Skip to main content

First, the silliness:

Pentagon: Ports uproar may pose security risk

President tries to calm furor over takeover of port management

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The second in command at the Pentagon said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

Got that, Tom DeLay? Mayor Bloomerg? The rest of you sissies? If we don't allow a country that sheltered Bin Laden access to our major ports, we're emboldening the terrorists! The last thing we want as we ratchet this country up and down the color-coded danger scale is to become "paranoid and isolationist!" So shut your traitorous yaps!

And then there's Operation Rolling Out Rove ... also known as Pay No Attention to the Puppet When the Puppet Master Speaks:

Bush willing to delay ports deal, aide says

By William Douglas
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Apparently bowing to congressional pressure, a top White House aide said Thursday that President Bush would accept a delay in the deal for a United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage terminals at six major U.S. ports in order to give skeptical lawmakers more time to study it.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove's comments in a radio interview signaled Bush's new willingness to soothe angry Republican and Democratic lawmakers who oppose the deal because they feel it would jeopardize national security, something the Bush administration stoutly denies.

Bush had vowed Tuesday to veto any congressional measure that would stop the deal, which is set to close on March 2, next Thursday.

But on Thursday, when asked if Bush would now accept "a slight delay", Rove replied "yes."

Sigh. Who can you trust these days? Even the slightest delay in ramming this deal through will threaten our national security, Mr. Rove, you paranoid isolationist, you.

Concession ... desperation ... threats of emboldening the enemy through "distrust" (the latest secret terrorist psyops weapon). Starting to look like an interesting campaign season, isn't it?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:56 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  White House talking points on Portgate (4.00)
    My diary entry for today has a set of talking points on the port deal. I found them on the blog of the Michigan state GOP chair, and assume that they originated at the White House.

    "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm"--James Madison

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 05:59:28 PM PST

    •  nice diary (none)
      the truth both sides ignore

      the threats to ports is serious and this issue ignores the greatest peril

      any ship coming in could cause disaster

      the only way to stop it, is to change the way people feel about rich countries, (by doing good)

      Are ports hard to protect?
      Yes. They're often large and busy, offering multiple opportunities for terrorists to get in and attack. The port of Houston, for example, is 26 miles long, and thousands of trucks enter and exit its major terminals every day. Moreover, ships often traverse narrow channels; a sunken ship in such a channel could close the port for weeks or months and cause economic chaos.

      You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

      by Peter Pan on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:03:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought we were SUPPOSED to be (none)
      distrustful and paranoid all the time.  I thought we were supposed to be muttering 9/11 9/11 all the time....oh, I see. We're supposed to be distrustful and paranoid about everyone EXCEPT George W. Bush.

      Okay, got it.  Thanks for straightening me out on this.  I sure want to do my part in the War on Terra.

      Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

      by litigatormom on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:34:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is a point to made here (none)
    First of all, going to war with Iraq -- that was paranoid and isolationist.

    But I do agree that we should carefully review this deal in a way that does not send a message to the Middle East that we are anti-arab. I think this is an extremely valid concern.

    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

    by Zackpunk on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:04:26 PM PST

    •  Starting a False War in Iraq is Anti-Middle East (4.00)
      Equating terrorism with Iraq for NO GOOD REASON is what was and is "Anti Middle East."

      This politically stupid plan was guaranteed to back-fire as soon as people figured out what the WH was trying to pull.

      If Bush REALLY wanted to promote this plan as a "pro-Arab" move THEN WHY DIDN'T HE EXPLAIN HIMSELF IN FRONT OF A BANNER THAT SAID "I'M PRO-ARAB" 48 TIMES in royal blue? That's what he usually does when he is trying to tout himself.

      Why doesn't Bush hire a Dubai-based company to rebuild the Gulf Coast? Since has obviously giving up on the idea of HIS OWN INCOMPETENT REGIME managing port security, why stop there?

    •  Which Arabs, The Kings or the Peons? (4.00)
      Anti-arab to who? The common Arab on the street has no stake in who manages the ports so why would they care. The Arabs who do have a stake are the Kings and Sheiks of the UAE. Who by the way have no elections in their country - which makes them a target of Bush's push for democracy - - - or not.

      Might as well throw Saudi Arabia in that 'or not' group also - free from the threat of US imposed democracy by secret agreement - the secret agreement which Bush has no knowledge of by the way.

