Surely our Arab allies can understand that ports are a national security issue and we don't (or should not)"outsource" that. So sell them the Empire State Bulding, the movie studios, General Electric, and Disneyland, but keep our ports, airports, defense industry, and other vital interests separate. Surely any reasonable person can understand that a line must be drawn between commerce and national security. We see it every time we fly when we are checked at the gate by the TSA before we are allowed to enter an airplane.

If the Arabs and others can't understand the line that's just too bad. Based on the Financial Times argument, everything must go to the highest bidder. In a post 911 world - or not, that's nonsense.

BTW who manages their ports?

What MaryAnne said.

Have anyone at the Post spent some serious time at a US port, say Baltimore, and find out exactly who does what there?

Sure the Coast Guards patrol the waters. And Customs inspect the cargos when they are unloaded. But who provides the over all security? Who hires, fires, and controls the personnel who guard the terminals, the warehouses, the ships? Who sets their daily schedules? Can the people who run the port bypass Customs if they want to? How hard would it be? Who knows about the contents of the cargoes? And if potential terrorists get hold of the manifest of a run of the mill but still dangerous shipload of chemicals how hard or easy would it be for them to hijack the ship and blow it up?

Caution would dictate until the Post finds out the answers to these questions they would withhold judgements about this deal. But just like the Iraq war they jump head first into it and endorsed the war without reservations. Look where it's led us. Look what misery it has brought the Iraqi people. The very same people who the Post now professes they don't want to offend.

"The general public in america has a totally distorted view of what Dubai is,"

This general person's view of Dubai is a place where the Crown Prince used to travel to Afghanistan to go hunting with Osama Bin Laden, knowing he was a terrorist. Maybe 9-11 was a wake-up call that made him sever his friendship with ol' Binnie. Maybe.

We had to invade Iraq because maybe Saddam had WMD and maybe the next smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud and "maybe" was too big a risk to take with our security.

Emily, the American people don't switch it on and off that fast. Either "maybe" is too big of a risk or it isn't. The American people don't change their opinion of the word "maybe" just becuse a Bush crony's pocket is getting lined this time, or because we might offend a few Arabs. 9-11 offended a lot of Americans too.

Until just now we were supposed to cheer on torture and gulags because "they're just terrorists... they're animals... they don't deserve better". Except for that teensy little thing like the Red Cross was right, 70% of the people in Abu Ghraib weren't terrorists at all. Until last week it was unpatriotic for us to care if we were offending the Arab world - us shameful libs only wanted to give them therapy you know. Suddenly today it is a huge tragedy that we might offend the UAE? What else do you have to sell me cause I'm not buying this load of crap.

I think you see the opposition as irrational. Get a clue. There was nothing rational about 70% of AMericans believing Iraq was involved in 9-11 or allied with al Qaeda. (And most of the people who reported believing that also said they believed it because Bush told them it was so).

There is nothing rational about the fact that 85% of soldiers in the recent Zogby poll reported their mission was to retaliate against Saddam for his role in the 9-11 attacks, and 77% to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq. http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060228/cm_huffpost/016497;_ylt=A86.I0q3ggREc9wA6hj9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Emily, if you're looking for nuance and reason, take another vacation cause you won't find it here. What you're seeing here is people getting a clue that American has been sold to the highest bidder, national security included. What you're seeing is people getting a clue that they can't trust our president to act in our best interests. Its not pretty and its not all rational. Some of it is just "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore".

But there is indeed some rationality to this. You have never responded to the fact that you were misled about the US continuing to provide port security. The port operator secures the physical perimeter of the port after filing the plan with the Coast Guard. Hires and fires the security guards, etc. Care to comment on why you have no concerns that the country whose Crown Prince was OBL's hunting buddy knowing he was a terrorist will have intimate access to our ports, manifests, hiring and firing of security guards, etc?

I'll caveat this post by stating up front that I am Middle Eastern (no, not Israeli) by birth and ‎spent most of 2003-2005 living in Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq to support U.S. government ‎efforts in Iraq.‎

Emily writes that the furor over the Dubai deal "worsens America's image in the rest of ‎the world" and she goes on to cite as proof the FT article she cites above. The article, at ‎least the portion that you don't need a subscription for, doesn't say anything about the ‎‎"rest of the world," what it says is that opposition to the deal "is breeding bad feeling in ‎one section of Arab public opinion usually more favourable to the US." There is a rather ‎large difference between one section of Arab public opinion--a mighty small section I ‎might add--and "the rest of the world."‎

I wonder, do the French who passed a ban on headscarves in schools, have a worse image ‎of us now? How about the Danes, who have been attacked, pilloried and boycotted in ‎almost every Arab and Muslim country, did we hurt our standing with them? The only ‎place we have thus far hurt our image is with Arab and Muslim countries, which begs the ‎question, how much does the reaction to the port deal harm our image among those ‎countries and does it really matter?‎

The answer to the first part of the question is not much, because the view of the majority ‎of Arabs and Muslims is already so unfavorable toward the U.S. that our image deficit ‎becomes subject to the law of diminishing returns. Sure, there are governments and ‎Arab elites that are friendly to the U.S. and who may be put off by our reaction, but the ‎reality is that few, if any, of them are reliable allies--regardless of all the rhetoric you might ‎hear. You keep hearing the tired refrain that Dubai, Jordan, etc. are such close allies. Yet ‎it was the royal family of Dubai that recognized the Taliban and who had dealings with ‎Bin Laden. It was in Dubai where A.Q. Khan's nuclear dealings with Iran were ‎facilitated. Even today, Dubai is a playground for Iranian elites and vast sums of money ‎are funneled through Dubai by Iran.‎

Dubai is the 1940s Switzerland of the Middle East--ask them no questions and they tell ‎you no lies. Sure you felt safe walking the streets of Dubai Emily, just as I did during my ‎visit there in 2003, but I imagine I would have felt safe in 1940 Zurich too. I guess I ‎shouldn't completely knock Dubai, though, as they are quite progressive socially. You ‎know, flying in plane loads of Russian prostitutes on Mondays for the work week and ‎shipping them back on Fridays.‎

Oh and Jordan? Yes, they are great allies too. You have no idea how much their ‎corruption cost us--that would be you and me and every other taxpayer--in terms of ‎funds during our efforts to train the Iraqi police in Jordan. Even better was getting up ‎in the morning and reading in the Jordan times about how taxis lined up on certain ‎mornings in the Iraqi neighborhoods of Amman to transport Iraqis back so they could ‎fight against our forces in Fallujah and other parts of the country. How do you suppose ‎those taxis got across the border? I mean, it wasn't a secret, it was in their own ‎newspaper!‎

This doesn't mean we don't need the help of these countries, but let's just say that they ‎will help us because it is in their interest to do so--not because we are their dear allies. ‎The Emiratis and the rest of the Gulf States are running scared of both Iran and Al Qaeda, ‎so they have much to gain and little to lose by helping us--at the moment. Jordan and ‎Kuwait have enjoyed milking us of hundreds of millions of dollars of Iraq reconstruction ‎money and now realize that they need us to stay in Iraq to prevent anarchy from reaching ‎them. They will help us and we will do our part for their stability and economies, but that ‎doesn't mean we need to open our infrastructure to even the remotest possibility that the ‎overwhelmingly anti-American sentiment of the region might lead to some compromise ‎in our security through operatives/managers or agents of these companies.‎

So please, all of you apologists for our Arab and Muslim "friends," don't lecture the rest ‎of us on how we should treat our "allies." Oh, and to that Canadian senator I would ‎respond--you might feel differently about telling Americans to "get a grip" on security ‎issues had you been in my Pentagon office on 9/11.‎

in other words, the image of the us is so bad in the arab world that this could hardly do much more damage?

thats a mouthful

how did we let it come to this? how will we get control of our government back?

who will decide what it means to be american?

"how did we let it come to this? how will we get control of our government back?

November 7, 2006
Time for the republicans to have their jobs outsourced to Americans.

"how did we let it come to this? ... plane loads of Russian prostitutes! Nasty! Ha Ha I can't help imagining a cargo hold full of big mean Russian women. Wouldn't want to inspect that bio-hazard.

So maybe Dubai is hunky dunky swell. That doesn't mean they need to own a piece of the U.S. I've been around long enough to see leadership changes in countries. Even Saddam was once our friend.

