Alienating Our Arab Allies

Dubai. Photo by Emily Messner.

"The nativist opposition to the port deal ... [throws] a wrench into the workings of globalisation while declaring that people's background matters more than anything else," writes Gideon Rose in a subscription-only piece in the Financial Times.

As we've discussed here quite a bit in recent days, plenty of other foreign-owned and foreign government-owned companies operate in the United States, in industries considered intertwined with our national security -- aviation, cargo transport and even defense. Up until a couple weeks ago, objections to these arrangements were few and far between. The furor of animosity to foreign ownership arose only when a Middle Eastern company tried to get in the game, and that glaring contradiction worsens America's image in the rest of the world.

An FT news story supports that conclusion, reporting that "among top Arab businessmen, many of whom are U.S.-educated, there is a strong sense that the backlash among congressmen and senators against the deal has been fuelled more by racism than by security concerns." It's particularly "acute because Dubai ... has gone out of its way to project an image as a pragmatic, pro-Western and free market exception in a region often bristling with hostility to America."

We must be very aware of the path we take by alienating this Middle Eastern ally. Our other Muslim allies now want to know: Will it happen to us, too? In the Jordan Times, Musa Keilani predicts it will. "Notwithstanding the sweet talk American politicians give us, it is a high probability that a Jordanian company would face rejection along the same lines that are being pursued by members of Congress opposing the UAE deal." Such presumptions, realistic though they may be, could discourage our Arab friends from investing in the United States -- and from cooperating with us when we need them.

What do Emiratis think about the American resistance to Dubai Ports World? Judging by the blogs and editorials, they're most distressed to learn that Americans, who by and large didn't even know the UAE existed a month ago, have gross misconceptions about the place. Some Americans have even lumped it into the same category as uber-repressive Saudi Arabia, a comparison that is wildly off the mark.

"The general public in america has a totally distorted view of what Dubai is," according to a terrific post on Metroblogging: Dubai -- read the comments under it, too. Others refuting misconceptions about Dubai and the UAE include this Emirati blogger and the Emirates Economist. For a sense of the general political climate of Dubai, read the first few paragraphs of this piece by Youssef M. Ibrahim.

The Mudville Gazette points to this Nicholas Kristof column (subscription required) in which he says, "Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there." *

Whether or not the most vocal anti-port-deal legislators have ever visited Dubai does not make or break the ports issue; of course one can criticize a place without ever having been there. But had they been there, they would have seen what Kristof observed:

Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world -- it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal -- not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.

And the scaremongering is unwarranted -- personally, I felt safer walking around Dubai than walking from work to the Metro in Washington, D.C.

In Dar Al-Hayat, there's disgust at the perceived double standard: No one objected when Jack Abramoff "convinced Congressman Bob Nye, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, to grant $3 million contract to a new Israeli company called Foxcom Wireless to set up antennas on the Capitol, to improve mobile phone coverage," the op-ed contends. "This would make eavesdropping on congressmen's conversations easy for a third party, like Mossad." (And that's not a terribly far-fetched concern.)

Conspiracy? Or just politics as usual? "The current exercise in Arab-bashing is, in fact, nothing more than election year politicking at its worst with Democrats feeling that Bush is vulnerable and piling on, and Republicans feeling vulnerable and joining the fray," argues James Zogby of the Arab-American Institute.

Interestingly, the same hand-wringing isn't happening in Canada, even though the P&O sale would also impact Vancouver's port, part of which would come under the management of DPW. Canadian officials -- even ones who've been railing against lax port security for years -- believe the change will not affect security. One Canadian senator offered this advice to his southern neighbors: "Get a grip, fellas."

By Emily Messner |  March 3, 2006; 4:57 PM ET  | Category:  Middle East , U.S. Foreign Policy
Previous: * Ever Visited Dubai, Senator? | Next: This Week's Debate: A Civil War in Iraq?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



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?

Posted by: MaryAnne | March 3, 2006 06:35 PM

What MaryAnne said.

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 06:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Wash Post Columnists Are Port Experts? | March 3, 2006 07:00 PM

"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?

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 3, 2006 07:53 PM

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.‎

Posted by: KB | March 3, 2006 08:17 PM

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?

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 08:38 PM

"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.

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 09:51 PM

"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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 3, 2006 10:18 PM

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.

Posted by: mark | March 4, 2006 12:49 AM

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."

Posted by: Che | March 4, 2006 03:19 AM

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"?

Posted by: John B. Chilton | March 4, 2006 06:16 AM

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.

Posted by: what you need to understand.... | March 4, 2006 11:12 AM

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.

Posted by: Joe Roman | March 4, 2006 12:27 PM

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.

Posted by: Joe Roman | March 4, 2006 12:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Impeach Bush | March 4, 2006 01:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Jerry | March 4, 2006 01:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Mark | March 4, 2006 01:57 PM

"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.

Posted by: | March 4, 2006 02:30 PM

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..

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 4, 2006 02:32 PM

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.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 4, 2006 05:14 PM

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.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 4, 2006 06:01 PM

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?

Posted by: | March 4, 2006 06:03 PM

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.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 4, 2006 06:31 PM

"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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 4, 2006 07:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Nut! | March 4, 2006 07:19 PM

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.

Posted by: MaryAnne | March 4, 2006 09:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Sully | March 4, 2006 09:33 PM

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!

Posted by: SELECAN | March 4, 2006 09:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Cayambe | March 4, 2006 10:01 PM

"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...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 4, 2006 10:05 PM

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!

Posted by: Nut! | March 4, 2006 10:44 PM

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.

...

Posted by: Nut! | March 4, 2006 10:47 PM

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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 4, 2006 11:00 PM

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...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 4, 2006 11:04 PM

>> 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.

Posted by: Nut! | March 4, 2006 11:07 PM

"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!".

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 4, 2006 11:21 PM

>>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!

Posted by: Nut! | March 4, 2006 11:21 PM

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?

Posted by: KB | March 4, 2006 11:29 PM

>> 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.

Posted by: Nut! | March 4, 2006 11:34 PM

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.

Posted by: KB | March 4, 2006 11:36 PM

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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 12:06 AM

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.

Posted by: Sully | March 5, 2006 12:27 AM

>>> 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!

Posted by: Nut! | March 5, 2006 12:28 AM

"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.

Posted by: | March 5, 2006 12:30 AM

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.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 5, 2006 12:55 AM

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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 01:46 AM

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...

Posted by: alienating and poisoning the american people towards each other and the world... | March 5, 2006 01:58 AM

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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 02:00 AM

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!

Posted by: Jerry | March 5, 2006 03:00 AM

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!

Posted by: andy | March 5, 2006 03:04 AM

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

Posted by: andy | March 5, 2006 03:07 AM

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

Posted by: jules | March 5, 2006 03:10 AM


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.

Posted by: Cayambe | March 5, 2006 03:40 AM

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.

Posted by: patriot act tribute | March 5, 2006 04:37 AM

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

Posted by: Nut! | March 5, 2006 10:09 AM

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.

Posted by: ARE WE IN DUBAI YET? | March 5, 2006 10:25 AM

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....

Posted by: we lost our competitive "edge" so to speak because the morons in charge... | March 5, 2006 10:48 AM

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.

Posted by: Jazzman | March 5, 2006 11:04 AM

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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 11:11 AM

occupation.

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

Posted by: we're not in "war" at best we're in | March 5, 2006 11:28 AM

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...

Posted by: this is the point... | March 5, 2006 11:35 AM

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 | March 5, 2006 11:41 AM

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?

Posted by: Nut! | March 5, 2006 11:49 AM

>>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?

Posted by: Nut! | March 5, 2006 11:54 AM

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.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 5, 2006 11:59 AM

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.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 12:01 PM


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 fish

as in give a man a fish, and he's hungry after that meal is gone

teach a man to fish, and he feeds himself...

without middle class blue collar work, you're future fishermen become brigands.


I'd probably use engineers to look at the existing problems from a perspective of context...


like this:

when building a house you use the materials at hand...


desert houses are made from mud, sand, orgainic filler...straw

houses in the mountains from stone...


within the context of the problem,
what solution would make an ecologically sound response...stages, multiple points working toward solution, pilot studies in parallel...


I'd look at drugs, and work with that as a symptom rather than a problem, and address the problem(s)....and ways to work with that...the solution would be a systeme of response....not some testosterone driven stupid-ass response like "Zero Tolerance" which filled our prisons with first time offendors and users...

I'd be a stronger with INS, and ask that

..Countries at our borders start adhering to a code of conduct that would attract their people into staying in their countries...and start creating policy to create that effect...thoughtfully...


I'd put up tarrif barriers near-immediately,
with a 120 day warning period for withdrawing from overseas....I would require that laws passed to regulate be reviewed every periodically by a methode suggested by people on the projects....


in engineering feed-back loops, allow for adjustment of an ongoing process to correct for changes,

we need those in legislation.

I'd apply engineering principles to economies....

I would nuetralize people, that appealed to emotion, by exposing them as demagogues, preachers with a mission to increase their sunday take


there is no reason for failure except that someone is skimming along the pathway....

If I had a chance I would order "enclosed safe-pillory" time for the senators that voted for "comity" and denyed the funds awarded to the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere to Katrina rebuilding.


I would order an investigation by the FBI into Mississipi and Louisiana corruption....and would establish FBI offices in New Orleans like they did in Atlanta...


I would order INS agents to be trained in terrorist and drug defense and I would remove the Bureau of Homeland Security and Bring the National Guard Home....


and a few other things that have to do with exposing religious _belief_ as something that is abhorrent to the working of the government....there is no room for dogma in a flexible system....


