Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

FINALLY, THE NAZI CONNECTION....John Podhoretz on the Dubai port deal:

It's possible that this event is George Bush's Bitburg.

Ouch.

Kevin Drum 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (139)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Link??

Posted by: David in NY on February 21, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Americans can't be trusted to protect America! There are too many America-haters and terrorist-coddlers like you, Kevin!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on February 21, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Link works now. Except that Podhoretz is incomprehensible. He admits at the beginning that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but that doesn't stop him. Oh well. I don't think it's got anything to do with Bitburg. It's just part of the generall selling-off of public functions to private entities, some of whom are not going to have the public interest foremost in mind.

Posted by: David in NY on February 21, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

What do you mean finally?

Posted by: Gaven on February 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Classic from the NRO idiots:

--------------------------------------------

THURSDAY WITH WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

IWF is hosting a Kate book event on Thursday night in D.C. Open to all.

---------------------------------------------

I am sure both Kate Obierne and Lopez will be there.

Posted by: lib on February 21, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Liberal Kevin Drum comparing George W Bush to a Nazi. Why should I not be surprised? No wonder libs always lose elections with their politics of personal destruction.

Posted by: Al on February 21, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Finally = At Last the truth.
Bushco, as are most neo-conservatives, Fascists at heart who believe less in freedom than in their own pocketbook at the expense of democracy and their fellow citizens. BHushco will sell the rope that hangs the last American as long as it's at a profit.

Posted by: murmeister on February 21, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Any minute now, Bush, Cheney and Rove will follow the lead of their muse, Adoph Hitler, and head for the bunker. And you know how this movie ends.

Posted by: Doofus on February 21, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Does the Corner get a Godwin's Law violation?

Posted by: Gregory on February 21, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Al, it's Podhoretz who's comparing Bush to Reagan. Other than that, it's good to see you got more of it right than you usually do.

Posted by: tomeck on February 21, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Al speaks the truth! What great reading comprehension we conservatives have!

Here is more of the Lord's work!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on February 21, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody got a blowjob at Bitburg! Reagan refused to back down to those Islamofascists and went to Bitburg anyway!

Posted by: Kaptain KoolAid on February 21, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

*sigh* Why does John Podhoretz hate America?

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

I wanna know who lobbied THIS deal.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 21, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, it was a "personal plea".

imagine the howls of outrage if President Hillary did this.

Posted by: cleek on February 21, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I guess my WWII history isn't as good as it should be, because I don't have a clue what Bitburg is. You don't need to explain, I'm headed off to Wiki it after this post.

Anyway, as a liberal my main issue with the port deal is that no country should ever sell any part of its border security to foreign nations. I don't care if it's the UAE or Israel or Britian or whomever. We ought to have the smarts and the money to take care of our own goddamn ports, and if not, I'll be happy to give back my tax cut to pay for it.

So remember that next time somebody brings up the America-hating-liberal strawman on this thread (unless it's sarcasm, of course).

Posted by: mmy on February 21, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

scroll up a bit and check out the space they devote to that whackjob Tierney.

Posted by: cleek on February 21, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Proof, once again (and again and again and again) that the Bush regime doesn't give a fuck about America's national security. From ignoring the warnings about 9/11 to letting the Saudis flee the country to not catching bin Laden to degrading the Army in Iraq, their first priority has always been lining their and their contributors' pocketbooks.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like an early Fitzmas! Ho ho ho!

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 21, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

mmy just failed the 80s trivia quiz.

Posted by: Constantine on February 21, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Unbelievable... Podhoretz shows the Neocon priorities: Politics uber alles. His complaint isn't that this development potentially puts our national security at risk, but that it might have some negative political fallout for dear leader. Bitburg was a horrible symbolic act, but it didn't place the safety of the nation into the hands of foreign nationals (who may or may not) be our allies.

