Finding Facts Amid the Ports Controversy

With something like 90 percent of the world's goods transported by sea, the shipping business wields immense power. It can bring longstanding foes together -- as in this joint venture between China's Communist Party-controlled COSCO and Taiwan's Evergreen Marine. Conversely, conflicts over shipping could potentially tear newfound friendships apart. The divide between the United States and the emirate of Dubai grows wider by the day; perhaps a bit of truthsquad-ing might help reduce the rift.

Former Congresswoman Helen Bentley of Baltimore, who was a champion of port security before it was cool, tried to set the record straight on the Dubai deal in a letter to the Baltimore Sun. She pointed out that the Maryland Ports Administration will continue to "run" the port of Baltimore. If the controversial Dubai Ports World deal goes forward, the firm will only operate one of Baltimore's port terminals, and part of another, while bidding on contracts to unload cargo.

Indeed, at many ports, multiple companies operate the terminals. Of the four terminals at Seattle's port, for example, Seattle-based SSA operates two of them; one is operated by TTI as part of a joint venture with Hanjin; and one is operated by APC, which is owned by Singapore's government-controlled shipping company, PSA. (Yes, it's an acronym-heavy industry.)

In conversations with officials at ports on both coasts -- and the Post's Dana Hedgpeth and Neil Irwin have talked to many port insiders as well, including dockworkers -- the common consensus seems to be that this takeover won't affect current or future security measures. U.S. intelligence agencies assessed the deal and found it to be unthreatening.

In such complex matters as this, truthsquad-ing is a vital service. At CBSNews.com, Dick Meyer debunks the myths that have built up so quickly around this story. A detailed post at Daily Kos also provides key facts and context to counter DPW- and UAE-related misinformation. At the National Review Online, Jim Geraghty does some debunking of his own, much of which is useful.

That said, don't fall for the bit about Saudi-owned berths. Geraghty directs readers to the Sweetness and Light blog, which claims that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia controls berths at nine American ports. Sweetness characterizes it this way: "the Saudis 'control' these ports as much as the UAE's Dubai Ports World ever will." The assertion has spread quickly, and no wonder -- it's quite a shocking revelation, if true. A simple phone call to NSCSA's main office in Baltimore, however, was enough to determine that while the Saudi company does own and operate vessels that use terminals at the nine ports listed -- as do dozens of foreign companies, both government owned and privately owned -- it does not actually operate any American terminals.

If you want to know what Congress should be doing instead of wasting its time fighting an already-completed acquisition, take the time to read Coyote Mercury's excellent post on the state of the Coast Guard.

The expansive Port Security, Maritime Security, and Homeland Security Blog points to a New York Times op-ed that offers a plan for addressing our serious port security shortcomings. Congress has the power to implement these recommendations. But how to convince our lawmakers to indulge us for just a little while and actually focus on the root causes of the port security problem?

[3/2/6, 10:49] Update: A deal with another Dubai firm is being investigated, as is a deal with Israeli firm. Pleased at least that some national security related matters are being investigated. Wouldn't it be nice if an investigation into domestic spying were next?

By Emily Messner |  March 2, 2006; 9:50 AM ET  | Category:  Facts , Middle East
Previous: Is Foreign Government Ownership Necessarily Bad? | Next: * Ever Visited Dubai, Senator?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Two non-rhetorical questions. Why are our ports managed, leased, whatever by foreign governments or corporations, rather than our government or domestically owned corporations? Why is it that the American public is continually kept in the dark about what their government is doing if what the government is doing is no big deal so that each time something is revealed it seems like we're not supposed to know about it? National security is not a satisfactory answer.

Posted by: felicity smith | March 2, 2006 11:32 AM

Posted by: ian j | March 2, 2006 11:55 AM

And for your second question, the reason everything is a big secret is that the Bush Administration is run by a group of neoconservatives that are much more intelligent, much better educated, and way more patriotic that the average American citizen. They just don't want us to bother our silly little heads with all these details. They're sure if we just hush up and do what they say, everything will be fine in America. Now don't you fell silly for asking?

Posted by: wiccan | March 2, 2006 12:05 PM

Its the way the whole deal was negotiated by the administration : No documents will be kept in US land accesible for security checks...THAT'S A HUGE RED FLAG!!
I am yet to see this pointed out by the media ..What a shame!
Despite of all the facts presented in your article regarding the many places where this Dubai company manages ports, the real issue is Bush negotiated the deal.

Posted by: maria | March 2, 2006 12:20 PM

Emily Wrote:

"Wouldn't it be nice if an investigation into domestic spying were next?"

I assume you're referring to an independent investigation where an oath is taken to answer questions? And yes it would be nice. Far too many questions were not answered due to be "OPERATIONAL".

Posted by: Jamal | March 2, 2006 12:36 PM

The implication that Congress is wasting their time on this is about as true that this port deal is 'already completed'. Congress is dealing with an issue 70% of Americans oppose. Besides the fact that Congress works for the people and should address issues that concern us, there's also the fact that a lot in Congress will lose their seats if this port deal is not handled properly, the proper thing to do being killing the deal. As for the deal being a complete transaction, DPW has submitted it for 45 day review, moving the rest of their P&O deal forward while the North American part of it goes through this 45 day review.
One thing Emily was right on is how animosity between the USA and the UAE will be growing day by day. The way things are going, all that's going to be accomplished is that the port deal won't happen and the UAE will suffer PR-wise for trying to push it through. This is all just beginning, and it's going to get worse and worse. Emily's cred has already been hurt by this issue; So goes for all that try to push through this port deal against the will of the American people.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 2, 2006 12:44 PM

green glowing cargo containers are red flags. negotiating the location of documents is business.

Posted by: | March 2, 2006 12:59 PM

I think I am ready to tentatively accept that the port deal does not represent a significant safety concern. Sufficient evidence has been made available.

It was insane for anyone in the media, including Emily, to accuse us of Racism for requesting an investigation. I'm kind of soured and disappointed by the way that particular issue was handled. "Xenophobia xenophobia xenophobia!" is intellectually lazy.

Ignoring safety concerns, there are a few other concerns:

1) Overlying issue of the foreignization of America directly through foreign investment. Perhaps the ignorant American machine needs a giant port deal to realize how much of America is pocketed not only by foreign private companies but by foreign governments.

2) A repeated "concern" of refusing this deal is what effect it might have on our relationship with Dubai, who is an ally in the war on terror. Frankly, that Dubai has this kind of a bargaining chip with us in the first place is of chief concern. It puts any future Port negotiations, perhaps over whether or not they keep subpoenable records on American soil, will also hinge on their aid in the war on terror. This would be a fundamental problem of negotiating with Countries rather than private enterprises because the former is motivated by more than profits.

3) If a port sale is so politicized, I wonder how the nation would respond to an actual attack at a DPW operated port? Irregardless of evidence, Americans will blame this on Dubai. If Americans overwhelmingly do not trust Dubai now (and I still don't, I'm just convinced they are harmless as port operators) what will we demand if Americans collectively decide that the UAE or Dubai was complicit in an attack on American soil?

4) America and Americans should be able to make evaluative claims about other countries without being called xenophobic. Our country negotiates to varying degrees with all kinds of countries. Would Iran receive the same defense if it were purchasing our ports? Even if it didn't represent a safety concern? Should we ignore that 1/4th of Dubai residents are Iranian Citizens? What if Saddam had tried purchasing our ports?

It smells like this deal will go through now. I hope our elected officials use the opportunity to increase UAE transparency about their dealings with terrorists and nuclear proliferation, and human rights.

Hopefully our elected officials will also use this opportunity to investigate our quickly approaching 1 trillion dollar a year trade deficit, or improve port security in general. Or perhaps it will encourage the administration to act with more transparency in the future, which is already taking place from the looks of it (the Israel and other Dubai deal).

But maybe I'm just a xenophobe!

Posted by: Will | March 2, 2006 01:07 PM

There is a problem with a company owned by a foreign government having a commercial investment in any of our infrastruture and we are seeing that problem play out now. We should be able to say no to any commercial deal without the risk of offending another country. This law should have been reviewed after 911 to see if it still made sense. Here we are asleep at the wheel and suffering the consequences .... as usual.

Posted by: PMinges | March 2, 2006 01:14 PM

the question

is too simplistic...

the BETTER QUESTION:

is unregulated ownership bad for the citizens of the United States?

our regulations regarding ownership of things American by things UnAmerican should be that we benefit from the relationship,


not simply the people that broker the sale....


which would be the assholes that broker sales and the lobbyists that cater to their hard-ons....the similie is to prostitution/addiction something your presidente has a lot of experience in .


in the dubai ports example, Bush and his father have had an affiliation with the UAE that spans the time back to 1975 when BUSH SR. (George H.W. Bush) was director of the CIA.....


1. under the DUBAI DEAL, there would be less accountability on paper than other port authorities were required....something like this is called, keeping payments off of the book...

2. George W. Bush, the son, said he had no knowledge of the deal, as a way of defending himself....do you really want a presidente' whose knee-jerk response to anything is "I didn't know" even though he can be clearly linked to knowing?

3. Why should we trust anyone who is a liar by prediliction to be telling the people the truth?

4. As far as ownership is concerned, if a company turns it's back on the people of the United States, by taking their jobs overseas, should they be able to sell their products to us without penalty of tarrif?

5. Japan has modeled their foreign investment and ownership laws, so that they can not be taken over by outside forces....shouldn't we examine our own in light of what they have written? And change our laws retroactively?

6. Hello Mr. Gonzales, Shouldn't we penalize employers for hiring illegal aliens as it is not to the benefit of American workers who are already here? Shouldn't we be REQUIRING that MEXICO become a better neighbor to it's people before we do any more business with them...giving U.S. companies 90 days to make other arrangements?


HOW MUCH OF THE UNITED STATES LAND DO OTHER COUNTRIES OWN?


If my ancestors have made this country what it is, as well as valuing my own contribution, why is it that you can sell my country and lay my people off without suffering retribution?


eh!?

what happened to the 9 Billion $DOLLARS$ IN CASH that Saddam "escaped" with, is it in Dubya's family account?

A friggin war loss, that ends up in the "families" hands?

Is that worth starting a "war" over?

Talk about grande friggin larceny.


that's the point, leaders that steal and their people


ought to do time, you would....

and how about this....


former coke head, known alcoholic, how does he rate a clearance? Cheyney either?


could you get one?


I don't think so..


and yet, when HE SAYS something needs to be classified all of a sudden


it makes sense


because he bought the presidency...


and he took us into


occupation of another country


without credible reason....knowingly


and that's all right for the sheeeeeeeeeeple....

orange jumpsuits, orange jumpsuits, orange jumpsuits....

and yet again,


9/11 a ruse.........for the sheep.

Posted by: unregulated ownership IS BAD for the citizens of the United States | March 2, 2006 01:19 PM

try it...

Posted by: it's okay to have fun.. | March 2, 2006 01:21 PM

homphobia, martyred babies, guns and what not was that it created:


more stupidity, that you have to clean up if you want to have a good country.

Posted by: the thing about the media war using | March 2, 2006 01:22 PM

that the Chinese get Montana if,

get this:


George Bushe and CO. default on the loans?

you need to get this, you don't get a share of the 1 trillion borrowed....

but YOU DO PAY if they *uck up....

that's why it's important to question your TRAINERS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

sheeeeeeeeeple.

don't look behind the curtain!!!


is that LIBERTY backed up agains t the wall crying as she's being assaulted?

I would think so.


and somebody should be gettin their nose broken for _that_

Posted by: is it true? | March 2, 2006 01:46 PM

is

_family_ business with this congress and administration.

ask the cunning hamme...

"I'm ssooo ashamed"

right.

Posted by: negotiating the location of documents such that they can't be checked... | March 2, 2006 02:05 PM

hey, how come Dan Froomkins pic on his column look so, err, gay?

Posted by: | March 2, 2006 02:28 PM

Better yet, why is Dan Froomkin's opinion column considered a blog? He's listed among the blogs, but it's not a blog because you can't comment. Why not just attach a comment section? Not like Froomkin would have to moderate it. He just does his usual job, and let's it be open for comment. How could anybody possibly be against that?

Posted by: ErrinF | March 2, 2006 02:39 PM

Congress wanting to get directly involved in the approval process (see today's WP story) should make us all nervous. Nowhere else in the developed western world do investors have to go through a political process to get approval. A security check is fine, but if it's on the floor of the House or Senate, it's going to be politicized. I can't believe that it is the Democrats who are leading the charge on this. Where are the internationalists, like Joe Biden? Haven't heard from him on this. I wish he would weigh in.

Posted by: Worried Dem | March 2, 2006 02:44 PM

There is still the misperception that it is impossible to detonate a weapon until it passes through a air or sea cargo terminal in a crowded city and is "reassembled and armed" in some other crowded city.

The focus of some on "searching every bit of cargo" with battalions of new min-wage Federal employees once a plane or ship arrives at Ground Zero of Miami is as ridiculous as the tens of thousands of new TSA drones taking Granny's toenail cutters at airports. 18 billion spent so far on that mostly "feel-good" approach, with tens of billions lost in delay and other inefficiencies built into our economy - with little security benefit.

So even with the QUITE JUST anxiety about exponentially increasing foreign ownership of US assets and in critical nodes...We have to look at what the threats are and where the limited taxpayer dollar should best go. And what sensible policy about foreign ownership we need to craft.

1. Experts say they oppose the creation of a vast new TSA-like Federal bureaucracy to search containers. They believe any security effort must focus on stopping dangers BEFORE the plane or ship arrives at a major city's Ground Zero with a lethal cargo waiting to be triggered before police, Customs, and US Port operators even have a chance to touch a container on that plane or ship. According to them, most of the money should go to the perpetually underfunded yet superb Coast Guard to address weak links they wish to have better abilities in, partnering with overseas ports, freight consolidators, and transport companies bringing their cargos into US population centers.

2. We essentially have foreign ownership because we have lost our competiveness through bad public education of American kids, foolish economic policies, globalization & free trade designed to enrich the wealthy Owner Class in each country. And, the creation of a vast new pool of some 3 billion underemployed, unemployed low cost workers. That creates a huge outflow of petro and "WalMart-type" dollars to overseas Owner Classes. As long as it is recycled in America through purchases of American assets, the economic damaged is minimized. Yes, a PLA General may own a piece of a Detroit shopping mall, but the mall gets built, rather than remain a garbage-filled empty lot in a capital-poor city.
But that is not as optimal as Americans building their own cars in Detroit and recycling their own money and tapping the Owner Class here for taxes...something we can't do to the PLA General...
As long as the world makes or does stuff better and cheaper than we do, under "free trade" - our money goes to them, and the best we can hope for is our money comes back and is spent in America in ways we can tolerate and which does not threaten our sovereignity or critical activities.

3. We unfortunately focus only on limiting foreign acquisitions that take what we think are the military, security needs - and the few remaining "technologies" we still lead in that are important to our military or security. But we should be very concerned when most of a large cash flow industry like insurance is pumping America's former wealth out to London, Tel Aviv, and Japanese bankers and billionaires. When publishing in America is basically a German-French owned industry...It is not a good situation to have foreign dominance in any US industry, and it happens because America's wealthy elites are making money hand over fist selling assets or geting a nice piece of the sale of other assets to foreigners while being the Foreigner's transaction & operational middlemen.

