's not a function of which company. It's a function of the United States Customs. It's a function of all of the elements of the United States government who do this.

David Asman: But let me just put it very simply, are you, yourself comfortable with what this company's going to be doing in our ports?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'd like to see it laid out, and I'd like to see the American people brought into this. I'd like to see our Congressional Representatives brought into this, because security's a matter for all Americans. Look, the President scared this country to death before the 2004 election on security. And here, honestly, this looks like, I mean, to the American people, to the Congress, it's like a rabbit out of the hat. And suddenly there's no threat. What were all those alerts about. It's not about the company. It's about the issue of port security.

David Asman: You say it's not about the company, but here's a deal. There's a deal on the table. You know the company. Are you for the deal?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I'm for is for laying out the process for the American people.

David Asman: I'm not going to get an answer. Specific now, are you for-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You're getting an answer about the process.

David Asman: Are you for the company taking over these ports' security?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm for strengthening port security and homeland security in America. That's what the American people want. This is an incident that indicates that this administration, despite all the talk and all the rhetoric, is not doing it the right way and hasn't done enough.

David Asman: But again, final question now, on this company in particular, a company that you yourself are familiar with, do you feel comfortable, would you feel comfortable with them doing what the proposed deal says they should do.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, what I'd like to see is what the proposed deal says. I'd like to know what the procedures are, and I'd like to know what more the United States government is going to do to protect this country and our ports.
SNIP

[madfloridian]

4. Wes, Jr. had a Kos post about it.

He thinks it is ok. I did not save the link, hard to search there.

On edit: to make clear, he was speaking for himself. I have a feeling the deal has already gone through, may be wrong...

[CJCRANE]

45. Good excerpt.

Wes definitely gets it:

"I'd like to see the American people brought into this. I'd like to see our Congressional Representatives brought into this, because security's a matter for all Americans. Look, the President scared this country to death before the 2004 election on security. And here, honestly, this looks like, I mean, to the American people, to the Congress, it's like a rabbit out of the hat. And suddenly there's no threat. What were all those alerts about. It's not about the company. It's about the issue of port security."

on edit: you should do a separate thread for this interview with Wes, I think a lot of people would be interested.

[Clark2008]

68. Assman is an idiot.

How many times is he going to ask a question that Clark isn't going to answer because it's irrelevant? The question shouldn't be about the specific company - it's should be about what Clark's saying - and what we've all been saying here. The question is about the process and procedures used to check on these companies.

[Marie26]

71. He's weaseling

It sounds like Clark's in favor of the deal but doesn't want to say it out loud because it's so unpopular.

[Ksec]

2. fear? Waiting?

Political fear?

Waiting to see how this unfolds and holding back the comments until then? Who knows. I would hope that Clark comes out against this. Maybe hes bidding his time and maybe thats wise.

[NoMercy]

38. Think Carter is afraid of Bush -- after King funeral?

[madokie]

47. Hey, NoMercy, welcome to the du fold, but I don't think President Carter

is afraid of any one person. I see him as so clean as to squeak when he wipes.
When one has skeletons in one's closets, then one can be scared by this bunch.

[dogday]

50. Not no, but hell no, not Carter.....

[...of J.Temperance]

3. There's only one explanation and that's that

Gary Hart, Wesley Clark and Jimmy Carter have been put through the unique BFEE Brainwashing Program.

:evilgrin: :sarcasm:

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. Brainwashing program=death?

Or disappearance? No :evilgrin: or :sarcasm: here

[HereSince1628]

5. Port security hasn't changed much in many years, no attacks yet

that came through seaports. And many of the 600 terminal facilities are already in the hands of foreign companies.

So no problems yet, and to some extent that isn't entirely an accident, coast guard, immigration, and APHIS folks are still on the job.

BUT, and this is the paranoia of a post-911 world - - Up until know how many monarchies with ties to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda actually owned companies in the US? How many monarchies unable to control nuclear arms trade, military weapons, drugs in their own ports have managed operations in the United States?

There is a risk in assuming that since things have been OK they will remain so.
In Bush's terror-driven USA that risk has the public and the Congress close to hysteria.

[mdmc]

34. kick for your sane post

:kick:

[sandnsea]

6. Globalization

Open trade brought down the Iron Curtain. Open trade creates higher standards of living. Open trade reduces tensions between countries. It isn't doing that now because it isn't being implemented in the manner Democrats envisioned when they set us on this path. But it is still seen as the only long term solution to avoiding war.