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:50:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stakes (none)
        The average arab also has no stake in what an obscure cartoonist in Denmark draws. I think it's a mistake to sit back and reason that our response to this deal wouldn't concern the average arab, therefore it doesn't matter. The truth is, it's playing in the media over there, and it's not playing very well. For us. Quite frankly, it's making us look a bit paranoid and stupid.

        We may look at the UAE and see a country that aids terrorists -- but they look at us and see a bunch of insane lunatics who torture arabs for no reason, and invade arab nations and kill tens of thousands of innocent people for no reason, and so on. And now we're all up in arms because we don't think they're trustworthy enough to do business with. It just isn't playing very well. To quote a line from a movie, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

        The first thing we have to do to fight terrorism is bridge these communication failures. Actually, the first thing we have to do is recognize them when they happen. Well, it's happening. We need to pay attention to this.

        "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

        by Zackpunk on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:06:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Denmark Cartoons (3.33)
          struck at the very soul of Islam and therefore every Arab on the street. It was an insult to their religion - a much higher insult that a business deal insult. Does  the port rejection put us in a better light? Of course not. But it does not have the same bearing of invasion, torture or occupation by any stretch of the imagination.

          If given a choice between granting access to our ports to a checkered government so as to 'put us in a good light' with the Arab street versus protecting our ports of entry for Americans - there is no choice.

          Bush is the one who has put us in this position you fret about. It is up to him to get the UAE to conjure up a way to bow out with honor for themselves and us.

          "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

          by talex on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:22:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not mutually exclusive (none)
            We can do both -- we can protect our ports and also not come across as a bunch of xenophobic anti-arabs. I'm sorry but I don't think anyone has done a very good job with this issue, all the way around. At least it's making Bush look bad, so maybe some good will come of it in the long run.

            "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

            by Zackpunk on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:27:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You Are Right (none)
              I agree that this has played out badly for our image, but all things considered, in a very minor way. That said I still think the most graceful exit from this debacle is for the UAE to bow out gracefully 'on their own' - wink wink, nod nod.

              "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

              by talex on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:38:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  business deals between two foreign owned companies (none)
                should not result in xenophobic racist reactions on the part of open minded tolerant people. This is a bad topic for democrats and liberals to be getting gleeful over.

                obviously our ports have been in the control of a foreign power for a long time now. we have to ask ourselves if we would be in any kind of uproar if the company buying the british company was "vancouver ports" instead of "dubai ports".

                It's perfectly reasonable that the president would not be aware of a business deal that was going down between two foreign companies. the only possible traction for democrats here is to play to people's fears and that's not wise.

                I hate to say it (gag, choke, gag, gag), but I think the only position to take here is the one that Bush is stating: we can't hold arabic companies to a different standard than we would british companies.

                We also cannot expect that the company dubai ports will simply drop the deal because we are xenophobic.

                on the other hand, gw's base is probably feeling a bit confused because he's been preaching hate and fear of arabic people for a long time now, and then turns around and says, don't worry, be happy.

          •  For sure (none)
            Port security must come first...

            And frankly, as far as the Arab street is concerned, at this point... we could issue a statement in support of "milk and cookies" and there would still be protests.  

  •  Let's burn the village to save the village, folks! (4.00)
    Only an idiot could not predict that the WH would use its usual rationale (used in tearing up the Constitution/spying on Americans/and eliminating our civil liberties) to sell this port deal. 911. War on terror. 911. War on terror. 911. Unbelievable!

    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.--Winston Churchill

    by Sunqueen212 on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:06:04 PM PST

  •  I hope everyone catches Aravosis on this one. (4.00)
    He really put the bitch-slap smack-down on Gordon England about this today:
    •  Nice! (4.00)
      I liked this paragraph:
      You want to talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies? How about your boss single handedly ripping the US Constitution to shreds, spying on American citizens, lying to the American public in order to get us to support his failed wars of convenience that have now so overstrapped our military we're unable to defend ourselves where and when it really matters?
      (John Aravosis)
  •  Wonder When Rove Will Tell Junior (4.00)
    That His Mind Has Been Changed For Him....
  •  Anyone who questions King George (4.00)
    is threatening national security, it turns out.

    Or at least that's what I'm told.