And I would establish a system of legal intervention that would establish suggested basis for avoiding situations that were likely to develop _before_ they developed....

they would make recommendations....


like U.S. Companies being required to adhere to the same standards offshore that they have to meet here....

to avoid foreign competition from domestic companies, for preventing those same companies from damaging other environments, and so on...

other things like,
internet fraud, spamming...that aren't covered by law but resemble current offenses.

I would make it so that being an American was something that people aspired to being like, but making sure that all countries were required to develop their own form of it and quit doing business with theives as theives....


I would reward honesty and punish dishonesty....


I would talk to the Dali Lama.


I would hold Town Hall meetings and allow people to discuss things publically as a way of life....


I would encourage discussion, as a way of getting people involved and I would move towards restoring leisure time as a NECESSARY quality to avoiding being sold down the river again, and along those lines I would reestablish a significant middle class and work towards college for all that wanted it...


I would also do something about suburban sprawl and the destruction of farmland by bullshit huge houses that had two people living in them, I would make city living so attractive that the problem would solve itself....no commute time, real rail systems....


walking, biking like in Europe in-the-city...

Portland Oregon is an example of a city that is beautiful, safe to live in and exercise is real part of everyday life for most....and salmon still run in the river that goes through the middle of the city....


I would restore image with reality....and remove image as a reliable judge of content....

I would teach the difference between the package and the content....so we didn't have to learn this lesson again.

the truth,

it supports itself it doesn't need spin..


that's the truth


that what the assholes that manipulate need to have happen to them...the truth...


you could help if you weren't so deep in your own ego.

Posted by: it's not so hard to do things so that our citizens have decent lives. | March 5, 2006 12:37 PM

looking for some pointers?

will I get credit?

Posted by: Hello meester McCaine | March 5, 2006 12:45 PM

If Dubai wanted to do us a favor, it would host and support an American media outlet that could operate outside the gorwing paranoia of the native establishment.

Did I mention that the paranoia was justified? Well, apparently so. Administration clampdowns on leaks (truths), and massive reclassification of previous open-source information, are direct threats to citizens being able to think critically about public issues.

It does not seem safe at home anymore for communicators of the truth. Dubai, could you help? It would be a fair exchange.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 5, 2006 01:59 PM

>>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.

What the heck is 'secular violence'? You think civil war is the worst that can happen? What's worse than civil war? Religious war! And not just in Iraq. The Sunnis may now be the minority in Iraq but they are the super majority in the Muslim world (85 v 15%). You think the Saudis and the Egyptians will stand back to let the Iranians gain supremacy in that region? Especially when they see the US 'withdraw' from Iraq!

Not even Dubai will be safe haven when that occurs. And welcome to 200 dollars a barrel oil by then. And thanks to Dubya's India deal legitimizing proliferation. Welcome to the Sunni/Shiite nucular arms race also. Thanks neofools!

Posted by: nut! | March 5, 2006 02:16 PM

the Log Cabin Republicans? they'd be better off called the outhouse republicans, no? and we are all grateful the mainstream republicans no longer consider "gays .. the threat they are made out to be". there's hope for the Dubai guys yet. they need to finance a movie called "Brokeback Harbor".

Posted by: nut! | March 5, 2006 02:31 PM

Listen Nuts!, India and Pakistan held nuclear tests in 1998, with programs that began during the Carter years, well before any neocon influence. Also, India is not Pakistan. To not enter into talks with such a country is more dangerous than doing so. To deter nuts! from joining the club also is desireable.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 03:02 PM

>>To not enter into talks with such a country is more dangerous than doing so.


That's not the point you nut! Everybody KNOWS they've got nukes. Signing some deals now with India helps nothing. What you have done is to encourage others to go for the same. You are telling Iran, Egypt, Taiwan to drop out of the Non Proliferation Treaty and just go for it as quick as they can. Besides it's a phony deal by your logic. India is NOT the country selling nuclear technology on the black market. Pakistan was and likely still is. Where's the deal with Pakistan to stop them from doing so. BS.

Posted by: nut! | March 5, 2006 03:15 PM

MURTHA: The public is way ahead of what's going on in Washington. They no longer believe it. The troops themselves, 70 percent of the troops said we want to come home within a year. The only solution to this is to redeploy. Let me tell you, the only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda. I've talked to a top-level commander the other day, it was about two weeks ago, and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources, our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

SCHIEFFER: Now, Congressman, when you say al-Qaeda wants us there, why would al-Qaeda want us there?

MURTHA: Because we're depleting our resources. A very small proportion of what's going on in Iraq -- they've diverted their attention away from the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is worldwide. In Iraq, it's a civil war. We have diverted ourselves away from that war on terrorism.

Posted by: JM | March 5, 2006 03:22 PM

Some 1,500 Iraqis have reportedly died in sectarian violence in the last two weeks. Iraqi insurgents continue to carry out roughly 70 attacks each day, and the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting without U.S. support has fallen to zero.

In other words, says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, "everything you look at" is "going very, very well":

RUSSERT: If you were to be asked whether things in Iraq are going well or badly, what would you say? How would you answer?

PACE: I'd say they're going well. I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at.

The nation's top ranking military official sounds like just another public relations mouthpeice. Maybe Pace also thinks the civil war is actually a good thing.

Posted by: jerry | March 5, 2006 03:31 PM

Wow, Cayambe, why don't you tell us how you really feel!

Actually, I appreciated your post. I agree with you more than I disagree, and even when I disagree with people like you and johnnyg and jazzman etc I always learn something from your original thought.

I think that for at least the next 1000 or so days it's going to be up to us to find consensus wherever we can rather than submit to divide and conquer. I have an arch conservative inlaw and when push comes to shove we really both want the same things for this country - personal responsibility, solvency, strength, etc, we just can't agree on how to get there.

I have take johnnyg up on this: "Because we invaded, we are in a more powerful position to try diplomacy with other regional powers."

I disagree with this. If we had used our big stick in Afghanistan, we would still have it to wave at Iran and North Korea and Syria and Hamas, etc. And we would indeed be negotiating from a position of strength having succeeded in Afghanistan. Instead we taught them that a few thousand Davids with IED's can trump the shock and awe of the mightiest army in the world. It was not a good thing. Although I do think that if we had another large attack and we had clear proof of state sponsorship we wouldn't have a problem getting more soldiers. It does appear however that we would have significant problems getting them supplied and paying for the war. And the enemy isn't so blind they need to see that published on the front page of the NY Times.

Now as far as original thought, I want to take up with whoever was saying if we don't want to do business with Dubai because of their links to terrorism then we can't do business with Britain or Germany either. Heard it on the talk shows this AM, not to original I guess. Here's my response. If Prince Charles was grouse hunting with Osama Bin Laden in 1999, I would agree we should not be doing business with Britain. Get it now?

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 5, 2006 03:33 PM

Russian MP says U.S. will attack Iran on March 28th!

Donald Rumsfeld has already warned that a military option was on the table.

Bill Frist has said that the US was prepared to take military action.

Incompetent administration we have.

Posted by: mark | March 5, 2006 03:44 PM

Incompetence? What an understatement.
1.2 Trillion --Amount added to the federal deficit over 10 years by President Bush's latest budget.

Posted by: jerry | March 5, 2006 03:47 PM

March 5, 2006 -- Bush trip to South Asia a disaster. The corporate media won't tell you this -- but the Bush trip to South Asia was nothing less than a disaster, according to direct and uncensored reports from India and Pakistan. Street protests against Bush in India were not in the "thousands," as reported by the media, but in the "hundreds of thousands." And they involved more than Muslims.

In his speech at the New Delhi zoo, Bush said, "I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world." Since Pakistan is not an Arab nation, Indians and Pakistanis, alike, were confused about what Bush was talking about.

Posted by: | March 5, 2006 03:54 PM

I really am starting to truely wonder if 9-11 was in INSIDE JOB! And that they are planning on bombing innocent Iran, like they bombed innocent Iraq, which they lied to take us to war over! And now they want to sell 22 NOT 6 of our U.S. ports to KNOWN terrorists and also sell manufacturing military production of critical military hardware to KNOWN terrorists! And Israel or at least some of them are)(Zionists) in on it! Look up ZIM shipping company! Or look here: http://judicial-inc.biz/arab_port_deal.htm

Bill Kristol has duel citizenship according to this report! As has others! I Googled Israel ties to Dubai port sale and this is what I got! How many more people have DUEL citizenship with Israel and U.S. and WHERE DOES THEIR LOYALTY LIE? WITH U.S. OR ISRAEL? OR SAUDI'S OR CHINA? OUR NATION IS BEING DESTROYED FROM WITHIN.

Posted by: wow | March 5, 2006 03:58 PM

"They"- the neocons- Got everything they wanted and more than they can handle. Their plan to "seize" power and carry out their "mandate" worked like a charm and their policies continue almost unabated-as we know. The public is starting to say "wait a minute" but their play book is still being followed to a tee.

This is especially true concerning macroeconomics. Bushes "fuzzy economics" are very much similar to Reagan's "tinkle down economics". Put capital into the hands of "the elite" so they can tinkle on the peasants.

Posted by: | March 5, 2006 04:00 PM

Yes, the President is an embarrasing bumbler. Still, no one want's this bull in their shop.

So what's next? Withdraw, surround the Kurds, and attack Iran?

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 04:02 PM

Our Commander and Thief said during the state of the union that we are addicted to oil. WELL, DUH!! Didn't Jimmy Carter say that back in 1978.

Posted by: I'm confused a bit | March 5, 2006 04:03 PM

well posted, johnnyg. I couldn't have said it better myself.

He's VERY embarassing.

Posted by: lori | March 5, 2006 04:06 PM

Murtha still fails to grasp the big picture fully. It's not just the Iraq war. It's also this whole drawn out war on terror (that they now want to call the 'long' war because the neocon-run Pentagon doesn't have a clue how to end it either) that is bogging us down.