Gary Hart seems to see the solution to the port deal as US securuing our ports no matter what company is operating them, whether from the UK or the UAE. There's a certain amount of sense in that. But I think it's happy making, we should never think the world will be exactly was it is today. A certain amount of sovereignty is necessary to protect future generations.

And a mountain of change needs to happen with globalization for it to benefit anybody besides the corporate elites.

[sundancekid]

7. yea, it has TOTALLY twitterpated me - WTF is up with those guys??

regardless of the global economic value that it could/would have,
do these people (esp. Wes Clark) NOT get that the more the
American people awaken to the shadow government and secret deals
the more they are likely to revolt (like pre-1776 mind set, that is)???

first, they sell us terra! terra! terra!
and now they want us to lay back in
Tara! Tara! Tara!
:banghead:

we are gonna dig up every single one of the complicit bastards in this deal,
and it seems to me that the Longshoremen Union folks ain't too tickled either.

[adriennui]

8. jimmy carter has never met

a mideastern country he didn't like (with the exception of israel).

[Jim Sagle]

11. Fuckin' A.

[...of J.Temperance]

12. Could you please elaborate on your comments?

jimmy carter has never met a mideastern country he didn't like (with the exception of israel).

Thanks.

[mdmc]

35. ignorance, masked as

ignorance.

no need to follow up.

[Jim Sagle]

39. No elaboration needed when a comment is obviously the righteous truth.

Or, as I previously elaborated: Fuckin' A.

[mdmc]

76. got a link for your lies?

:kick:

[Jim Sagle]

80. 1) It's not lies, it's truth. 2) It's not even mine - I'm not the original

poster.

[prolesunited]

30. Yes, Jimmy Carter the anti-semite

How dare he try to point out that other people in the Mideast besides Israel have legitimate concerns and grievances.

[mdmc]

83. thank you for your Jimmy Carter support

:kick:
you are rewarded with a Bernie video http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17297 link

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Well, that's almost exactly what Clark said

The process is not transparent. It has not be made open to the American people. And given that Bush has "scared the hell out of the American people," they are right to be concerned.

He's talking to the Fox audience, but I think if you read between the lines, he's saying there's a bigger threat from the Bush administration than the UAE.

[BootinUp]

9. Clark is saying we need to improve security

at the ports and have a transparent review of the approval. As far as strategy I think watching Bush get impaled is a pretty good one right now, and use pressure to get more facts on this approval process.

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Perhaps they're honest enough to be able to separate political zeal from

What they honestly feel. Perhaps they have no taste to appeal to the lowest common denominators: xenophobia and lust for power. That is something that has proven itself difficult to perform by so many of us.

[DarbyUSMC]

57. After the first knee jerk reaction and some research, IMO this isn't the

"letting the fox into the hen house" deal it appears to be. Singapore was the second highest bidder of the British owned company that now runs the ports in question, but Dubai outbid them. Dubai is a pretty interesting place. They have much experience, as does Singapore (the largest port in the world), in running ports. Considering the way Halliburton has managed to rob our country blind in Iraq, would we rather have them in charge or a company like them just as long as they are Americans? Who knew anything about who has been in charge of any of our ports before this latest hullabaloo? Who knows the real ownership of companies we think are American? I say maybe Dubai has companies who could take over the Katrina clean up. Let's get them over here before the sweltering heat descends on the Gulf Coast and makes things ten times as bad. We obviously can't figure out what to do or how to do it if we do figure it out. Six months after the fact it still looks like the area was hit by a nuclear bomb. Well, except for the part of New Orleans where Mardi Gras is held.

An idea for Spring Breakers: Go to the Gulf Coast and pitch in rather than spending Mommy and Daddy's money partying yourselves into oblivion. Thousands of college men and women should be able to put quite a dent into clearing the debris. What a difference that would make in the lives of so many people (and your own as well).

[jbnow]

66. On the CNN report

they were saying volunteers were being turned away by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that is responsible for much of the area.

Areas where independent contractors were hired had made great progress.

So volunteering would be a great idea but contacts should be made before showing up to know where they might be able to help.

As far as ports go I think a great door has been cracked open...both in looking at port security and looking at the secret approval process of these deals, not just ports.

Americans hadn't known much about the whole picture, now we are paying attention. We did not have a massive reaction when other countries have had or gotten similar deals, we largely didn't know. We do know more now. This port issue will open the door to look at the general issue on a much wider scale.

bush really did bring this on with his fear mongering. The country that wants this deal has much more to do with 9/11 then Iraq did but somehow he put Iraq as part of the same threat.