  •  Rove came up w/ an idea... (4.00)
    on how to drive the UAE port deal and sectarian violence in Iraq off the front pages.  After considerable reflection, he told Cheney to go quail hunting this weekend.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures, ya know.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:08:39 PM PST

  •  Rove. his back to the wall (3.75)
    Bush, betraying his base...again

    Cheney, emotionally distraught...snicker

    Rove, his back to the wall

    Chertoff, playing leapfrog with the Congressional Unicorn.

    Are Happy Days right around the corner?


    I know I'm having fun!

    You can't lick the system...but you can give it a damn good fondling!

    by buhdydharma on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:08:44 PM PST

  •  Asleep at the wheel again... (4.00)
    President Bush claims he only learned of the port deal a few days ago.  As President of the United States how can he be so far out of the loop, concerning our vital national security. And as usual anyone who disagrees with the WH is not a patriot and helping the terrorist.
  •  Any disagreement (4.00)
    with the Kingdom emboldens the terrorists! When will we learn.


    •  Or, you can say... (none)
      George W. Bush is terrorism's #1 recruiter. We should be more secure in the world, knowing what we know now post 9/11. Instead, it is a far more dangerous world now for Americans. And, it may take generations to repair the damage.
      •  UHHH HELLO! (none)
        " may take generations to repair the damage."

        I have already started to appologize to my children for the stealing of their future. My 13yo is keenly attuned to the traitor in chief, but my 9 and 5 yo are just kiddies.
        I appologize for letting terrorists steal your future right under my nose.

    •  Republicans are soft on terrorism (4.00)
      not just Bush.  They Republicans do anything Bush tells them to do, so the whole filthy lot of them deserve to be tarred with this meme.  If they didn't act like some cheap imitation of the Soviet Politburo  then maybe the Republican Congress could steer clear of criticism, but not under these circumstances.  Had the Republicans in congress actually permitted the Democrats to conduct some sort of oversight over Bush (because you know that the Republicans sure won't do it) then maybe the little boy who thinks he's king wouldn't think that he could do anything that he wanted to do.  

      Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

      by LionelEHutz on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:40:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just in case you didn't know... (4.00)
    This is a crock pot:

    This is a crackpot

    Got the difference?

  •  All or Nothing (4.00)
    After 9/11 King Bush said you are either "with us or against us." With UAE's support of the Taliban, connection to terrorists, refusal to recognize Isreal, laundering some of the 9/11 money...If this is the "with us" crowd we are in serious trouble.

    Go Red Sox! See you next year!

    by MikeBaseball on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:12:33 PM PST

  •  They are trying to spin this (4.00)
    as hard as they can but it won't work.  People aren't listening.  Frightened people don't listen to reason.

    They have worked for five years on training the American people to see terrorists(and by that I mean Arab terrorists) around every corner and under every rock.  And it worked.  People here are completely paranoid about anything to do with Arabs or Islam.  So now they think they are going to turn over some of our ports to an Arab country?  A country that very helpfully (for our large remedial population) put the word 'Arab' in its name?!  These guys are a riot.

    Truely.  This is so stupid, on so many levels.  The mind boggles.

  •  Best be carefull with all this "psyops" (4.00)
    I can't believe the simple and straightforward Bush believes the psychologocal-thriller-sequel will maintain its popularity... indefinitely, no less.

    I mean, who's this guy think he's talkin' too? Gettin' all nuanced and shit? Educated intellectual east coast elitists now?

    I'm always wary of those who know what to say but not what to do.

    by NeoconSemanticist on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:15:33 PM PST

  •  no worries because.. (4.00)
    Congress is just a "different branch of gov". eh?

    Rice soothes UAE over ports row
    Rice told them the Bush administration was confident the deal would go through despite a political firestorm in Washington, said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named because he was outlining private talks.
    UAE officials have refused to wade into the row. But Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, chairman of state-owned DP World, hailed the support of
    President George W. Bush, who has threatened to veto any attempts to block the deal.

    "We are very encouraged by what Mr. Bush has said. We are happy that he takes this view," he told Reuters in Dubai.

    "Of course we are confident it will go ahead. There's no question about it. We would not have all raised all this money and done so much work if it was not going to."
    "They probably feel unfairly treated," one official said. "(But) the issue is not going to be troublesome, since it is a different branch of government (raising objections)."

     Well I am glad Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, chairman of state-owned DP World is happy and really just luvs bubbleboy but most Americans have a problem here. So is bushy with Americans or against them?

    (-7.50 -6.31) As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. J.F.K

    by arkdem on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:27:46 PM PST

    •  The UAE said they'd name a port after Condi (4.00)
      so she's all for the deal.  She's already got a oil tanker named after her, now she wants a port.  Next -- the world.  

      Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

      by LionelEHutz on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:41:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Has there been a poll (none)
    of what percentage of Americans oppose the National Grand Opening of Port Osama? Just a guess--it's gotta be in the '70s, right? Higher? Now that the Pentagon has declared a supermajority of American citizens terrorists, allow me to quote something I've heard somewhere before:


    Where have I heard that? Oh, yeah. My new sig line.

    We are all insurgents now.

    by The Gryffin on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:29:18 PM PST

  •  Not much to worry about in UAE (4.00)
    From the US State Department
    Travel Warnings

    COUNTRY DESCRIPTION: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven independent emirates, each with its own ruler. The federal government is a constitutional republic, headed by a president and council of ministers. Islamic ideals and beliefs provide the conservative foundation of the country's customs, laws and practices. The UAE is a modern, developed country, and tourist facilities are widely available. Read the Department of State Background Notes on the United Arab Emirates at for additional information.

    SAFETY AND SECURITY: Americans in the United Arab Emirates should exercise a high level of security awareness. The Department of State remains concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. Americans should maintain a low profile, vary routes and times for all required travel, and treat mail and packages from unfamiliar sources with caution. In addition, U.S. citizens are urged to avoid contact with any suspicious, unfamiliar objects, and to report the presence of the objects to local authorities. Vehicles should not be left unattended, if at all possible, and should be kept locked at all times. U.S. Government personnel overseas have been advised to take the same precautions. In addition, U.S. Government facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time as necessary to review their security posture and ensure its adequacy.

    Taking photographs of potentially-sensitive military or civilian sites, and/or engaging in mapping activities, especially mapping which includes the use of GPS equipment, without coordination with UAE authorities, may result in arrest, detention and/or prosecution by local authorities.

    This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

    by Agathena on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:31:48 PM PST

  •  The Moors are coming! The Moors are coming! (none)
    Resistance is futile.  The Moors come in peace.  There will be a new age of intellectual and architectural splendor.  Women will return to their rightful place as man's servant.
  •  But the UAE gave $100million to Katrina (none) we should just look the other way...It's just bush's way of saying, "C'mon, y'all know y'all got a price..."

    In other words, the PR battle has begun, and the UAE will end up winning...unfortunately at the expense of this country.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

    by darthstar on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 06:35:46 PM PST

  •  The Truth Comes Out (4.00)
    Dedicated UEA Backer Comes Out

  •  Port O' Ruse (none)
    Does all of the Port Controversy seem a bit trumped up from the WH end. This story has been pushed to the head of the line by the White House, which has a history making everyone watch one hand while the other performs some "magic" (to control the news cycle, while other, more important stories wither, i.e. Iraq Civil War) How often does Bush go to the back of the plane for any reason, let alone to talk to MSM about a Port Deal he knows little about? Seems bogus. Hastert and Frist come out swinging against KG & the Admin almost immediately. Conspiracy theories aside, what will come from this story. Repub Congress can claim come November "we are not hacks for the WH, look at all that Port Legis!" and the White House keeps more important, more damaging news off the FP for awhile.
    MSM and Blogos eat it up, "look at all that bi-partisanship in congress!" An Im-PORT-ant story, but probably beefed by WH to make us look the other way and give Repub some cover at election time. BIG PICTURE!
    •  Good point. (none)
      IMHO, this is mainly an emotional piece - Terri Schaivo in reverse.

      I doubt if the new owner will shortchange security. In fact, the Dubai port authority will probably be held to a higher standard of compliance to US regulations than a comparable US owner.

      There are certainly residual risks (brother of a cousin of a port authority official's sister will tell Al Qaeda about the US security protocol), but those will probably be no worse than getting a US port worker drunk after work.

      The main issue is the unending series of incompetent decisions by this administration. How could they not forsee a firestorm? How could they be so stupid as to condescend and minimize public fears? Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, .... did I say Dumb?

      -2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right even though you were told to do it.

      by grapes on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:05:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If nonsense brings down Bush (none)
      let's bring it on.

      This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

      by Agathena on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:45:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My thoughts exactly (none)
      The port deal, as has been observed, is just the sort of thing that regular folks can understand.  The average Bush Supporters aren't very good at reading between the lines, but they have been well-coached to make the connection between Arabs and Terrorists.  The WH has lobbed a great big obvious thing at them to get them worked up.  