It did occur to me, however, that since Bush is visiting these countries right now, maybe he should also visit Iraq. He could freely walk down the streets because, after all, we were going to be "greeted as liberators". Better yet, he could walk down the streets in Iraq holding hands with Rice, Rumfield, Cheney, etc.

Please bookmark:
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
www.wsws.org

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2453798.058333333.html

UAE buys British firm that runs U.S. military facilities

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, March 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The United Arab Emirates intends to operate U.S. military factories.

The Bush administration has informed Congress of a review of the UAE acquisition of a British manufacturer of engine components for U.S. military aircraft and main battle tanks. The British firm operates nine factories, including military production facilities in Connecticut and Georgia.

Officials said Dubai International Capital has acquired the London-based Doncasters Group for $1.2 billion. Doncasters produces engine components and turbine blades for military platforms, and its clients include Boeing, General Electric, Honeywell and Pratt and Whitney, Middle East Newsline reported.

"It's a standard business deal by a consortium that seeks opportunities," an official said. "But it also fits in well with Dubai's plans to create an aerospace industry."

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States completed a standard 30-day review and last week decided to extend the investigation for another 45 days. Dubai International is part of Dubai Holding, the third-largest shareholder in DaimlerChrysler.

The latest reviews by CFIUS came amid sharp opposition in Congress to the panel's decision to approve the UAE takeover of operations of six U.S. ports. In January, CFIUS approved the $6.8 billion takeover of Dubai Port World of a British company that has long operated the American ports.

Congressional sources said the Senate Banking Committee was informed of the CFIUS investigation of Dubai International on Feb. 27. The committee was also informed that the Treasury panel has ordered a 45-day review of a proposed Israeli takeover of a U.S. contractor for the American intelligence community.

On Thursday, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said the additional review of Dubai International stemmed from what he termed unresolved security questions. He would not elaborate.

Officials acknowledged that CFIUS has reduced security reviews of foreign companies that aim to establish a presence in the United States. In 2005, 65 foreign companies were investigated, compared to 204 in 1989.

"We clearly have to do some things inside the departments, and we clearly have to do quite a bit in finding ways to provide you more promptly with the information you need," Kimmitt told the Senate Banking Committee.

Officials identified the Israeli suitor as Check Point Software Technologies, a company traded in Israel and the United States. Check Point has offered $228 million for the Maryland-based firm Sourcefire, which supplies security software for the Defense Department and intelligence agencies.

"Check Point and Sourcefire are both committed to working cooperatively with the committee during the investigative period," Check Point said in a statement.

Earlier this week, Congress was informed that CFIUS would undertake an additional 45-day review of Dubai Port World. The first review lasted for the standard 30 days.

"Dubai cannot be trusted," House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter said. "I intend to do everything I can to kill the deal."

Dear Emily:

Thank you for the plug to the Emirates Economist.

Other posts in my series on Dubai and ports include (a sampler of many):

Make the world go away

Comment on Jordan Times op-ed

Will DPW spin off the US ports?

Winning the war on terror

Who is "tone deaf"?

bush is in complicity for his family on the ports deal...

he's already gotten something, and this is what he's supposed to deliver...

he cares as much for you as he does for the illegal aliens that he wants to grant amnesty....

as he pays them half of what he pays other workers and reduces

benefits in healthcare, medicare, family planning and federal monies to schools...

he's planning ahead, to reduce his expenditures while reducing your takehome and the viability of your families...

by increasing the number of people that inhabit the servant, peasant, indentured servant classe

as he enjoys his favorite brandy, bike riding in china, and quail shoots with his drug addled cronies in the west texas plains...

good luck with your life, you're not even on his radar...

you don't exist

unless he's worried....

so give him something to worry about,

remove him from office, attach his properties and sell everything he or his family has ever been involved with.

you know he'd do that to you.

do it.

Opposition to the Dubai ports deal is not anti-Arab. It is anti-stupid. Security issues are completely beside the point. This absurd deal is all about political tone deafness and this administration's fear mongering blowing up in its collective faces. Since 9/12, the entire focus of the administration's strategy had been to generate fear in the public. The mainstream media, knowing how good fear-mongering is for ratings, watch any local newscast to see what I mean, eagerly parrotted the administration line.
Bush got what he wanted. He won re-election comfortable in the knowledge that declaring "war on terrorism" made it a certainty.
The intelligence of would-be terrorists was insulted along with that of the public by focusing the lion's share of beefed-up security on airport passengers-as if al Qaida would do exactly what they had done before should they attack again.
Why was so little done about other potential targets of terrorists?
It just wasn't visible enough. By putting airline passengers through hell, the administration could create the illusion of doing something. Think about it. Anyone with a modicum of imagination can take an hour's drive from home and find numerous potential terrorist targets easily attacked and destroyed with minimum effort and catastrophic results.
We may have been bombarded with the unrealistic notion of real security, and deep down, we may know that is a myth, but allowing firms owned by middle eastern Islamic governments to 'manage' our ports is like rubbing our noses in it.
We deserve to be treated better than this.
Meanwhile, rightwing media has pounded away with blatantly anti-Arab propaganda as our troops were offered up for slaughter-by Arabs-thanks to our blatantly stupid invasion of Iraq.

On other thing: It seems self-righteousness is just as seductive as fear. How dare anyone-especially "America-educated Arab business leaders" call those of us who oppose this ports deal racist?
Let's see them give up control of their resources to Israel.
Oh, and Emily...did it ever occur to you that we didn't object to foreign ownership of other vital aspects of our economy because NO ONE EVER TOLD US ABOUT IT!
How on earth did you get your job?
Intellectual qualifications obviously had very little to do with it.

In defense of my criticisms of Globalization I would direct everyone's attention to an article entitled "21st Century Slaves" in the Sept 2003 issue of National Geographic, a wonderful periodical.

I would temper my position somewhat by noting that the countries listed as having slaves not only includes the UAE, but also the USA.

Since Emily is not afraid of the hard subjects maybe she would consider this topic of how Globalization drives and benefits from slavery sometime in the future.

However, I would caution that we do not want to end up reading the article on Page 78 of this Issue entitled "Sleeping with Fishes."

So with that, good bye to Impeach Bush.

Joe is right. The american population didn't know about all the foreign ownership in this country because we weren't told about it. This administration likes to do everything in secret. The Bush/cheney/Rice/Rumfield crew act like the U.S. citizens and congress are the 'enemies' to them, and at the same time they want us to 'trust' them.

With so many of the people currently against this current administration, it should be interesting to see the election results this coming fall.

When you look at how close the election results were for the last two elections, one has to wonder how valid the results even were.

One thing I've noticed is that the republicans really fight dirty during election times.

In New York, there's a lawsuit pursuing, and one provision requires that states compile an electronic database of voters to prevent voter fraud and ensure no eligible voters are excluded on Election Day.

They want them to replace their lever action voting machines.

Seems like they don't want a 'paper trail'.

When you don't have a paper trail with voting, it is so easy to rig them. Everything is done electronically and with computers.

"The american population didn't know about all the foreign ownership in this country because we weren't told about it"

Whose job was it to tell us?

I wrote a blistering letter to the ombudsman some time ago complaining about lack of coverage of the pre war controversy issues. He pointed me to something like 36 articles covering just what I was complaining about - almost all inside pages, below the fold, small column stuff. It wasn't highlighted, but it was there. This port deal apparently was publicized in some financial paper months ago. It took two years for the Watergate story to catch on. This info has been there, we just weren't looking.

We can chastize the media for what they fail to put above the fold on page 1, but whose fault is it if we fail to read the rest of the paper?

Whose fault is it that we were lulled to sleep by an administration who promised to bring integrity back to Washington? Whose fault is it that we allowed the fairness doctrine to die and now the media are mostly biased cesspools of brainswashing? Whose fault is it that the NY Times and the Post screamed it on page 1 above the fold three years ago that 70% of Americans said that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11 or allied with al Qaeda and it made not one iota of difference?

Yes, there is enough blame to go all around. But lets make a new resolve not to let any of it rest on us from here forward.

Read and speak out. Your freedom depends on it.

Joe Roman - "How dare anyone-especially "America-educated Arab business leaders" call those of us who oppose this ports deal racist?"

Because xenophobia is huge in this. The last iteration was the 80s when Japanese were buying up assets. Now American States fall over each other to get Japanese car makers or electronics firms to site their factories there. Present xenophobes are the Know-nothing nativists and the Left, which gladly uses homophobic, racist, anti-Christian bigotry appeals when it suits them.

Joe Roman - "Let's see them give up control of their resources to Israel."