4. Dubai Ports World manages some of the best Port facilities in the world...only Singaporean Port operators are thought to be as good. If they were ever to become shoddy or lax to penetration by terrorists, their reputation and tens of billions in market value would be destroyed. The same motivation exists with the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia. If their ships were found to be aiding terrorism or shipping WMD cargo to Iran, the NORKs....there market cap would collapse if they were barred from ports as untrustworthy.
From what I can gather from testimony, the greatest threat is from poor, ill-managed overseas Ports in PRIVATE HANDS and from poor, ill-managed ship and airline companies in the 3rd World. Also mostly private companies. It is there that the US authorities wish to put the most security assistance programs, intelligence, and screening efforts into.
It makes sense. We are not so concerned about Israeli-owned Zim or Carnival shipping lines, or Chinese State-owned "Air Cathay" planes, or German State-owned DHL, or "Air Dubai". We are more concerned about a fleet of 5 tramp steamers reportedly privately owned by a wealthy Indonesian benefactor of radical Islamist causes shipping Indonesian "produce" to Canada. Or about what the NORKs are carrying in their cargo ship fleet into the ME. Or a poorly run "Egypt Air" and what it does...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 2, 2006 02:49 PM

I think the 'chance to calm down' Emily spoke of in her previous topic was a chance for the xenophobicphobes to calm down, Will. I don't think they realized how much their soapbox diatribes came off as putting themselves on a pedestal at the expense of the rest of us. Indeed, it looks like Emily got the picture come the responses to the last topic. I for one was proud of contributing "Emily's Indifference" to the last thread of hilarious "Emily's" posts, albeit it was an exagerratedly satirical caricature of Emily and the UAE. Still, kudos to whomever started that apt, satirical thread, and to whomever else took part in it (wish I had a clue how many did and who; I just jumped in for a few along the way). It gave Emily the heat she deserved for casting all who oppose this deal as xenophobes.
Anyways, I still stand by my assertion that this deal will not go through because of the political consequences for if it does. A foreign government running our major port operations? Not going to happen. If it does, throw the bums out of Congress, put in a better bunch, and make laws that will prevent deals like this from every going through again. But it won't get to that; Attemots will be made to sugarcoat this through, but when it comes down to the wire, there will be little shift on public opinion about this one. This port deal can only go through if the GOP supports it; If the GOP supports it, the GOP will definitely lose both houses of Congress that they are probably going to lose anyway this election year. Any issue that puts a politician's ass on the line gets priority over everything else. The only pros and cons politicians are weighing about the issue are if supporting it will be pro or con to their getting elected. The vast majority realize it is a con in that regards.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 2, 2006 02:54 PM

Posted by: Cayambe | March 2, 2006 02:56 PM

like j. edgar hoover in demeanor, because they like to suck sausage....

but don't want to pay for it, so they keep talkin about other people?


isn't that what homophobes are is afraid of being gay? why else the pretension?


real men wear berets, you want some you gots to pay moron.

Posted by: do you think that well, homophobes are so.... | March 2, 2006 03:01 PM

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


without giving the citizens of the United States fair representation...


comeon...give me a break...

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

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"


you want the effin thing to work, raise gas 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....


but you make changes to make sure that the future is a good one....not just for you and your oil invested family...


why should bush worry about rising oil prices?

he's in the business, might as well be a coke dealer.

Posted by: we lost our competitive "edge" so to speak because the morons in charge... | March 2, 2006 03:06 PM

Mystery debater with the constant changing handle, you are 100% correct in your analysis of homophobes. They doth protest too much. Except for maybe Karl Rove, who merely gaybashes to manipulate the homophobes for political expediency each and every election cycle. Watch for the desperate attempt to make gay adoption a crucial issue for bringing out the GOP vote in 2006. Watch it backfire as the religious right grows wise to the way it is deliberately manipulated for their votes.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 2, 2006 03:16 PM

Once again, Cayambe, you demonstrate how you can't seem to differentiate between bias and facts with the 3 links you provided. No wonder you are so gullible to the outright false factoids Chris Ford constantly spews out. Seems you're also blind to the fact that the Republicans are about to have their asses handed to them by the Democrats come Election Day. By all means, fall back on your tired old playbook of tricks if you think that's really going to save a party in power that leads incompetently.
Besides, why discuss the Clintons when we can discuss the Doles? Bob Dole has been hired by the UAE to lobby on their behalf; Bill Clinton hasn't. Allegations and rumors of Bill Clinton being pro-Dubai don't hold the same weight as the fact of the matter that Bob Dole, who also has a wife in the Senate (is she up for re-election? I doubt it), is directly on the UAE payroll now.
Also, you link to Robert Novak, famed outter of 'Valerie Plame'. I'd rather pass on a political hack that has and will expose CIA agents in order to play the pundit's usual role of party line kiss ass. People like Novak are little more than teacher's pets; What's pathetic is that he thinks outting a CIA agent by order of his political masters is the same as bringing teacher a shiny new apple. Robert Novak is a despicable person and an utter tool. How you can read him after his deplorable actions is beyond me, Cayambe. Oh wait, you're just another FOXnews zombie that wants to be told what he wants to hear. What a rube.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 2, 2006 03:31 PM

but they need to be spoon fed to know that the presidente doen't have their back either....


I mean face it, the blue collar voter is what bushe manipulated with his testosterone based rhetoric....


and they still probably don't get it, though they're working 60 hours a week with no benefits and don't see the kids...

no leisure, no benefits, no future and competing with 3rd world workers with no osmotic barrier.

Posted by: Hopefully you're right....joke.. | March 2, 2006 03:32 PM

.


leisure means the opportunity to relax and see what is going on in the world.

make an informed decision.


if all you have time for is sound bites....

then something is wrong with our economy...and why don't we have five weeks vacation a year with healthcare for everyone like most European countries?


and why isn't our congress working for that?


why is it that they passed a law disallowing overtime in some situations?

not economically feasible? then change the laws so that it is economically feasible that we get leisure time...


life, liberte' and the pursuit of happiness...

my dad's work day ended at 5:00 PM everyday, and he did not work weekends.

Posted by: middle class also means leisure.... | March 2, 2006 04:03 PM

Hello!

You haven't seen the Katrina tape? How could anyone still believe what these guys say anymore?

The ports will still be secured?

Count me out.

"Mission accomplised!"
"We are fully prepared!"

Posted by: Girl also in a bubble! | March 2, 2006 04:05 PM

>> If you want to know what Congress should be doing instead of wasting its time fighting an already-completed acquisition, take the time to read Coyote Mercury's excellent post on the state of the Coast Guard.

What line of argument is this? It's so illogical and contrary to reason. Just because two firms claim they've already completed an acquisition makes in a done deal? Congress, the lawmaker in this country, has no say in it? We are a country of law and legal process. And the Congress as the Article 1 branch of the govt has the authority and duty to make sure the nation's laws and security need are uphold.

To say Congress has no role in this deal is infantile and downright undemocratic. Grow up!

Posted by: Bubble Girl | March 2, 2006 04:14 PM

There is little new that I want to add to the policy discussion of the Dubai-owned company taking over management control of 6 American ports. Dubai has been firmly in the "with us" column since 9/11 and provides significant support to US military and intelligence operations in the Middle East. The takeover has been vetted by multiple US government departments at the bureaucratic, rather than the political, level and has been approved without objection. And the 'management' of a port is at least one step removed from actual port security implementation, a job that still falls to the Coast Guard and US Customs. The only argument against the takeover that has some validity is that you're placing managment control of the ports in the hands of a country whose population has significant anti-US sentiments, thus possibly increasing the probability that radical elements will infiltrate the system. Naturally, this small increase in risk must be balanced against the strategic cost of slapping an Arab ally in the face by rejecting such a high-profile takeover. As serious policy discussions continue, the initial "hell no!" knee-jerk reaction will appear less and less justified.

The politics is a little more interesting. The Democrats, torn between their traditional resistance to xenophobic reaction and the rare opportunity to appear tougher on security than the President, have clearly opted for the latter. Politically, it's probably the correct choice. If the deal fails, they can claim credit for 'securing our ports'. If the deal goes through, they can use the issue to innoculate against appearing 'weak on security'. The very definition of win-win. They'll just have to hold their nose as they get in bed with the right-wing lunatic fringe that whipped this issue up in the first place.

The Republican response, by contrast, has been a political disaster. For nearly 5 years, congressional Republicans have toed the administration line on all matters of security and foreign policy. To think that they can distance themselves from the administration on these issues now is a joke. Some, like John McCain, appear to have taken this fact into account when they formulated their response. The majority of others, however, appear to have lost sight of their long-term political interests in their rush to appear 'tougher' than the Democrats.

Which brings us to the time extension for further review of the deal, offered so considerately by the Dubai company itself. Many commentators see this as nothing more than a chance for the White House to back-pedal and save face in some way - that the deal is dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. The extension is indeed a chance to back-pedal and save face, but for congressional Republicans. With the extension in place, the Republicans can justify scuttling any Democrat legislation regarding the deal - "We'll get a chance to review, what more do you want?". After a month or two of going over the same info the US agencies went over when they approved the deal, the Republicans will announce that it's Kosher (maybe they'll add a condition or two that Dubai will happily accept). And to look like they did something 'tough', they'll probably introduce legislation to increase spending on container inspections and port security by US Customs and the Coast Guard.

So my prediction is that the deal will go through, and that the Republicans will sustain some damage at the polls because of it, but no where near the damage they'll sustain if they decide to really fight the administration on this issue.

[copied with minor edits from my blog]

Posted by: tabdelgawad | March 2, 2006 04:20 PM

This pervasive comment that "Homeland Security will continue to provide security at our ports" is misleading and needs to be addressed.

The port operator makes a plan to secure the physical port perimeter. Keep out theives and saboteurs and terrorists and stowaways and curious gawking citizens. The port operator submits this plan to the Coast Guard who approves it. The port operator then carries out the plan, hires and fires the security guards, trains and supervises these security guards, etc. NEITHER HOMELAND SECURITY, CUSTOMS, THE COAST GUARD, NOR ANY OTHER AGENT OF THE US GOVT ACTUALLY DOES THE PHYSICAL SECURING OF THE PORT PERIMETER.

The USA secures the cargo. The port operator tells them when a ship is coming in, provides Customs a cargo manifest, info on the provenance of the goods, and allows Customs in to inspect for drugs, illegal designer jeans, illegal agricultural products, and nuclear bombs, among other things.

It is the job of Homeland Security to make sure the cargo is not dangerous to the people of the US of A. It is up to the port operator to make sure the operation of the port area itself is safe and that Customs has proper opportunity to inspect the cargo.

Maybe the government of Dubai is more interested in their image as a port operator and their future profits as such than they would never consider using this opportunity to infiltrate our port security operations for nefarious reasons. If that is so then they will likely exercise great care to make sure they are not infiltrated by those same terrorist sympathizers who allowed 9-11 money or nuclear parts to channel through their country.

But "Maybe" is a big word in a post 9-11 world. We are trusting the security of our nation that "maybe" the avarice of DPW will exceed the desire of any Dubai-ian (or Dubanese?) terrorist sympathizers to take advantage of such intimate access to our port security procedures.

Our government is asking us to swallow that we had to invade Iraq because "maybe" they had WMD. People on this very blog, some of them even otherwise seemingly reasonable people like johnnyg, cried that 9-11 taught us that "maybe" was too big a risk to take. But now suddenly it is OK to depend on "maybe" it is safe to put the security of our nation in the hands of the good will of the businessmen in DPW.

You can't have it both ways. Either we live in a post 9-11 world where any "maybe" is too big a risk to take, or we live in a world where money talks and people do what is in their financial best interests.

Hmm. When we cried that the way to stop terrorism was (paraphrasing Christian evangelist Jim Wallace) to drain the cesspool of injustice and oppression the disaffected young men lived in, the right said we just wanted to "give the terrorists therapy". Now those very same people are telling us that it is OK to trust a 9-11 abetting country with intimate access to our port security procedures because the lure of getting money from their ports business will keep them from aiding terrorists. We are asked to swallow that lack of money/jobs/futures on the part of poor citizens isn't what makes terrorists, but access to more money on the part of the rich will stop them from abetting terrorists.

Now do you get the duplicity Emily? Americans swallowed hook line and sinker that "maybe" was too big a risk. Now they're being asked to swallow that "maybe" is fine so long as the right people's pockets get lined. And Americans aren't buying it. They've finally drawn a line in the sand and don't much care if its not exactly in the most optimal place it could have been drawn.

Americans are finally figuring out how they were used, and they're pissed. And so am I.

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 2, 2006 04:22 PM

All this nagging & complaining about our current dictatorship's "back-door" deals. Where were you people when the presidential elections were held in '04??? If it was so bad during W's 1st term, then why didn't the majority boot him out??? Let Big Brother do as he pleases & wait for the next election fellows. Enjoy the corporate ride!!

Posted by: Ed | March 2, 2006 04:32 PM

consumer information laws are passed so that someone can't be mislead by posting false information about an item for sale...


how is it that we can't return this asshole for the one we thought we were buying without some dumb*ss saying we bought what we knew about...


well, when the pandering is to the mentally challenged, who happen to be in the majority, not much you can do

'specially if the eltoral process is being interfered with....


lemon laws apply, that's the point.


at no point is it okay to be lied to by an elected official that is making money off of the lie...

I don't give a rat's ass if it has happened before...

break some noses.

Posted by: look wad head.... | March 2, 2006 04:45 PM

>>The extension is indeed a chance to back-pedal and save face, but for congressional Republicans. With the extension in place, the Republicans can justify scuttling any Democrat legislation regarding the deal...

Well you conveniently forgot one thing. This isn't a fight between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. It's not even a fight between Congress and the White House for the sake of facesaving. It's a fight the Republicans must carry or face a revolt from their grassroot base. And therein lies the rub. Can they afford to ignore their base on this issue?


BTW what happens to the veto threat?

Posted by: Bubble Girl | March 2, 2006 04:48 PM

what is the difference between saddams republican guards and the rest of the army?


what's the difference between everything the way it was before bushe took office and now?

where's the effin CIA and why do we have new heads of office that have no experience in those offices?


ED, can you think?

Posted by: homelund security... | March 2, 2006 04:48 PM

Just read the article on the second Dubai sale, this time of a business making military components.

I have a great idea to save the US money. Instead of rewarding Halliburton with the lucrative contract for feeding and outfitting our troops, why don't we give the job to Dubai? They couldn't possibly rip us off a much as Halliburton has done. And since the supplies have to cross such a much shorter distance, costs would surely be much lower. We could use the money saved for more tax cuts.

It could not possibly be a security risk for our troops. After all, military MP's are responsible for securing our bases. The Dubai workers would not be armed, while the soldiers all have guns. And since they lose money if they piss us off and get fired, they would never even consider poisoning the food or sneaking in a bomb or just cutting off our brave boys and girls without food after we depended on them to be there.

And why on earth are we paying union workers all that money to make "smart bombs". They'll be just as smart if Iran makes them. Maybe it would make them feel so good they'd decide they didn't need to make nuclear weapons.

And why take the security risk of all those poor migrant workers coming across the border to pick our fields? Let Syria take care of it. We spend all that money on food and schools and health care for migrant workers. Why not make that Syria's problem? Let them find workers, and we can do a better job closing off our border with Mexico.

You know, this administration hasn't gotten enough credit for genius when it comes to selling off our assets. Why should we be bothered taking care of these things when we can let domeone else worry about the details!

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 2, 2006 05:38 PM

It seems to me that as Americans we tend to brag a little too much about our democracy & how it balances itself. Yes, there will be a backlash from hell in the next presidential election; & yes, the Republicans will be ousted from Washington soon enough. However, the real issue here is why does it take 2 terms w/ "W" to realize that he is a CEO running a government that only benefits the upper social brackets & all his personal business buddies. "Brownie", "Scooter", & the Saudi Royals/Dictators qualify here as such friends. TV, media (or lack thereof), sports, & generic pop music are some examples of a mass sedation that makes us deviate from issues that should be important to us, & more importantly, issues that will affect our children in the future. Pay attention to the way in which Bush refers to foreign leaders, & then you will see that it is on a first name basis as if he is having poker nite w/ them while discussing global economy, etc.

What's the difference between pre-Bush conditions & current-Bush conditions an anonymous blogger asked...well, in the words of the biggest brown-noser of them all, Sean Hannity, "the world is a safer place thanks to our President." Enough said.