The longer the US is preoccupied with this 'long' war the freer China would be to pursue its own interest and advancement, primarily economic for now. And forget about China, or India, or Russia, even the lowly Mexicans streaming across the US border know it too. Presidente Bush just doesn't have the time/resource to worry about the US/Mexico border either.

Afghanistan was the best chance to liquidate this Al Qaeda bunch once and for all when they were concentrated all in one place. But they would not send in the troops. Guess the neocon planners were saving them for Iraq. Pity.

Posted by: NUT! | March 5, 2006 04:33 PM

I am 50 years old, and have never in my life felt such contempt for a president and his republican congress. They are so busy keeping focused on their neo-con & global strategies that our country is slowly disintegrating and falling apart. Everyone that I talk to is angry, a lot are scared, and most feel like their lives are WORST off in the last 6 years than before, in ALL aspects, including economically. If they want to pull out 'the economy is good' card, maybe they should check the credit card debt and low savings of most americans.

Posted by: What a mess | March 5, 2006 04:43 PM

to the previous poster - just wait till the trillion dollar debt that our country has comes creeping in on us in the future. The piper will have to be paid. Bush and his cronies will be long gone from office by then, so I doubt they even give a shit.

Posted by: gg | March 5, 2006 04:46 PM

The white house now wants to limit leaks? That's unfortunate. Maybe if we had more of them in the last 6 years, things wouldn't be in such a mess right now. I sure hope the reporters don't get arm-twisted with this one! We're all really tired of this 'secrets' administration!

Posted by: jerry | March 5, 2006 04:50 PM

"Patriot" 1957 shares the Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore enthusiasm for their favorite "freedom fighters".....better known to the rest of us as Hijis, Islamoids, insurgents, IED killers of Americans.

"Instead we taught them that a few thousand Davids with IED's can trump the shock and awe of the mightiest army in the world."

No more than Partisans stopped the Nazis. It took stands in the barricades of Moscow, Stalingrad, and the battle of Kursk to do that. Partisans did little but jack up civilian losses. The US was little deterred by Jap and Nazi partisans - they were stood up aginst a wall and shot, or flame-throwered in their hideouts. It was called "mopping-up" a defeated enemy. The only thing that prevents the US military from decimating them is modern notions of "humane warfare" that says you can't execute unlawful combatants but must let the ACLU Jews defend them. And give them 3 squares a day, a cozy cell, socce practice, and a Qu'ran.

The ways to get around "Patriot" 1957s glorying in the triumph of the IED bombers without offending Euroweenie "mercy & love" notions towards Islamoids, while we wait for a bigger, inevitable 9/11 that will end the Euroweenie "humane warfare theology" is to either:

1. Pound the crap out of them and every bit of infrastructure (such that we spared in the Iraq War) so defeat is obvious & many civilians die - then just walk away and leave a shattered "bad guy" nation as an example..as we did in Serbia.

2. Pound the crap out of them, destroy infrastructure, make defeat obvious, but then say we will rebuild unless an insurgency cancels the offer to reconstruct. An insurgency with IEDs happens, just say "sorry", you are stuck with 1,000 busted bridges, no electricity, no safe water supply. Then leave. And come back to bomb and wipe out irregulars on the way to killing emerging leaders - if they become a threat again.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 5, 2006 05:21 PM

JohnnyG wrote:
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.
...............................................................

Why single out Islamic terrorism? Irish terrorism is OK? How about our own rabid versions, Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf (blessed by God). Are the Tamil Tigers above reproach? They pioneered the use of women in the suicide role you know.

Terrorism; it's not a cultural thing. It is a tactical political thing. It's cheap. It works politically. It has been with us as long as I can remember. I remember the Mau Mau in Kenya lopping off a few white heads (women and children) to make their point to the British. That from a fellow by the name of Jomo Kenyata, who went on to head the state of Kenya for many years to follow. Then of course there is Mr. Begin himself. It's been the weapon of choice for the weak against the very strong, the equalizer of sorts. Typically it doesn't actually do a lot of physical damage, but rather it strikes terror in the opposition and forces enormous economic burdens on it to defend the indefensible. Honestly, this is nothing new. Why can't we get by in this world without being at war with some damned ism? We had 40 years of that with communism. Did we enjoy it so much we have to go find another ism to replace it with?

Personally, I have no reason to go to war with a tactic; it's a really odd concept. If someone attacks us, I don't give a rat's ass what tactic they use; we need to find those particular folk and waste the buggers, and I don't care if they are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhists, or Prince Andrew on a lark. Self-defense is a real primitive instinct.

Just what is it that you actually mean by "this situation would have never ended without intervention." The only situation I see as having ended is Saddam in charge of Iraq. Now we are, and from most external accounts, we aren't doing as good a job of being in charge as he did. I was watching 08 Candidate Wes Clark bitching about how we weren't using our leverage to form a Unity Government for Iraq this morning. Maybe we could set a deadline for putting him back in charge of the Iraqi Forces we are training and see if that doesn't drive the politicians together a little more effectively than we seem to.


JohnnyG wrote:
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.
........................................................................

Actually Johnny, I don't agree with you here. What we need is to refrain from wasting troops on unnecessary and entirely optional missions. The military mission here was to take out Saddam's military and his regime. That was all over and done with in 3-4 months without even really breaking a sweat. If we had just bailed out at that point left it to the Iraqi's and UN to sort out, or not, we actually might have been better off at this point. Our leaner meaner military is designed for combat, not for occupation and frankly, I think it ought to stay that way because we make lousy occupiers.

Posted by: Cayambe | March 5, 2006 06:07 PM

I like Selecan am a foreigner who likes the US and its people. Australian. But there is a definitely a tendency at times for the US to suffer from national solipsism. Again, to remind, DP World has been operating a port in Australia since it purchased the terminal operations of CSX. There will be many more terminal operations managed by them with their purchase of P&O. If the US really believes that DP World is a security risk at the US end with their diabolical plan to plant weapons in cargo, then surely DP World is equally as dangerous at the source port. Logically the US should also move to ban receiving cargo that originated in DP World terminals elsewhere. Your Congress and Senate should pass legislation banning the arrival of cargo from Adelaide, South Australia, as it has been loaded by a state owned company from the UAE (Dubai).
May I say however, if we in Australia are willing to run the risk of being murdered for being allies of the USA (and often stated premise for our deaths from Osama etc) you might agree to take on some risk for your allies as well. And UAE is an ally of yours, even if you don't like them. You certainly don't seem to know anything about the UAE, Dubai or the global transport business. Maybe your ex President Clinton could educate you a little as it would seem he has sufficient knowledge to be employed to advise DP on how to deal with this carry on.

From the outside it does look like there elements generating strong opposition on the grounds of local squabbles and power struggles, how solipsist again. Turn the world upside down for the protection of some jobs in the US. We sorted out the corruption and inefficiency on our wharves, maybe it is time you did, and this is an opportunity to start.

"For example, most major ports overseas operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But in the United States, ports were shut down at night until very recently. And transmitting shipping orders electronically to some American ports does not necessarily save time because the orders need to be rekeyed into the ports' computer systems, a concession to unions trying to preserve jobs.

Foreign terminal operators, on the other hand, have benefited by running several lower-cost port operations around the world in places such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai, all of which have become huge export and transshipment centers for international trade. "

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0225portsbiz250.html

.

Posted by: Ros | March 5, 2006 06:46 PM

For Sale: The United States. To the highest Bidder.

Posted by: for sale | March 5, 2006 07:17 PM

Cayambe: "Why single out Islamic terrorism? Irish terrorism is OK? How about our own rabid versions, Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf (blessed by God). Are the Tamil Tigers above reproach? They pioneered the use of women in the suicide role you know."

Why these questions Cayambe? Of course not.

"Terrorism; it's not a cultural thing. It is a tactical political thing. It's cheap. It works politically. It has been with us as long as I can remember."

I disagree; it is cultural in some areas. Even with the Irish it was. Those being born into those societies are quickly indoctrinated into hate. Remember the text books in Afghanistan?

It is cheap, but still requires financing, and the harder we make it for them, the more expensive it gets. Someone is financing/assisting them. If it is a foreign government, they should be clobbered. Pursuing individuals will not treat the disease, only the symptoms.

"Typically it doesn't actually do a lot of physical damage, but rather it strikes terror in the opposition and forces enormous economic burdens on it to defend the indefensible. Honestly, this is nothing new."

Yes, but not so much lately. Nothing new, yes, but it has not affected the US homeland until recently. Should we just tighten things up, forget about it, move on? What if something like this happens again involving foreigners from several nations? I think the NYC and Pentagon attacks were horrifying and huge. We ran from our offices in DC, which were near the white house, believing another plane was on the way, only to find out later it crashed in PA.

I agree, bailing out early in Iraq is something that we probably should have done, except for providing protection to the Kurds. However, we did not. So here we are and Iraq is at the brink of civil war. Next time, #1 in Chris Ford's post, above. Actually, if you go back to an older post of mine from many months ago, I stated this approach should have been used from the beginning. That idea was not well received at the time.

By the way, I think we should try to work with this UAE-related matter. Study it again, if needed, but stop politicizing it because we are alienating them.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 08:09 PM

The ways to get around "Patriot" 1957s glorying in the triumph of the IED bombers

Go to hell. Go straight to hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

And do not put words in my mouth you son of a bitch.

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 5, 2006 08:27 PM

appeal to emotion,


the tool of the demagogue, hitleresque mentality, trying to conjure up images of father rapers...


those that don't have truth on their side manufacture a false one and say...


that's what you're saying...


this is in the line of a pat buchannan, my little sister, or a con artist...


not a person of character, but you already knew that...


credulity is based upon hitting the window of truth once in awhile cf....


shit comes out both ends of your alimentary canal...

