Bush to Lose Support of Republican Congress and Governors Over Port Issue- Page 2
Bush to Lose Support of Republican Congress and Governors Over Port Issue
#25Bush Shoots Himself in the Foot
Posted: 2/22/06 at 12:06am
Congrats and kudos to the idiot-prez for FINALLY fostering bi-partisanship!
Repubs and Dems alike join in giving him a good old Bronx cheer.
With this kind of united efforts, can articles of impeachment be far behind!
Sweet Jesus! Last week, Cheney shoots his buddy in the face--this wee, Bush shoots himself in the foot!
From tomorrow's Times--snippet:
===
Mr. Frist, in a rare break from the Bush administration, declared that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter."
He added, "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."
Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a persistent critic of the administration's actions on port security, said in an interview that "this is now a bipartisan posse chasing the president."
But firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.
The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.
That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.
"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."
But the reasoning did not resonate in Washington, where members of Congress from every end of the political spectrum piled on to condemn the deal and to propose emergency legislation to block it if necessary.
"This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports," Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton, joined by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez and Barbara Boxer said in a letter Tuesday. On Monday, the Republican governors of New York and Maryland raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore.
The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine...
ZONEACE
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
#26Bush Shoots Himself in the Foot
Posted: 2/22/06 at 1:51amHe would be dumb to veto this, because the veto will be overturned and he will do nothing but prove himself a lame duck. (not to mention the republicans coming up for reelection would have no choice but to fight everything he does until november).
#27Bush Shoots Himself in the Foot
Posted: 2/22/06 at 8:09am
These words in the Times article are supposed to defend the deal:
"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."
Chilling. Nothing matters to Bush and Cheney except making mo' money for the Corporatocracy.
#28Bush Shoots Himself in the Foot
Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:00am
An astute reader at TalkingPointsMemo:
Josh,
This is the moment when the mask comes off, the curtain is pulled, and everyone—but especially Bush supporters—gets to see the sad little wizard pulling the strings and relying on his megaphone.
Leave aside the question of whether having our ports controlled by UAE will actually make us less safe—I don’t like it, but I don’t have hard evidence. The larger political point is that Bush has lived and died by the war on terror. He has accused those he believed to be less zealous of, virtually, treason. Etc. etc.
Being a War President, and the War on Terror itself, eclipses everything.
Except when it doesn’t.
The people who voted for him genuinely believed that he would keep them safer than any alternative we could elect. And now he’s blowing it all off, under the guise of “fair play” for countries that have “played by the rules.” Aside from the cribbing from Clinton, just which rules is it he thinks the UAE has played by?
The cynicism of his defense of the port deal is just staggering. He’s not even interested in pretending he didn’t know, or hadn’t considered the psychological ramifications, etc. Not even a nod to “maybe we should review this one more time.”
Could be it’s money—there is clearly some conflict of interesting running around the Treasury Dept.
But maybe they just don’t care. It’s all been a show, from day one. Or, I should say, Day 911.
I hope this knocks some sense into Republican heads. From what I heard on Sean Hannity today, perhaps it has.
TalkingPointsMemo
#29those darn arabs
Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:22ammy opposition to the deal is one thing, i've never hid my biases. i am just glad to see that many on the left see the importance of dealing differently with a company based on its population and possible links to terror. i hope that this new era of cooperation will end those silly attacks on profiling.
...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty
pray to st. jude
i'm a sonic reducer
he was the gimmicky sort
fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
#30Bush Shoots Himself in the Foot
Posted: 2/22/06 at 9:54am
Try as you like, this is not about racial profiling. The UAE has never been an ally in the war against terror, despite Bush's claims to the contrary.
This is not about the "hypocrisy of the left"; it's about the hypocrisy of the Bush administration in claiming to stand up for "national security," when all they were ever interested in was greater profits for their cronies.
#31ally mcbeal
Posted: 2/22/06 at 10:08amyou see it your way, and i see it mine. i don't think anyone really expects us to see eye to eye on it.
...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty
pray to st. jude
i'm a sonic reducer
he was the gimmicky sort
fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
#32Bush Shoots Himself in the Foot
Posted: 2/22/06 at 10:09am
But even I've been looking at the apparent contradiction that papa pointed out. And coming up with no answers.
On the other hand, there is that whole UAE channeling of money for terrorists aspect of the story. Which I guess means if any American hires that company they could be jailed without charge under the Patriot Act.
#33spectacles
Posted: 2/22/06 at 10:13am
on the other hand, there's the image of the president of the united states demanding fair treatment for a company based in a muslim country.
oh, namo, you just want to see dick in stripes.
...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty
pray to st. jude
i'm a sonic reducer
he was the gimmicky sort
fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
#34spectacles
Posted: 2/22/06 at 10:26am
No one understands this stuff better than David Sirota:
snippet:
==
The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Security Flap
Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.
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 Security - 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.
The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activist who admits that this is all about trade:
"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."
Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a U.S. taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the U.S.-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many U.S. jobs.
There is no better proof that our government takes its orders from corporate interests than these kinds of moves. That's what this UAE deal is all about - the mixture of the right-wing's goal of privatizing all government services (even post 9/11 port security!) with the political Establishment's desire to make sure Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy supercedes everything. This is where the culture of corruption meets national security policy - and, more specifically, where the unbridled corruption of on-the-take politicians are weakening America's security....