With outfits like Amdocs, Carnival Cruise lines, Foxcom, and miscellaneous defense firms owned by the Israeli state - Israel is indeed in American infrastructure through their telecom, defense, and shipping companies. And hopefully watched like hawks given their espionage record.

Joe Roman - "Oh, and Emily...did it ever occur to you that we didn't object to foreign ownership of other vital aspects of our economy because NO ONE EVER TOLD US ABOUT IT!"

You can't blame the newspapers for that. Blame yourself and other ignorant Americans who have ignored the WP and other financial outlets or newpaper sections that have detailed each major deal with China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Britain, France acquiring assets for the last 20 years. And both financial and economic papers published - that detail foreign ownership in each American sector. You simply elect not to know with your "news preference" for Laci, Natalie, Brad&Jen, and your favorite sports team. If you had looked, you would have seen the business pages and investment forums mentioning the Dubai deal and a dozen other proposals last October. CFIUS does hundreds of foreign purchase screenings a year. I doubt you are aware of a single one, other than DPW, and the only reason DPW got to be one of the 5-6 stories you get on TV was it was a slow news month.

You might have even educated yourself on port security or educated yourself on the wisdom of letting professionals at the Coast Guard and Customs use their best judgement and place resources where needed. Or educated yourself on the 30 years of warnings about how America's loss of competitiveness due to cheap labor and the decline of American education vis a vis the rest of the world guaranteed America would be screwed by free trade, globalization and incur the trade deficits that guarantee foreign ownership.

Or failing that, at least tried educating yourself in logic. A small foreign country that could be destroyed by the USA overnight wishes to spend 6.8 billion dollars so they can then let terrorists infiltrate and not only destroy that huge investment asset but point the way for an enraged superpower to UAE culpability??? Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, that's credible...

But you didn't, nor did you bitch about the situation because you were obsessing about American Idol, Arafat, Iran-Contra, Chandra, special effects, "Friends" or other pulp for the masses....

Joe Roman - "How on earth did you get your job?"

I suppose Messner was evaluated as having some ability. From what she writes, she clearly has the ability to do fast research, to lay it out fairly impartially and unemotionally...and chases down open questions with calls to people. She links important documents and Blogs focusing in the issue with ease and in keeping with her hosting this Blog, addresses what she has come up with for the opinions of others to comment on..

If her stuff was coming from one of the commentators, I think most serious commentators (not the deranged ones) posting would evaluate her posts as excellent. Personally, though I don't agree with some of Emily's views, notably on conjectured "enemy privacy rights" not trumping our national security need to intercept enemy communications in wartime...her threads are always full of very informative items and valuable links and she crafts it so the threads are not presented as an Emily Messner "Case Closed - Signed, Sealed, Delivered!" but left open for debate..

Joe Roman - "Intellectual qualifications obviously had very little to do with it."

Though you have some good insights - the unrealistic expectation of perfect security, an oblique reference to the 100,0000 "vulnerabilities" in America that no amount of diversion of American resources into more cops, more Federal baggage openers and toenail clipper confiscators will stop - you make the cardinal "I declaring I am stupid" mistake, Joe Roman. You do so by being too dumb to realize Messner does have "intellectual qualifications". You may disagree with her opinion on this or that, but her articles, blog submissions show she is able to research and analyze complex, emerging issues quite well...and she knows where to look..

Just a thought. Emirati Blogger notes that Dubai agreed to the Security Container Initiative which places US Customs agents in Dubai Ports checking for security issues, in 2004. Also, that Dubai was the 1st foreign nation to sign on to the US Megaports Agreement, which has US government security people and companies helping with part of the security at Dubai by adding technology to prevent nuclear and other WMD materials being transhipped through Dubai and advising on the hiring and training of personnel with use of screening techniques.

Emirati Blogger asks: "Who exactly is outsourcing port security?"

The answer is that Dubai is, by use of US companies and US government employees directly being involved in another nations security.

Dubai evidently welcomes this. Lets hope other countries welcome American assistance and companies in a similar manner.

And, as Customs and Coast Guard have said that all money for the effort to keep bad stuff, especially WMD is best spent long before the container reaches a detonation target but has yet to be searched by a receiving US Port -

Lets hope the overseas reaction is NOT "We don't need no gol-danged or Allah-danged Amurrrican furrners in OUR ports or on OUR ships!!"

Why, many politicians and jingoists here in America would be absolutely shocked! shocked! at such ignorant xenophobia about Americans.

Of course the fallacy in this arguement is that we would bring the wrath of shock and awe on the UAE if a few nefarious infiltrators sneaked through into positions of authority in DPW.

After the failed 1992 attack on US troops in Yemen, after the 93 Somalia attack on American troops, after the 1996 truck bomb attack on the Khabor Towers,after the 98 attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, still as late as 1999 the Crown Prince of Dubai was hunting in Afghanistan with his good buddy OBL. OBL was by then a known terrorist, with a record of killing Americans and known to be wanted by the USA (in fact we'd already made a failed cruise missile attack on him by then). But still the government of the UAE is such our good friend that they were hunting buddies with OBL. The US scuttled an attack on OBL becuase of the presence of an offical UAE aircraft at the campsite, and the event is labelled as a missed opportunity to get OBL. Its all here in the 9-11 report http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/independentcommissionreport032404b.html

Did 9-11 bring the wrath of America down on the UAE for this? Of course not. That would not be good for the Carlyle Group. And that was the crown prince - imagine the US reaction - not- when its "just" an infiltrator. They couldn't have known this person was an infiltrator with nefarious intent when they appointed him port manager! Of course all will be forgiven to the friends of the Carlyle Group. We can't hold an entire government responsible for the actions of a few loose cannons! Imagine if the US government was responsible for the actions of Jim Jones in Ghana! The UAE are our friends and every nation has to deal with a few loose cannons, look at what Tim McVeigh did for heaven's sake!

Oh, I see, the ol' Crown Prince saw the light after 9-11 and severed his long held ties with Binnie? Are you sure? We had to go into Iraq because we weren't sure. No risk was too small that that smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud. I even recall words from the very Chris Ford on these posts to that effect. Even if Saddam's threat turned out to be a paper tiger in retrospect, we had to act. So now can you guarantee me that The Emir Crown Prince had a permanent change of heart that survived even our invasion of Iraq? You taught me that no risk is too small to worry about when national security is at stake.

Once a ship is cleared, how do you determine that it did not meet up with another ship mid ocean and transfer the contents of containers?

Oddly, it's really a local issue. What do the people at the ports think?

Maintaining a presence near a port is a personal risk/reward decision (something like living in a hurricane alley), that is only marginally affected by the Dubai controversy and the associated possible change of control.

These particular folks might be asked if they would prefer a competent ports manager with an ME connection, or a less competent manager with no direct connection. For most of us, the issue, while nevertheless serious, is rather remote.

"Once a ship is cleared, how do you determine that it did not meet up with another ship mid ocean and transfer the contents of containers?"

Seems like GPS monitoring would reveal unusual movements, unless they perform a dangerous and difficult transfer while maintaining movement.

Chris Ford

Stop using these deranged scare tactics of how other countries will kick the US from their ports. The ME has a known and well proven connection with terrorist groups who blow things in their own and other people's countries up. Unless and until you can show us American, govermental and/or private, connection to terrorist activities don't equate Americans with the citizens of the ME in this regard.

And don't bother with Terry McVeigh. That dude was dead and buried. Caught, tried, and executed. Osama on the other hand is very much alive and sheltered by people somewhere there.

And unless you want to equate Bush administration activity in Iraq with some sort of state terrorism, which I doubt you will, stop this nonsense.

Can you give us absolute assurance that DPW will NOT be infiltrated by terrorists in the future both here and back in their home country? Let me make this clear the terrorists don't need to ship anything to the US so all that inspection in Dubai will be useless. All they need is access to information about daily operations in say NYC, information that will in all likelihood be either stored in a Dubai computer or accessible from there, to be able to do great damage over here. Remember the 9/11 terrorists brought nothing over except themselves and a few blank checks.

Interesting - oppose the war and you're unpatriotic (never mind that SH had nothing to do with 9/11; oppose domestic spying and you're "helping the enemy" (never mind the bill of rights), oppose Harriet Myers - you're sexist (never mind that she was unqualified), oppose the ports deal and you're a xenophobe (never mind if it's beside the point). It's just attack by the Bushies as usual to anyone who disagrees with them - stand for open government and you'll get smeared with an unsulting label.