This type of security needs to be handled by the US government, not by a for-profit company (much less one from a country with a dubious history vis a vis terrorists). Even *Saint* Adam Smith acknowledged that government can perform some functions better than markets. Contrary to right wing dogma, often the profit motive provides a DISincentive to act for the greater good.

Posted by: Jonny Bluestate on February 21, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Al, this is discraceful liberal propaganda.

Please step up and defend the ability of the UAE to defend us from islamofascists.

Posted by: HeavyJ on February 21, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

CNN's reporting that shrub is now threatening to veto any bill that interferes with this.

i'd so love for this to be his first veto.

Posted by: cleek on February 21, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

In the 80's:
In mid-April, White House press secretary Larry Speakes informed the media of the planned Reagan visit to Bitburg. When asked who was buried at Kolmeshohe, Speakes said he thought both American and German soldiers were there. Reporters soon discovered, however, that no American servicemen were in the cemetery; in fact, the remains of all U.S. soldiers had long since been removed from German soil. Clarence M. Brown, national commander of the American Legion, warned that it would "not sit well" with veterans if Reagan were to "lay a wreath at the graves of Nazi soldiers." Former Army S/Sgt. Jim Hively mailed his World War II decorations, including a silver star and a bronze star, to Reagan in protest. In the Congress, 53 senators, 11 of them Republicans, signed a letter urging the president to cancel the visit, while 257 representatives, including 84 Republicans, signed a letter asking Chancellor Kohl to withdraw the invitation.
Today: Sadly, reportors would never check facts. Anyone handing in war medals in protest would be Swift-boated, and Republicans today would be held to the conforming fire by Rove and are afriad to act on their own. There would be no Bitburg, just another photo-op. Move on, nothing to see here.....

Posted by: Apple on February 21, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

CNN's reporting that shrub is now threatening to veto any bill that interferes with this.

Well, he is steadfast, not a flip-flopper. Except about creating the Homeland Security dept. But apart from that. And Harriet Myers. But except for those two, he's never changed his mind. Oh, and that Social Security "reform" - he's definitely not backing down on that. No wait. Ok, got it, Abramoff - no way he abandons a friend like that, just for political convienience.

Shit! Ok, I'll get this. Just give me some more time...

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I've got it! He's definitely going to fire whomever leaked Plame's name!

Damn! Ok, I'm still working on this...

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

CNN's reporting that shrub is now threatening to veto any bill that interferes with this.

Shows what his priorities really are, doesn't it?

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, yeah, they were British, so I guess they don't really count as foreign.

Foreign, yeah, but there is a difference between a British company -- run by a country allied to and friendly with us -- and one run by a Gulf State with ties to Al Qaeda and therefore extremely vulnerable to infiltration.

Posted by: Stefan on February 21, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"CNN's reporting that shrub is now threatening to veto any bill that interferes with this.

i'd so love for this to be his first veto."


Naw Cleek the Bushster will just include a signing statement saying; Fuck you!

Posted by: j swift on February 21, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

how many people objected when P&O took over these ports

i'm sure a lot of foreign companies are in the port/shipping/cargo business. and i'm sure we'll see some stats about just how much of the US market they control in the next few days.

but this particular deal pisses-off The Base, and that's amusing, at the very least.

Posted by: cleek on February 21, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK


gwb says he'll veto any legislation that slows the arab company take over of u-s ports...

he says....america has nothing to worry about..

we should trust him...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

First time I've agreed with GWB since Afghanistan. Maybe once he gets familiar with the veto,he'll be tempted to use it some more.
Hey,there has to be a first time for everybody.

Posted by: TJM on February 21, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I wish this administration would take national security seriously just once.


Hunh, where are all the trolls?

Posted by: ckelly on February 21, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

It depends on which critic you are listening to. Far too much of the criticism is "foreigners are taking over". That criticism is wrong. The foreigners took over already. What we are seeing is different foreigners taking over. The concern about the UAE is worth investigating but:

In the House, Florida Republican Rep. Clay Shaw announced he would introduce legislation aimed at preventing foreign entities from operating U.S. seaports.