I have one question for the national media (to include this paper also):
why isn't there enough live coverage of the situation in the ground in Iraq??? I want live cameras. I want 24/7 coverage of what our forgotten boys go through on a daily basis. I am throwing down the gauntlet to the national media. Let us stop the sedation & turn our heads towards the place where are American troops (mainly lower minority middle-class) are being exposed to an oil war that has taken TOO MANY lives already.

Posted by: Ed | March 2, 2006 05:40 PM

Ed, where you you put the cameras? On routine patrols? In the friendly areas where they are tossing kids candy or in the unfriendly areas where they stand with their weapon pointing outward as small children saunter by? Outside the hospital we're helping to rebuild, or the the one we bombed in the first place?

This is supposed to have been addressed by allowing the msm to embed with the troops. Then the msm can decide what to carry - Fox can show the candy and MSNBC can show the bombed out hospital. Both are the truth. How are we supposed to decide which is "truthier"?

The answer is to read as many sources as we can. Howver my friends husband, a quintessential New York Jew by all appearances, was stopped and searched at every leg of a trip he just made. He figures it was either the beard and the clothes not being understood as unique from middle eastern garb in small town America, or the fact that he's been reading al Jazeera online trying to devour all the facts he can get his hands on.

So, read more, but watch what your read....

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 2, 2006 05:57 PM

Emily - quibbling facts ....

90% of worlds goods moved by sea can't be right

a lot of product commerce moves by trucks in the US and Europe, and a lot of that truck traffic contains products produced and consumed entirely within drivable borders.

roughly 10% of our economy (US) is trade, and the other 90% doesn't all depend on foreign components shipped from elsewhere

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | March 2, 2006 06:16 PM

The second Dubai deal makes me think of child-rearing experiences. The kid wouldn't take a bite of a perfectly good evening meal. My spontaneous words were, "You don't have to eat anything; you can have it for breakfast." Worked once, but it's not a bluff to use twice.

People are learning, and as a group are recognizing, that there has been obvious testing of the public to see what pablum they'll swallow. Expect regurgitation in November.

There's a somewhat applicable saying that circulated in the '60s: "The only thing learned from being spoon fed is the shape of the spoon."

Posted by: On the plantation | March 2, 2006 06:28 PM

noting my previous post,

it does point out the overwhelming security hole tied to international commerce

at the margin, the UAE running a few terminals in the US really don't matter - there are so many vulnerabilites from so many other angles

we can't just shutter the doors to international trade either, too much of our government debt and private capital is in foreign hands - they just plain wouldn't put up with an isolationist fortress America

our real security rests in having great relations with sovereign nations of all types, so anti-US terrorists can't operate from within their borders

that just leaves the chaos territories - parts of Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan as places where terrorists can pull together resources to attack us

we surely can't cargo-inspect our way to security, regardless of who runs the ports

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | March 2, 2006 06:45 PM

Mill I missed your point.

Was it why bother trying to be secure, its too hard/expensive?

Kiss up to the world so they're not mad at us?

It was a mistake to squander the world goodwill we had post 9-11

Stop putting our capital in foreign hands and start making ourselves less beholden for debt?

You have interesting things to say, but please be more clear here.

Posted by: | March 2, 2006 06:56 PM

PATRIOT 1957...If you check, you will find that not all of our military bases are protected by MP's. Many bases have private security companies at their gates. I hope this doesn't shock you as badly as it has me.

Posted by: Interested party | March 2, 2006 08:30 PM

I guess nothing would surprise me anymore.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | March 2, 2006 09:56 PM

"The extension is indeed a chance to back-pedal and save face, but for congressional Republicans. With the extension in place, the Republicans can justify scuttling any Democrat legislation regarding the deal - "We'll get a chance to review, what more do you want?". After a month or two of going over the same info the US agencies went over when they approved the deal, the Republicans will announce that it's Kosher (maybe they'll add a condition or two that Dubai will happily accept). And to look like they did something 'tough', they'll probably introduce legislation to increase spending on container inspections and port security by US Customs and the Coast Guard"

And millions of Americans will be seduced by the lipstick on the pig

Posted by: pig in a poke | March 2, 2006 09:59 PM

Our port security was not up to snuff prior to this deal and it isn't now. The real issue here is cronyism and globalization. When the veil concealing the facts behind this deal are finally lifted we may find another Halliburton situation. National security should not be for sale the way it is with this feculent Administration.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | March 2, 2006 10:46 PM

when the veil is lifted?

you mean if, don't you? Unless of course its time for a new investigation into who lifted the veil

Posted by: | March 2, 2006 10:58 PM

population....


those seduced by obvious words like patriotism, war, mom, homophobia, "in-your-best-interests," "thinking-of-you," "bleeding-hearts," "you've-got-big-ones-but-they-don't," "baby-killers"


things that cause an emotional reaction that don't allow for thinking or thoughtful response....


the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

rhetorical question, accusation that implies guilt if you don't answer a certain way

immediately

Bill O'Reilly in a can...


bullshit as a way of herding...


now everyone's too busy trying to make ends meet and make sure that they don't lose their jobs while they


are making sure you do....


that's the point,


take them down.


they're twistin your little finger by appealing to the morons to run things...


unfortunately the morons don't know how, they can only follow...


that's why letting them lead is a bad idea.


without a middle class, no one will know the truth of what they're looking at....but like Monty Python

"no one expects the Spainish Inquisition"


and

here,


no one expects this much blatant, "I'm in it for the money," from leaders I mean you've all heard tales of what it was like in NYC years ago....someone carrying a television set out the front door of a store daring you to stop them from taking it....that's your president, dick cheyney and the rest including dad, neil and jeb....


America's Best?


think again.

Posted by: the problem is that the pig sellers are selling to a certain portion of the | March 2, 2006 11:02 PM

the "Patriot" Act that isn't that just got extended....


though I guess as long as you say, "it's only an act, I don't mean it."


it is....

I'd like to break a nose or two.


thanks.

Posted by: or this one... | March 3, 2006 12:29 AM

To Anon:

hmm my point - our security comes from
1) living as we espouse - constitutionally protected freedoms, representative government, checks and balances, a nation of laws, not men who rule
2) keeping a mutual interest in our international diplomacy, rather than just focusing on our own needs
3) keeping a strong defense, and integrity of our borders, consistent with our policy of open trade and relations with many countries.

We can't seal our ports in any practical way, and still do trade. We can't seal our borders in any practical way, and still do trade.

We can quit picking fights that don't need to exist (why take out a toothless Saddam, when we had him boxed in? why label Iran as part of the axis of evil, when all it did was strengthen their nut-case hard-line anti-westerns? why go stiff-arm to our western european allies when we really could have used a coalition to deal with Iraq)

we could do a lot more to reduce our need to spend nearly half a trillion dollars on defense per year, largely to keep oil flowing from the middle east, since no major power wants to war with us

and we could elect leaders who actually review the evidence and decide the national interest, instead of an utterly uninformed shallow president, who brought a bunch of ideologically-driven, fact-blind people with him to the administration

we squandered the good will of the world after 9/11 with the blunt stupidity of the Bush administration approach to int'l relations --- we'll be a lot more secure, we'll be safer in a major attack sense, if we find a way to work with people of like values, not bludgeoning them with our choice of action

I don't want the UAE deal to go through, but i don't think it matters at the margin, so many other security problems are ignored by our president, so many needs unaddressed, while running up such a debt load to boot

it's too easy to bring something destructive in the US - can't prevent that and stay free - the better bet is to work with other governments constructively to monitor and interfere with extremists elsewhere, while installing what security that may be practical, if inadequate, at our borders, checkpoints, ports, airports

nationalizing the access points (ports/airports) rather than selling their management to the highest bidder? what do you think of that?

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | March 3, 2006 01:44 AM

Anon

followup thought - in one important sense, i reject the whole "my g-d, our security in hands of Arabs" fearmongering -

even if, g-d forbid, a nuclear weapon was detonated in any major city, would the US not thrive, persist, overcome? since when do we surrender our approach to life - freedom, democracy, limited government answerable to the people, due to a pin-prick threat like Al Quada?

the 9/11 attacks were terrible, both in human terms and financial. but they didn't destroy our country. Germany, Japan, France, Russia all suffered massive destruction and loss of life during WW-II
France, Germany and Japan all rebuilt, emerged as better places - the Russians are working on it, tho' backsliding lately.

Yet our own administration keeps telling us why we need to be afraid of people who control nothing like the threat the Soviet Union had pointed at us - and we didnt' flip out, throw the constitution in the trash, allow the president unrestrained authority ...

afraid of Al Quada? screw them.
afraid of another attack? screw that.
afraid of loss of liberty - concerned,not afraid, and we'll win liberty back when people of integrity, sharp mind, respect for facts, law and the constitution win national office, throwing this bunch of fear-mongering incompetent anti-american ideologues out

live free, or die, eh?

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | March 3, 2006 01:56 AM

If I could make a wish, I'd wish it was 2008 right now. I wonder what this country (not to mention it's debt) will be like by then.

I suppose I could also wish it was 1999 again, BEFORE this country was debt over a war that's creating so much ill will towards the U.S.

We are not safer with Bush as president. We're worse off than ever. If all the republicans can 'brag' about is the economy, I'd like to know why companies are going bankrupt (or outsourcing overseas)..... and U.S. workers are getting laid off (while Bush wants a guest worker program)

This administration is so nutty, I honestly can't think of ANYTHING good to say about it.

From now on, I'm voting democrat.

Posted by: Mark | March 3, 2006 02:27 AM

Good luck. Maybe our voting machines won't be rigged by then. Most of us in this neck of the woods honestly don't think Bush even "won".

Remember "King George" strutting his stuff across that carrier deck in a flight suit back in 2003, where he then smugly announced to the entire world that our mission was "accomplished" in Iraq? Yeah, right.

HIS mission? We all thought we went because of WMD's.

Now they call it bringing democracy?

Flip flop....

Posted by: dave | March 3, 2006 02:40 AM

I'm ashamed to be led by greedy, malevolent republicans.

I'm ashamed to have leaders who espouse torture and indefinite imprisonment.

I'm ashamed to be part of a nation that is now despised, worldwide, perhaps more than ever.

I'm ashamed that one day, I'll have to explain to my child why this nation was handed over to her generation in such a bankrupt and less safe condition.

Posted by: Sue | March 3, 2006 02:47 AM

WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM
WWW.WSWS.ORG

Bush's final propaganda card: the staging of an "Osama" capture
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor


Mar 3, 2006, 01:44

Email this article
Printer friendly page

In the latest attempt to salvage his political scalp with an empty propaganda performance, George W. Bush paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where he posed and gloated with co-conspirator/puppet/US intelligence asset Hamid Karzai. "Liberated" Afghanistan, like "liberated" Iraq, is a hell of the Bush administration's creation.

Bush then declared that he is "confident bin Laden will be brought to justice" and that "we've got U.S. forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden but anybody who plots and plans with bin Laden."

Could Bush/Rove's next trick be a spectacular "Bush gets Osama" event, similar to the never-authenticated arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "arrests" of other Al-Qaeda co-conspirators, or the farcical arrest and trial of former US intelligence asset Saddam Hussein?

Such a deception would temporarily slow a right-wing neocon mutiny, and silence congressional Democrats, who accuse Bush/Cheney of "not doing enough" to stop "terrorists," failing to "make us safe," failing to arrest Osama, and failing to "really" conduct the "war on terrorism." It would force Democrats to congratulate Bush for finally getting "public enemy number one," slink back to less aggressive posturing (the management of the "war on terror"), and say nothing as the mentally ill Bush beats his chest on his way out of the White House.

Alive or dead, real or fictional, Osama was, and remains, an asset of Anglo-American intelligence, as does al-Qaeda. Since 9/11, Osama videos and Osama transmissions, and false flag operations attributed to al-Qaeda, have exclusively served US geopolitical interests.

Note Bush's intentionally vague words: "brought to justice." This is code for "killed," and/or sequestered a la Manuel Noriega. "Osama" could never be arrested or put on trial publicly. "Osama" is either not alive (not a real person), or if alive, a US asset who "knows too much." That would expose the "war on terrorism" lie, and the lie of 9/11.

A bogus arrest and execution of "Osama" would be one of last propaganda cards in Bush's dwindling deck of tricks. In fact, only the naive could think Bush would be permitted to end his criminal presidency without that final fraud. It is probably a long-planned bookend to his reign, hatched at the same time as the rest of 9/11. Bush's machine has simply been waiting until the last minute to unleash it.
The bad news for the Bush machine is that the potential for backfire and blowback is considerably greater than the possibility of success. Too much damage has been done for old damage control to repair. It may be over for Bush/Cheney, but the world war that they began, the hell on earth that they have created, rages on, out of control.

Posted by: CHE | March 3, 2006 03:58 AM

www.prisonplanet.com

Republican Congressman Predicts Bush Impeachment
Says US close to dictatorship

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 3 2006

Republican Congressman Ron Paul has gone on record with his prediction that the impeachment of George W. Bush is right around the corner but warned that in the meantime the US was slipping perilously close to a dictatorship.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show and addressing the port sell-out, Paul stated that, "it probably will contribute to the Republican's failure in the next election."

Asked if the Democrats would use gains in the mid-term elections to set in motion impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, Paul responded,

"I predict that would happen."

"I think he (Bush) has numerous things that the Democrats if they get a chance, not only will they be after him for that but it will be payback for the Clinton impeachment."

Paul was inclined to believe that the port sales would go ahead anyway but took a positive perspective in pointing out that it again highlighted George W. Bush's complete abandonment of conservative principles.

"At least this has awakened a lot of people and I think this is going to serve as a benefit," said Paul. "They're likely to pull this deal off but the American people are awakening now and I think there's going to be a payback period in the election."

The Congressman expressed his resignation at the passage of the Patriot Act and how it again underscores Bush's unchecked powers

"They had a few token changes which mean nothing and under the present system he (President Bush) just ignores what he doesn't like anyway."

Asked if the US was heading into a dictatorship, Paul responded,

"It's getting close to it, it's called usurpation of power and it's done in many ways with Congress just going along because they're sound asleep and this certainly is an attack on our Constitution and on our freedoms."

Posted by: che | March 3, 2006 05:28 AM

The back of a cereal box is more informative than one of Che's rehashed articles. He's obviously autistic, as he can't seem to grasp that a blog is anything more than a place to cut and paste articles.
So Bush says he's confident Osama will be brought to justice. That's about all that was true in that article.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 3, 2006 05:28 AM

A Congressman thinks this. Bush said that. Those were some informative articles, Che. Wow!

Posted by: ErrinF | March 3, 2006 05:30 AM

Wow! I woke up early this morning to read the news here on the Washington Post online. I was surprised to read that Dubai is also vying for defense manufacturing plants in the US. But gosh! the Washington Post just set me straight that many of my concerns over port security are just so many 'myths' and that they have been debunked! I have to tell you that I am so relieved right now. And Im also really encouraged to know that these fine folks will soon own some (used to be) American defense manufacturing plants. Way to go UAE! We love these guys, coz they are so rich and they love camel racing and most of all they are friends of our beloved non-elected leader. So now I can breathe easy and quit worrying. Thanks Post! Thanks Congress!

Posted by: AmandaM | March 3, 2006 07:28 AM

Of the 1,020 adults surveyed, 59% said President Bush can no longer manage the government effectively.

Posted by: Latest Gallup/CNN poll | March 3, 2006 07:31 AM

Well, I wasnt surveyed. Make that 59.00003%

Posted by: AmandaM | March 3, 2006 07:34 AM

"Dubai cannot be trusted," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and normally one of the administration's most trusted allies. He called the United Arab Emirates "a bazaar for terrorist nations" and asserted that the United States should not permit DP World to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

"I intend to do everything I can to kill the deal," Hunter said.