Isn't there a pretty predicable pattern here? I just can't understand why the media buys into it, the public sure isn't fooled anymore.

MaryAnne wrote: "I just can't understand why the media buys into it..."

You need to go back to 1981 when Ronald Reagan took the reigns of power. He, unlike Bush, used to give frequent press conferences. Remmeber, he was the "Great Communicator" unlike Bush who speaks like a kindergartener and avoids real people.

Anyway, In some of the first press conferences Reagan got hit with some pretty hard questions. When someone asked him one he did not like, he simply took away that person's WH pass. Ask questions that upset Reagan and you would not be at any more press conferences. I remember the press asking him whether he thought that was fair but quickly held back, fearful of the president pulling their access.

The press realized that if they pushed, their jobs would be at risk, or at least their career path of being a WH reporter. So today its mostly softballs, don't dig, wait for the press spokesman to tell you something and if they don't, well, that's why the press does not know what happened.

Edward R Murrow would be spinning in his grave. He dug and his students dug and exposed a lot of what goes on in Washington. Take Cunningham for example. This guy had a menu of what a bribe cost for getting a government contract. It went on for years. He lived on a contractor's boat for free. He sold a 700K house for over a million to the contractor. Yet it took many months for any press to dig the obvious up and in the end it was the local press, not Washington press.

The media has been tamed by these republicans. They know that the media is what allowed the public to learn about Nixon and then he was forced out of office. I'm sure their think tanks have worked on how to prevent that from happening again.

I will not believe in the American system or dream again until the republican party is forever gone from this earth. Their presence in DC makes it stink. And what makes me realy mad is when they smile while discussing an issue that will destroy America or its values.

I detect some high level of arrogance and passive-aggressive behavior in the American poster ErrinF.

Though that poster tries to be outwardly cheery, she presents lists of demands that must be met before her "America" will accept the DPW or, it seems, the UAE as worthy enough to interact with.
Her demands:

1. Sell off and privatize the North American portion of the DPW-P&O deal to private Dubai investors. (though no complaints like this are made about Communist China or French, Singaporean, German *DHL*, Japanese, or Taiwanese government-owned entities investing in American assets -selecan).
2. Recognize the inalienable rights of human beings that the USA does by adopting something similar to our constitution's Bill Of Rights as Dubai law. I assume guilt before innocence,..
3. Adopt a form of representative government similar to ours but that includes the Emir having an important role within it as part of a constitutional monarchy. The emirati would get to vote for a President, Senate, and House of Representatives that would share power with the Emir to whatever degree is appropriate. I would propose that the Emir remains head of state, commander-in-chief, and has veto power..(This person wishes to impose a bastardized American governmental structure on a UAE structure she clearly does not understand..there is no "Top Emir". This is as arrogant as saying Britain must reform in order to be eligible for any more financial transactions with America by scrapping the UK Constitution and laws, replacing with American ones, and scrapping British government with a replacement American structure.)
ErrinF typifies the spectacular ignorance and arrogance we sometimes see in Americans back in the UK. She wants to impose a sort of American imperialism everywhere because she thinks "her" way is best, which is curiously amusing because she seems MOST dissatisfied with the President her "perfect government and Constitution" elected.
I like Americans as a general rule, but they can be so ignorant of other countries and too prideful of their own ways. Much like Russians. Or Chinese..
I take ErrinF as one of their less-educated "bumpkins" who has not traveled and appears to know nothing about the UAE or likely any other nations or cultures -- but is not deterred in the slightest from a presenting a comprehensive plan to "improve" other nations and peoples by imposing an American structure and system....
She DOES need to get out more!

Chris Ford wrote:
...You do so by being too dumb to realize Messner does have "intellectual qualifications". You may disagree with her opinion on this or that, but her articles, blog submissions show she is able to research and analyze complex, emerging issues quite well...and she knows where to look..

Nice of you Chris.
I second the motion.

"Patriot" 1957 - "No risk was too small that that smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud. I even recall words from the very Chris Ford on these posts to that effect."

Like the Coast Guard, DOD, Customs, NEST, Delta Force I also believe that once a plane or ship carrying a WMD cargo arrives over a city or in it's central harbor - there is no magic process where a WMD can only be activated and detonated once it is smuggled past the American dockworkers and Federal gov't security to the thousands of low-wage TSA-like Drones the less informed believe are "critical" to finding the Hollywood fantasy of the "disassembled WMD, or the famous "WMD-on-a-timer" device.

"Chris Ford", as a reference, believes this is a struggle with a decayed, paranoid murderous Islamist ideology, and "he" doesn't give a flying rat's ass about the "precious civil liberties" of the enemy Islamoids out to nuke, throat-slit, or otherwise destroy us. But "Chris" also believes not all Muslims are savage Islamoids, and that we should seek allies in the Muslim world and not spit in the face of a good one.

The ably named "Nut!" - one of the Know-nothings or Lefties suddenly embracing xenophobia - sez:

"Unless and until you can show us American, govermental and/or private, connection to terrorist activities don't equate Americans with the citizens of the ME in this regard.....Can you give us absolute assurance that DPW will NOT be infiltrated by terrorists in the future both here and back in their home country?"

Hey, we're the ones that gave the 9/11 Islamoids visas, commercial jet flying lessons, lap dances, martial arts classes, and sold them their GPS units and box cutters. Over the course of 3 years

Can you give me absolute assuarances that America will not be infiltrated "there", or back in our home country???

Like the UAE, pre-9/11, we welcomed foreign guests that abused our hospitality. Not any more.

Just to be safe though...absolute assurances and all that crap...would you feel better if management of American ports be given to nations that didn't fail or otherwise accrue some blame from 9/11?

Meaning...

Do you agree that America, Germany, UAE, France, Saudi Arabia, and the UK having connection to facilitating the 9/11 terrorists should be barred from involvement in sea and airports in America .....and control be given to "9/11 blameless" nations like Mexico and China???

Because the 9/11 Islamoids got far more help in America, inadvertent though it was, than in UAE...

Chris Ford,

Stop labeling people you nut! The name was to describe your bs postings. Yes I'm a left leaning American who deplore the invasion of Iraq. That does not mean I'll sacrifice my security or that of my fellow Americans to satisfy some con's concept of globalism or some lib's misplaced sense of political correctness. All that happened with the 9/11 terrorists were exacly that - pre 9/11. We are in the post 9/11 world now and to expect us to behave as we were before is just downright stupid. I suspect all you care about is to shine up Dubya's tarnished image and care nothing for the Dubai folks either. So stop acting like a know-it-all sensitive globalist. I have only two quotes for you neocon droll:

1. Mission Accomplised!
2. We are fully prepared.

In case you think we are all nutso lefties let me give you another quote from someone who must be your greatest hero and who now appears a heck of a lot wiser than the current motley crew:

3. Trust but verify!

CHAPEL HILL, North Carolina (AP) -- A recent University of North Carolina graduate was charged with nine counts of attempted murder Saturday, a day after authorities say he drove through a popular campus gathering spot in an attempt to avenge Muslim deaths.

Derek Poarch, chief of the university police department, confirmed Saturday that Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a 22-year-old Iran native, told investigators he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world." Poarch would not provide any other details on the motive.

Taheri-azar also is charged with nine counts of assault.

...

It's amazing how cynical some Democrats are with their view that all Republicans supposedly sit around and gleefully dream up ways in which to start wars, take away civil liberties, instil fear etc., to ensure they remain in power. To those few, I submit your conclusions are rooted in deep hatred and uncontrollable bias.

BTW, nice post SELECAN.

From the same Emirati Blogger who had a poster, Selecan, properly spank the crap out of ErrinF for her ignorant, condescending opinions...

A little treatise that would be worth millions in Pentagon consulting pay if only Emirati Blogger was inside the DC Beltway infuence-peddling community"

"First of all, Iraq does not need an army for now, army units are unsuitable for Internal Operations. What it needs is a far more developed internal security paramilitary force, en par with the Saudi National Guard.

The Saudis have always been military fuckups, but one thing they are good at is internal security. Their excellent internal security forces have annihalated al qaeda, 'KSA Branch' and provided excellent protection to the bases and important installations that are frequently targetted in Iraq. I reiterate that Arabs are probably the best at Internal security and Guerilla tactics. Paranoia, Suspicion, Disinformation and the different management techniques have allowed the Arabs to have an excellent Internal security situation for decades. How else did Bashar al Assad survive till today ?