Posted by: appeal to emotion is | March 5, 2006 08:44 PM

"You certainly don't seem to know anything about the UAE, Dubai or the global transport business"

You are correct Ros. We don't.

We do know that the Crown Prince of Dubai was a hunting buddy of Osama Bin Laden as late as 1999, long after the embassy bombings and Somalia and other al Qaeda attacks and long after it was known the US wanted OBL dead. That concerns me about the true allegiances of the royal family.

We also know that before 9-11 there was a lot of sympathy running in the UAE for funding and aiding terrorists. Here is link to issues with the UAE's ports since 9-11. Does this spell a big government crackdown on stopping the abetting of terrorism within their country? You tell me what you think: http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/dubai/transshipment-milestones.html

We also know that our government's actions in Iraq have caused people who turned against terrorism after the shock of 9-11 to turn back. The Crown Prince too? Who knows, do you?

Do I think Dubai would risk cancellation of their worldwide port business by allowing terrorist sympathizers to infiltrate their ranks and take advantage of their intimacy with port procedures in New York or Sydney? Probably not knowingly. Do I think there are significant pockets of support for terrorism in the UAE, or people who don't give a damn but would make a buck off it? You betcha.

UAE may be a friend of the Carlyle group and may be the best friend we have in the area. But if this was your kid you'd be 'splainin' to him talks about the difference between real friendships and relationships of convenience.

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 5, 2006 08:48 PM

mulitnamed poster

thanks... I think.

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 5, 2006 08:52 PM

Chris Ford is an obvious know-it-all savant who loves to twist other people's words around w/o fully understanding what he's talking about. Sign of sure neoconism. Iraq is not Serbia. Not in term of religion - it is after all a Christian Euro country so there's little fear it would disintegrate into a terrorist haven like Afghanistan, where the US did walk away once the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. Nor in term of motive and or tactics - the US did not rush headlong into that war, it was dragged kicking and screaming into it together with NATO which gave us great legitimacy and exit strategy. But most importantly Serbia unlike Iraq is not in the ME where we go to buy oil everyday. You just cannot pound the crap out of them and then just walk away. The bad guys would love to take Iraq and its oil reserves 'off our hand' so to speak. And Saudi Arabia and the other little gulf states as well.

Mr. Ford must really believe Bush spends all that money in Iraq out of his love for the Iraqi people. Please! It is done for own own interest - oil - and his own interest - George's reputation! Which is higher in priority in George's mind I'll leave you to ponder on.

So think Mr. Ford before you lecture other people on how inferior they are. The only thing worse than a know-it-all is a know-nothing know-it-all.

Posted by: Nut! | March 5, 2006 09:17 PM

The administration over all policy in the Middle East has strongly influenced the majority of public opinion against Islamic counties. The perpetrators of 911 should have been characterized as international criminals, not Islamic Empire Terrorists. Today our UN Ambassador gave strong public warning to Iran, warnings that should have been given, but not in public as was done, but in private. See the article from todays New York Times:

"For all of the axis-of-evil rhetoric that has come out of the White House"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05sun1.html?th&emc=th

Posted by: Jamal | March 5, 2006 10:09 PM

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC


"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."


Not true, we just think that most republicans are mindless lemmings, who are unfortunately pulling the rest of the country off the cliff with them.

Posted by: Jamal | March 5, 2006 10:44 PM

Posted by: Sully

"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."

Sully,

I just had to repost your comment, well done! Thank you

Posted by: Jamal | March 5, 2006 10:59 PM

johnnyg in NE DC Posted:

"Again, we are at war"

Johnny, just what countries are we at war with right now that had anything to do with 911? What government of any country that had any planning or financing of 911 are we war with right now? Most of the financing came from our friends in the Middle East as well as the perpetrators. Bush f@@@@d this up and your still a blind Dumd@@@ to it. Get real man!

Posted by: Jamal | March 5, 2006 11:19 PM

Read my posts and stop this nonsense Jamal. Look at the current status in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you denying we are at war? And not with terrorists? Yeah, our "friends" were complacent and maybe still are. I have said that we stop allowing this madness and make an example. Warn them, if they fail to heed the warning, use option #1 refered to above.

What are your bright ideas? This whole shit started with a response I made to a blanket statement about Republicans. I will not stand by take this kind of crap when I see it.

I try not to be mean with my posts, and give my honest point of view. My wife of 25 years is a goshdarn liberal. We can agree to disagree, and discuss things in a civil manner without resorting to what I see here, over and over. Attack and belittle, while giving means to solve problems in our country I deeply care about. I am listening to everyone here, and would rather hear an alternative means to a solution than simple statements like Bush sucks, he fucked the country up, he hates the poor, he sold our childrens' future.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 11:53 PM

See Mr. multi-named poster. As crazy as some of his posts seem, he has provided some ideas to think about.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 5, 2006 11:56 PM

should be "no means to solve ..."

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 6, 2006 12:07 AM

I beleive everyone here cares about this country. Enough said. Bush cares about this country, but he has damaged us at home and abroad. He works for us, I didn't vote for him the first time, so I can say I never hired him. I didn't vote for him the second time, so I can say I voted to fire him. And Johnny you can't say that! Your still and will always be a mindless follower of your party.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 12:20 AM

Posted by: top 10 | March 6, 2006 12:24 AM

I'm not bashing here, but... Worst President Ever!!!

I'm open to changing my mind, though, if anyone can name some things that are good.

Note: Since I'm not in the top 3% percent, DON'T mention the economy, because it sux.

Posted by: mark | March 6, 2006 12:29 AM

So Al Gore and John Kerry were fantastic alternatives. You give me a break. Why the hell can't either party come up with someone worth a damn.

Now, what are your ideas?

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 6, 2006 12:39 AM

are you crazy?


listen closely,

he joined the National Guard during the Vietnam War to avoid military service in a combat zone....


he creates a combat zone and sends the National Guard to it....he knows why they joined....he doesn't care.

his families in the OIL BUSINESS, he's created a conflict because his familiy wants him to....because there's money to be made....not because he cares about this country....he doesn't live in the same country that you do.....he will never live in the same country that you do...

he can piss down your throat, and there's nothing you can do about it....for you that's treason...

and he's a cokehead, alcoholic, draftdodger, daddy's boy....and he's your president....it doesn't matter what he's done....you couldn't get a job with his resume....think about it....you certainly couldn't get a clearance....


be reasonable, rich kid with a powerful, influential father is what he is....he's not connected to this country except by gravity....no heart, no feelings, not a thought for another human....that's not of his class...ask the poor citizens of New Orleans...

Posted by: bush cares about this country? | March 6, 2006 12:39 AM

Man these Post columnists! The latest one is this Sebastian Mallaby calling everyone who opposes this Dubai deal a demagogue. What is it with these guys who think they know better then the rest of us. This holier than thou santimonious preaching. Let me repeat this, we oppose this deal not because we hate Arabs blindly. Maybe some do. But not all of us. We oppose this deal because we no longer trust these experts who assure us DPW will run a clean terrorist free operation. The record of this government in Iraq and New Orleans speaks for itself. So do the Post's numerous endorsements of the same govt's many misadventures, Iraq included.

Get off your damn high horse. You think globalization will spare even you high priests and priestesses of the press. With Yahoo and Google moving into the news business soon even columnist's job will be outsourced to the best thinkers capable of putting together a string of correct English, no matter where they are from.

Posted by: Nut! | March 6, 2006 12:43 AM

And (tell the truth now) before the looting began, didn't you have some hopes for a better outcome in Iraq?

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 6, 2006 12:44 AM

Ideas? How about instead of flushing money down the toilet in Iraq, it could be spent here in the U.S. I realize Bush is big on self-sufficiency (something he wouldn't know about without daddy's money) but when you hear in the news about a homeless man in Boston that someone started on fire, that's really sad. This is the United States. Sure doesn't feel like it anymore.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 12:45 AM

Those people in Iraq are worst off because of what we did, not better. God help us all for all the hate being directed to the United States because Bush HAD to have his war.

What's really amusing is we supposely went in because of WMD's, and now it's because we're creating a democracy? Which is it?

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 12:49 AM

and I don't really know Hillary, but they seem to talk to each other....


the good thing about Clinton was, if heard something good....he'd act on it....didn't matter where the idea came from or which side came up with it....

I don't care who does the work, but I damn sure know what good work looks like....


I damn sure know what bullshit looks like and it's walking and talking and stinking up this countree rahts now boys....it's called "Dynasty" starring George W. Bush, the illiterate son of millionaire George H.W. Bush, who although he has spent most of his life partying and spending the olde man's money not to mention embarassing him...has managed to finagle one last favor from daddie...._the presidency_...


but who's the favor for? watch closely as you see a father use a son, sacrificing him if need be to keep "The Dynasty" going...see new episode in the Spring!!!!

a new American Soap...or should I say, same old same old...SOS

Posted by: Well you know what, I respect Bill Clinton... | March 6, 2006 12:49 AM

sounds like a lot of angry people here.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 12:53 AM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"1. Pound the crap out of them and every bit of infrastructure (such that we spared in the Iraq War) so defeat is obvious & many civilians die - then just walk away and leave a shattered "bad guy" nation as an example..as we did in Serbia.
2. Pound the crap out of them, destroy infrastructure, make defeat obvious, but then say we will rebuild unless an insurgency cancels the offer to reconstruct. An insurgency with IEDs happens, just say "sorry", you are stuck with 1,000 busted bridges, no electricity, no safe water supply. Then leave. And come back to bomb and wipe out irregulars on the way to killing emerging leaders - if they become a threat again."

And now the rest of the story of what could happen if the United States "Pounds the crap" out of Islamic countries:

3. Innocent American citizens attacked by angry mobs throughout Islamic World. American embassies attacked, destroyed, and occupied. Terrorist attacks on American citizens and property expands to non-Islamic countries. Limited terrorist attacks on American soil, habeas corpus suspended.