Posted by: Wash Post Has Many Wise Men. And Women! | March 3, 2006 07:35 AM

Gunmen in western Baghdad on Thursday attacked a convoy carrying top Iraqi Sunni Muslim politician Adnan al-Dulaimi. He said one of his guards was killed and four others were wounded. Al-Dulaimi escaped injury.

Attackers armed with AK-47s and machine guns peppered al-Dulaimi's limousine while it was stopped to repair a flat tire.

"I am very sorry of what happened to my guards," al-Dulaimi said, adding that Iraq has become "like hell" and "Iraqis are dying everywhere."

Posted by: But y'all can still trust us on Dubai! | March 3, 2006 08:05 AM

Emily, it would be nice if an investigation into domestic spying were next, so we could find out who the criminals were that leaked this, instead of spending millions on the Plamegate case where we now see Fitzgerald effectively admitting there was no leaking of a covert status to begin with.

On another matter, the Post sure is timely with its call for Muscharraf to hold elections in Pakistan. Isn't it obvious that democracy in these Arab/Muslim states is an unqualified disaster? That's all we need, more elected whack jobs with nukes.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | March 3, 2006 09:43 AM

>> For most Americans, this is not a revelation. The public blamed all levels of government long before Bush and other leaders owned up to their responsibilities after the sluggish post-Katrina response. But the videotape and transcripts offer a graphic display of a fatally inept bureaucracy at work -- a system where everybody talks a good game and nobody produces.


It's no wonder Katrina has become a tipping point event that crystalized the public's long-simmering concerns about the competence and accountability of government.

A bit more jaded than before Katrina, Americans are less likely to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and they are quicker to question his positions on the Iraq war and post-hurricane controversies such as the port security issue.

AP

Posted by: But y'all can still trust us on Dubai! | March 3, 2006 10:16 AM

this is the 1st time I blog anywhere, & I admit that it seemed like such a waste of time when I first heard about the concept of "blogging." I was wrong. This is informative. Therapeutic also. The point is that I see democracy re-aligning or just shifting to the center again-where it should be anyways-& I can't wait for the Congressional elections. I stand on the left on a political spectrum, but I do admit that ALL the answers are not on my side, & I do need a perspective from the right to reach a middle ground. That's why I live in America. If only politicians could stop worrying about their pockets so much, we could have a true democracy where the concern would be to tackle down issues from both the left & the right. What a Utopia that would be!!!

Posted by: Ed | March 3, 2006 10:19 AM

A pattern is emerging here. In every single one of these controversies, we see the foillowing patterns:

--Some agency head is running around with his hair on fire predicting some sort of calamity.

--There are several meetings where the agency head's concerns are aired out and assurances are made by a cool, seemingly detached President who responds in platitudinous terms that all will be taken care of and the agency head can go back to his office and relax.

--Then, as predicted, the calamity occurs: We are attacked by terrorists, a devastating hurrican breaches the levees in a major American city destroying it, the management and operation of our major ports are taken over by governments who have often made life easier for terrorists.

--Finally, the innocent are punished and the guilty are rewarded. Those who predicted the calamity resign, are pushed out, fired and targeted by the President's vast propaganda machine on talk radio and in certain press outlets.

Just review the list of those who have tried to warn this President and what happened to them. I don't even have to list their names. The point is, they no longer serve this President. And the list continues to grow each year of this failed President's tenure.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 3, 2006 11:03 AM

God help us. Bush is more concerned about OTHER countries than he is about the U.S. He thinks competition is great and acts like he's a CEO of a company instead of a president. It doesn't matter that we're losing jobs to outsourcing. The port deal has to go through or we'll hurt their feelings.

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 11:28 AM

Bubble Girl:

It's not clear that the 'Republican Base' has a unified stance on this issue. Certainly, the right-wing lunatic fringe (Savage et al) are against it, but there are significant parts of the base (neocons, wall street) who are either for it (Kristol) or ambivalent (Krauthammer). So I'd say there's a chance to sway public opinion on this, especially given that the real policy issue is ultimately minor.

I just think the White House won't back down, and a Republican congress can't go it alone on foreign policy and security in November. There's no denying however that this is a real 'wedge issue' which the Democrats will flog unrelentingly.

Pig in a Poke:

A lot of what congress does is lipstick on a pig. On the other hand, there's no simple way to handle security for a nation the size of the US. It's ridiculous to think that you'd achieve security, for example, if you inspect 100% of containers when they arrive in the US: If they've 'arrived', it's already too late! And obviously you can't inspect every container at its origin and maintain continuous surveilance on its transportation to the US. It's a complicated information and intelligence game that involves risk and cost tradeoffs. That's why this deal is such a non-issue in the grand scheme of security.

Posted by: tabdelgawad | March 3, 2006 11:35 AM

Try calling your credit card company or even Dell or Microsoft. I always end up talking with someone with broken english and can't understand half of what they say. The credit card people have personal information about us, and it's no secret that most of those jobs are in India now.

Posted by: Dave | March 3, 2006 11:36 AM

If Bush Bashing offends you, do not enter this post.

Posted by: Sue

"I'm ashamed to be led by greedy, malevolent republicans.
I'm ashamed to have leaders who espouse torture and indefinite imprisonment.
I'm ashamed to be part of a nation that is now despised, worldwide, perhaps more than ever.
I'm ashamed that one day, I'll have to explain to my child why this nation was handed over to her generation in such a bankrupt and less safe condition."

I'm not ashamed of my country; I am ashamed of my president and his rubber stamp republican majority in congress.

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn

"We can quit picking fights that don't need to exist (why take out a toothless Saddam, when we had him boxed in? why label Iran as part of the axis of evil, when all it did was strengthen their nut-case hard-line anti-westerns? why go stiff-arm to our western european allies when we really could have used a coalition to deal with Iraq)"

Because Bush needs an issue to rally his political base. He's knows there is xenophobia in America to be exploited. It worked for Reagan (Evil Empire) and it's worked for him (axis of evil). TILL NOW! The xenophobic dogs he's trained over the past 5 years are now biting the hands that fed them and some of the biting is justified for non-xenophobic reasons. Knowing who the terrorists are and what motivates them, it's not very smart to be shouting "axis of evil" and other political rhetoric to obtain power and votes in the USA. Externally to most of the world Bush is making enemies and enemies that are willing to die for a cause are not enemies to make, IF IT CAN BE AVOIDED. Yelling "axis of evil" or "Terrorist Islamic Empire" is only provoking attacks. Keep the comments behind closed doors. Knowing that such statements are detrimental to the country, but a political gain for bush and his party, it can only be concluded that to bush, he and his party come first, the country second.

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 12:45 PM

UAE only has to say they are ending the boycott and that would be good enough. They don't actually have to do it because in todays enlightened society, words hold more meaning than actions.

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 01:00 PM

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW!!!

Its just them goddamn A-holes in the liberal mdeia that make Bush look bad!! Don't they know men of God are incapable of makin mistakes??? dumbasses!! But I got me a plan: Ya'll are welcome to come over to my double-wide tonight for a presidential prayer meetin. I reckon we is goona ask the good lord to smite them weenies in the media and to let our great leader be seen in his true glory!! We conservatives need to band together and get back to our unflinching devotion to our conservative president. Don't worry fellers... we'll continue conveniently overlooking the explosion in size of the federal government, entitlement programs, nation building, and spending in every form under a republican congress and white house and keep calling him a conservative!! it just sounds cooler!!! say it with me... con-sir-vative!! Ya'll can stick around for the NASCAR race too on Sunday!! Go 8 car!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Heck, ya'll can stay all week and watch hannity and colmes with me... I ain't got my job no more cuz the factory closed and moved to one of them ferign countries. But, its all part of Gods plan for me so I'll just sit here and collect my unemployment and welfare like the other half of the white people that make up welfare recipients!! Praise Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!! GIT R DUN!

Posted by: jeff | March 3, 2006 01:05 PM

Don't they know Dubya wears cowboy boots and a cowboy and owns a ranch?? That means he is conservative... DDUUUUHHHHH!!!!!

Gotta go fer now... divorce court is on and I got me half a box a cheese its I'm fixin to polish off...

Keep fighting the good fight fellow conservatives!!!!

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 01:07 PM

Today TOP headline of the NYT site:
"In the booming city of Hyderabad, the president DEFENDED the outsourcing of U.S. jobs..."

Amazing no? A US president abroad 'defended' the exporting of US jobs! He won't defend US border. He won't defend US ports. But he WILL defend outsourcing high tech American jobs to India!

Posted by: WOW! | March 3, 2006 01:07 PM

Don't you know Bush isn't president of the United States? He's president of the WORLD!!

Posted by: wake me up in 2008 | March 3, 2006 01:17 PM

I'd like to have more time to keep up with all the current events and politics but I'm too busy working to pay for my Febuary $368 heating bill for my home. Don't we have a great ecomomy here?

Posted by: too busy | March 3, 2006 01:19 PM

This whole port mess has little to do with the ports issue. Patriot1957 said it nicely: "Americans are finally figuring out how they were used, and they're pissed. And so am I."

I think the ports deal is the straw that broke the camel's back. There has been a lot of pressure building over trade deficits, everything made from cloth coming from China and everything made of metal coning from Japan. Once our manufacturing ability was gutter we now see our service sector heading overseas.

Now when a president who keeps saying "terrorism - terrorism - terrorism" and how we must elect him to protect us hands the ports of America to an Arab country, well, xenophobia or not, it woke up a lot of people whose questions are only now getting answered. People are looking around for jobs, good jobs, and anything that says Made in America, and are finding little of either. We all know it and are not happy, but there has been no real outcry, until now.

I believe what we are seeing America taking stock. Add to that the realization that Bush has been lying on Katrina, Iraq and many other topics makes people realize he cannot be trusted, and his whole scare tactic and reason for being president has washed away.

Hopefully those running against these congressional republicans will pick up on this and run on platforms of supporting American companies and jobs, here in the USA. Kerry tried it but it was not enough in 2004. I think some Americans are sorry for the votes they cast for Bush. If they want to repent and help their country they can vote out the republicans in Congress and put people in who will stand up to Bush and finally investigate the damage and in some cases outright crimes committed during this sorry administration. Then maybe we can start to bring America back home.

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 01:20 PM

Bush wants to make other countries more like us? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Walmart opened a new store recently and 25,000 people applied for a job there.

Posted by: darrin | March 3, 2006 01:21 PM

Somebody wrote:

"Don't they know Dubya wears cowboy boots and a cowboy and owns a ranch??

Do you think a man who claims to be a cowboy, but has no cattle and has owns a ranch with no cattle is a clue??????

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 01:25 PM

My biggest regret is that I voted for a guy who can only stammer and stutter in front of a camera unless he has a prepared speech, written by someone else, in front of him.

Posted by: how sad | March 3, 2006 01:25 PM

Posted by: wake me up in 2008
"Don't you know Bush isn't president of the United States? He's president of the WORLD!!"

I thought Cheney and Rove were presidents of the world?

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 01:27 PM

WOW wrote:
"Amazing no? A US president abroad 'defended' the exporting of US jobs!"

Well, he's actually defending the American companies moving those jobs overseas or American companies outsourcing parts of their companies, say customer assistance, overseas. In the end this is good for businesses because it lowers their costs (we Americans just want too much money for the jobs we do) and its good for us because we get cheaper services and products (stop looking at your gasoline, electric or heating bills and pay attention!).

Now many thought the democrats had to go in 1994 because they were corrupt and in 2000 many thought the democrats just could not run the executive branch because the president fondled an intern. So Americans turned it all over to the republicans.

Are you better off now than you were in 2000? Did Bush really do a better job than Kerry would have done over the last year?

America is finally waking up. Not a single vote for a republicans or any supporter of that corrupted party!

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 01:29 PM

1/4 of my paycheck is gone for taxes every payday. I'm getting the impression a lot of my taxes are going to support other countries. I'm also paying for all those trips our great leader is taking. When are we going to take care of our own??? This whole globalization-PNAC-neocon thing has gotten out of hand.

Posted by: hard worker | March 3, 2006 01:31 PM

I agree with Sully. We are NOT better off with Bush in office. When Clinton left, the U.S. actually HAD money! Now we borrow from China, have a huge trade deficit, and let other countries own parts of the United States.

Posted by: Josh | March 3, 2006 01:33 PM

Amen, Sully, Amen!

I stand before you a humbled voter who thought I voted for the right guy in 2004. I was wrong, so wrong, and this is the most painful wake-up call I've ever had.

I said it before: I will be batter-dipped and deep-fried before I vote for a republican for outhouse inspector, or anything else, while the Bush Administration is in the White House.

Posted by: Average American | March 3, 2006 01:35 PM

Our Tyrant George WMD Bush justifies all of his illegal and unconstitutional actions with the "wartime president" excuse. The "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan are not really wars, not only because Congress never declared war on these nations, but also because these two nations never threatened or harmed United States citizens before being preemptively attacked. I put the 911 argument to rest long ago. It doesn't even deserve consideration as a reason to retaliate and attack since the official version is an outright lie to anyone with half a brain to consider the real information!
What is happening now is not "war", but MILITARY AGGRESSION. There is a big difference between defending your national security in a declared war and attacking other nations without provocation or sound reason.

Military aggression is usually what triggers wars, but once these wars kick in, I still don't consider the aggressor nation's leaders as "wartime leaders". They are war criminals, since they started the wars without reason.

If our leaders consider themselves "wartime leaders" just because of a battle being waged somewhere, all they would have to do is perpetuate these battles to maintain the special powers that "wartime leaders" claim for themselves. This is exactly what is happening now. If the Soviet Union had never fractured and split up like it did, you can bet that the Cold War would still be in high gear as an excuse to bleed American taxpayers for profane defense expenditures and budgets.

After the Soviet Union split up, the new world bogeyman became the "terrorist", and how convenient for our "wartime leaders" since the "terrorist" is no specific nation and can be adjusted accordingly to fit the agenda of the war makers! Of course, during the Cold War anyone could be considered a "communist" if his or her opinions or actions were deemed by the government to be sympathetic with communism. Currently, this same smear and scare tactic is alive and well in the war on terror as anyone who dares speak out against what this government is doing, or educate others on the facts of the matter, can be considered a "terrorist".

George Bush is not a wartime president, just a war criminal!

Bring Down The Government - They don't speak for us. No More Incumbants, Republicans OR Democrats. F The War Party!

Posted by: Outsource The US Government | March 3, 2006 01:35 PM

Well, I'll gladly take a high heating bill right now in exchange for living in a port city. Hmmmm.... might be time to move to the midwest soon.

Posted by: marla | March 3, 2006 01:36 PM

Posted by: Sully

"I think the ports deal is the straw that broke the camel's back."

More like the camel that broke the straws back. A straw Uncle Sam with an Iraq camel, an Afghanistan camel, an Osama bin Laden camel, a HUMAS camel, an Iran camel, an oil camel, and the back breaker, the port deal Camel.

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 01:36 PM

Yeah, he's a war-time president all right; for a war that HE wanted, that we were all duped into. Now he can do whatever he wants because we're 'at war'. The wimpy republicans just got arm-twisted into extending the spy on americans act.

Posted by: he's a joke to put it nicely | March 3, 2006 01:39 PM

Sully,

We are not talking just customer service type jobs here. Hyderabad/Bangalore is India's Silicon Valley. We're talking hi tech hi paying jobs here. So far they've been competing on low wages. But he actually encouraged them to 'innovate' so they can move up the food chain. What would the US be like if Microsoft and Google move to India? What other industries will replace hi tech can you think? I can't think of one.

Posted by: WOW! | March 3, 2006 01:42 PM

Congress gives business hugh tax breaks for moving overseas. It's all part of the globalization plan. They pay their workers over there low wages, while U.S. citizens lose their jobs here. It's free trade, and pretty soon most of our food will be imported from other countries.

Posted by: Smart Business | March 3, 2006 01:45 PM

No wonder Bush is pushing for us to privatize with health savings and retirement accounts. All our tax dollars are going to other countries instead of here!