Where was he when P&O took over these port operations?

Posted by: freelunch on February 21, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, ok - Bush is definitely going to have part two of this investigation into 9/11 or Iraq or something, right after the election! He swears!

Nope, that's not it.

C'mon, I know that spine is in there somewhere...

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Hunh, where are all the trolls?

Well, let's see. Lunch, recess, ... so it must be nap time. They're all asleep.

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

There's a difference between Middle Eastern foreigners and Northern European foreigners,like those in Britain,none of whose citizens have engaged in terrorist attacks except with backpacks on subways.
Mind the gap.

Posted by: TJM on February 21, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, I know that spine is in there somewhere...

It's morphed into a rectangular shape and is riding high between his shoulder blades, under his jacket.

Posted by: shortstop on February 21, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Chimpo goes to Dubai then goes out for a cup of tea.."

Posted by: Agravaine on February 21, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Rank the following countries by their ties to the 9/11 attacks:

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq.

Posted by: zenger on February 21, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

I was withholding judgement until all the facts were in before holding the port deal against Bush; but I see that Jimmy Carter has come out in favor of the UAE company. In light of that I can only conclude it's a terrible thing for America and I've already written my congresscritters to oppose it.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

freelunch: I don't really want any foreign company to run our ports, but the British are more our allies and reliable than UAE. The contradiction is a little red herring, not any big deal.

Posted by: Neil' on February 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Just another example of the total ease of entrance into the USA. It simply can not be defended from a terrorist attack. Don't worry be happy.

Posted by: Neo on February 21, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Apple, good summary of the Bitburg incident, but you left out the most important point: the soldiers buried at Bitburg weren't just any WWII German soldiers, some them were Waffen SS.

Just to remind everyone of who the Waffen SS were, some of them were Hitler's personal bodyguards, other divisions ran the death camps, while others killed US prisoners of war in the Malmedy Massacre.

And now, a musical interlude. Click on this link and listen to The Ramones performing "Bonzo Goes to Bitburg."

Posted by: charlie don't surf on February 21, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

What is this thing, this "America" you talk about? There are no countries. There are no borders. It is simply a globe, with corporations scattered around doing what they will.

Posted by: Tripp on February 21, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's worse than Bitburg, for those of us who live in NY, Philly, or any other Eastern Seaboard city.

I mean, dead Nazis ain't gonna blow anybody up. Lousy port security, though? This is more than a PR blunder, it's an actual security blunder.

Posted by: theorajones on February 21, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

The company that owns the port, as in the container company, is not in charge of security of the actual "PORT." The fact that foreign investors have been buying up that function isn't new and we are not MORE vulnerable because of which country owns the site. The U/S is in charge of security at all ports. The problem is the idiotic Bush regime has done nothing to upgrade or revamp the system since 9-11. If you don't want foreign countries to have interests this industry, than be consistent and have the US take over all shipping into the US. Of course, that is a ridiculous notion and should point to the error of attacking this issue on the grounds of which country owns the shipping interests. The real issue is the level of security that we apply to all shipping into the US. That has little to nothing to do with who owns the shipping company or the machinery at the port.

Posted by: bill on February 21, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

RUMSFELD (TODAY): I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this (PORT DEAL) over the weekend.


White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the Defense Department was part of a rigorous reviewfor national security concerns.

AND...

Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is a member of Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. As such, he was one of the people who, according to the Treasury Department, unanimously approved the sale on February 13.


unanimously?


i sense another bush administration mix-up....lol


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 21, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

craigie: brilliant today, even by your elevated standards.

the amusing thing about bush drawing this line is that it's so stupid a thing to do. what principle is he defending? all he had to say is, "i'm confident that there is no threat to american security from this deal, but i'm going to ask the appropriate review agency to look one more time and be sure" and he'd be home free.