      Now, the Republicans in Congress have recently been accused of rubberstamping everything the WH does and, more importantly, WITHOUT PROPER OVERSIGHT.  Flash back to those closed-door meetings with Rove a couple of weeks ago.  I can just picture Rove telling them they had better help with the cover-up of this NSA thing or it might be curtains for the Bush admin.  "But," cries the distraught Hastert, "you gotta give us something.  They're killing us with this "lack-of-oversight" business.  We're looking bad and we've got elections to win this year!"

      They made a deal and this is all PR.  Plus, they get the bonus of being able to claim that Democrats, in opposing the deal, are just as paranoid about Arabs as they are.

      Bush has already started to back down.  He just has to waiver a little more to sell the case that the 'tough' Republicans in Congress, guardians of checks and balances that they are, have forced him to back down.

  •  Karl's gotta brand new rag (none)
    ... with the National Security talking point stuck in his rear, just when he's trying to close the deal. Damn, it hurts.
  •  Moral Conflict (none)
    "The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

    Mislearning Boyd's teachings...

    •  Interesting blog NTodd (none)
      Good article on Boyd! I bookmarked you.

      It's funny. Right now, this week, Bushco has been more transparent, more up front and truthful with the American people about who they are and what they're up to ($$$) than ever before. Suddenly, they're not speaking esoteric Staussian, but plain exoteric English.

      And they've enraged the nation. Will they get it now, how wrong Stauss was? The "man of the city" isn't the limitlessly manipulable fool that they thought.

      Is nothing secular?

      by aitchdee on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 10:13:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Come on, (none)
    doesn't everyone know that we were only supposed to fear Middle Eastern terrorists up until Election Day, 2004?  

    Sure seems that way.  For someone who accuses others of having a pre-9/11 mindset, Bush's stand on this port issue screams, "hypocrisy."

    I think this is a losing issue for Bush all around.  He will either back off from the deal, or have his veto overriden (I doubt if it will come to that).  But if the GOP does succumb to backroom "armtwisting" and lets the prez have his way, the Dems will benefit in 2006.  No worries...

  •  I can't stop laughing...really (4.00)
    I can't..I mean come say:

       Pentagon: Ports uproar may pose security risk

        The second in command at the Pentagon said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

    And then to have the balls to say:


    "The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

    My GOD for the last five years TERROR, TERROR, AXIS OF EVIL, TERROR, TERROR, We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here, watch out "they are going to get you."

    Alert! Alert!  

    For the last five FUCKING years that is ALL this administration had done and now?  I am laughing so hard I have tears in my eyes.....just unfucking believable....

  •  This statement is outrageous (4.00)
    "The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

    What IS outrageous is a man working for this Administration, after 5 years of fearmongering, throwing people in jail without a key, not speaking up when people call all Arabs "ragheads", trying to scare the bejeebus out of people because Iran is shaking its tailfeathers, calling anyone who happens to be brown a terrorist....


    (I won't even get into the nonsense about equating people to traitors)

    Not to mention its conflates the ports issue.  And I can only hope this Administration and their allies pay the price at the ballot box in November.

    That being said, we don't have to fall into the trap.  The point of terrorism is to force us to give up the things we hold dear and become paranoid, to give up our most basic rights.

    I personally refuse to change my lifestyle or give up any of my rights because of some lunatics.

    I refuse.

    BTW-One of these lunatics just called for truce, which is usually a sign of a ramp up period.  Instead of this guy calling his fellow Americans treasonous, I wonder if he could start doing his job...


    Chris Matthews must apologize! --- Join the Google Bomb

    by justmy2 on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:17:58 PM PST

    •  Maybe Secretary England is suggesting (none)
      that we can start visiting Cuba again without permission from the gummint?

      I'm sure the Dubai Ports World is just as aware as the US Coast Guard that:

      No boat can go from U.S. to Cuba unless otherwise authorized, no vessel carrying goods or passengers to or from Cuba or carrying goods in which Cuba or a Cuban national has any interest may enter a U.S. port. The prohibition also applies to vessels which enter only to take on fuel and supplies...

      We sure don't trust them Cubans.
      I get spooked just thinking about them.

      -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

      by pat bunny on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:46:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  But..but..It's a post 9/11 world, Karl (none)
     This deal would probably have gone thru in a pre 9/11 world without a second glance. But, wasn't it you who just finished telling us pre-9/11 thinking won't keep us safe. You can't have it both ways, Karl. It seems in your world, safety is secondary to commerce.