Posted by: amazing | March 3, 2006 01:50 PM

And they impeached Clinton because of a BJ?

Posted by: sad | March 3, 2006 01:56 PM

REMEMBER WHEN IT STARTED? about a few years ago,

Bush Sr. is former head of CIA, Congressman before that, Vice President, then President...probably more than 30 years on the case...

SUDDENLY
Under Bush Sr.:
it was April Gillespie, who went to Iraq, and with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. I think Saddam was suckered into invading because the US needed a new enemy after the collapse of the soviet union....

He invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there....

looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi.


Saudi Royals was given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the Royals were put into power...

who owns the ports on US soil? the brits.


Protecting the Kuwaiti's:

We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill a couple of 100 thousand Iraqis and stop short of Bagdhad....you know why, we're going back...

and now we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait.

we put the country of Iraq in stasis with embargoes until we need it........or the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging...


we need to intervene....we in this case is the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the Gawdfather on this on, or at least the gawdfathers visible son....unless you need the state militia called to keep Terry from being unhooked.

so we intervene on national television...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger..


then Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with three tractor trailer loads of cash, $9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately?


the museums were emptied right?


ha ha ha...


that's rich.


as far as conspiracy goes,


there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? Panama?


the thing of it is,

the United States suckered, or George H.W. Bush did, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...


this has a lot to do with _families_ working together as well as politics as well as...


helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you...


Saddam was deliberately mislead attacking Kuwiat, by our George H.W. Bush, to settle a border dispute with Kuwait, that included some oil wells that he thought belonged to Iraq.....


did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth?


no.


it wasn't to our advantage.


the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....


ps. YOU'RE NOT INCLUDED in their tribe....


morons in charge and morons voted them in...


you want a better country quit pandering to morons.....


the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood


the ultimate theat to this country is people that can write but can't think or see....

WHERE DID THE 1 TRILLION THAT WE BORROWED FROM CHINA GO?

Is it like Tailor From Panama, that each agent gets to skim $5 Million off of their part of the deal?


let's burn the plutocracy, by becoming a democracy....for the first time...


no expansion means we need to correct some self evident wrongs...

Posted by: the bush e family dynasty, spending your money, on themselves and as christmas presents for their fr | March 3, 2006 02:00 PM

sad-

No, they impeached Clinton for LYING about it. Think they'll impeach Bush for lying about 9/11, WMDs, Katrina...

Don't hold your breath!

Posted by: wiccan | March 3, 2006 02:00 PM

With a republican majority, Bush will never be impeached. Unfortunately, by the time 2008 arrives, how much damage will already have been done?

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 02:04 PM

How would anyone even know about these things? We're too busy watching the terry shivo and natalie halloway stuff on the news!

Posted by: faux news watcher | March 3, 2006 02:07 PM

Good lord, when does this guy's criminal incompetence become criminal enough to take action?

Posted by: deb | March 3, 2006 02:10 PM

Deb posts-

"Good lord, when does this guy's criminal incompetence become criminal enough to take action?"

How about right now? Call or write your congressman and senators. Tell them exactly what you think about President Bush and his gang of idiots. Then meet me in DC on April 1st for a "Let's get Rid of the Fools" Day's March. Or a "Won't Get Fooled Again" Day's march.

Sound like fun?

Posted by: wiican | March 3, 2006 02:32 PM

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 02:36 PM

Today Froomkin:
"In addition to all the predictable reactions (pro and con) to the landmark nuclear agreement reached in India yesterday, a powerful and unexpected new concern has emerged based on a last-minute concession by President Bush.

It appears that, to close the deal during his visit, Bush directed his negotiators to give in to India's demands that it be allowed to produce unlimited quantities of fissile material and amass as many nuclear weapons as it wants.

By enabling India to build an unlimited stockpile of nuclear weapons, would this agreement set off a new Asian arms race?

And here's another question: Were Bush and his aides so eager for some good headlines -- for a change -- that they gave away the store?"

It keeps getting 'better and better', doesn't it? Iraq. Katrina. DPW. Outsourcing. Unlimited nuke for India.

Posted by: WOW WOW! | March 3, 2006 02:36 PM

All along the Lefty plea has been to "reason" with the Muslims, who are people just like us who want peace just as much....except for a tiny, tiny portion who are "radicals"...who quail in solidarity with the "oppressed peoples of the ME" if we get anymore specific with cartoons or phrases like "Islamoids", "Islamofascists".... The Lefty plea is to "work together" "form alliances to address the root causes of poverty and oppression".

At least, until an Arab country sticks it's neck out and becomes pro-American, pro-western - then the Lefty response - seeing a chance to damage the Bush-Hitler, tosses all that insincere crap out the window.

1. The UAE hosts America's largest overseas bases. It is located in a position where we can stop Iran from blocking the Gulf's shipping.
2. Alone of Arab nations, the UAE sent forces into Afghanistan to fight with us.
3. Alone of Arab nations, the UAE sent Katrina relief, some 100 million in cash and goods.
4. IT has been a reliable partner in the battle against radical Islam since 9/11. It was one of the 1st Arab nations to turn around and side with the forces of modernity in battling terrorism and nuclear proliferation, joined by Kuwait, Jordan, Libya. Now recently Saudi Arabia has come out solidly against Al Qaeda, though it is not perfect. Iraq may eventually be a US ally. Pakistan is gone from being a foe to a nation that is on the balance more helpful than unhelpful (just barely).

So in the midst of this alliance building, the Left that once demanded alliances has joined the dumb Jingoists who believe "The Perfect Nation of America, Blessed by Jesus, needs no stinking friends or allies!!"

All over a Port deal the experts say is a negligable security risk. We now have the Bush-bashers and Jingoists and many flat-out xenophobic racists ready to have us spit in the face of our strongest ally in the Muslim world and likely unravel most of our so far all to limited diplomatic and strategic outreach in communication and working together.

Why abandon the idea of mutual friendship with Muslim countries? Why favor making this into an upcoming Clash of Civilizations decided ultimately by a global war? Well, the Jingoists wanted that all along. The Left only sees short-term Bush-bashing pleasure they cannot resist.

Article: "Great Risk in Humiliating and Dishonoring a Reliable Arab Ally"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_3_06_RK.html

"The UAE is now hugely helpful in tracking terrorist funds, and intelligence officials confirm that Dubai serves as a waypoint from which the U.S. can more easily identify and understand who and what al Qaeda is deploying internationally."

"When the Department of Homeland Security started the container security initiative to make sure cargo was reliably screened for radiological bombs, smuggled weapons or other terror threats, Dubai was the first foreign port to sign on....They enforce the highest cargo security measures set by the U.S. plus have given superb assistance in protecting US naval assets in the UAE. We should be able to trust them with basic port services like loading and unloading ships here."

"In many ways, the UAE has emerged as just the kind of country the U.S. seeks to nurture in the Arab world -- religiously tolerant, economically open, balancing modern social and business forces with traditional Islamic values and lifestyles."

"Politicians (and Americans) may have forgotten that the UAE is the closest to an ideal Arab partner the U.S. can rely on today and about as pro-American as you can get in the Arab world. If we cannot do business with the UAE, the U.S. has no real hope for any success among Muslim nations."

So if we cannot do business with any Muslim nation, are not willing to be friends with any Muslims or work with them....are the Left and the Jingoists ready to restart the Universal Draft that will be needed to build our miltary up to the point we can wage a global war against the 1/5th of the world that is Muslim and beat them??

I think we should have the ability to club the crap out of any nation that refuses to work with us, fails to be a friend, and becomes a foe instead. However, I believe the club should be used only when we exhaust reasonable, good faith efforts to get along. BUT! If WE refuse to work with Muslims, work to be friends, give honor and respect where honor and respect are due....what do the Lefties and Jingoists offer but 1st resort to the "club" of America's lethal weaponry???

Are we really served by Lefties in Bush-bashing ecstasy and Know-nothing jingoists that will set us up for a great war in the near future??? Because they are helping set it up....

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 3, 2006 02:38 PM

CF,

Are you now conceding that 83% of the American public are 'lefties'? Because that's the latest poll number of the percentage opposed to this deal.

Posted by: 83% of Americans are lefties | March 3, 2006 02:43 PM

To Chris Ford: It's NOT Bush Bashing; it's telling the TRUTH. Something your great leader doesn't have a CLUE on!

Posted by: Chris Ford works for Bush | March 3, 2006 02:44 PM

unlimited nuclear stockpiling for India?

How do you think Pakistan and China feel about this you idiot? Do you think they feel a bit


................. P O L A R I Z E D ! ! ! ! ! ..............


.


is that good, you moron?

.

Posted by: hello jingoist.... | March 3, 2006 03:12 PM

you are not _allowed_ to use ellipsi's


you haven't risen to the evolutionary skill level that you may copy my style, perdunit.

Posted by: cf.... | March 3, 2006 03:25 PM

In a farewell speech in New Delhi, Bush ran into trouble when he praised Pakistan as "a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world." AP


Would someone from the Post mail him yesterday's editorial on how general Mussaraf overthrew an elected govt to gain power? And no Pakistan is not an Arab country. But what the hell!

Posted by: Freedom W Style | March 3, 2006 03:26 PM

It's a bit dismaying this morning. It's certain that the authors of the last 40-50 posts or so are sure of what they are against. What they are for? Well, quien sabe?

Now that you all have had your daily therapy, how 'bout it?

Posted by: Cayambe | March 3, 2006 03:39 PM

CF,

You're making a lot of assumptions, primarily that because some leaders in the UAE are cooperative, not least to have us protect them, that somehow the rest of the country is not crawling with jihadis. Everywhere in the Arab world you have leaders allegedly on our side while backing Hamas (UAE), madrassas (Saudis), etc. Muscharraf doing a half-assed job (if at all) of getting Zawahiri and bin Laden. How can you be so dead sure this post-9/11 cooperation doesn't carry the usual duplicity? Or that a few emirs and businessmen speak for the entire population, many of whom would be employed on the Dubai end?

You're also assuming all these feel-good assurances that security won't change are factual.

And please, spare us the xenophobia rap, it totally undermines your argument and makes you sound like the victimhood crowd, which you obviously aren't. You have legitimate points about military cooperation, and they ultimately may win the day, but our doubts have everything to do with prior (and current) track records of lying weasel Arab leaders, not with skin color or ethnicity.

Although I suppose the racism argument will ultimately work on the libs, who are used to making it.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | March 3, 2006 03:52 PM

>>It's certain that the authors of the last 40-50 posts or so are sure of what they are against. What they are for?

Truth (Not Truthiness), Justice, and the American Way. Good enough for you?

Posted by: TJ | March 3, 2006 04:05 PM

Well, I'm for being told the truth by my government. I'm for a government whose first concern is the American people, not just American corporations. I'm for a government who will protect the rights of its citizens, one that will uphold the law, not break it.

I'm for a government that lives within its means, not one that sells its children to China so the rich can have a tax break.

I want a president that I can be proud of.

That's a start.

Posted by: wiccan | March 3, 2006 04:09 PM

Competence would be nice, too.

Posted by: wiccan | March 3, 2006 04:11 PM

It's a bit dismaying this morning. It's certain that the authors of the last 40-50 posts or so are sure of what they are against. What they are for? Now that you all have had your daily therapy, how 'bout it?
Posted by: Cayambe | Mar 3, 2006 3:39:11 PM

How 'bout COMPETENT LEADERSHIP, Cayambe? HONESTY FROM THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE, Cayambe? EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT, Cayambe? What are you for, exactly? People dying in New Orleans because of a bad response to breached levees? Civil war breaking out in Iraq? Our major port operations being sold to a foreign government?
Can Cayambe even grasp the hypocrisy in his very post? He denounces people who offer forth nothing but denouncement. After his post was done denouncing, it didn't offer forth anything else. IDIOT!!! It is the height of stupidity to accuse people of something you are also guilty of. Count yourself among the people who only say what they are against and not what they are for, Cayambe. Show me one word in that post of yours that actually said what you were for. How 'bout it?

Posted by: ErrinF | March 3, 2006 04:19 PM

Ford,
Your argument suffers when you speak on this issue and claim it is simply lefties disagreeing and discussing them in terms of insincerity and conspiracy of their motives. When conservatives are speaking out about it as well, with 83% of the population is against it, your reliance on the strawman 'leftie' description undermines your arguments as credible and paints you as an insecure conspiracy theorist with little to go on but a bias against liberals. Just FYI.
And you quote this:
"Politicians (and Americans) may have forgotten that the UAE is the closest to an ideal Arab partner the U.S. can rely on today and about as pro-American as you can get in the Arab world. If we cannot do business with the UAE, the U.S. has no real hope for any success among Muslim nations."
You use this very idea to launch to an absurd conclusion of global war and ask that if we don't let them take this contract,
"are the Left and the Jingoists ready to restart the Universal Draft that will be needed to build our miltary up to the point we can wage a global war against the 1/5th of the world that is Muslim and beat them."
Are you kidding me? Since when does not accepting a single contract of the UAE controlling Amerrican ports (something denied due to security) create a blanket statement that the US will have no business with them? For that matter how does this sensically leap to the idea that we must wage global war against muslims?
That is unless, of course, you are willing to admit that conservatives are not attacking a country that is a direct threat against the US so much as waging a war against a specific people.
...And I always thought you were being satirical refering to Bush as "the evil Bush-Hitler."....

In case you are honestly serious about the draft, I say yes. Reinstate it. Nothing like a good old draft to anger our population to the point of ousting whatever elected officials came up with the idea of putting them in harms way. And it would put these 'wars' we are in into better perspective for the general population.

Posted by: Freedom | March 3, 2006 04:22 PM

I know one thing Cayambe is for: Robert Novak. He'll gladly link to articles from a lowlife who exposed a CIA agent for the purposes of political retribution. THAT is what Cayambe is for.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 3, 2006 04:24 PM

And before anyone jumps at me, I know the deal has yet to be denied. I speak hypothetically about the reasons why, based on Fords hypothetical situation of global warfare based on not accepting this one deal, as,according to Ford, rejecting it obviously means we will no longer do any business whatsoever with the 1/5 of the global community comprised of by the muslim world (not just those confined to the middleeast in 'threat' nations, but muslims in general). And if we are not doing business with them, we might as well declare war on the lot of them.

Posted by: Freedom | March 3, 2006 04:29 PM

How 'bout COMPETENT LEADERSHIP, Cayambe? HONESTY FROM THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE, Cayambe? EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT, Cayambe? What are you for, exactly? People dying in New Orleans because of a bad response to breached levees? Civil war breaking out in Iraq? Our major port operations being sold to a foreign government?
Can Cayambe even grasp the hypocrisy in his very post? He denounces people who offer forth nothing but denouncement. After his post was done denouncing, it didn't offer forth anything else. IDIOT!!! It is the height of stupidity to accuse people of something you are also guilty of. Count yourself among the people who only say what they are against and not what they are for, Cayambe. Show me one word in that post of yours that actually said what you were for. How 'bout it?

Posted by: ErrinF

====

Wow. A little ticked today aren't we honey? How about you just step away for a spell, go over to the Student Union and get yourself a cup of "fair-trade" coffee?

Speak truth to *urrp* power!

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 04:47 PM

In just about every 'mini' shopping center in my town, we have DOLLAR STORES. We must have 15 dollar stores here! Cheap Shit, mostly made in China and overseas. You can buy toys that break the first time they are played with, and just about anything you can think of. Everything is poor quality, of course. I'm sure our ports are full of ships that bring these items in on a daily basis. Is this truly what America wants??

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 04:58 PM

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something here, and I don't mean to imply prejudice because I'm not. But why can't each country take take of it's 'own'. You know, like what families do? I don't stick my nose in my neighbors business. Why does the U.S. have to meddle everywhere? Each country has it's own language, culture, and religions. (which is fine!) It seems to me that Bush is trying to force them all to be like us. Frankly, I think the U.S. is a pretty piss poor 'model' of other countries to imitate. Just read the daily papers.