It's not seeing "them" as hateful, dangerous terrorists, it's seeing the reasons the United States has given them to hate us. If we want to make friends we don't start with this, we might start with not invading, torturing and killing them. Xenophobia or American action phobia?

As far as the UAE the issues with them are not ancient history, though the powers there are rich businessmen, not terrorists. The reasons to suspect this administration's connections with them aren't unreasonable as they are also rich businessmen, not patriots or simple terrorists.

I don't loathe the bush administration because they are white, I'd be against them whatever their color or pseudo-religion because of their policies, actions and history.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. They obviously don't fall for the paranoid xenophobia of many.

Or, the fearmongering and posturing of other politicians.

[tabasco]

29. Riiiight. Because there are only two choices:

Either you are for the deal or you are a xenophobe and gullible to fearmongering.

Sounds like what they are saying at another site.

:crazy:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Only 2 choices? I think not.

How about nationalizing the ports? How about turning the ports over to the UN? Or, how about turning them over to our own beloved corporations - like Halliburton?

I am not for the "deal". I'm against thinly veiled racism and xenophobia under the time honored rubric of fear used by flag waving politicians to keep the populace quiet and obedient.

Be sure and check under your bed for murderous Ay-rabs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. I know why Jimmy Carter agrees with the deal....

http://www.cartercenter.org/doc447.htm

[...of J.Temperance]

15. So you think that Jimmy Carter has been bribed by the UAE?

Why don't you have the guts to just come out and type that?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Type what? I just gave you a link to Carter's speech. Nothing else.

[Jim Sagle]

41. Here's how the link begins:

United Arab Emirates

By
Jimmy Carter
20 Apr 2001

After being awarded the Zayed International Prize for the Environment, I decided to go to Dubai to accept the $500,000 award for The Carter Center.

Ya gotta love it.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

DU to Jimmeh: Fuck off ya fuckin' ho.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. I love Jimmy Carter, but we're all human after all...

However, the evil that Bush has done to this country, there's no way to even count that or gauge it. Whoever takes over after those shitheads, will have one f*cked up country.

[High Plains]

53. This is really low.

Jimmy Carter is going to blow off the security of the US for a $500,000 bribe?

Is that what you're implying? That's pretty fucking low.

[Jim Sagle]

61. He is low, that's true.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mdmc]

77. God bless all Democrats!

:kick:

God Bless Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Wes Clark, and Gary Hart! :kick:

[Jim Sagle]

79. I agree. I'd just re-arrange the names a tad.

;)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

82. I agree with you. And I LOVE Carter, but on this issue, he's way wrong.

He should remain silent on this issue. It only does harm.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. Why would Jimmy Carter agree with people who have no elections in their

country, and who have no democracy, and who kidnap children to tie them down on camels for their camel races, and from which country came 2 of the 9/11 terrorists, and from which country came nearly every money transfer to the 9/11 terrorists, and which country, when asked for access to investigate their bank accounts from which the $ for 9/11 had come, said a resounding no. Tell me. Why would he? And are you trying to tell us that Jimmy Carter is god in the flesh and would never commit a sin? Is that it?

[mdmc]

36. what a smoking gun

lol.

[RagingInMiami]

52. That sums it up for me

No pun intended

[High Plains]

54. That's a pretty scummy imputation to make.

I'm not suprised, given what else I've seen from this poster.

[GrumpyGreg]

16. No strategy,they just don't mind the deal.

[Inspector77]

24. Such a hot topic, would think they gave, some serious thought as

to what to say about it publicly.

[staticstopper]

17. Man!

the more crap comes out, the more the "luntic frindge/grassy knoll/conspiracy theorists" looks like they had it right all along, with the screaming about how evil the CFR is...some members to look out for:

Bill Moyers:
Jimmy Carter:
Wes Clark:

Is this a litmis test?

[...of J.Temperance]

18. The lunatic fringe/grassy knoll/conspiracy theorists will NEVER be right

So what are you saying, that Jimmy Carter and Wesley Clark are DINO's or something, are they Republican-lite are they Republican's in Democratic clothing?

Huh? Speak up, I can't hear ya?