4. Arab governments friendly to the United States become unstable.

5. Oil cut off to America and any country allied with America. Oil prices top $150 per barrel. Run-away inflation cripples the American economy. Severe gas shortages and economy heads into a depression.

6. Pakistan's enters a nuclear arms race with India and greatly expands nuclear arsenal. Pakistan holds elections at urging of United States to promote Democracy, A radical Islamic nuclear armed government is elected.

7. International shipping targeted by terrorists

8. And the worse case scenario. Expanded war in the Middle East as Islamic countries send men, money, and arms to fight the American infidel invaders. War expands into Iran and Syria. Osama bin Ladins dream of an Islamic Empire begins to become a reality as American forces become over extended and more Islamic countries join in the war, including the nuclear armed Pakistan where the anti-American government was freely elected.

9. A down wind China issues warning to any country detonating nuclear weapons and causing radioactive fallout on its soil that appropriate action will be taken.


10. President begins draft. Draft riots begins.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 12:55 AM

oh, so this REALLY is about the oil, then?

Posted by: mark | March 6, 2006 12:57 AM

Yes, your right Bush doesn't care about our America, he only cares about his America.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 01:01 AM

He'll definitely leave the country in worst shape than how he found it when he became president

Posted by: sue | March 6, 2006 01:02 AM

Chris Ford, what you wrote sounds like a new form of 'blackmail' to me.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:05 AM

To the extent that the 30% of the population will desperately need a way to rationalize Bush being so inept...get ready to hear a lot of blame going towards the liberals, Democrats and the media.

Posted by: mark | March 6, 2006 01:12 AM

The liberals, democrats and the media must also be to blame for 70% of the troops in Iraq thinking their mission is pointless and wanting out.....Right???

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:14 AM

This is what a real vet says about the iraq quagmire - a hawk but with brains - John Murtha: The 'Only People Who Want Us in Iraq' are Iran, al Qaeda, and China

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:17 AM

Jamal, who says anything would be left to fight over one or the other in Iran and Syria. They can fight amongst themselves over the rubble.

Chances are they will back down because they know we can do it, and don't want it happen either. You see, that was my point about being in a stronger position for diplomacy. Right next door and with our full force to bear.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 6, 2006 01:19 AM

Everybody, repeat after me: this is Bush's war. Bush screwed up Bush's war. Bush had unlimited funds and the total control of the greatest war machine in all history.

The ONLY people responsible are Bush, his cronies and enablers (including Lieberman), and all the people who voted for him.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:25 AM

Nice analysis, thanks!

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:27 AM

Before Bush started 'his' war, Iraqi's had drinking water, they had electicity, they had schools, they had jobs, they had civil order.

Now they have chaos, torture and death.

They knew if they minded their own business, Saddam would leave them alone. Under Saddam the only people who had to fear were political dissidents (people who in this country you call traitors).

Now, everyone is afraid. Even the supposed leaders of the country live in fear for their lives and get bumped off like flies is the choas and mounting civil war.

If you think Iraquis are happy we came or want us to stay, you live in a fantasy land. If you think Bush will give up his 15 permanent millitary bases in the supposed free Republic of Iraq, then you are living in a fantasy land.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:34 AM

Why we love Bush ~ A to Z

A

Abu Graib
Abramoff, Jack
Afaganistan: Where's Osama?
al-Qaeda - no credible link between 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks and Iraq
Attitude: Ignorance and Arrogance

B

Bin Laden, Osama
Brownie - you're doing a heckuvva job.
Bolton, John - Nobel Peace Prize nomination for a world-class thug
Budget - Education cuts; inability to stay within budget (see Deficit)

C

Chalabi, Ahmed
Cheney -18% approval rating; See Haliburton
Chertoff (see Katrina)
Constitution - a document to be ignored

D

Death Toll - Iraq, Afghanistan
Deception - WMDs
Deficit - has sparked bipartisan protest

E

Education - no child left behind;
Energy - back tracking on alternative forms of energy
Enron
Environment - Clear Skies; Kyoto
Ethics

F

Fallujah
Faulty Premise - the case for WMDs
FEMA
Filibuster - might as well not have the option
Fleischer, Ari - see lies and lying liars
Freedom - see deception;
G

Government Spending
Gajillion - new number used to describe our debt
Gonzales, Alberto - a sad excuse for Attorney General
Genocide in Darfur - we can't spare the troops for a legitimate cause
Global Warming

H

Halliburton - No bid contracts
Health Care - don't get sick
Homeland Security
Honesty - yes, can we have some please?
Hussien, Saddam - friend, then enemy of Rummy

I

International Relations
Iraq
Impeach (?)

J

Jingoism
Justice Alito
Justice Roberts

K

Katrina
Kickbacks - see Abramoff, Jack

L

Liberty
Lies

M

"Mission Accomplished"
McClellan, Scotty
Medicare Part D, aka The prescription drug plan

N
No Child Left Behind - aka dumbing down of the masses
National Security Administration - see behind you
Novak, Robert

O

Oil - apparently we're addicted to it
Oligopoly
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Enduring Freedom

P

Patriot Act
Petrolium Profits
Phosphorus, White (See WMD)
Plamegate

Q

Quagmire - Iraq
Questions but no answers
The Qur'an - flushed down the toilet and pissed on by US soldiers

R

Rumsfeld, Donald
Reserves, aka IED fodder in Iraq
Reserves, Alaskan Oil
Roe v. Wade - we hardly knew ye

S

SCOTUS, stacked and going down the tubes
Security of the ports in jeopardy
Saud, House of - aka Bush Buddies (remember 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Suadis)
Stem Cell research stymied

T

Tenet, George
Terror, War on - see Quagmire; political subterfuge

U

UN Commission on Human Rights - not supported by the US
Unemployment
V

Vegetable - see Terri Schiavo
Vietnam, Overcoming the Syndrome - see Iraq

W

War - claims we're at war, but there's been no act of congress
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Whittington, Harry - shot in face and apologizes to Cheney
Women's Rights

X

Xenophobia
Xmas, the "war" on

Y

Yellow-cake Uranium lies, aka Yellowcake Forgery
Yale, continues to devalue the currency of other Yale students
Yellow-bellied draft-dodgers sending other people's kids to war?

Z

Zacharias Moussawi

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:48 AM

Patriot,
"Wow, Cayambe, why don't you tell us how you really feel!"

I promise, one of these days I will. :o)

Surprizing isn't it? I often agree with you, I often agree with Chris (not always the same path though), I often agree with DK, and I've been known to agree with Johnny, and ErrinF, even SandyK, and of course Jazzman; but then I don't know anyone here I haven't disagreed with either.

So we just never know, do we? :o)

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 03:40 AM

Patriot,
"Wow, Cayambe, why don't you tell us how you really feel!"

I promise, one of these days I will. :o)

Surprizing isn't it? I often agree with you, I often agree with Chris (not always the same path though), I often agree with DK, and I've been known to agree with Johnny, and ErrinF, even SandyK, and of course Jazzman; but then I don't know anyone here I haven't disagreed with either.

So we just never know, do we? :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 6, 2006 03:41 AM

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info
www.wsws.org

Dubai port deal is nothing compared to Ptech

By Devlin Buckley

While Congress and the media focus on the potential dangers of a UAE-owned company running American port operations, any possible threat is dwarfed by the current insecurity of the US government's computer infrastructure, which has been compromised by a company with alleged multiple connections to terrorist financing.

The company, once known as Ptech (now GoAgile), has been contracted to provide sophisticated computer software to several government agencies, including the Army, the Air Force, Naval Air Command, Congress, the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, Customs, the FAA, the IRS, NATO, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the White House.

Shortly after 9/11, the company's primary investor, Yassin al-Qadi (al-Kadi), was identified by the US government as a specially designated global terrorist. Officials describe al-Qadi as one of Osama bin Laden's "chief money launderers," and allege he transferred as much as $3 billion to al-Qaeda during the 1990s.

Al-Qadi is a wealthy Saudi with connections to banking, diamonds, chemicals, construction, transportation, and real estate. He once headed Muwafaq, an Islamic charity the US Treasury Department described as an "al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen."

Al-Qadi also maintained an unusually close relationship with notable US politicians. While attempting to defend Ptech, the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Massachusetts (ADCMA) revealed the fact that al-Qadi "was prominent in Washington circles and even showed President Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney around during their visits to Saudi Arabia."

Al-Qadi told an Arab newspaper in October of 2001 that he "spoke to [Dick Cheney] at length" and they "even became friends." Similarly, while speaking with Computer World Magazine, Ptech cofounder Oussama Ziade said that al-Qadi "talked very highly of his relationship with [former President] Jimmy Carter and [Vice President] Dick Cheney."

Ptech, under al-Qadi's ownership, supplied the US government with what is known as enterprise architecture. According to Glenn Watt of Backbone Security, "Enterprise architecture is really the design, the layout, the blueprint if you will for the computer networks and computer systems that are going to go into an organization." In regard to Ptech, he said, "The software they put on your system could be collecting every key stroke that you type while you are on the computer. It could be establishing a connection to the outside terrorist organization through all of your security measures."

John Zachman, who is considered the "father" of enterprise architecture, said, "You would know where the access points are, you'd know how to get in, you would know where the weaknesses are, you'd know how to destroy it."

Former FBI counterterrorism analyst Matthew Levitt has said, "For someone like [al-Qadi] to be involved in a capacity in an organization, a company that has access to classified information, that has access to government open or classified computer systems would be of grave concern."

While trying to play down such fears, Ptech cofounder Oussama Ziade, along with Ptech's vice president of professional services, Joseph Johnson, have claimed many times to the press that al-Qadi had little to do with the company and did not give any money to Ptech after 1994.