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 05:04 PM

CF wrote: "Are we really served by Lefties in Bush-bashing ecstasy and Know-nothing jingoists that will set us up for a great war in the near future???"

Well, we have already been served by neocon Righties in Clinton-bashing impeachment ecstasy and Know-nothing right-wing WMD hullicinating jingoists that actually CHOSE to start a great war in Iraq in 2003 while fighting an unfinished war in Afganistan. And they added torture, spying on Americans, lying to the American people, lying to Congress and violating oaths of office to boot!

Maybe its time to let the "Lefties in Bush-bashing ecstasy" have a chance. They handled Bosnia just fine. They balanced the budget. The economy was humming in 1999. You sound like a Katrina victim standing around the rubble 6 months after landfall thanking your lucky stars Bush is president and not Clinton. For those with disfunctional sarcasm brain centers, that would be a very hard thing to believe.

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 05:13 PM

Simple question for the better informed: How many foreign ports/terminals are under control of any American company?

Posted by: On the plantation | March 3, 2006 05:17 PM

Cayambe - I read your Clinton links with interest. A classic Inside the Beltway mutual back scratching. The Ms. rages on Ay-Rabbs! Visions of men in robes cackling maniacally as they chant "Allah-U-Akbar" as they unpack nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Mr. Bubba rides to the rescue, telling the Dubai friends that gave him 600K for speeches and 1 million to his library, that things can be ultimately smoothed with the missus and henchmen like Rahm Emanual if they only hire Lockhart, Podesta, a few more Clintonistas...and toss a bone Israel's way to please Rahm..

With the right grease, Dubai gets the business deal, the hired Clintonistas kick back hundreds of thousands to Mr Bubba's Library or the missus's campaign fund.

The Republican influence peddlers would also have loved to have gotten a chance to swill up the money in the trough, but they are laying low after Abramoff and have to let the hungry Demos feed on Dubai petrodollars laid out like a banquet for the rich and powerful DC insiders.

I've never liked the quid pro quo married DC power couples do - misusing their office or authority to enrich their spouse or advance their careers. Bob Dole gets Liddy the Red Cross gig, Liddy makes sure Bob greases the fundraising in Congress, Liddy gets the fundraising executive bonus, Bob gets a new vacation home...Or, Tom Daschle gets to head the Transportation committee - and the transportation carriers after searching for the best lobbyist, magically find it is no other than Mrs. Daschle, who is a bargain at 1 million a year! Or, Joe Wilson wishes to be famous and powerful and be ready for a cabinet shot with President Kerry, so Mrs. Wilson, superduper secret agent Valerie, gets him waht he needs at the CIA. Both get rich off books and appearance fees after the high-ranking Kerry Administration post didn't work out for Joe.

An old game of "legal corruption" I am sick of.

=========================
Anonymous Lefty Poster - "CF, Are you now conceding that 83% of the American public are 'lefties'? Because that's the latest poll number of the percentage opposed to this deal."

Yeah, that's about right. Except the opposition is those ignorant - not specifically Lefty, though most Lefties are ignorant. Add in the ignorant in the middle and the ignorant on the Right and that's about what you expect on an emotional issue that Americans are spectacularly ill-informed about.

85% of Americans can't place Bangladesh on a map. 90% of Americans believe all our energy needs will be taken care of by "alternate power" like windmills and solar - in 10 years. 83% of Americans call our schools and health care systems, "one of the best, if not the best, in the whole world."

No more ignorant than those that think it is impossible to set a nuclear bomb or nerve gas off on a ship or plane arriving in the heart of a city at a seaport or airport. That nerve gas or nukes only "magically" somehow, become active and able to be triggered once they are slipped by Coast Guard, Customs, American longshoreman, and screened American Port operators....and the key to that is foreign ownership of a leased terminal operated by Americans and secured by Americans.

And statistics and math-ignorant Americans are easy marks for pollsters asking emotional questions like "Doesn't President Bush owe it to every Katrina victim to meet personally with them and see if he can help?" 80% of the public, the droolers, knowledgable about Brad & Jen, but not much else - would emphatically say "Yes". Just like they expect the President should know every detail about every government issue and meet with "every Mother of a wasted American soldiers life in futile war" (maybe even with the "less worthy" fathers, wives, or siblings - somehow).

PT Barnums great dictum still applies, maybe even more so as our declining public schools now graduate the advanced world's least educated:

"No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the American Public".

In the case of Katrina "victims", 10 Presidential minutes with each person who built or rented Subsea NOLA or had some swank coastal property in Hurricane Alley - would be 10minutesX230,000 divided by 60, then 8 - to let us know (what the pollsters did but the Joe Q Ignoramouses didn't) some 4,782 days would be spent as "Presidential Katrina Konsoler" another 13.1 years, added to whatever clueless majority thinks the President "owes" every relative of a KIA or wounded at least 10 minutes...more for the specially entitled like "Holy Muttah Cindy". 16,000 casualties X 4 "Mother-relatives/per X 10 minutes, divided by 60, then 8, then 365? Plus additional minutes demanded by the "I'll never have Ka-Loz-ure for Casey while the Jews oppress Palestinians" Sheehan nuts? 3.652 years.

Of course the Ignoroids would have had the corpse of FDR still goung around as "touchy-feely Konsoler-in-Chief. 1.9 million casualties, 420,000 dead...FDR would have to do 136.9 years of 10 minute "consolements" to meet what ignorant Americans of today would have said he should have done as the only decent thing....in response to a manipulative pollster reveling in the stupidity of his/her guillable marks...

Posted by: Chris Ford | March 3, 2006 06:12 PM

Oh ErrinF take a chill pill for heaven's sake.

This post is indeed chock full of unfocused RAGE and frustration. So, lets take Cayambe's suggestion and focus it.

Sort of. Because I think part of the root of the problem is that none of this issue has ever been focused or rational.

The President chose to begin every speech on Iraq with a reference to 9-11 or al Qaeda. (If you want to know why check out http://www.zephoria.org/lakoff/files/Luntz.pdf ) It was not rational that this would convince 70% of Americans that Iraq was involved in 9-11 or with al Qaeda, but it did.

It was not rational for Americans to believe that we must stand against everything America stood for to become a first strike nation because Iraq might have WMD. It was not rational to swallow that because we weren't sure we couldn't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud.

It was not rational for Americans to turn their back on our entire heritage and way of life and say "good" to torture and gulags. It was not rational to say "so what, they're terrorists after all", when we now know that the Red Cross was right, the vast majority of them were innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was not rational for Americans to think it was good to lose the respect of the world.

So why, now, when we learn that foreigners, especially foreigners who really did abet 9-11, will take control of military production facilities and secure our physical ports (yes secure, the US only secures the cargo, the operator secures the port), should we suddenly expect the shee-pul to begin to act rationally?

Here is the only rational and focused thing I can say about this: We cannot trust our government to act in our best interests. We are in deep shit and this adminstration still has over 1000 days left to f#*k it up further.

And as far as the President bragging about outsourcing our jobs? Many hospitals now send your digitized xrays to India to be read by an Indian physician. Are Indian physicians just as good as higher priced American physicians? Maybe.

When it was time to invade Iraq "maybe" wasn't good enough. But if Bush cronies will be enriched, it is not rational for us to question "maybe".

Wiccan, tell me more about this April 1 thing. I'm mad and hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

Posted by: patriot1957 | March 3, 2006 06:16 PM

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Posted by: Bob | March 3, 2006 06:58 PM

Bush is so proud of outsourcing. Here's a partial list of U.S. companies who currently outsource:

A
Aalfs Manufacturing
Aavid Thermal Technologies
ABC-NACO
Accenture
Access Electronics
Accuride Corporation
Accuride International
Adaptec
ADC
Adobe Systems
Advanced Energy Industries
Aetna
Affiliated Computer Services
AFS Technologies
A.G. Edwards
Agere Systems
Agilent Technologies
AIG
Alamo Rent A Car
Albany International Corp.
Albertson's
Alcoa
Alcoa Fujikura
Allen Systems Group
Alliance Semiconductor
Allstate
Alpha Thought Global
Altria Group
Amazon.com
AMD
Americ Disc
American Dawn
American Express
American Greetings
American Household
American Management Systems
American Standard
American Uniform Company
AMETEK
AMI DODUCO
Amloid Corporation
Amphenol Corporation
Analog Devices
Anchor Glass Container
ANDA Networks
Anderson Electrical Products
Andrew Corporation
Anheuser-Busch
Angelica Corporation
Ansell Health Care
Ansell Protective Products
Anvil Knitwear
AOL
A.O. Smith
Apple
Applied Materials
Ark-Les Corporation
Arlee Home Fashions
Art Leather Manufacturing
Artex International
ArvinMeritor
Asco Power Technologies
Ashland
AstenJohnson
Asyst Technologies
Atchison Products, Inc.
A.T. Cross Company
AT&T
AT&T Wireless
A.T. Kearney
Augusta Sportswear
Authentic Fitness Corporation
Automatic Data Processing
Avanade
Avanex
Avaya
Avery Dennison
Azima Healthcare Services
Axiohm Transaction Solutions

B
Bank of America
Bank of New York
Bank One
Bard Access Systems
Barnes Group
Barth & Dreyfuss of California
Bassett Furniture
Bassler Electric Company
BBi Enterprises L.P.
Beacon Blankets
BearingPoint
Bear Stearns
BEA Systems
Bechtel
Becton Dickinson
BellSouth
Bentley Systems
Berdon LLP
Berne Apparel
Bernhardt Furniture
Best Buy
Bestt Liebco Corporation
Beverly Enterprises
Birdair, Inc.
BISSELL
Black & Decker
Blauer Manufacturing
Blue Cast Denim
Bobs Candies
Borden Chemical
Bourns
Bose Corporation
Bowater
BMC Software
Boeing
Braden Manufacturing
Briggs Industries
Brady Corporation
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Bristol Tank & Welding Co.
Brocade
Brooks Automation
Brown Wooten Mills Inc.
Buck Forkardt, Inc.
Bumble Bee
Burle Industries
Burlington House Home Fashions
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

C
Cadence Design Systems
Camfil Farr
Candle Corporation
Cains Pickles
Capital One
Cardinal Brands
Carrier
Carter's
Caterpillar
C-COR.net
C&D Technologies
Cellpoint Systems
Cendant
Centis, Inc.
Cerner Corporation
Charles Schwab
ChevronTexaco
The Cherry Corporation
CIBER
Ciena
Cigna
Circuit City
Cirrus Logic
Cisco Systems
Citigroup
Clear Pine Mouldings
Clorox
CNA
Coastcast Corp.
Coca-Cola
Cognizant Technology Solutions
Collins & Aikman
Collis, Inc.
Columbia House
Comcast Holdings
Comdial Corporation
Computer Associates
Computer Horizons
Computer Sciences Corporation
CompuServe
Concise Fabricators
Conectl Corporation
Conseco
Consolidated Metro
Continental Airlines
Convergys
Cooper Crouse-Hinds
Cooper Tire & Rubber
Cooper Tools
Cooper Wiring Devices
Copperweld
Cordis Corporation
Corning
Corning Cable Systems
Corning Frequency Control
Countrywide Financial
COVAD Communications
Covansys
Creo Americas
Cross Creek Apparel
Crouzet Corporation
Crown Holdings
CSX
Cummins
Cutler-Hammer
Cypress Semiconductor

D
Dana Corporation
Daniel Woodhead
Davis Wire Corp.
Daws Manufacturing
Dayton Superior
DeCrane Aircraft
Delco Remy
Dell Computer
DeLong Sportswear
Delphi
Delta Air Lines
Delta Apparel
Direct TV
Discover
DJ Orthopedics
Document Sciences Corporation
Dometic Corp.
Donaldson Company
Douglas Furniture of California
Dow Chemical
Dresser
Dun & Bradstreet
DuPont

E
Earthlink
Eastman Kodak
Eaton Corporation
Edco, Inc.
Editorial America
eFunds
Edscha
Ehlert Tool Company
Elbeco Inc.
Electroglas
Electronic Data Systems
Electronics for Imaging
Electro Technology
Eli Lilly
Elmer's Products
E-Loan
EMC
Emerson Electric
Emerson Power Transmission
Emglo Products
Engel Machinery
En Pointe Technologies
Equifax
Ernst & Young
Essilor of America
Ethan Allen
Evenflo
Evergreen Wholesale Florist
Evolving Systems
Evy of California
Expedia
Extrasport
ExxonMobil

F
Fairfield Manufacturing
Fair Isaac
Fansteel Inc.
Farley's & Sathers Candy Co.
Fasco Industries
Fawn Industries
Fayette Cotton Mill
FCI USA
Fedders Corporation
Federal Mogul
Federated Department Stores
Fellowes
Fender Musical Instruments
Fidelity Investments
Financial Techologies International
Findlay Industries
First American Title Insurance
First Data
First Index
Fisher Hamilton
Flowserve
Fluor
FMC Corporation
Fontaine International
Ford Motor
Foster Wheeler
Franklin Mint
Franklin Templeton
Freeborders
Frito Lay
Fruit of the Loom

G
Garan Manufacturing
Gateway
GE Capital
GE Medical Systems
Gemtron Corporation
General Binding Corporation
General Cable Corp.
General Electric
General Motors
Generation 2 Worldwide
Genesco
Georgia-Pacific
Gerber Childrenswear
GlobespanVirata
Goldman Sachs
Gold Toe Brands
Goodrich
Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Google
Graphic Controls
Greenpoint Mortgage
Greenwood Mills
Grote Industries
Grove U.S. LLC
Guardian Life Insurance
Guilford Mills
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.