     I just don't think I can believe you anymore. Your priorities seem out of place.
    You know, a post 9/11 world doesn't leave room for these kind of mistakes. And you  guys just seem to keep on making them, and patting each other on the back for the heck of great job your doing.

    Mythology is what we call other people's religion-Joseph Campbell

    by Sherri in TX on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:33:06 PM PST

  •  Interesting bit...... (none)
    On Air America tonight Randi Rhodes mentions that per testimony in Congress by Richard Clarke and George Tenent, we had a change to bomb Osama in Afghanistan but let the opportunity pass because it would have taken out half of the UAE Royal Family.......get it?

    Get the money out of elections-it's our only shot. -8.88 -8.05

    by brent for truth on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 07:35:10 PM PST

    •  I think George Tenet (none)
      said the same thing... in testimony.

      The fact is we pissed off our boys in the middle east and they hit us back to remind us we weren't invincible. They used the Taliban to do it... who of course was only too eager.

      Clinton wasn't nearly as close to these people as the Bush family; not even close. But he's no slouch when it came to dealing with these people either.

      But the Congress being what it was, even Clinton couldn't take these UAE guys out. They are royalty afterall. Hard to imagine killing them outright. That would probably be out of line in some way... in the broader context of things and the reaction it would spur... though not at all unethical from my standpoint.

      No, the only way to deal with this problem of rich terrorists in the middle east and the u.s. is to stop doing business with them.

      The Bush family can't do that because everything they have is built on that connection.

      That's why it's such a tragedy that Bush was installed of course... his family's connections are the primary reason why we were attacked on 911 and it's why our troops are dying now.

      It's so sad that middle americans and southerners were so bigoted and self-righteous about their beliefs that they sold themselves out to this fascist terrorist.

      But they did. And they should all burn in hell for it. Unless they're willing to work doubletime from now until the day they die to make up for 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. Maybe that will be enough. Frankly, I hope not... I don't want them around my neck of the woods in heaven.

      Liable to spoil the whole mood.

  •  The Bush family is a National Security Threat (4.00)
  •  Pigf*ckers. (none)
    I can't find a direct email, but anybody who wishes to contact Mr. England may find him at the DOD's website here.

    And since this is public record on their website:

    Gordon R. England
    Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense
    1010 Defense Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20301-1010

  •  Even if it is a security risk (4.00)
    Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

    Isn't this how you deal with volcanos and aliens from outer space?

    Give them what they want or we might anger them.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 08:01:11 PM PST

  •  Imagine giving the Japanese control... (none)
    ...of Pearl Harbor in 1943.
  •  ReTurn of the Century (none)
    We're going to hear that refusing Dubai's royal control of our ports is "isolationist". Bush insisted we can't be isolationists in his State of the Union gibberish, just as strongly as he repeats the anachronistic "oceans don't protect us" everywhere on his endless campaign tour.

    Oceans haven't protected us since at latest the Cold War and ICBMS, and didn't protect us from Pearl Harbor or even the USS Maine in Havana 1898. And the US hasn't been isolationist since at latest WWI.

    Could Bush be getting his speeches written by Monty Burns? We certainly seem to be hearing a lot more abou the glory of nuclear plants...

  •  What Bush knows and doesn't know (none)
    Apparently Bush knows lots of things that aren't true, such as WMDs in Iraq, Saddam's involvement in 9/11,  and Al Quada influence in Iraq -- and doesn't know about lots of other things which are true and which he should know about, such as the Dubai deal to take over American ports and UAE connections to 9/11.  The level of willful ignorance of this President gets more astonishing every day and is itself a threat to our national security.  I hope he does veto the bill opposing the DP World takeover--and then have the veto overridden.  No wonder the repugs are running scared about this latest Bush fiasco--it makes Bush and the Republicans look like hypocritical nincompoops over their constant chant about national security and makes the Democrats now look more prescient and strong about national security.  This looks like a win-win for the Dems, unless they can stubble into a way to f*ck it up.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

    by dewtx on Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:44:20 PM PST

  •  Pimping Lou Dobbs tonight (none)
    He was on fire about the port deal.The total truth. I uploaded the Complete show. I think it has alot of information in it.
  •  Money, God, Country (none)
    In that order.  I dug up Cheney's views on business versus national security (from 2004 vp debate)

    "IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work."