Other Ptech employees, however, told the FBI that al-Qadi was introduced to them as "the owner" of the company.

Confirming this, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who is described by the conservative Front Page Magazine as "the world's leading expert on Narco-Terrorism and a noteworthy authority on international terrorism, political corruption, money laundering, drug trafficking, and organized crime," reported that al-Qadi made a $14 million investment in Ptech in 1998, making him the company's major investor.

In total, according to Ehrenfeld, al-Qadi "invested at least $18 million directly in Ptech, $5 million through the Isle of Man, and $9 million indirectly through BMI, a now-defunct New Jersey-based Islamic investment firm with connections to other members on Ptech's management and investors. . . . Al-Kadi also transferred $2 million USD to Ptech from Switzerland between 1997 and 2000, according to Swiss investigators."

Adding further concerns, al-Qadi was only one of many Ptech investors and managers with alleged connections to terrorist financing.

Former Ptech board member Soliman Biheiri, who was recently convicted of lying to investigators regarding his affiliations with known terrorists, was in charge of the above-mentioned New Jersey investment bank, BMI, which according to court documents was used as a financial conduit for al-Qaeda and Hamas supporters. The FBI discovered the true principals behind BMI were actually Yassin al-Qadi and Hamas leader Musa abu Marzook.

Investigators also accuse Ptech's Biheiri of using BMI to funnel $3.7 million from an Islamic charity, entitled the SAAR Foundation, to Islamist terrorists. The president and CEO of the SAAR Foundation was Yakub Mirza, who was also on Ptech's board of directors, and who is said to have contacts high within the FBI.

Furthermore, Ptech's vice president and chief scientist, Hussein Ibrahim, was the founder and president of the aforementioned BMI. In fact, Ptech, al-Qadi, Biheiri, Ibrahim, BMI, Mirza, and SAAR, all maintained financial connections with one another, as well as with other organizations and fronts allegedly connected to money laundering and terrorist financing, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Taqwa, the Safa Foundation, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), and others.

Ptech's chief architect, Suheil Laher, headed yet another Islamic charity entitled Care International, which the FBI and IRS claim was "engaged in the solicitation and expenditure of funds to support the mujahideen and promote jihad."

Top Ptech investor and manager, Muhamed Mubayyid, served as Care's treasurer, and has since been indicted for lying on tax returns and concealing the charity's true activities. Mubayyid also donated money to the Alkifah Refugees Center, which maintained the same corporate office as Care, and from where the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was launched.

Also part of this financial nexus was Ptech founder Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi, who, according to the US Treasury Department, "had a close relationship with al Qaida and had raised money for al Qaida in the United States." He has since been sentenced to a maximum of 23-years in prison for illegal dealings with Libya, including his admitted involvement in a plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

Alamoudi also founded a US Army chaplain program for which he served as a consultant for over a decade. A former Justice Department official has described the program as a "spy service for al-Qaeda."

Like al-Qadi, Alamoudi was also influential in elite Washington circles. According to The Washington Post, as head of the American Muslim Council, Alamoudi "met with senior Clinton and Bush administration officials in his efforts to bolster Muslim political prominence."

In February 2003, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote:

"[In 2000] Alamoudi was one of several Muslims invited to meet with candidate [George W.] Bush in Austin, Texas. Alamoudi is certainly influential -- but he is also an open backer of terrorism. In October 2000, he was cheered at a pro-Palestinian rally in Washington, DC, when he declared: "We are all supporters of Hamas. . . . I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." Three months later he was in Beirut for a terrorist summit, along with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda."

Amazingly, Alamoudi -- who allegedly has direct connections to the 9/11 conspirators -- was invited to a prayer service with President Bush three days after the 9/11 attacks.

There are indications that al-Qadi, Alamoudi, and other suspected terrorists were protected from prosecution by high-ranking US officials, effectively preventing the FBI from stopping 9/11.

FBI Agent Robert Wright, who was in charge of pursuing al-Qadi and his associates during the 1990s, said the FBI "intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed" his attempts to arrest terrorists, seize assets, and expand his investigation into the financial network of which al-Qadi allegedly was a part.

After his investigation into al-Qadi was shut down entirely in 1999, Wright completed a manuscript, entitled "Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission," which, he said, "outlines, in very specific detail, what I believe allowed September 11th to happen." The government has banned the manuscript from being released.

Approximately three months prior to the 9/11 attacks, agent Wright wrote a memo warning that American citizens would die as a result of the FBI's incompetence. He said there was "virtually no effort on the part of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected international terrorists living in the United States."

According to former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus, even after 9/11 "people in the intelligence community came and said-guys like Alamoudi . . . and other terrorists weren't being touched because they'd been ordered not to investigate the cases, not to prosecute them, because they were being funded by the Saudis and a political decision was being made at the highest levels, don't do anything that would embarrass the Saudi government." He went on to say:

"[W]ho was it that fixed the cases? How could these guys operate for more than a decade immune from prosecution? And, the answer is coming out in a very strange place. What Alamoudi and al-Arian have in common is a guy named Grover Norquist. He's the super lobbyist. . .

Grover Norquist's best friend is Karl Rove, the White House chief of staff, and apparently Norquist was able to fix things."

Shortly after 9/11, several Ptech employees -- upon hearing reports of Yassin al-Qadi's connections to terrorist financing - began pleading with the FBI to investigate the company. However, as reported by the National Review Online, "the bureau did nothing, despite knowing that Qadi was a primary financier of Ptech. . . . Frighteningly, when an employee told the President of Ptech he felt he had to contact the FBI regarding Qadi's involvement in the company, the president allegedly told him not to worry because [Ptech board member] Yaqub Mirza . . . had contacts high within the FBI. . . . After months of the FBI refusing to do anything substantive, it took the efforts of U.S. Customs, now a part of Homeland Security, to raid the business in December 2002 and jumpstart the investigation into the alleged terrorist financial network."

Despite the raid, no charges were ever brought against Ptech.

Company cofounder Ziade, who has gone to great lengths to profess Ptech's innocence, said all the "innuendo" made it impossible to attract new clients, forcing Ptech to become a "virtual company" and market its software through an unidentified third party.
According to The Patriot Ledger of Boston, despite the forced transition, "most of the company's clients, including several federal agencies, did not drop Ptech as a vendor." In May of 2004, Ziade told The Ledger, ''We still have government agencies as customers, including the White House."

Posted by: CHE | March 6, 2006 05:05 AM

Ros,

Well, well, Adelaide sweet Adelaide. So lovely this time of year. Sure could use a little of that sunshine you have going this time of year. We took 3 inches of rain yesterday and today.

Ros ... If the US really believes that DP World is a security risk at the US end with their diabolical plan to plant weapons in cargo, then surely DP World is equally as dangerous at the source port.

We are just a wee bit slow you know. Not everyone has figured out yet what a danger Adelaide has become since it is hosting this terrorist connected company. DPW might just slip a nuke into a spare case in a wine shipment destined to Long Beach and wipe out some Chinese terminals along with a few American civilians. Two birds with one stone as they say. How many ports are they in all told? About 30 I seem to recall. That should put a dent in our imports. Good for our trade deficit and current accounts deficit.

Ros ... Maybe your ex President Clinton could educate you a little as it would seem he has sufficient knowledge to be employed to advise DP on how to deal with this carry on.

Oh my goodness, its sweeter than you can imagine. The good Senator Hillary Clinton, otherwise known as the ex-First Lady, is leading the charge to kill this deal in the Senate. So the question in front of Dubai is how much it's going to cost them to get Slick Willie to put down the revolt by his wife. He is one slippery slick dude, a real pro. You watch, see if he doesn't give them another long speech at 1000 bucks a word. He is a great talker. Our current PIP (party in power) isn't nearly so bright; dumb butts just go straight to the slammer.

Ros ... From the outside it does look like there elements generating strong opposition on the grounds of local squabbles and power struggles, how solipsist again.

Actually, the public resistance is largely based on not knowing a thing about how freight actually moves around the world coupled with the over hyped fears whipped up following 9/11. The political resistance is, well politicians always follow the public for whatever political advantage they can get and this one is pretty juicy. I don't thing the unions really give a damn. DP will be stuck with the same union contracts everyone else is here. I think the deal will go through once the dust settles since no American company is going to pay the DP price and both the Brits and Dubai would be pissed at that.

How have things settled out in your own troubles with your local Muslims a few weeks ago, mostly Lebanese as I recall? Did those cartoons in Denmark heat things up again there?

Posted by: Cayambe | March 6, 2006 05:06 AM

Jamal, here's a better planned scenario:

1. Bush initiates draft.

2. Bush announces timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (say, Dec. 2009).

3. Buildup and expansion of military bases in Iraq.

4. Bush announces new doctrine of strking anyone found assisting terrorists "evil-doers" with dastardly plans.

5. Present evidence.

6. Entertain concerned parties, maintain hard stance.

7. Accept requests from bad guys for opening talks.

8. Draw out agreement, all in our favor, and make them sign it.

9. Start bombing if they refuse, and let up only when they are ready to deal.

10. Move on to the next one with step 5. They will be pissing themselves by this time, and most likely in position for serious talk. Otherwise, repeat 6-9.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 06:18 AM

Poster listed item number 1 as "Bush initiates draft."

_________________

As with other components on the list, it's too late both practically and politically.

Posted by: On the plantation | March 6, 2006 07:31 AM

"Everybody, repeat after me: this is Bush's war."

You forgot the Pottery Barn rule. We broke it. When we broke it Bush had approval ratings between 65 and 70%. When I responded to an international colleague that this was Bush's war in fall 2003, he cited the approval ratings and told me this was the fault of the American people. His specific words were "YOU, the American people LET him do this. Just what did YOU do to stop him?"