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Clark is not a member of the CFR n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

23. Thanks :) I mean we can't expect silly things such as facts get in the way

I mean saying that the lunatic fringe/grassy knoll/conspiracy theorists are right and then saying hey the CFR and check out Wesley Clark for that....even though he's NOT even a member of the CFR.

Heck the mind boggles!!!!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. Here's the key to this whole discussion.....

Why aren't OUR ports belonging to US? What part of America is going to be sold next? Our airports? Our highways? Our forests? The White House? Which is it gonna be?

[elehhhhna]

31. Honey, the WH was bought & paid for a long time ago.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. LOL True nt

[mdmc]

37. Stewart International Airport was sold to National Express Corp

over nine years ago.:kick:

[mdmc]

25. welcome to DU

no security expert has a problem with this deal.:kick:

[Inspector77]

27. Thanks for the confirmation. Had not heard any good critique from

security professionals.

[Gloria]

28. The woman security CEO on Lou Dobbs last night sure had a

problem with it and she's going to be on again. She was flipped out about the UAE GOVERNMENT being involved, as well as the fact that the deal was done in secret.

[mdmc]

33. who was she

no opposing senator (hillary or schumer) have found experts to oppose this deal for reasons other than political reasons.

[Cocoa]

55. what about Sue Myrick?

she seems to know what she's talking about... :sarcasm:

http://www.northcarolinaconservative.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1140625742&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

A Letter from Congresswoman Sue Myrick to President Bush
February 22, 2006

The Honorable George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO-but HELL NO!

Sincerely,

Sue Myrick
Member of Congress

[Marie26]

73. Myrick has made a name for

herself crusading against immigrants & foreigners in NC. This apparantly is her "tough on terror" stance. Honestly, so many politicians are exploiting this issue right now, that it's hard to tell how many truly believe this is a bad idea, & how many are just riding the public outrage.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Holding off on rants is a part of it for Clark I think

He is focusing on the unacceptable way that this deal has gone done, which keeps the blame fixed on the Bush Administration. Dubai is involved with some fairly sensitive security cooperation with the United States and Clark is respected in the Mid East where overall U.S. unpopularity endangers our security. Clark isn't going to pile onto Dubai for the moment. Clark's position is that a full scale review of the contract is needed because our Democracy requires transparency, and Bush's Administration slipped this one through without a full and lawful review. His next main point, and I think he is right to hammer it, is that Bush has systematically underfunded port security since 911 and which is an ongoing crisis of larger proportions than a single ports contract. Again, it keeps the focus on Bush.

[MissMarple]

56. Bingo! This highlighted our abysmal, pathetic attempts at port security

for the first time. And it shows that the United States and the American people are in last place for this administration's concern. They are so out of touch, I truly believe they were actually blindsided by this.

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm for strengthening port security and homeland security in America. That's what the American people want. This is an incident that indicates that this administration, despite all the talk and all the rhetoric, is not doing it the right way and hasn't done enough."

[NoMercy]

32. Not up for re-election: Can think about interest of party and nation

Rather than pander to the bigots who will in any event turn from the Repubs if the deal goes through.

[robbedvoter]

60. Nice try, dear. Did you see the excerpts posted here?# 2, 9. 26?

You gonna have a nice stay here, right?

[radio4progressives]

40. Nothing Complicated. When one allows events to occur under your watch

you're not going to get too excited about the same thing happening under someone else's watch.

the big deal, it's been a huge unknown to the GENERAL PUBLIC.

And by gawwdd, the Public is fucking PISSED OFF and OUTRAGED.

And for damn good reason.

Go have a listen to yesterday's Thom Hartmann show, click on white rose archive stream on Thom's website to hear it. Things will start to make a lot more sense to you i think.

[upi402]

42. Same confusion about support for NAFTA for me

:shrug:

[PBass]

44. UAE is needed for strategic reasons in Iraq occupation

I think I read this on DU. Most everything getting shipped to Iraq makes it's entrance in the UAE first. The port deal may be payback for UAE playing along with Bush on the Iraq occupation.

Clark is a little flat-footed sometimes, not as good as evading answers as some others. Clark is also possibly out of the loop or clueless on some issues... I saw him on CSPAN a few years ago insisting that there was no risks involved with using weapons made with depleted uranium.

[upi402]

64. General Clark? Ouch!

I would think he would KNOW the hazards of DU if anybody did.

Still stumped as to why a gov't that enabled terrorists, grew two 9-11 terrorists, and thwarts out investigations -deserves *that* level of trust.