Posted by: howard on February 21, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Take heart, Theora. You see what the governors are planning?

Both governors [New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich] indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover. [source]

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Are you people blind?

This is not the right story.

This story will disappear like the Invisible Man, the moment we get the Supreme Court ruling on Late Term Abortion. All hell is going to break loose when this country learns the truth about Alito and Roberts - what they were concealing during their "deaf hearings".

Nobody's going to give a shit about any other story for about the next 6 months.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 21, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

all he had to say is ... and he'd be home free
Stuff like this makes it hard not to start in on you Howard. You know this ain't true. Bush is going to be your whipping boy no matter what he does.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Not to worry. The Dubai company is probably a subsidiary of Daddy Bush's Carlyle Group.

Posted by: sf on February 21, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

In related news, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the justice department has outsourced its drug interdiction functions south of the border to two organizations. Cocaine enforcement is now handled by the Medellin Group, LLC. Marijuana policing goes to Panama Red, LLP. The Attorney General lauded the extensive hands-on experience of both organizations dealing with international drug-related law enforcement. An unnamed source also pointed to huge tax savings by eliminating a "bloated bureaucracy", as well as unspecified "goodies" which will flow to key "team players" who approved the deal. "A win-win all the way around", the source said.

Posted by: shystr on February 21, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

What I find amusing here is how this episode exposes Bush's character flaws. This is the sort of thing that, whatever the merits of the issue itself, just doesn't look good. Yet, Bush wants to "stand firm" and promise a veto if Congress overrides his decision. I mean, really, is this worth picking a fight over? Only if you think that any disagreement with your decisions is a threat that needs to be confronted and smacked down.

Posted by: Constantine on February 21, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

What I find amusing here is how this episode exposes Bush's character flaws. This is the sort of thing that, whatever the merits of the issue itself, just doesn't look good. Yet, Bush wants to "stand firm" and promise a veto if Congress overrides his decision. I mean, really, is this worth picking a fight over? Only if you think that any disagreement with your decisions is a threat that needs to be confronted and smacked down.

Posted by: Constantine on February 21, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

If this is Bush's Bitburg, then it's too bad three quarters of the Ramones are dead, because I'd love to hear the song they'd write in response.

Posted by: Hank Scorpio on February 21, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Bedtime for Bonzo, Jr?

Gotta love the NYT headline: "Bush Threatens to Veto Any Bill to Stop Port Takeover".

This is how he wants to roll? Let's see him make the case "past the filter", to the people. "Security is all well and good, but look at the deal we're getting." Like, he's the Bottom Line President all of a sudden.

Goodby, Mr. Chimps.

Posted by: Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

Stuff like this makes it hard not to start in on you Howard. You know this ain't true. Bush is going to be your whipping boy no matter what he does.

Which he deserves. But - if I can butt in - I think what howard means is that he'd be home free with his base.

Nobody else matters.

Posted by: craigie on February 21, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

You rock, shyster.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 21, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

If this is Bush's Bitburg, then it's too bad three quarters of the Ramones are dead, because I'd love to hear the song they'd write in response.

Stop, stop. I still can't believe Joey and Dee Dee went within a few months of each other. Sniff.

Posted by: shortstop on February 21, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Al: No wonder libs always lose elections with their politics of personal destruction.

I disagree, Al. The politics of personal destruction has worked election-wise for the Repubs even when they eat their own. Example: Bush versus McCain during the 2000 SC primary.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

This is a lot dumber than Bitburg. That said, didn't a Chinese company try to gain control of the port of San Diego (or some place) during the 90s?

Posted by: cld on February 21, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think what howard means is that he'd be home free with his base.
Well, speaking as a member of his base, I would take exception to that, too. But it does at least make it a plausible thought.

I suspect the only people that review would work for are the ones that say "He's reviewing what? What happened?"