What you need to do is this: Revamp the Iraqi National Guard. Change it to a 120,00 man force. Give it old used and wheeled American Armored Vehicles. The Americans have thousands of them rusting in American Depots. Continually train and test those forces. Send them into hot zones without any support whatsoever, let them take casualties so that they can learn to be more vengeful and agressive. The problem with the Iraqi forces today we could compare to having overprotective parents. The Americans are reluctant to send them into operations alone without support. The Iraqis never as a result get much experience when it comes to dealing in counterinsurgency. Attach helicopters to the Iraqi National Guard for air support, and UAVs for reconissance. Open a TV station dedicated to the Iraqi Armed forces, and have each battalion (which should have 1,000 men) have a cameraman that will report on things happening, encouraging the Iraqi soldiers to be more transparent, and allowing brigade and higher level commanders to have an Idea of what theyre going through.

Expose the Iraqi national guard to the people more. Encourage people to complain on any corrupt members to the media, and allow the media to show that they have been punished. Let the soldiers go out into the neighborhoods and apprehend thieves and drug dealers, let them go out into the fields and help the farmers, let them go into the neighborhoods and clean the streets or paint the houses. Show the Iraqi people that these are people just like them, that these men also have families. Honor the Iraqi soldiers who are fighting and dying, appreciate them and their families. You need a tougher, more experienced more respectful Iraqi National Guard with a corps spirit and a military tradition which should be Iraqi nationalist."

Does Emirati Blogger know more than Durbin, Rumsfeld, Jewish Neocon Feith, Wolfowitz? Plus Cheney, Bremer, bible-thumping Bush, Kerry, Gen Franks? Camera-hogging "Chuckles" Schumer, Waxman, Boxer, Feingold???

IMO, yes. Hand that man his 500,000 consulting fee. We've paid more for less...

>> It's amazing how cynical some Democrats are with their view that all Republicans supposedly sit around and gleefully dream up ways in which to start wars, take away civil liberties, instil fear etc., to ensure they remain in power.

All is a big word to accuse someone of. Some reps certainly are and Iraq is proof positive of it. The problem of the rest (all minus some) is that they are like drolls who got taken repeatedly by the 'some' cons.. The Kool Aid seems to be wearing off however.

"All is a big word to accuse someone of..."
Posted by: Nut!

"I will not believe in the American system or dream again until the republican party is forever gone from this earth. Their presence in DC makes it stink. And what makes me realy mad is when they smile while discussing an issue that will destroy America or its values."

Posted by: Sully

Well, what does this statement imply Mr./Mrs. "Nut!".

>>What it needs is a far more developed internal security paramilitary force...

Nut! What fantasy world do you live in? Iraq has "internal security paramilitary force". They are called militias! Before that they had what's called "Saddam's Republican Guards".

The US army spends the last three years and sends their best 3 star generals there to train the Iraqi army to no avail, and some Nut! who sits at home thinks he can do a better job? You think the US army is actually training an Iraqi 'army' in the conventinal sense of being able to defend their country against foreign invaders?

Praising Arab dictators' interior security forces whose use mainly is to oppress/suppress their own people! What a con!

Know-it-all-nut!

At the risk of getting back on topic . . .

This type of debate on foreign ownership is not a new one. A debate similar to the port debate went on in August involving China's intent to acquire Unocal Corporation--I say China, because the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) is a state-owned firm, like DPW. Chevron eventually won the bid--at a lower price--after CNOOC withdrew when Congress made it clear that approval of the deal with CNOOC would face an uphill battle.

In any case, there are certainly risks to be considered with this deal. One of the methods that the CIA uses to gather intelligence on other countries is called "non-official cover," or NOC for short. Those engaged under NOC may be planted into legitimate private companies--say for example an oil company--and do not derive the diplomatic protections of U.S. Embassy-based personnel. We gather intelligence even on our "allies" like the French through this method--though usually with our allies it is for the purpose of economic espionage. Other countries use the same methods against us. More on NOCs: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,638325,00.html

There is no reason why Al Qaeda could not easily infiltrate a Middle Eastern company like DPW--if it has not already--to gain information and conduct espionage. Even if DPW is completely legitimate--and it probably is--it can provide a great cover for would-be saboteurs and facilitate their U.S. work visas. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the UAE intends to harm us, but then the Saudis didn't either--yet it was their support of madrasas and such that helped create the Islamic radicals we faced on 9/11--and continue to face today.

Sure DPW will not manage security at our ports, but at some level, their staffs will be provided with security information or--at the very least--gain a thorough understanding of port procedures which can be parsed for security flaws. Again, look at the Chinese model. They are very effective at manipulating and exploiting their nationals who study or work in this country to provide them intelligence. See this article by a Wall Street Journal reporter: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05222/551701.stm. There is no reason that Al Qaeda, though not a government, could not be equally as persuasive to some employees at DPW. Common sense would dictate that Al Qaeda's success rate for recruiting would be far higher with a Middle Eastern firm than a Japanese, British or even French firm.

Ultimately, the question is simply this: is it worth even the remote chance of facilitating potential espionage by those who we know mean us immediate harm simply to try to promote ties to a friendly Arab government?

>> Expose the Iraqi national guard to the people more. Encourage people to complain on any corrupt members to the media, and allow the media to show that they have been punished.

More proof that the Kool Aid drinkers live in a fantasy world. Encourage people to complain on any corrupt members to the media? To get a bullet in the head after that? You neocons still don't understand the land you find yourselves in do you? Corruption is a way of life in that region and many other regions of the world. The media is not corrupt yet? Planting paid propaganda in their press as news will make sure they are. An ancient land with no tradition of democracy, where everything and everyone is clan based, tribal based, sect based is what Iraq is. It's not Iowa. It's not even Latin America. You neocons are worse than Marxist utopians. At least the Marxists had some sense of history, of the land. You guys are completely devoid of it. It's almost obscene that those poor Iraqis who die and suffer daily don't get a chance to confront you Nut! face to face.

By the way, I was involved with the training of the Iraqi security forces and all I will say is that our military has done a far better job training the Iraqi Army then the State Department and Justice Department have done in training the Iraqi Police--and most of the problems were purely issues of bureaucracy and the incompetence of mid-level bureaucrats.

Thankfully, the military took over responsibility for the police training as well this past Fall.

According to Mr./Mrs. Nut!, Iraq should have no internal security force because any such institution would be inherently corrupt.

I guess establishing any local security force would be useless, becasue they are an inately corrupt people incapable of handling their own security.

Typical.

Well, what does this statement imply Mr./Mrs. "Nut!".
Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC

What it implies johnny is that the republicans, as a party, have gone far beyond anything the American political system has ever seen. Its worse that Watergate as John Dean wrote. The criminal Abramoff had wide access to the WH and other republicans. Rove spouts lies, even lying to the president, and he is given a promotion. CIA agents are outted and its ok! We go to war based on WMD, CIA director says is a slam dunk, and after the invasion, death and destruction, and NO WMD, the CIA director is given a medal.

I'm not saying the democrats are perfect, far from it, but they are not criminal. Not all republicans are criminal, but the republican party is. It is being run by those who lie and commit crimes to further their agenda. Ask moderate republicans who try to influence the republican party platform. They get locked out of the room, and that is literally what happens. Cunningham takes bribes in daylight and the republican led ethics committee does nothing. Thank God there is some law enforcement, usually at the state level, that are holding some republicans to account.

Johnny, the republican party has lead this country down a deep hole. The national debt is now a security issue today yet we were running surpluses just 6 years ago. The majority of Americans do not feel Bush has control of the government. Bush's latest video, giving kind words to those trying to save lives, then ignoring the human suffering of Katrina, did not shock me. I know this man, this administration and the republican party in general. What makes me shake my head is that many people are surprised. Why be surprised? The republicans have always been an opposition party. They oppose the federal government and any restriction that hinders corporations. They are for nothing but getting the government out of the way of their corporate sponsors. They are not leaders. They are not patriots that would give THEIR lives for this country. They consider the constitution a "god damned piece of paper" (quoting Bush).

Johnny, the republican party, as a whole, has done so much damage to this country that it will take decades to get anywhere near where we were just 6 years ago. If you can state any leadership by the republicans, any progress toward improving problems we have in America, any republican legislation that benefitted the American people other than the top 2%, please spell it out. Please explain how you are freer today than in 2000. Please explain how you feel free making a phone call. Do you feel more secure from terrorists than 5 years ago? The world hates, HATES us johnny. Not just the Arabs, but our former friends. I swear if Clinton had done 10% of what Bush has done the republicans would forget impeachment and try to lynch him. But Bush cannot make a mistake. Bush should be trusted with my constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Bush will keep me safe while his policies create terrorists. And Bush will 'do whatever it takes' to help those hit by Katrina, those who today are still sitting on the rubble.