H
Haggar
Halliburton
Hamilton Beach/Procter-Silex
The Hartford Financial Services Group
Harper-Wyman Company
Hasbro Manufacturing Services
Hawk Corporation
Hawker Power Systems, Inc.
Haworth
Headstrong
HealthAxis
Hedstrom
Hein-Werner Corp.
Helen of Troy
Helsapenn Inc.
Hershey
Hewitt Associates
Hewlett-Packard
Hoffman Enclosures, Inc.
Hoffman/New Yorker
The Holmes Group
Home Depot
Honeywell
HSN
Hubbell Inc.
Humana
Hunter Sadler
Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc
HyperTech Solutions

I
IBM
iGate Corporation
Illinois Tool Works
IMI Cornelius
Imperial Home Decor Group
Indiana Knitwear Corp.
IndyMac Bancorp
Infogain
Ingersoll-Rand
Innodata Isogen
Innova Solutions
Insilco Technologies
Intel
InterMetro Industries
International Paper
Interroll Corporation
Intuit
Invacare
Iris Graphics, Inc.
Isola Laminate Systems
Iteris Holdings, Inc.
ITT Educational Services
ITT Industries

J
Jabil Circuit
Jacobs Engineering
Jacuzzi
Jakel, Inc.
JanSport
Jantzen Inc.
JDS Uniphase
Jockey International
John Crane
John Deere
Johns Manville
Johnson Controls
Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase
J.R. Simplot
Juniper Networks
Justin Brands

K
KANA Software
Kaiser Permanente
Kanbay
Kayby Mills of North Carolina
Keane
Kellogg
Kellwood
KEMET
KEMET Electronics
Kendall Healthcare
Kenexa
Kentucky Apparel
Kerr-McGee Chemical
KeyCorp
Key Industries
Key Safety Systems
Key Tronic Corp.
Kimberly-Clark
KLA-Tencor
Knight Textile Corp.
Kojo Worldwide Corporation
Kraft Foods
K2 Inc.
Kulicke and Soffa Industries
Kwikset

L
Lancer Partnership
Lander Company
LaCrosse Footwear
Lamb Technicon
Lau Industries
Lands' End
Lawson Software
Layne Christensen
Leach International
Lear Corporation
Leech Tool & Die Works
Lehman Brothers
Leoni Wiring Systems
Levi Strauss
Leviton Manufacturing Co.
Lexmark International
Lexstar Technologies
Liebert Corporation
Lifescan
Lillian Vernon
Linksys
Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc.
Lionbridge Technologies
Lionel
Littelfuse
LiveBridge
LNP Engineering Plastics
Lockheed Martin
Longaberger
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Louisville Ladder Group LLC
Lowe's
Lucent
Lund International
Lyall Alabama

M
Madill Corporation
Magma Design Automation
Magnequench
Magnetek
Maidenform
Mallinckrodt, Inc.
The Manitowoc Company
Manugistics
Marathon Oil
Maritz
Mars
Marshall Fields
Mattel
Master Lock
Materials Processing, Inc.
Maxim Integrated Products
Maxi Switch
Maxxim Medical
Maytag
McDATA Corporation
McKinsey & Company
MeadWestvaco
Mediacopy
Medtronic
Mellon Bank
Mentor Graphics Corp.
Meridian Automotive Systems
Merit Abrasive Products
Merrill Corporation
Merrill Lynch
Metasolv
MetLife
Micro Motion, Inc.
Microsoft
Midcom Inc.
Midwest Electric Products
Milacron
Modern Plastics Technics
Modine Manufacturing
Moen
Money's Foods Us Inc.
Monona Wire Corp.
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motion Control Industries
Motor Coach Industries International
Motorola
Mrs. Allison's Cookie Co.
Mulox

N
Nabco
Nabisco
NACCO Industries
National City Corporation
National Electric Carbon Products
National Life
National Semiconductor
NCR Corporation
neoIT
NETGEAR
Network Associates
Newell Rubbermaid
Newell Window Furnishings
New World Pasta
New York Life Insurance
Nice Ball Bearings
Nike
Nordstrom
Northrop Grumman
Northwest Airlines
Nu Gro Technologies
Nu-kote International
NutraMax Products
Nypro Alabama

O
O'Bryan Brothers Inc.
Ocwen Financial
Office Depot
Ogden Manufacturing
Oglevee, Ltd
Ohio Art
Ohmite Manufacturing Co.
Old Forge Lamp & Shade
Omniglow Corporation
ON Semiconductor
Orbitz
Oracle
OshKosh B'Gosh
Otis Elevator
Outsource Partners International
Owens-Brigam Medical Co.
Owens Corning
Oxford Automotive
Oxford Industries

P
Pacific Precision Metals
Pak-Mor Manufacturing
palmOne
Parallax Power Components
Paramount Apparel
Parker-Hannifin
Parsons E&C
Paxar Corporation
Pearson Digital Learning
Peavey Electronics CorporationÊÊ
PeopleSoft
PepsiCo
Pericom Semiconductor
PerkinElmer
PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc.
Perot Systems
Pfaltzgraff
Pfizer
Phillips-Van Heusen
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation
Pitney Bowes
Plaid Clothing Company
Planar Systems
Plexus
Pliant Corporation
PL Industries
Polaroid
Polymer Sealing Solutions
Portal Software
Portex, Inc.
Portola Packaging
Port Townsend Paper Corp.
Power One
Pratt & Whitney
Price Pfister
priceline.com
Pridecraft Enterprises
Prime Tanning
Primus Telecom
Procter & Gamble
Progress Lighting
ProQuest
Providian Financial
Prudential Insurance

Q
Quaker Oats
Quadion Corporation
Quantegy
Quark
Qwest Communications

R
Radio Flyer
Radio Shack
Rainbow Technologies
Rawlings Sporting Goods
Rayovac
Raytheon Aircraft
RCG Information Technology
Red Kap
Regal-Beloit Corporation
Regal Rugs
Respiratory Support Products
Regence Group
R.G. Barry Corp.
Rich Products
River Holding Corp.
Robert Mitchell Co., Inc.
Rockwell Automations
Rockwell Collins
Rogers
Rohm & Haas
Ropak Northwest
RR Donnelley & Sons
Rugged Sportswear
Russell Corporation

S
S1 Corporation
S & B Engineers and Constructors
Sabre
Safeway
SAIC
Sallie Mae
Samsonite
Samuel-Whittar, Inc.
Sanford
Sanmina-SCI
Sapient
Sara Lee
Saturn Electronics & Engineering
SBC Communications
Schumacher Electric
Scientific Atlanta
Seal Glove Manufacturing
Seco Manufacturing Co.
SEI Investments
Sequa Corporation
Seton Company
Sheldahl Inc.
Shipping Systems, Inc.
Siebel Systems
Sierra Atlantic
Sights Denim Systems, Inc.
Signal Transformer
Signet Armorlite, Inc
Sikorsky
Silicon Graphics
Simula Automotive SafetyÊ
SITEL
Skyworks Solutions
SMC Networks
SML Labels
SNC Manufacturing CompanyÊ
SoftBrands
Sola Optical USA
Solectron
Sonoco Products Co.
Southwire Company
Sovereign Bancorp
Spectrum Control
Spicer Driveshaft Manufacturing
Springs Industries
Springs Window Fashions
Sprint
Sprint PCS
SPX Corporation
Square D
Standard Textile Co.
Stanley Furniture
Stanley Works
Stant Manufacturing
Starkist Seafood
State Farm Insurance
State Street
Steelcase
StorageTek
StrategicPoint Investment Advisors
Strattec Security Corp.
STS Apparel Corporation
Summitville Tiles
Sun Microsystems
Sunrise Medical
SunTrust Banks
Superior Uniform Group
Supra Telecom
Sure Fit
SurePrep
The Sutherland Group
Sweetheart Cup Co.
Swift Denim
Sykes Enterprises
Symbol Technologies
Synopsys
Synygy

T
Takata Retraint Systems
Target
Teccor Electronics
Techalloy Company, Inc.
Technotrim
Tecumseh
Tee Jays Manufacturing
Telcordia
Telect
Teleflex
TeleTech
Telex Communications
Tellabs
Tenneco Automotive
Teradyne
Texaco Exploration and Production
Texas Instruments
Textron
Thermal Industries
Therm-O-Disc, Inc.
Thomas & Betts
Thomasville Furniture
Thomas Saginaw Ball Screw Co.
Three G's Manufacturing Co.
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
Time Warner
Tingley Rubber Corp.
The Timken Company
The Toro Company
Tomlinson Industries
Tower Automotive
Toys "R" Us
Trailmobile Trailer
Trans-Apparel Group
TransPro, Inc.
Trans Union
Travelocity
Trek Bicycle Corporation
Trend Technologies
TriMas Corp.
Trinity Industries
Triquint Semiconductor
TriVision Partners
Tropical Sportswear
TRW Automotive
Tumbleweed Communications
Tupperware
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International

U
UCAR Carbon Company
Underwriters Laboratories
UniFirst Corporation
Union Pacific Railroad
Unison Industries
Unisys
United Airlines
UnitedHealth Group Inc.
United Online
United Plastics Group
United States Ceramic Tile
United Technologies
Universal Lighting Technologies
USAA

V
Valence Technology
Valeo Climate Control
VA Software
Velvac
Vertiflex Products
Veritas
Verizon
VF Corporation
Viasystems
Vishay
Visteon
VITAL Sourcing

W
Wabash Alloys, L.L.C.
Wabash Technologies
Wachovia Bank
Walgreens
Walls Industries
Warnaco
Washington Group International
Washington Mutual
WebEx
WellChoice
Wellman Thermal Systems
Walls Industries
Werner Co.
West Corporation
Weavexx
Weiser Lock
West Point Stevens
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
White Rodgers
Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company
Winpak Films
Wolverine World Wide
Woodstock Wire Works
WorldCom
World Kitchen
Wyeth
Wyman-Gordon Forgings

X
Xerox
Xpectra Incorporated
Xpitax

Y
Yahoo!
Yarway Corporation
York International

Z
Zenith
ZettaWorks

Posted by: outsource our country | March 3, 2006 07:07 PM

Hey outsource, ever heard of a link?

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 07:13 PM

It's just good business. When they send work and jobs to other countries where labor is cheaper, they also get tax breaks. Unfortunuately it comes at an expense of our jobs here. Don't worry, there's a walmart opening up somewhere every day, right? And who needs to make a good income with all the cheap imports that come here anyway?

Posted by: jerrie | March 3, 2006 07:15 PM

Symantec's not on that list. After diddling for days trying to load Norton Internet Security and speaking with Balgolore after Bangalore and saying "I'm sorry, I can't understand" twelve hundred times, I finally gave up and was promised a refund. Which never arrived. But I can't get the guy on the phone to understand that. And me, with computer skills exceeded by the average 5 year old figured out what they could not - where their residual file was hiding that was blocking my access to the internet at all.

I am done with Norton. I found a firewall provider right from my ISP that solved all my problems on the spot and I didn't have to say "I'm sorry, I can't understand you' even once.

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 07:19 PM

leaders that look a little bit more intelligently disposed towards making America work...


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


with schools, prisons....reclaiming abandoned resources, interrupting the cycle of children raising children...with intervention....


I'd start training prisoners in counciling, and 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....


I'd probably use engineers to look at the problems from a perspective of context and what within the context of the problem makes it an ecologically sound premise...


I'd probably look at drugs....and ways to work with that...

I'd probably be a little stronger with INS, and ask that our border states start enforcing a code of conduct that would attract their people to staying in their countries...


I'd probably put up tarrif barriers immediately with a 120 warning period for withdrawing from overseas....I would require that laws passed to regulate be reviewed every two years....


there is such a thing in engineering as a feed back loop for controlling computers, motors, pipeline theory....blah blah blah...


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


part of the reason that the Japanese were kicking our asses during the 70's and still are automotively and electronicswise is this.....for every dollar that they spent 97% ended up spent on the product....waste was endemic in the American system....engineering wise they spent about 6 times longer on the design program.....we never really retooled to meet the challenge....we simply capitulated and road the ship of the Automotive industry into the rocks....selling pieces off as we went....the automotive industry started outsourcing 30 years ago.....blah blah blah...


I'm practical, I'm not interested in PC...


If I had a chance I would order "enclosed safe-pillory" time for the senators that voted for "comity" in denying 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....like U.S. Companies being required to adhere to the same standards offshore that they have to meet here....so that the companies wouldn't be looted by lawsuits in countries where they are developing standards where now they don't have to meet any.....and so on..

Posted by: what I'm for... | March 3, 2006 07:38 PM

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....

Posted by: I would restore image with reality.... | March 3, 2006 07:47 PM

that means I wouldn't pander to the redneck problem and I would require that Israel solve the Palestine problem or I would let them go it alone....


I would also tell Iran that if they were thinking of developing the bomb that I would be okay about destroying them....

I would change bombers in to grocery stores...just kidding...sort of....


there's enough to do with technology and engineering to redeploy the existing war industry in to redefining America as a technology center blah blah blah...


I would make everyone pay rent on the internet that wasn't from the United States as we invented it...

Posted by: I would quit treating primitive tribal people as if they were the same thing as me... | March 3, 2006 07:58 PM

Posted by: On the plantation

"Simple question for the better informed: How many foreign ports/terminals are under control of any American company?"

Good Question.

How much of foreign countries do American companies own and how many of their jobs are outsourced here?

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 08:00 PM

congress when he's violated his oath of office and I would look into the connection of Cunning ham, Cheyney, and Delay....


I would look into their influence in Washington DC and how they've used graft against the people in the Potomoc influence peddling scheme...

Posted by: I would immediately disbar Tom Delay from participating in | March 3, 2006 08:04 PM

American people for criminal actions by legislators....including actions that are solely to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense..


including attaching and selling their estates....rather than just simple jail time...


I would attach the estates of the bush families and sell them as a warning now...


I would establish a democracy to replace the plutocracy....


I would abandon all pretense that theocracy was a holy subject when it is used to create destruction or manipulate elections....I would tax those businesses out of business that attempted to sway elections by speaking from the pulpit....


and I'd burn some people at the stake, as reparation starting with the pope...just kidding.

Posted by: I would enact some sort of legislation that would allow recompense to the | March 3, 2006 08:10 PM

HOW MUCH OF UNITED STATES LAND IS OWNED BY OTHER COUNTRIES?

Posted by: NO ONE's ANSWERED... | March 3, 2006 08:12 PM

between say ownership in

Germany

Japan

and the United States...


shouldn't we have something in place that prevent our country from being sold....since we have invested our lives into it?


for example: in Japan you can't own land if you're not a citizen.

Posted by: what are the differences... | March 3, 2006 08:15 PM

Posted by: Chris Ford

"85% of Americans can't place Bangladesh on a map. 90% of Americans believe all our energy needs will be taken care of by "alternate power" like windmills and solar - in 10 years. 83% of Americans call our schools and health care systems, "one of the best, if not the best, in the whole world."

And we've mostly had conservative presidents when these Americans were educated. I recall seeing Family Feud on TV in the early 80's, the host asked the simple question: "name a country in South America", neither family could name just one country. And for the racist in you Chris, both families were white upper middle class.

"No more ignorant than those that think it is impossible to set a nuclear bomb or nerve gas off on a ship or plane arriving in the heart of a city at a seaport or airport. That nerve gas or nukes only "magically" somehow, become active and able to be triggered once they are slipped by Coast Guard, Customs, American longshoreman, and screened American Port operators....and the key to that is foreign ownership of a leased terminal operated by Americans and secured by Americans."

I'm not sure if I agree in part with you here. We have very little import security, so it's difficult for me to argue the port operation sale would make security worse. It has given import security the long over do attention it deserves. In the end to have a global economy, we'll have greater security risk to terrorism. The only other choice is a drift toward isolationism.

Portal monitors with rapid moving sealand containers will not necessarily detect a well shielded nuclear device, depending if a tag in in the devise or not. As for a dirty bomb using uranium, whether in equilibrium or transitional equilibrium, the alpha emitters would never be detected. Most of the daughter isotopes are undetectable beta emitters when inside an unopened sealand container, and self attenuation prevents most of the daughter gamma from being detected and shielding would hide the rest. I wonder how much low level radiologically contaminated steel may have been recycled into products in China? Russia has been known to sell contaminated steel to China for recycling, makes me wonder just what a 100% scanning in portal monitors might unexpectedly find other than terrorist threats. I can see the headline now "China Sells Radioactive Tricycles at Walmart to American Children".

"And statistics and math-ignorant Americans are easy marks for pollsters asking emotional questions like "Doesn't President Bush owe it to every Katrina victim to meet personally with them and see if he can help?" 80% of the public, the droolers, knowledgable about Brad & Jen, but not much else - would emphatically say "Yes". Just like they expect the President should know every detail about every government issue and meet with "every Mother of a wasted American soldiers life in futile war" (maybe even with the "less worthy" fathers, wives, or siblings - somehow).
"PT Barnums great dictum still applies, maybe even more so as our declining public schools now graduate the advanced world's least educated:

"No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the American Public"."

PT Barnum also said "There's a sucker born every minute." Lee Atwater - race baiting, and Karl Rove-Gay Bashing and Abortion. Chris are you one of their suckers, an all day sucker?

"In the case of Katrina "victims", 10 Presidential minutes with each person who built or rented Subsea NOLA or had some swank coastal property in Hurricane Alley - would be 10minutesX230,000 divided by 60, then 8 - to let us know (what the pollsters did but the Joe Q Ignoramouses didn't) some 4,782 days would be spent as "Presidential Katrina Konsoler" another 13.1 years, added to whatever clueless majority thinks the President "owes" every relative of a KIA or wounded at least 10 minutes...more for the specially entitled like "Holy Muttah Cindy". 16,000 casualties X 4 "Mother-relatives/per X 10 minutes, divided by 60, then 8, then 365? Plus additional minutes demanded by the "I'll never have Ka-Loz-ure for Casey while the Jews oppress Palestinians" Sheehan nuts? 3.652 years."