The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major U.S. security scandal with the same country we are SIMULTANEOUSLY negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal.
SirotaBlog
#35 G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 11:36am
Maureen Dowd points out, among other things, that the UAE never recognized the State of Israel.
Snippet:
---
G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 22, 2006
WASHINGTON
Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now, as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House, Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.
Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works.
A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.
Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?
In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in the "global war on terror" — GWOT, as they call it — the enemy is a faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the public does its own face transplant.
One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them.
Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?
As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that "people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country.
Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports.
G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
#36G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 11:41am
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST:
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
#37G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 2:30pm
Here's a CONSERVATIVE point-of-view on the proposed sale. Snippet:
---
It’s remarkably tone deaf. It’s possible that the Administration did some quiet polling, and asked the question “How much Arab control over American ports are you comfortable with,” and misinterpreted stunned silence as assent. It’s possible the Administration believed that this would be seen as outreach, an act of faith to solidify a Key Ally, and didn’t think there’d be much hubbub – but if that’s the case, it’s the best example of the Bubble Theory I’ve heard, and I’ve not heard much convincing evidence. Until now. The average American’s reaction to handing port control over to the UAE is instinctively negative, and for good reason. There are two basic reactions: We can’t do this ourselves? and We should trust them, why?
As for the first, the assertion that American firms were the lower bidder is unpersuasive, rather like saying that we should have outsourced the flight crew for the Enola Gay to Japanese nationals because they knew the terrain better. As for the trust issue, well, wanting port control to remain in American hands is not a matter of Arabiaphobia, any more than selling Boeing to China means you harbor deep hatred of Asians. Some things ought to be left in local hands. It seems absurd to have to make that argument in the first place. The UAE is not exactly stuffed stem to stern with pro-American individuals; the idea that the emirs will stand foursquare against infiltration by those who have ulterior motives is the sort of wishful thinking that makes buildings fall and cities empty. I’m not worried that some evil emir is putting a pinky to his monocled eye, and saying Mwah! at last I have them where I want them! I’m worried about the guy who’s three steps down the management branch handing off a job to a brother who trusts some guys who have some sympathies with some guys who hang around some rather energetic fellows who attend that one mosque where the guy talks about jihad 24/7, and somehow someone gets a job somewhere that makes it easier for something to happen.
A few words on the Dubai Ports World imbroglio
WindyCityActor
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/13/03
#38Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 2:30pm
Isn't it amazing that the buck never seems to stop with Bush...?
Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.
While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.
"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."
#39Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 2:32pm"I didn't know anything about it--but it's important enough to me that I'll use the veto for the first time! YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO, F*CKER--I'M THE PRE'DINT!"
#40Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 2:41pm
I don't know what's scarier: the fact that this sale was taking place, or the fact that Bush "supposedly" didn't know anything about it?
Why do I get the impression that we're the laughing stock of the entire world?
#41Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework!
Posted: 2/22/06 at 10:42pm
*PJ stifles giggle*
===
U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said Wednesday that President Bush is making a big mistake backing a sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The former Republican majority leader said the administration's approval of the deal is "pretty outrageous." DeLay made the remarks during a campaign event with Houston real estate executives....
Still, DeLay said the deal would be overturned by Congress.
"When it's a matter of national security, the president will be overturned," DeLay said in an account that appeared on the Web site of the Austin American-Statesman. "We will overturn it within the next few weeks."
DeLay says Bush making mistake on port sale
Peter
Leading Actor Joined: 5/28/03
#42Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework!
Posted: 2/23/06 at 1:44amWhy does my mind keep wandering off to South Park when I hear of the endless cartoonish behavior of this Administration? Cheney last week and now this....I can envision Bin Laden and his bitch Bush together in Hell planning the takeover of the earth, but Im beginning to think that this isnt so far removed from reality. And when the earth opens up and up pops the red horned Devil and his leather clad accomplice, everyone but the right wingers will be in horror..until Bush gets on his pulpit and give a speech. Then of course people will change their minds and his ratings will soar.
ZONEACE
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
#43Bush: The Dog Ate My Homework!
Posted: 2/23/06 at 4:01am
#44It Don't Make Sense
Posted: 2/23/06 at 8:10am
Looking aFrom TalkingPointsMemo
the "secret agreement" the White House seems to have leaked this afternoon, here's one point that sort of stands out.
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 also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
===
From DailyKos:
Lets recap how many anomalies we've heard on this thing in the last day or two alone:
* The deal has been long scrutinized and is backed up by our War President and the DoD and it's perfectly fine
* Rummy and Bush just heard about it the other day
* The UAE has been the best ally in the war on terra and has cooperated in all investigations
* The UAE owned company promises to cooperate in future investigations IF they get this deal
* Except they don't have to fully cooperate and have even been granted a special deal so that they don't have to keep records available to U.S. subpoena or court order, you know, just in case there's something they want to hide
Like I say, I don't know jack about the legalities of ports or companies that run them. And I'm no foreign policy guru either. So am I missing something, or is this story getting 'curiouser and curiouser'?
Videos