Johnny, support the republicans if you must, but the republicans, as a whole, from Bush to the voter, made this mess. They not only cannot govern, they do not want to govern. As a whole its their mess and their responsibility to account for what they have done to the greatest country on earth.

>>> According to Mr./Mrs. Nut!, Iraq should have no internal security force because any such institution would be inherently corrupt.

I guess establishing any local security force would be useless, becasue they are an inately corrupt people incapable of handling their own security. >>

Are neocons' skulls granite solid? There is no 'the people' there! Any local security force you establish would be clanish, tribal, and sectarian. The family does what the clan does. The clan does what the tribe does. The tribe does what the sect does. The sect does what Sistani or Moqtada or whoever the big cheese tells them to.

The inernal security force has already been coop/infiltrated by the militias! Don't you read the news? They are also known as death squads.

You should be thankful the US army still has some semblance of control over the Iraqi national army.

Neither the Kurds, nor the Shiites, nor the Sunnis want to give up their militias. Why? There is NO 'the people' there!

"One of the methods that the CIA uses to gather intelligence on other countries is called "non-official cover," or NOC for short. Those engaged under NOC may be planted into legitimate private companies--say for example an oil company--and do not derive the diplomatic protections of U.S. Embassy-based personnel."

Funny you should mention that. Turns out Valerie Plame was NOC on Iran.

Sully, the party is guilty of being complicit but I do think your comments were a bit over the top.

I know a lot of good and decent Republicans who have been taken for a ride. They were played like violins and fell for it hook line and sinker. I got all sorts of end times forwarded emails from a holy roller cousin about the "war" on Christianinty and how they were taking "in God we Trust" off the money and taking away her kids right to be Christian. When I responded that I did not support the establishment of a "majority" religion lest my job move me to a predominantly Hindu or Muslim or Jewish neighborhood and my kids be required to worship with the majority. I eventually got cut from her list but I still understand from others that she's busy predicting the Democratic Party's murder of Christianity.

I got end times forwarded emails from educated relatives about how evil liberal teachers were poisoning college students and stealing their academic freedom. These eventually stopped when I reminded them that the second thing the Nazi's got rid of was the college professors (after the political parties) because of their ability to teach critical thinking. They know better than to feed me that crap anymore.

I got forwarded emails from Conservative relatives about how everything was first Bill, and now Hillary Clinton's fault. Since Bill's been gone 6 years and Hillary's made NONE of the decisions that put this country where we are today they don't bother trying to educate me anymore on that either.

My former Air Force Academy brother can't give up on the national security angle. He bought hook line and sinker that "it was too big a risk to take that Saddam might have WMD" and that the intelligence was "wrong"- I don't think he's ever told a real lie in his life and I don't think he can accept that this "tough on terror" administration is the biggest liar to hit Washington since... ever. He thinks Murtha is the biggest traitor ever and tells me I am flat out wrong that we will do exactly as Murtha predicted and have a good portion of our forces out in time for the next election, except of course that it will be the prez idea! He's a great guy but he's so naive - he still believes he can trust his government. I'm not sure I want to be there when he finally gets it, maybe when his 17 year old son dies alone thousands of miles from home in the desert sands for ....what? The Carlyle Group?

Yes, they shouldn't have been so naive or "sheepul"ish. But keeping them so was part of the master plan. Making sure no American had to sacrifice anything for the war in Iraq meant they had no real stake in that outcome and were free to concentrate all their energy on the war on Christianity or gay marriage or abortion. Had there been a draft, oil rationing or any other real sacrifice I think they would not have been so easy to fool. Had our schools continued to teach critical thinking I think maybe they would not have been so easy to fool.

REad Christie Todd Whitman's book. But I do take her and the other moderate Republicans to task for waiting so long and for still standing back in the shadows. But the port deal has finally given them some cover - perhaps we will begin to see the balance of power shift some in the party soon.

Sully, as far as your characterization of the party being for less corporate restrictions, tax cuts etc., I agree. I support these concepts as a Repuclican. In my work, I serve many corporations and want them to make a lot of dough. I also don't believe my money should be a source of funds to pay out for those building homes in disaster prone areas. This may not sit well with you, but I won't criticize your beliefs in how our government should function, except at the voting booth.

I'm no fan of Carl Rove, and I realize that Bush administration is not particularly competent. They probably would have gone down in history as some minor blip had they not had such a serious threats thrust upon them. Moreover, I do not believe anyone elected in 2000 would have been prepared to competently respond to the events that unfolded shortly thereafter. Especially not Al Gore.

If 9-11 happened under President Clinton's watch, he would not have taken an aggressive stance. It is possible that he would have lobbed a few missiles into Afghanistan; it's hard to speculate. Maybe he would have called for some international meetings to denounce these things. However, I doubt that such a diplomatic approach would have had any effect on stemming terrorism. The one thing that I did find admirable about President Bush is that he had the balls to actually try something on an incredibly large scale. It is expensive, yes. It has set us back, yes. Have they screwed up along the way? Yes, many times. But we are at war and it has had relatively minimal impact on the average citizen.

Other phenomena, such as the outsourcing of our workforce, are not Republican generated problems. This is business, globally driven, and both Democrats and Republicans must deal with it. I think Chris mentioned this above. Remember in the mid-eighties when the Japanese dumped tons of DRAM chips in our markets and put many semiconductor memory companies out business? There was talk of increasing protectionism back then. Instead, we found other ways to deal with these problems, such as tightening our IP protection and pursuing and/or concentrating on other areas of technology. We survived, had good times, bad, then good again. We must adapt, and as others have said, education is the key.

Yes, we are not freer than in 2000. Again, we are at war. Phone calls? I can temporarily deal with that. Concerned about this? Yes. Almost everyone is. Frantic? No. Early on, I knew Iraq and Afghanistan were but stepping stones in a process of bringing this cultural conflict to a head. I believe we should continue this course and strengthen our alliances. President Bush was doing that this week. Although the insurgency has become more menacing, it also is increasingly having the effect that more people in ME countries are getting sick of the cult-like violent youthful gangs.

Regarding Duke Cunningham et al., they are traitors.

by poisoning the minds of the people with lies....confusing issues by creating delusion.

take McCarthyism:

we didn't hate communism.

the elite did.

what would communism do to them?

depose them...

not that communism works, pure anything doesn't work to my knowledge,

but after the McCarthyism the spector of communism became part of our culture like fearing the church after it became a tool of Roman domination...and the spainish inquisition, thus the fear of speaking out against gawd-users....like delay, falwell and the twister blesser brother from hell...robertson...voodoun christian.

anyone from Britain can tell you what is wrong with our system....

two parties is too few....

open forums, like parliment, that's more like a brawl, but an honest one, where things are discussed rather than orchestrated...

another thing is "socialism" is a bugaboo word in this country, like liberal...but we have it and we need to look at what it really means...it means taking care of those that need it...

but

everyone needs to understand that capitalism,
untempered,

is pure and simple, survival of the fittest....

and without proper laws to actually destroy them, the fittest sometimes turn out to be the most _corrupt_....

I say make some laws that allow us to destroy people financially if they corrupt the system to their advantage.....wipe out the familiy estates....

and I AM SERIOUS, this is not some thoughtless get even kinda thing, I mean that if they risk going over the line to using the political system for personal gain that they are destroyed....

what other thing can you do to discourage it honestly...

look at it this way, in the old days there were certain families, people that you didn't start trouble with unless you were going to destroy them _permanently_

you don't want to wound predators, you want to eliminate them...

looking at the bush familiy tree...this generation, you have a group of selfish, manipulative, we don't need to pay for our mistakes...predators...you really don't want to give them the chance to remain in power, as they are teaching people _to manipulate_as_a_way_of_doing_business in sort of an "we dont' need to worry about being seen way, because these people are too stupid to catch on."

Tom Delay is like the relentless, demagogue who will see everyone in your family in hell if you cross him...so send him there first....we don't need people like that with power...mean drunk George Wallace seems very much set in the same mold.

demagogue also demagog ( ) n.

A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and

_prejudices_

of the populace....as a way of doing business..

appeal to reason is somewhat different, we haven't seen much of that except in Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reruns....