    After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?

    CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.

    What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American companies."

    As if an embargo from the largest economy in the world would have no impact.  For Repubz, its Money, God, Country -- in that order.

  •  Adminstration failing to perform it's job (none)
    It's not the Congress job to notice we need a full (read 45-day) formal review under the statute.  Giving Congress "more time" doesn't trigger the 45 day review.  This is a stalling tactic, but it will not reduce the heat over the issue, until the Adminstration does it's job and executes the full review.

    When, Mr. Bush, will you follow that common sense approach and request the 45 day review process?  Why are you unwilling to investigate this deal when the statue appears to explicitly call for it any time a foreign power (state-owned) entity attempts to complete such a transaction? Is it because doing so would further reveal how crony capitalism is driving Adminstration decisions and trumping the security and interests of the American people.

    "These are the times that try men's [and women's] souls." - The Crisis, December 23, 1776

    by TPaine on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:49:44 AM PST

  •  interesting campaign season? (none)
    Just like the last season.  Lies, deceipt, fear, lies, deceipt, fear, fear, fear, vote rePUKE.

    Looks just like the last one for sure.  Just that the stakes are much higher now.  

    Healing BEGINS with impeachment...(-6.00/-4.10)

    by valeria on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 04:11:52 AM PST

  •  Have You Seen Dubai Lately? (none)
    Here's a sneak peek.

    In doing some of my own research about the UAE I found these sites and wanted to share.
    The Bazillions of $$$$ they have for all of these projects must just be a drop in the oil bucket!!
    Check out these (actually) fascinating sites:

    Check out the video they offer on this site-

    The worlds tallest skyscraper (160+ floores) being built-
    see the actual building as it is being built here-

    I do not agree with this sale, I feel that it is even bigger than they say it is:
    "UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports"

    The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it. Moliere

    by ikrisarus on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 07:10:28 AM PST

  •  Transparent (none)
    Dickweed said, "blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies."

    It is an exercise in sheer stupidity to assume that the people of the UAE do not, for the most part, resent the United States for invading Iraq when they posed no threat.

    Bush places us at greater peril by the day.  This must stop.  Impeach, now.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 08:37:53 AM PST

  •  What if it were the French? (none)
    I'll bet there would be total administration hostility to this port deal if this were a French takeover rather than a UAE takeover -- even though the French are technically a closer ally to the US than the UAE.  Go figure.  Well back to my croissant and cafe au lait.

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

    by dewtx on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 09:36:34 AM PST

  •  I had to look that up (none)
    To much information for my brain.
    For a second I thought you were the important guy
    Tom Paine.
  •  the deal is BASES OVER THERE, not ports over here (none)
    (1) USA has a major airbase in the UAE;

    (2) UAE has one of the only Aircraft Carrier-capable port terminals in the War Theatre;

    (3) significant military Command & Control staff officers and NGO corporate logistics & banking personnel presence in UAE capital city Dubai.

    port deal feels like a Quid Pro Quo arrangement...

    ...this is one interpretation of: "Pentagon: Ports uproar may pose SECURITY RISK [over there?]"

    nous sommes celui qui nous feignons pour etre

    by MonsieurGonzo on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 11:23:55 AM PST

  •  Straits of Hormuz (none)
    A friend just came up with an interesting thesis on why the Bush administration accepted contracts with the Gulf Emirates for control of U.S. East Coast ports: The Straits of Hourmuz. In the case of a U.S. attack on Iran, assumed is Iranian attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz. In exchange for U.S. port control, my friend speculates the U.S. expects the Emirates to provide the means of keeping the Straits open.
  •  I think my fucking head is going to EXPLODE!!!!!!! (none)
    First I read this little bit of rehashed drivel...

    ........people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

    So let me get this straight... If I oppose a terrorist supporting nation I'm with the terrorists?


    Bush's new willingness to soothe angry Republican and Democratic lawmakers who oppose the deal because they feel it would jeopardize national security..........

    What the fuck is it Bush? Who will win the hurting national security tug-of-war? Either we who disagree with you PUBLICLY are threatening national security OR the deal is hurting national security!



    Is this another Harriet Miers head fake so the next in line is HALLIBURTON?

    -5.13,-5.63 IMPEACH...IMPEACH...IMPEACH...

    by rickeagle on Fri Feb 24, 2006 at 02:01:34 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site