The only thing they can claim is supporting Bush's illegal, unjustified war for profit. There may be more DINOs that need to be culled from the herd on this. Scalito was one, now this litmus strip.

[NoMercy]

46. Let's see how leaders react as the deal goes through congress

Democrats are in a bind: the deal helps them politically. But they can
be seen as supporting the deal.

[mdmc]

78. welocme to DU!

:kick:

[1932]

49. Perhaps international corporations fund the Carter Center and Carter

doesn't want to limit the value of their assets? Or he is suffering from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome -- these are the people who support his work, he spends time with them, so he naturally feels they are good people who wouldn't do the wrong thing.

Many NGOs are in this same bind. Amnesty, for example, doesn't ever crticize corporations. If the same things they complain about governments doing were done by corporations, their charter precludes them from criticizing those actions.

As President, Carter was great on human rights (and he was right about South Africa and about the Panama Canal), but he was also a little bit of a market fundamentalist who privatized parts of the government that no one before him thought about privatizing. I'm not sure if part of his political orientation isn't that he thinks that things should be freely bought and sold on public markets in almost every case.

However, I should emphasize that I'm just guessing.

As for Clark's quote above, that's not unlike when he said that he supports Cindy Sheehan's right to speak her mind but he doesn't believe we should pull out of Iraq, except that in this case it looks like he's not willing to say that he's for the thing -- the sale of the ports -- many democrats are against.

In short, I think at least Carter and Clark (I don't know enough about Hart) are people who believe that the free market works and that when it works, it solves the other problems, like global tension and port security.

[xultar]

58. What do you want them to do? Take hostages or something?

GEEZ...

DU has gone effin MAD.

[leftofthedial]

65. I think the point is not that they haven't "taken hostages,"

but rather that Carter is publicly in favor of the UAE port deal and Clinton seems to be too.

[leftofthedial]

59. our government is a bird with two right wings

both sides are owned by the same multinationals

or if you prefer, repukes favor the deal because it promotes big bidniz and global capitalism while dems favor it because they are weak on national security.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. How else does an American get $ to run for office?

The American system of election is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt. Can it be changed? I doubt it. Do checks and balances exist? I doubt it. Do I admire the Constitution? It's flawed as hell.

[robcon]

69. Clark doesn't get it.

He doesn't see the risk of the UAE company. He doesn't see the issue that the vast majority of Americans see.

Hillary Clinton will make a great president.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. You can say many things about Clark, but not getting "risk"

is not one of them. He sees far more risks than you or I - looking for and understanding risks in a global framework, not just pure military threats, has and continues to be his life's work. What Clark is seeing may not always be where you or I have our attention focused, he may not even reach the same short term conclusions, but Clark sees all the risks.

[Marie26]

72. Clark is one of the smartest guys out there

He sees the risks & the big picture. It's really nice to listen to him because he's always informed & has a complete understanding of the issue. If Clark & Carter are for it, that tends to make me think they know what they're talking about. Looking at the debate, we've got Carter, Clark, & most security experts on one side; and neoconservatives, Lou Dobbs & politicians on the other. Which side would you tend to believe? I do think there's valid concerns about the UAE, but the issue is so full of misinformation & hysteria that I don't know if we can really sort through those issues right now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Clark didn't say he is for it

It is fair to say though that he hasn't passed a final judgment on it, and that his focus now is more on Bush's role in all this and the larger question of homeland security than on the literal capacity of this Dubai company to safely manage ports.

Clark thinks there are valid concerns and he supports a full investigation of the deal and said he would want to see the details and the result of an investigation before passing a judgment. Clark is and has been since before the 2004 Election extremely concerned about the systematic lack of attention to and lack of resources for protecting our Ports since 911 under this administration. He thinks that is essentially criminal. He also thinks this case is another clear example of Bush's abuse of democracy, where important decisions are rushed through behind closed doors with the public and our representatives kept in the dark and out of the loop.

[Marie26]

75. Right, right

But he consistently shifts the topic away from the UAE dangers to the dangers of the Bush Administration. If Clark really thought this deal was a big danger to the United States, he'd say so. The fact that he keeps changing the topic makes me think that he doesn't perceive this particular deal as a threat (as opposed to Bush policies on port security, approval process etc.). He's using this issue to try to shift public outrage away from the UAE to Bush's failures. I agree w/Clark on the need for time to review, & investigate to sort this out. But he just does not seem that concerned about the Dubai Ports World deal itself. And that's telling.