Powerful words. I came home and became a political activist.

Now, I know a good share of those 70% had been brainwashed/hoodwinked/whatever. It wasn't about logic any more than this port deal is about logic. But the data had always been out there the story wasn't quite right. Of course it was a small column on page 56 below the fold while Judith Miller's headlines screamed about the aluminum tubes, but it was always there for the critical reader. Don't have too many of them I guess.

But my point is it isn't Bush's war. We, the American people, 70% of us, ran like lemmings over the cliff willingly. Now we blame the head lemming for leading us there. And he deserves a good share of the blame. But no one held a gun to our backs making us walk over that cliff.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 6, 2006 08:10 AM

1. Sebastian Mallaby is reporting that "Chuckles" Schumer is already setting up legislation to bash China in preparation for Hu Jintao's visit. Makes sense. If you are going to diss a US ally like Dubai - why not play the race, Commie, and non-Christian cards to scare the Know-nothing segment of the US population and roll back US-China relations 30 years? What will be next for Schumer, Boxer, Rahm Emanuel, Hunter, et al? Will they attempt to get Israel out of US telecom and cruise line and airport security industries? To make Israeli espionage more difficult? Unlikely. Schumer would be burned in effigy in his home district, and Emanuel would lose his reservist Israeli intelligence commission if he bucked Israel. But it will be interesting to see how "tough" the Dems are on China and how stupid and jingoist America looks as the next target is struck.

2. "Patriot" 1957 - Doesn't like his "patriotism" being questioned - but then he is the one that used the favorite meme of Hamas, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Moore...that the "oppressed" people are the "Davids" using IEDs and suicide bombs to "shock and awe" the "oppressor people Goliaths" - Israelis, Americans, Brits.

3. Australian "ros" properly asks what will happen when the Lefty demogogues and Right-Wing Know-nothings realize that there is greater risk in what is packed into cargo containers and aboard ships coming into a contry than in containers unpacked by their own citizen stevedores and monitored by their citizen's security forces.

If America will blockade goods from Australia because DPW runs ports there..

I say to "ros" that the nativists, the stupid, and the cynical Bush-bashers have only begun to embarass themselves and disgrace America.

Wait till the Jingoists conclude that it is "logical" to block oil shipments to America from "furrners" like DPW and "furrner" owned and operated tankers...leading to a self-inflicted oil embargo. Or "Chuckles" and cabal saying that all "Furrn-leased" shipping ports in America could be infiltrated with terrorists as easily as ....well...US Flying schools...so everything we export should be opened and inspected before it is sent overseas to nations like Canada and to places that don't even have the decency to speak English...

4. "Patriot" 1957 writes:

"You forgot the Pottery Barn rule. We broke it."

Except there is no fucking "Pottery Barn" rule in rules of warfare or international law. Not even at real "Pottery Barns". Powell and others saying a moral obligation to "nation-build" each and every enemy of the US --- Claim the rule exists -- but it doesn't. Powell can be as big an idiot as Carter on certain things. He knew as a Viet Vet, head of the Joints crushing Iraq's infrastructure in the Gulf War, and witness to Serbia being crushed by air war that we did not have any "obligation" to repair Vietnam, Iraq, or Serbia - and didn't. The only reason we started squandering 250 billion on Iraq was the misperception that the people would welcome reconstruction and not inflict 13,000 casualties on US forces in the rebuilding phase or try killing any vulnerable contractor repairing Iraq's infrastructure.

The only "Pottery Barn" rule is self-imposed, and the only reason it persists in the face of colossal Iraqi ingratitude is Bush's pig-headedness that the "noble freedom-loving Iraqis will eventually love us", and the Bush-bashers determination that he stick with "Pottery Barn rules" so they can enjoy seeing Bush punished and US forces killed.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 6, 2006 09:46 AM

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC

"Jamal, who says anything would be left to fight over one or the other in Iran and Syria. They can fight amongst themselves over the rubble.

Chances are they will back down because they know we can do it, and don't want it happen either. You see, that was my point about being in a stronger position for diplomacy. Right next door and with our full force to bear."

Now Johnny, in case you have forgotten,

1. The 911 terrorists had no affiliation to any country.

2. Before 911 we were the unchallenged superpower of the world, but we were still attacked, IT DID NOT DETER THE ATTACKERS.

3. People who are willing to die for a cause don't care how strong you are and will attack you anywhere in the world.

4. You assume we have intelligence that is correct or will not be "cherry picked" by the president for his own personal gain. Just another flaw in your thinking.

Your pre-twentieth century logic is so outdated and simplistic, without any regard to the ripple effects.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 10:43 AM

Posted by: patriot 1957

"But my point is it isn't Bush's war. We, the American people, 70% of us, ran like lemmings over the cliff willingly. Now we blame the head lemming for leading us there. And he deserves a good share of the blame. But no one held a gun to our backs making us walk over that cliff."

I disagree; Bush had all the intelligence on Iraq. It was his duty to take all intelligence into his decision making process as well as arguments contrary to invading and share it with congress. Instead he used the intelligence data to create a false threat to the United States to get his war, he was dishonest. His mind was made up long before 911 to invade Iraq and most likely before he was elected to his first term. Even if 911 had not occurred he would have still invaded Iraq. It's Bushes war, and it's a quagmire. His war is causing more casualties and cost money than 911 did. Before the invasion there was a balance of power in the Middle East, Iran and Iraq kept one another in check, we had to pay nothing in blood or money. Sadam feared Islamic Fundamentalist more than the United States. It shouldn't be any surprise about what happened to get his war if you look at his political campaigns.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 11:00 AM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"1. Sebastian Mallaby is reporting that "Chuckles" Schumer is already setting up legislation to bash China in preparation for Hu Jintao's visit. Makes sense. If you are going to diss a US ally like Dubai - why not play the race, Commie, and non-Christian cards to scare the Know-nothing segment of the US population and roll back US-China relations 30 years? What will be next for Schumer, Boxer, Rahm Emanuel, Hunter, et al? Will they attempt to get Israel out of US telecom and cruise line and airport security industries? To make Israeli espionage more difficult? Unlikely. Schumer would be burned in effigy in his home district, and Emanuel would lose his reservist Israeli intelligence commission if he bucked Israel. But it will be interesting to see how "tough" the Dems are on China and how stupid and jingoist America looks as the next target is struck."

Chris in a global economy your enemies may not always be military, they can be economic enemies. China is rapidly becoming the economic superpower of the world. What the United States needs is a return to checks and balances in government. Chris you do not want checks and balances, you want neo-con totalitarianism.

Posted by: Chris Ford

"2. "Patriot" 1957 - Doesn't like his "patriotism" being questioned - but then he is the one that used the favorite meme of Hamas, Cindy Sheehan, and Michael Moore...that the "oppressed" people are the "Davids" using IEDs and suicide bombs to "shock and awe" the "oppressor people Goliaths" - Israelis, Americans, Brits."

I agree with Patriot 1957, (1957 was a good year for Patriots and Chevy's, I was born in 1957 and no Chris, I'm not a Chevy). The point is; with an internationally based terrorist organization you can be attacked in many places at anytime with the attackers requiring small numbers of personnel and little financing. For the United States to combat this threat it takes large numbers of personnel and extensive financing.

Posted by: Chris Ford

"3. Australian "ros" properly asks what will happen when the Lefty demogogues and Right-Wing Know-nothings realize that there is greater risk in what is packed into cargo containers and aboard ships coming into a contry than in containers unpacked by their own citizen stevedores and monitored by their citizen's security forces.
If America will blockade goods from Australia because DPW runs ports there..
I say to "ros" that the nativists, the stupid, and the cynical Bush-bashers have only begun to embarass themselves and disgrace America.
Wait till the Jingoists conclude that it is "logical" to block oil shipments to America from "furrners" like DPW and "furrner" owned and operated tankers...leading to a self-inflicted oil embargo. Or "Chuckles" and cabal saying that all "Furrn-leased" shipping ports in America could be infiltrated with terrorists as easily as ....well...US Flying schools...so everything we export should be opened and inspected before it is sent overseas to nations like Canada and to places that don't even have the decency to speak English..."
I have to agree in part with you here, but then even a blind chrismunk finds an acorn every once in a while. Global Economy and 100% port security don't work. I don't believe we could ever get to 100% under any security conditions, even under total isolationism. We have to find a globally economical screening method that reduces the threat, but it will not eliminate it.

Posted by: Chris Ford

"4. "Patriot" 1957 writes:
"You forgot the Pottery Barn rule. We broke it."

Chris Ford wrote: Except there is no fucking "Pottery Barn" rule in rules of warfare or international law. Not even at real "Pottery Barns". Powell and others saying a moral obligation to "nation-build" each and every enemy of the US --- Claim the rule exists -- but it doesn't. Powell can be as big an idiot as Carter on certain things. He knew as a Viet Vet, head of the Joints crushing Iraq's infrastructure in the Gulf War, and witness to Serbia being crushed by air war that we did not have any "obligation" to repair Vietnam, Iraq, or Serbia - and didn't. The only reason we started squandering 250 billion on Iraq was the misperception that the people would welcome reconstruction and not inflict 13,000 casualties on US forces in the rebuilding phase or try killing any vulnerable contractor repairing Iraq's infrastructure."
The only "Pottery Barn" rule is self-imposed, and the only reason it persists in the face of colossal Iraqi ingratitude is Bush's pig-headedness that the "noble freedom-loving Iraqis will eventually love us", and the Bush-bashers determination that he stick with "Pottery Barn rules" so they can enjoy seeing Bush punished and US forces killed.""

Colin Powel's point was Iraq would fall apart and it would become a terrorist sanctuary and once that happened the only way to prevent it was to occupy and rebuild, if even that would work? And at this point in time Colin Powel was undeniably right. You say "Bush's pig-headedness" and then attack Bush Bashers (BB's). No wonder you're a target for the BB's.