Tom Delay links hatred into his addressing of those that oppose him like the racial hatred user, George Wallace...there is a visceral resemblance....and physical resemblance....stylistically there's little difference.

put the southern drawl into it:

let me tell yuh, "the negrah"

let me tell yuh, "the liberal"

kinda thing

or the homo sexu-ahs
or the baby kill-uhs
or the gun control-uhs
or the war hate-tuhs

the mythologizing of the opposing peoples into mother raping monsters...that want you to have anal sex with them...

I mean that's good for the people to keep them at each oth-uths throats while you rape their country isn't it?

hello people...

Patriot, myself and others were not duped hook line and sinker. I have to take stuff like the religious crap with the package. I believe most of this is nutty and damaging too. Democrats have baggage too.

This country is a mess because of Bush and the republicans. The last 6 years have made things worse, not better. Bush told us he'd be a uniter. Yeah, right. What a joke. He acts like he's in his own little world and cares more about his 'neocon' goals than the citizens of this country. Our country is more divided than ever, and he's off playing superman with other countries. Canada is starting to look really good right now!

Well, look on the bright side. All we republicans have to do is accuse the democrats of being pro-gay and pro-abortion and we'll keep winning elections! ha ha!

and I forgot to mention that we are pro-gun and christian, too! Yep, we'll win again!

the joke around here is that bush didn't get enough toy soldiers to play with when he was a kid.

JohnnyG wrote:
The one thing that I did find admirable about President Bush is that he had the balls to actually try something on an incredibly large scale. It is expensive, yes. It has set us back, yes. Have they screwed up along the way? Yes, many times. But we are at war and it has had relatively minimal impact on the average citizen.
snip
snip
Early on, I knew Iraq and Afghanistan were but stepping stones in a process of bringing this cultural conflict to a head. I believe we should continue this course and strengthen our alliances. President Bush was doing that this week. Although the insurgency has become more menacing, it also is increasingly having the effect that more people in ME countries are getting sick of the cult-like violent youthful gangs.

I can agree with you that neither Clinton nor Gore would have known what to do after 9/11...they never would have gotten past fearing a repeat of the Russian experience. I still give Bush great credit for our response in Afghanistan. On the other hand, he should have quit there while we were ahead, and focused on finishing that job. Iraq was a stupid mistake. We had no causus belli. There was no threat to us from Iraq. They had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. The only people they terrorized were their own. And spare me the thing about paying the families of martyrs; the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, Emerati, all of them did the same damn thing. How many billion dollars did we give Israel so they could afford to colonize Palestinian lands and buy our helicopters with missiles to assassinate Palestinian leaders, taking out women and children in the process? This crap gets pretty old.

Let me tell you something Johnny. Bringing this cultural conflict to a head is a really dumb stupid idea. Why in hell would you want to do that? You like blood and gore? You think a cultural conflict is something you win? You think the Iraqi's are now "yearning to be free"? Look at where they are today, after 3 years of "liberation"; on the verge of a civil war over their very own internal cultural conflict between Sunni and Shia. What more people in ME countries are really getting sick of is our thrashing around like a bull in a china shop. You are looking at a cultural conflict coming to a head in the blasted Baghdad bodies every evening on the news. You really think this is a good thing? We should expand this to pit Islam against the Western Civilizations across the board? Europe is just aching to do that with all their Muslim minorities I'm sure. I'm sure they will love worrying about IED's as they drive down the Left Bank in Paris. By all means, lets bring this sucker to a great grand head. What a movie this will make. Oh yeah right, were doing it so Muslim women don't have to wear burkas and can vote and can't be beaten by their husbands, as though that never happens here.

Sorry Johnny, we just should have stuck to slaughtering the actual bastards that attacked us whatever their damn culture. It's hard enough doing just that, and most important that we do that. There would be a positive lesson for the world in doing that and it would make us safer. The lesson we have provided in Iraq is just how stupid and inept we are and that certainly doesn't make us safer.

A tribute to our 'we don't spy on americans' Patriot act:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Walter Soehnge is a retired Texas schoolteacher who made a decision, along with his wife, to pay off one of their credit cards. The balance on their JCPenney Platinum MasterCard had gotten high, so they sent in a large payment, a check for $6,522.

And an alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable.

And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs.

They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast.

After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.
They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment.

And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.

But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered. Walter Soehnge, who says he holds solid, middle-of-the-road American beliefs, worries about rights being lost.

More proof the neocon CF is a know-nothing know-it-all:

In recent days many Sunni mosques have been burned and scores of men slain, apparently by Shiite death squads retaliating for the bombing of a prominent Shiite shrine in Samarra...

It is common to hear Sunnis say that there was no sectarianism in Iraq until the war unleashed long-buried religious tensions...

Sunni concerns have been fed by mounting evidence that Shiite militias have infiltrated the Interior Ministry, which runs the police forces. Investigations into the Shiite-dominated ministry have revealed a torture chamber and death squads responsible for kidnapping and killing Sunnis, all with alleged ties to official security services.

Many Sunnis believe that if a civil war erupts, Iraqi police brigades would devolve into Shiite militias and government weapons would turn against Sunnis.

Brig. Gen. Mudhir Moula, a secular Shiite who is a senior official in the Defense Ministry, expresses a similar fear.

A career soldier, Moula is leery of an American pullback. Government ministries have become too mired in sectarian tensions to function, he said.

"If [the Americans] don't do their best to control and coordinate, maybe there will be civil war," he said.
The Interior Ministry has arranged its security forces to ensure that their sect would dominate in case of civil war, he said.

"They're a lot stronger than the Ministry of Defense. This is the reality, let's be honest."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sunnis5mar05,0,5927382.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Iran's Best Friend
Published: March 5, 2006 NYT

At the rate that President Bush is going, Iran will be a global superpower before too long. For all of the axis-of-evil rhetoric that has come out of the White House, the reality is that the Bush administration has done more to empower Iran than its most ambitious ayatollah could have dared to imagine. Tehran will be able to look back at the Bush years as a golden era full of boosts from America, its unlikely ally.

During the period before the Iraq invasion, the president gave lip service to the idea that Iran and Iraq were both threats to American security. But his advisers, intent on carrying out their long-deferred dream of toppling Saddam Hussein, gave scant thought to what might happen if their plans did not lead to the unified, peaceful, pro-Western democracy of their imaginings. The answer, though, is now rather apparent: a squabbling, divided country in which the Shiite majority in the oil-rich south finds much more in common with its fellow Shiites in Iran than with the Sunni Muslims with whom it needs to form an Iraqi government.

Washington has now become dangerously dependent on the good will and constructive behavior of Shiite fundamentalist parties that Iran sheltered, aided and armed during the years that Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. In recent weeks, neither good will nor constructive behavior has been particularly evident, and if Iran chooses to stir up further trouble to deflect diplomatic pressures on its nuclear program, it could easily do so.

There is now a real risk that Iraq, instead of being turned into an outpost of secular democracy challenging the fanatical rulers of the Islamic republic to its east, could become an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist theocracy, challenging the secular Arab regimes to its west.

Fast-forward to Thursday's nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

This would be a bad idea at any time, rewarding India for flouting the basic international understanding that has successfully discouraged other countries from South Korea to Saudi Arabia from embarking on their own efforts to build nuclear weapons. But it also undermines attempts to rein in Iran, whose nuclear program is progressing fast and unnerving both its neighbors and the West.

The India deal is exactly the wrong message to send right now, just days before Washington and its European allies will be asking the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council for further action. Iran's hopes of preventing this depend on convincing the rest of the world that the West is guilty of a double standard on nuclear issues. Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran.

your leaders?

will sell anything that isn't nailed down...

without giving the citizens of the United States honest and fair representation...if they can't steal the towels, they don't want to check in....they're part of the visit right, they're paid for....corruption is just part of the congressional life...

comeon...give me a break...

a high school student could tell you what happens if you don't work with the ecology of a system.....everything breaks...

that's what is happening to us as a group, the citizens of the united states of america.

there is such a thing as a human ecology, one that keeps all things working towards a sustainable future....

look at the bushe trying to appear "in touch" with the future by "supporting alternative fuels"

too little, not at all...photo op.

you want the effin thing to work, raise gas prices to $3.50 a gallon and bank the excess to pay for infrastructure changes giving freight companies some time and some leeway to get better rates....legislate change that we as a nation can adapt to....THAT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, not some orchestrated Oz show called find the terrorists but don't look at what I'm doing...

trains, making city life pleasurable, workers that telecommute, blah blah blah, it could happen....they effin telecommute from friggin India every day....they trust them, why not you? ask Capitol ONE....formerly of Fredericksburg VA, now from Bangalore India....3,000 jobs.

but you make changes to make sure that the future is a good one for the citizens of the United States of America, and the world ultimately....not just for you and your oil invested family...

why should g. w. bush worry about rising oil prices?

he's in the business, why would he interrupt that business to help out his country, that would get in the way of his, his families, and his family friends profits.