What's really sad is:

1. You have no concept of the human loss and suffering
2. or the financial implications of what bubba bush is doing, yes I am a Bubba Bush Basher (BBB) and proud of it. Bush is just another name for P@@@y.

Get over it, NOLA will live on, with or without you.

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 08:44 PM

The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) on February 8, 2005, presented its decision before the U.S. House of Representatives House Aviation Sub-Committee, to change a rule which would clear the way for foreign corporations to own and control U.S. airlines.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5870

US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry:
· Sound recording industries - 97%
· Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
· Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
· Metal ore mining - 65%
· Motion picture and video industries - 64%
· Wineries and distilleries - 64%
· Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%
· Book publishers - 63%
· Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
· Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
· Rubber product - 53%
· Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
· Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
· Plastics product - 51%
· Other insurance related activities - 51%
· Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
· Glass and glass product - 48%
· Coal mining - 48%
· Sugar and confectionery product - 48%
· Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47%
· Advertising and related services - 41%
· Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40%
· Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40%
· Securities brokerage - 38%
· Other general purpose machinery - 37%
· Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36%
· Support activities for mining - 36%
· Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32%
· Chemical manufacturing - 30%
· Industrial machinery - 30%
· Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30%
· Other food - 29%
· Motor vehicles and parts - 29%
· Machinery manufacturing - 28%
· Other electrical equipment and component - 28%
· Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%
· Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26%
· Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%
· Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25%
· Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25%
· Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25%
· Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25%
· Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%
· Basic chemical - 24%
· Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%
· Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23%
· Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%
· Printing and related support activities - 21%
· Chemical product and preparation - 20%
· Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%
· Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20%
· Publishing industries - 20%
· Medical equipment and supplies - 20%
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-20.htm

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 09:16 PM

put the makeup on your piggggy and zend it uuut.

Posted by: otey chrissy.... | March 3, 2006 09:18 PM

Now here is one scary link to an article from the Center for Strategic and International Studies:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v57/no3/Lewis.pdf
Its about CFIUS, you know, those people who checked out the port deal. The article argues CFIUS ought to worry about foreign ownership of telecom firms because it might affect law enforcement and intelligence agencies from spying on Americans via telecom.

Wow, has the world ever changed. Like I've said before, this port deal bruhaha is much more than just about the port deal. America is taking stock and finding we own only part of what we thought and we don't do thought we were good at, making steel, clothes, finance, shipping, even music, is really done by foreign owned companies and we pay for it all with money borrowed from those and other foreign companies. We are loosing our abilities and building up debt. We're like the self-made millionaire who stopped working because he was rich but slowly spent his money and was surprised when the bank called to say the money was gone, his car and house repossesed, and wonders what happened to his life.

Time to fire the republicans and make American Made an issue in the fall elections.

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 09:42 PM

how much land do they own?

and where.

Posted by: That's nice, now... | March 3, 2006 09:45 PM

One has to wonder how we can truly be safe when we owe money to foreign governments that have ownership and control in the United States.

Posted by: mike | March 3, 2006 09:53 PM

"how much land do they own?"

I read an article once that said it was 1% of "owned" land, which does not include national parks, etc. The article was from the late 80s so I have no idea what it is today. But remember that land is dirt, not buildings, apartments, corporations or other non-land assets. I believe Americans own much more foreign land than foreigners own American land. Its a real issue in Mexico. America is being gobbled up, but we are not the first country to be seen as someone elses meal, but maybe the first 1st world country.

Posted by: Sully | March 3, 2006 10:06 PM

As Dave Ramsey always says, "the borrower is slave to the lender". Does anybody here happen to know how much debt the U.S. owes to other countries?

Posted by: roger | March 3, 2006 10:09 PM

Patriot ... ahhh, you have saved my day :o)

"It was not rational that this would convince 70% of Americans that Iraq was involved in 9-11 or with al Qaeda, but it did."

I couldn't agree more, I could not have been more dismayed, it says awful things about the state of our public education systems doesn't it? Or perhaps some think we have contracted the disease of stupidity. How so we explain this folks?

"It was not rational for Americans to believe that we must stand against everything America stood for to become a first strike nation because Iraq might have WMD."

See above. Really astonishing isn't it. The overarching paradox of the cold war upon which we took a principled stand in the face of an enormously greater threat; principles we discarded without so much as a nod when it came to Iraq.

"It was not rational to swallow that because we weren't sure we couldn't wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud."

Right on once more. Actually, we didn't even have so much as a smoking gun. Whe had nothing but the black hole ignorance which we hastened to fill with the worst illusions of our imaginations.

"It was not rational for Americans to turn their back on our entire heritage and way of life and say "good" to torture and gulags."

Quite right indeed; as disturbing to those of us who singularly value and connect to our heritage as the larger faction who also most value and connect to a munificent deity. How do you explain this? How can so many reconcile this within themselves? Is this not manifestly unjust by any measure?

"It was not rational to say "so what, they're terrorists after all", when we now know that the Red Cross was right, the vast majority of them were innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time."

I take exception to the term "vast majority"; I don't really know that this is the case. But its not necessary for me to agree with you that it is manifestly unjust to imprison people without affording them an opportunity to establish their innocence, without a reasonable basis for a conviction of guilt. Would we really wish to restrict the application of this most basic principle to ourselves as Americans? Is it American to do that?

So why, now, when we learn that foreigners, especially foreigners who really did abet 9-11, will take control of military production facilities and secure our physical ports (yes secure, the US only secures the cargo, the operator secures the port), should we suddenly expect the shee-pul to begin to act rationally?

At last, mi amigo, a rock in the middle of path where we must part company. "abet" is a word which requires conscious collusion, cooperation with knowledge of the purpose of it. I'm unaware of any actual evidence of that. The flight school in Florida that trained the pilots may be as plausibly accused of abetting as Dubai; indeed, so may the State of Florida. Chris has made this point repeatedly and I agree with it. Second, your splitting needless hairs over cargo vs port security. In reality, the terminal operator generally secures his own terminal operating area that he leases from the port authority. If there is just one terminal in the port or he leases all terminals in the port he might validly be said to be responsible for Port Security. This is not the usual case at significantly sized ports where two or more terminal operators may coexist within the same port. Third, again as Chris has said in some detail, our security interests in incoming shipments, by land, air, or sea, are best served at the loading point of the transport vehicle, whatever it is, including sealed containers treated as vehicles. When I view this entire system and consider this port transaction in particular in that context, I don't actually see a serious incremental security risk. Indeed, what I do see are much more serious risks than I had heretofore imagined in other parts of this incoming freight system. So looking at the latest polls on this, as everybody seems focused on doing, I'm afraid the shee-pul continue to act irrationally and, as usual, the politicians are following them.

"Here is the only rational and focused thing I can say about this: We cannot trust our government to act in our best interests."

We are definitely beyond that rock. We must never do this. The government cannot possibly know what your best interest is, and your best interest is not necessarily the same as your neighbors or mine. Au contraire, we must never trust the government, even after having ever so carefully institutionalized our mistrust in the form of checks and balances. We must still mistrust the adequacy of those very check and balance mechanisms to assuage our basic mistrust. It is hard enough to find representatives in whom we might have some trust, not to act in our best interest (impossible and unreasonable), but just to do as they say they will, to behave as they say they will, to follow the principles they espouse, to provide us with meaningful reasons to choose one over another. For all you NUMBSKULLS out there, IT STARTS IN THE PRIMARIES, MUNICIPALITIES, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COUNTIES.


"And as far as the President bragging about outsourcing our jobs?"

Well Patriot, we will probably part company on this one. Unfortunately, you can't really take outsourcing in isolation, and it started long before this President took office. If you are going to insist on keeping jobs, especially "high paying" jobs in America, then you are going to have to be willing to pay for it in the prices of the goods and services you receive. Consumers won't willingly do that. So, to accomplish what consumers won't do for their own self-interest (consumers largely have the jobs they want to protect) you have to restrict the import of lower priced goods and services, by tariffs, quotas, or outright bans. Consumers won't stand for that either. Other countries will also take a dim view of it and retaliate by restricting our exports, which will not likely be price competitive on the world market anyway. So when you are ready to take up outsourcing in a realistic context I'm willing to engage in that but, to think it is just bad faith on the part of corporations and we can just pass a law to stop it is pretty silly. Instead of just bitching about outsourcing why not come up with what could be done to put a stop to it?


Unknown poster wrote...
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something here, and I don't mean to imply prejudice because I'm not. But why can't each country take take of it's 'own'. You know, like what families do? I don't stick my nose in my neighbors business. Why does the U.S. have to meddle everywhere? Each country has it's own language, culture, and religions. (which is fine!) It seems to me that Bush is trying to force them all to be like us. Frankly, I think the U.S. is a pretty piss poor 'model' of other countries to imitate. Just read the daily papers.


Very pithy ... and I really do wholeheartedly agree with you. :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 3, 2006 11:12 PM

Cayambe, you make some good points. It's a 'knot in the gut' feeling to not trust our goverment. After all, it is we who are paying their salaries, which comes out of the taxes that we pay. For so many people to be against something and hear Bush say he will simply veto it feels like a slap in the face and a 'fuck you'.

Posted by: | March 3, 2006 11:40 PM

My husband and I do what we can, which I doubt makes one iota of difference. We choose not to shop at Walmart, as do many of our friends. We also will not do business at Starbucks, since they like to open up next to small 'mom & pop' coffee shops and put them out of business. Sure, we could probably save a few dollars at those places, but some things in life are more important. It's based on principle, not economics. We live in a conservative town where our newspaper gives very little 'real' news with what's going on in the world. Most of our information we get via internet, and online newspapers. We have seen many small businesses close because of the Walmart here. We have friends who have lost their jobs. This is Minnesota and heating our homes is more expensive this year than ever. When I see Bush hop on a plane with all his trips overseas, it's sickening. Why can't time and resources and money be put back here, in our own homeland? I fear for our grandchildren and wonder what shape our country will be in by the time they are grown up. I read somewhere that the war in Iraq is costing each american citizen $20,000 each.

Posted by: J | March 3, 2006 11:51 PM

In the NY Times

Dissenting on Atomic Deal

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: March 3, 2006

"WASHINGTON, March 2 -- In concluding its nuclear deal with India, the Bush administration faces significant opposition in Congress and tough questions from its allies on whether the arrangement could set a precedent encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and other potential foes of the United States."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03nuke.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Just wondering how Pakistan is going to react to this?

Posted by: Jamal | March 4, 2006 12:07 AM

and you know, it took a couple of years to move everything out of the United States...

but not really, I know for a fact that North Carolina changed within about 1.5 years.......


not that there weren't impacts to industry leaving for the next 7 but, the actual loss of industry took place rather quickly...

what needs to be done is not have a huge service sector with 3% holding 90% of the wealth....doncha think....


nice to see you sayin it won't happen, but I know that most people would like to be working for a living with benefits, and they could probably buy more....prices will stay down, because they have to sell what they're making....


what needs to change is that United States people need to have a chance to work for decent wages, and maintain that system...


however it happens, someone will complain for sure...but the point is, we don't need another 3rd world over here.

.

Posted by: out sourcing is a multifaceted job... | March 4, 2006 12:48 AM

Mrs. J
"My husband and I do what we can, which I doubt makes one iota of difference."

I disagree. I don't doubt it does make an iota of difference.

I live in N. California, nearest town 5 miles down the road, pop. 437. Nearest Walmart 35 miles away. We do all we can to keep our local business's in business. We are not shy about telling them what they have to do to keep it that way. Often we must wait for them to order something we want, but they know better than to jack the price out of line.

The grocery store in town is our bank. We like it that way too. There aren't many strangers in this little valley. We like that too. Add up enough iotas and darn if it doesn't actually work.

Keep at it Mrs. J, keep at it, and pass it along to your grandkids. They will need it more than you and I. :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 4, 2006 01:32 AM

"BALLAD OF PORT SECURITY WOE"
WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=87141

Posted by: Hubert Wilson | March 4, 2006 12:12 PM

"what needs to change is that United States people need to have a chance to work for decent wages, and maintain that system...however it happens, someone will complain for sure...but the point is, we don't need another 3rd world over here."

_______________________________________

This statement sums up the entire problem: Globalization.

Just 50 years ago, he world was a much larger place.

Throughout history, natural barriers and the lack of technologies to overcome them allowed for diversification at every level (genetics, society, culture, language, economy, religion, etc.), while also acting as a barrier to the management (government) of one group by another.

Of course, whenever the growth (typically based on technological advancement) of one group - or several groups simultaneously - allowed for the expansion of that culture into the territory of another, conflict ensued.

But the physical barriers kept everything in check. (The histories of the world's empires clearly show the physical limits to expansion being extended each time a culture advanced technologically).

War, treaties, assimilation and anhiliation are the history of groups that were ultimately forced to share common ground due to lack of physical barriers. The history of Europe comes to mind.

The technology revolution changed everything. Literally overnight, the world became extremely small (literal in the sense that I could suddenly, at some point in the not so distant past, send a package "overnight" to virtually anywhere on the planet. Telecom made it even faster).

Technology has destroyed the barriers, the levies have been breached, and we are screwed.

Now it's all about getting rich.

I liked China better when they were isolationists (and tres mysterious!). Same goes for Japan in the early 1800s. same goes for everywhere else that was isolated.

As a kid, I could never understand why we hated communism so much (the domino theory, I guess). It seemed to me that the last thing we needed was a world full of hungry capitalists. Now we've got them.

Don't like illegal immigrant hispanics taking all of the lower wage jobs in your community? That's global capitalism at work. These people don't "do the work Americans refuse to do" - they're willing to live 20 unrelated folks to an apartment, share a car or walk to the 7-11 to be picked up by their employer. They also have access to free healthcare when they need it. That's better than most Americans had it before 1900. We've come to expect more. We've come to expect a middle class.

Don't like your job being sent to India? Look at their lifestyle. Are you willing to live like that? Is that middle class?

Were the shoes you're wearing made by a 7 year-old in some formerly 3rd world, but now "Globalized" country in the far east? That child is now competing for your child's job (actually, it will be your child competing for his job).

Globalization will destroy the self-hating middle class. The few rich - being manifestly unpatriotic in their allegiances - will sell our country down the river for as many pieces of silver as they can get, and the middle class will let it happen.

This is going to get scary.

I hope I'm still young enough to fight.

Posted by: smafdy | March 4, 2006 01:06 PM


As a kid, I could never understand why we hated communism so much (the domino theory, I guess). It seemed to me that the last thing we needed was a world full of hungry capitalists. Now we've got them.

smafdy ... "The few rich - being manifestly unpatriotic in their allegiances - will sell our country down the river for as many pieces of silver as they can get, and the middle class will let it happen."

Nahhh...the middle class ain't so passive as that. They will take as much silver as they can get and move to Mexico or Costa Rica where they can live as the rich do.

Scary? I think not, so long as all can vote and and are educated enough to vote their interests. In other words, SPEND THE DAMN MONEY ON TEXTBOOKS AND TEACHERS AND NOT THE FOOTBALL STADIUM AND HIGH-PRICED COACHES.


nice to hear from you again smafdy :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | March 4, 2006 01:48 PM

we didn't hate communism.

the elite did.


what would communism do to them?

depose them...


not that it works, but after the McCarthyism spector it became part of our culture like fearing the church after it became a tool of Roman domination...

anyone from Britain can tell you what is wrong with the system....two parties is too few....and open forums where things are discussed rather than orchestrated...


the other thing is "socialism" is a bugaboo word in this country, like liberal...


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.

Posted by: in answer to your question.... | March 4, 2006 04:29 PM

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, thus the linking of Tom Delay with racial hatred user, and George Wallace...as well as the visceral resemblance....

let me tell yuh, "the negra"

let me tell yuh, "the liberal"

kinda thing or the gay marriages
or the baby killuhs
or the gun controluhs
or the war hattuhs


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

Posted by: fyi | March 4, 2006 04:43 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.