Your problem Chris is you still think of the terrorists as a nation country. It's an organization of international criminals and should be treated as such. Your method is only going to cause more criminals. Of course this was your thinking of NOLA where most were not criminals, but your were grateful the Katrina wiped it out because of a few law-breakers.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 11:55 AM

Jamal:

1. Yes they do. Several.

2. ??

3. People who are willing to die for a cause don't care how strong you are and will attack you anywhere in the world. Then let us help put them out of their misry here on the physical earth.

4. You know what? I don't give a shit any more about this one. If we make a mistake, lets make it a real biiiiig one.

5. Ripple is nothing but cheap wine. I don't want any more of it Jamal. Take it and go home.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 6, 2006 12:16 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but if our ecomony is so great why do have have such a huge deficit in the United States?

A country is analagous to a home. When a household is doing well financially they have savings and no debt.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 12:20 PM

our economy is good because people are spending money and corporations are making profits. Actually I have a sinking feeling in my gut that a lot of the so-called buying by americans is being put on their credit cards, you know, sort of like what our great country is currently doing with accumulating a huge deficit.

Posted by: mark | March 6, 2006 12:23 PM

Mark, the economy being talked about right now is merely a talking point for the republicans. They have very little else they could say that could be translated into 'good news'. Someone wrote in here about the economy being good for the top 3% only. Yes, it sure seems that way.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 12:27 PM

The deficit will never end. On thursday this week, there will be another Senate Appropriations hearing on the Administration's other big supplemental request, more funding for the war against terror. According to sources, this will likely become a referendum of sorts on the war in Iraq.

Sigh.

Expect more of this when you have a so-called war with 'no ending'

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 12:33 PM

just a thought: maybe Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace, and CENTCOM General John Abizaid, Bush & Cheney could fund it with their credit cards. ha ha!

Americans are getting tired of being stuck with the bill for a war that we were lied about.

About Bushs 'nation building' in other countries?

I think our own nation here could use a little of that right now.

Posted by: jules | March 6, 2006 12:36 PM

The chief executive of Dubai Ports World vowed to move ahead with the company's acquisition of terminal operations in five U.S. ports despite resistance in Congress.

Posted by: in the news today | March 6, 2006 12:41 PM

Jamal, you make the old Lefty mistake that causes so many to conclude the Left is never to be trusted with America's national security.

Mistake? Rampant logic fallacies.

1. Our enemies are criminals.
2. Criminals made that way by various "rootcauses" we must understand and correct because it is all our fault they are the way they are.
3. Criminals can only be deterred by All-Wise lawyers in robes imposing jail sentences - but only with the accompanyment of supreme concern for due process to protect the precious rights and liberties of the enemy criminals.

Facts:

1. Hardly any enemy Islamoids consider themselves criminals. Hardly any of their supporters consider themselves criminals. Trying to fight terrorists with warrants, ACLU lawyers, Jihadi Rights Advocacy groups, and "stiff" jail sentences was tried. The "greatest triumph" was conviction of those involved in the WTC Attack #1 - who listened on their radio in a Manhattan Jail and cheered the mounting death counts as their Islamic brothers finished the job they started. Then they prayed to Allah to praise him and celebrate the joy the mass butchery had given Allah.

2. No Islamoid would accept guilt and punishment imposed by infidel courts and individuals as just and proper. Jail is no deterrent for those willing to die so they can kill infidels in the interim.

3. Our cumbersome, disgracefully sloppy legal system has gone 4 1/2 years without sentencing a 9/11 terrorist. It has shown us the ACLU Jews and the biggest media advocates of treating Islamoids as criminals vs. the military threats they are - are the very people sabotaging our war against the Islamoids by attempting to weaken prosecution of the enemy and undermine our diplomacy, war leadership, alliances, and the military itself.

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 6, 2006 12:58 PM

The president is asserting his inherent constitutional authority in 'wartime' that allows him to ignore our laws and constitution.

We're all starting to wonder here if maybe he "created a war" just to have that authority.

And every time I hear about that one-line veto, I feel like I live in a monarchy rather than a democracy.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:11 PM

President Bush proposed a new law today that would give him power by vetoing specific items -- authority that the Supreme Court struck down nine years ago but which would be structured differently under Bush's plan.

Posted by: wow | March 6, 2006 01:14 PM

i wait for the day he is no longer in charge. where i live it's call two faced and phony. he's creating a war at home on the values he professes to be promoting abroad. some democracy we have here.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 01:20 PM

would be your sorry ass presidente'.


and then his father, and then dickless cheyney and rumsfield the nixon lover...

as well as those CIA agents that acted against their own country so geo w. could get war powers....


and change our world...


slaves don't get to talk to each other or learn to read and write in the new world that he's creating...


.hitleresque mannque


posing as a leader

Posted by: the only 9/11 terrorist they should be sentencing... | March 6, 2006 01:21 PM

criminal, inciting war as a solution to internal corruption, so we'll be too busy to do anything about it...and he collects his stipend from whatever group is funding him.

Posted by: mistake, our singular poster is... | March 6, 2006 01:28 PM

manque'

which means wannabe...


hitleresque wan na be'

Posted by: sorry that's | March 6, 2006 01:31 PM

goes with the whole mon key' chim pan-z' thing,
yah see.

Posted by: I liked it because it | March 6, 2006 01:32 PM

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC

"1. Yes they do. Several."

??

"2. ??"

See the original thread.

"3. People who are willing to die for a cause don't care how strong you are and will attack you anywhere in the world. Then let us help put them out of their misry here on the physical earth."
Have you forgotten 911?

4. You know what? I don't give a shit any more about this one. If we make a mistake, lets make it a real biiiiig one.
The bigger the mistake, the bigger the consequences to pay. Are you paying any attention to Iraq?????

5. Ripple is nothing but cheap wine. I don't want any more of it Jamal. Take it and go home.
Johnny, I don't care if you go home or not, just stay out of the voting booth, before you put another Bush in office. It's unbelievable, because no matter how you try to avoid it, you put him in office and refuse to admit he's a mistake.

Posted by: Jamal | March 6, 2006 01:48 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"Jamal, you make the old Lefty mistake that causes so many to conclude the Left is never to be trusted with America's national security.
Mistake? Rampant logic fallacies."
"1. Our enemies are criminals."

It was mistake to put the terrorist on a level where it took the greatest superpower in the world to declare war on them. They wanted to be put on equal war level with us, it furthered their cause. We're only talking words "here", keep your neo-con spin out of it.

"2. Criminals made that way by various "rootcauses" we must understand and correct because it is all our fault they are the way they are."

This is not the discussion, stay on the subject.

"3. Criminals can only be deterred by All-Wise lawyers in robes imposing jail sentences - but only with the accompanyment of supreme concern for due process to protect the precious rights and liberties of the enemy criminals."

This is not the discussion, stay on the subject.

"Facts:
1. Hardly any enemy Islamoids consider themselves criminals. Hardly any of their supporters consider themselves criminals. Trying to fight terrorists with warrants, ACLU lawyers, Jihadi Rights Advocacy groups, and "stiff" jail sentences was tried. The "greatest triumph" was conviction of those involved in the WTC Attack #1 - who listened on their radio in a Manhattan Jail and cheered the mounting death counts as their Islamic brothers finished the job they started. Then they prayed to Allah to praise him and celebrate the joy the mass butchery had given Allah."

So what's your point, Eric Rudolf and Timothy McVie were not criminals?
I'm sorry, that was wrong of me, those are neo-con hero's.

"2. No Islamoid would accept guilt and punishment imposed by infidel courts and individuals as just and proper. Jail is no deterrent for those willing to die so they can kill infidels in the interim."

I agree

"3. Our cumbersome, disgracefully sloppy legal system has gone 4 1/2 years without sentencing a 9/11 terrorist. It has shown us the ACLU Jews and the biggest media advocates of treating Islamoids as criminals vs. the military threats they are - are the very people sabotaging our war against the Islamoids by attempting to weaken prosecution of the enemy and undermine our diplomacy, war leadership, alliances, and the military itself."

We're torturing and in some cases killing some, what more do you want? You seem to think our democratic values and the constitution are threatening our war? How unpatriotic of you. Whose side are you on? And once again you bring bigotry into the discussion to lose credibility.

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 02:16 PM

I believe that 99% of our world's problems are based on one thing: Religion, and trying to cram what one person believes onto another. Some may call it legislating morality. You see it here in the U.S. with the gay-bashing and the anti-abortion activists. You see it in Iraq, with their in-fighting among themselves.

I had grown up with the belief that the constitution of the United States separated church from state.

You don't see much of that anymore.

More and more religion is playing into right-wing politics.

Since so many people have their own opinions which is faith-based, when it starts to enter the political arena, every one starts acting so "un-religious", with the hate mongering among those who hold different views from them.

I guess it makes for good talk show news, though.

At times it seems like our current administration is using religion to make laws.

At the same time, they are using brute force trying to make other countries be more like us.

More like us? God help us all!

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 02:31 PM

i thought the settlers came here to escape religious oppression

Posted by: | March 6, 2006 03:40 PM

Jamal, "you put him in office and refuse to admit he's a mistake." This is bs, not true. scroll up and read

Stop drinking the ripple dude, it's dulling your mind.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | March 6, 2006 04:25 PM

Ossama Bin Laden also studied in USA and UAE is a very very tiny part of Arabs Islamic world. Ports are very sensitive points of entry into USA. So, Americans are justified to investigate the matter and/or search for alternatives. That does not mean the contract attribution to a UAE company was wrong. It means that the whole matter should has been put out, in public view, from the start.... RP

Posted by: RP | March 10, 2006 01:29 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




 
 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company