WAR ISN'T NECESSARY AS AN ECONOMIC INTERVENTION WHEN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES....UNLESS YOU WANT IT THAT WAY, PLANNED OVER THE COURSE OF A LIFETIME OF UNDERCOVER WORK....

Friends --

The idea of "globalization" is both a recognition of facts and a cover-code for latter-day super-national corporate consolidation and greed.

Since the days of city-states, those whose business traded beyond the borders of their native lands have had some hand in influencing politics and policies of the territories in which they conducted business. As much as I admire the democratic-republican principles of our nation's founding, the underlying cause of rebellion was in business and commerce more than in political and philosophical principle, at least initially. Business is the world's economic engine, without doubt, but the power within our Constitution is there precisely to control the otherwise unbounded desires of ever-growing business entities; only in the aggregated strength of a nation can such urges be limited.

We have entered a period somewhere between the world-wide acceptance of nations and the coming recognition of a world government. It is in this vacuum that the current concerns over seaport management crashes into a terror-based conflict with the "western" economic powers. Here's the hitch, as I see it: we want to embrace a concept of "global economy" but we have no global power sufficiently strong nor sufficiently respected to arbitrate the rules. In addition, with non-governmental agencies - in the form of al Qaeda, etc. - stirring the mix in the absence of such a respected world power, the concept of a true global economy is a myth. In other words, we are trying to force a concept that comprises egalitarian motives into a world structure that takes advantage of inequalities.

On top of this contradiction, is the issue of whether we need to be protective of our national boundaries, airspace, and arms and munitions production. An executive administration that campaigned and won office by touting its strength in that protection is now backing an economic deal that seems to fly in the face of that goal. It is, at the very least, a political blunder of vast proportion. However, it also leads to questions about both national security and the Bush administration's true dedication to that end.

We have long recognized the fact that commerce in one place affects business elsewhere in the world: the price of coffee beans in New York, for example. We also know that differences in labor rates around the world have become a source of economic leverage for those nations and corporations able to harness it. That does not spell, in spite of the rhetoric around it, some equalization of economic forces. The "system" as it exists and is propounded, incorporates heavy penalties on 3rd-world workers - both industrial and agricultural. The tendency of the G. W. Bush administration to cater to corporate interests profiting from such imbalanced circumstances remains consistent in this port deal, immigration proposals, and even policy on nuclear energy and development. Really more important than port security in this case is the matter of what is best for U. S. long-term interests, both with respect to the principles in our Constitution and to the economic and social interests of the American people as a whole. Neither seems to have been particularly of interest to this administration in considering the DPW deal (or the significance of foreign management of ports in general).

Absent a world-wide governance of law, one that includes international disputes of political, military, and commercial matters, there is no rational basis for making decisions that are affect both commerce and security.

Cayambe, it is true that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and maybe little or nothing concerning WMDs. It was a soft target. The invasion was a mistake prone attempt of the PNAC theory of changing influence in the area. So far, the situation there seems bleak, but I look at the current status and what now should be done based on what has happened and what have we learned.

I believe we must deal very aggressively with Islamic terrorism. It is a regional phenomena perpetuated by ME regimes, who placate the terrorists to divert the their attention from themselves. It is also cultural thing ingrained in the minds of the populations of these regimes. This situation would have never ended without intervention.

Our presence in Iraq has demonstrated our will to achieve the PNAC original attempt of change in the ME. This also dispelled the myths of the US as some paper tiger (note Libya's shaking). It also has increasingly brought out the menace within these regimes. They are now becoming sick of the terrorist and fear for their asses is increasing.

Because we invaded, we are in a more powerful position to try diplomacy with other regional powers. It is hard to see how this will play out, but I believe we should continue in this direction. The current UAE deal fiasco does not help here and its consequences relatively minor, but it is one of the kinds of things, engagement, we should be moving toward.

We need more troops. The Taliban in Afghanistan is on the rise. And we would have had better results after the initial phase of the war in Iraq if we had a security force in place when the rioting began. The leaner, meaner military can only be stretched so far before it becomes counter-effective in taking on such a large task.

occupation.

grow up lad, quit trying to be something you're not.

You're a fool, if you think that the so called M.E. think that we're there to establish democracy....

how did the indians feel about having their lands stolen?

even if we have the backing of some of their brothers....as bush attempts to seal the deal by giving, M.E. family friends, a _special_deal_....

why do we need it?

if we could hand everyone the key to removing the area from economic importance...like an alternative?

legislate change that we as a nation can adapt to....THAT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, not some orchestrated Oz show called find the terrorists but don't look at what I'm doing...

andy: "Well, look on the bright side. All we republicans have to do is accuse the democrats of being pro-gay and pro-abortion and we'll keep winning elections! ha ha!"

LOL!

andy: "Well, look on the bright side. All we republicans have to do is accuse the democrats of being pro-gay and pro-abortion and we'll keep winning elections! ha ha!"

LOL!

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | Mar 5, 2006 11:41:34 AM |

You reps must think the American people are fools. The only way you will win elections at 34% approval is to suspend the constitution. And if you think abortion is a winning issue. Get your pals on the court to reverse Roe V Wade and see what happens. The women vote backlash alone would make the next congress veto proof. Next?

>>Because we invaded, we are in a more powerful position to try diplomacy with other regional powers..

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday said the UN Security Council was unlikely to impose sanctions on Iran as a first step in dealing with the disagreement over its nuclear program.

"I would expect that you would need at least something that tries to give the IAEA the weight of the security council in order to get Iran to do something. But I do not think people are talking about going directly to sanctions," Rice told reporters traveling with President George W. Bush in Pakistan.

Next?

Aptly named "Nut" writes:

" More proof the neocon CF is a know-nothing know-it-all:In recent days many Sunni mosques have been burned and scores of men slain, apparently by Shiite death squads retaliating for the bombing of a prominent Shiite shrine in Samarra..."

"Nut" fails to properly read. My post was quoting "Emirati Blogger's" advice. Which I thought was good advice. Create a large National Guard Force to reestablish internal security in Iraq. The "high tech" US military, not speaking the language and NOT privy to the undercurrents in the Iraqi neighborhoods or who the players are on a local level - have found they cannot do internal security.

It's a little late because the Sunnis have been killing Americans and Shia with dedication since Baghdad fell. Now no internal security force dominated by Kurds and Shia will hold pack from payback. The Kurds have the forces, but have held off on US urging. The Shia are about set, but have held off at the insistance of Sistani & clerics so far, but the bombing of the Mosque of the 10th Imam was about the last straw. The Sunnis shot was cooperation 2003-2005 with the US forces and secular Shia. They failed to do that and instead did butchery. Now they reap what they sowed. Hopefully it will not be a civil war of extermination, but a strong clampdown on the Sunnis who will be left some stake and agreed their dominance of Iraq is over after they suffer some serious slaughtering themselves.

The US can stand back and tolerate secular violence to some extent that is aimed at defanging the Sunni and their foreign fighter allies, but if it becomes full civil war, we must not take sides - but withdraw to strongholds away from the action, or withdraw out of country.

No, it shows that the Democrats have had no ideas to sway the voting population. Put someone good up there and maybe I'll vote for him/her.

Abortion is a major factor, and one in which I side with the Republicans (for completely non-religious reasons). And gays are not the threat they are made out to be, and I welcome them to the party. They are already here, known as the Log Cabin Republicans.

there are alternatives to existing systeme

leaders that look a little bit more intelligently disposed towards making America work...by making changes to legislation, social process, and education as well as supporting sustainable domestic energy policies...

I've already outlined a few examples of how I would change things...

with
schools, prisons....

reclaiming abandoned resources, marginalized citizens.

interrupting the cycle of children raising children...with intervention....

training prisoners in counciling, anger management, 12 step programme, requiring that they work in prisons or halfway houses as terms for early release...like that....

smart use of resources, not throwing dollars at it....we don't need richer criminals we need people that can f