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

I am absolutely against this as well but am enjoying the Democrats finally getting their feathers ruffled over a "threat". Actually wouldn't this be the appropriate action to take under "liberal internationalism". Maybe that's what Bush is doing and the libs are just too blind to see it. That's it, he's practicing "liberal internationalism". Can't we all be freinds?

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Well the Chinese pretty much owned the WH in the 90's so what's a little port in San Diego?

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Well, speaking as a member of his base, I would take exception to that, too.
Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

That's funny as hell, cn!

Funny and sad. To think that you consider yourself a member of his base. While he considers you food.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 21, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Well the Chinese pretty much owned the WH in the 90's so what's a little port in San Diego?
Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

So, Bush handing over a secret spy-plane to the Chinese for inspection was just him honoring the arrangement from the 1990's?
(ie. under Clinton, the standing order for such planes was that the pilots were supposed to destroy the plane using the self-destruct mechanism built-into the plane - only an Executive Order from Bush could have reversed the prior order)

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 21, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Nuclear technology to the North Koreans, spy planes and unlimited access to the WH to China. Awesome president. But the hummer was good.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

It was a Chinese secret agent employed by the Republican party in California who compromised an FBI agent working on counter-espionage during the 90s, as I recall.

I've been wondering lately if, in some cutting-edge way, the internet has actually punched a hole into an alternate universe where a people like Jay are normal.

Posted by: cld on February 21, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

This decision has been in play since last November, and although I am opposed, it is certainly an attempt at the offering of an olive branch to the Arab community. UAE has been a very staunch ally and very stable nation and I would think the left would embrace any attempt by this administration to heal thy wounds with the Arab community. Remember, "liberal internationalism"? Alhtough what this has proven, very effectively is that if GW were to advocate clean air, the left would oppose it. Also, this is a very opportune time for the left to gain in-roads on those independents and conservatives who virulently oppose this action. Let's watch them blow it. Pass the popcorn.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

That's right cld, Clinton never had any Chinese contacts that frequented the WH and poured millions into the Democratic machine. That never happened. Full speed ahead.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

That's funny as hell, cn!
I'm a fun guy, trust me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on February 21, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Howard on February 21, 2006 at 5:22 PM:

all he had to say is,...and he'd be home free.

But how would the Republican members of Congress put enough distance between themselves and Dubya in time for the '06 elections? After the two recent governor's races where Dubya's endorsement was seen as a negative, who wants to be seen as a strong Bush supporter?

...Where was the attack of conscience occurring on the Right during Schiavo, Abramoff, 'Fixing the Facts', et cetera?...

Don't get taken in by the elaborate show...Dubya doesn't have to run again, and he'll back down, losing face, only to kiss and make up with Congressional leadership after elections...Complete with continued involvement in Iraq, continued looting of the US treasury, and continued loss of our liberties.

I hate how cynical I've become...

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

You can really imagine you think that if there had been anything in a story like that Ken Starr wouldn't have been all over it like obscenity on a Republican?

I can only reiterate my point that something of a greater interest may be happening here, you may actually be in another universe where that could be true.

Posted by: cld on February 21, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

craigie, thanx for stepping in, you're absolutely right. at this stage, it's utterly irrelevant what i think of bush - indeed, the man has never given a good goddamn what people like me think.

but he's always cared what little propaganda robots like jay (who shows up right on schedule with some moronic comments about chinese influence on clinton - they do train the little nitwits well in college republican circles, don't they? an answer for everything and knowledge about nothing) think, and he'd have a clear out. instead, he just looks like what he is: stubborn and foolish.

grape_crush, i agree (and have written elsewhere - in fact, i think i wrote it here!) that gop congresspeople are going to look to distance themselves from bush.

but all bush has ever cared about is...bush. and from a standpoint of caring about bush, he made a very dumb choice today with his "i'll veto this."

nor is he helped by the fact that rumsfeld, in his usual mannger, claims ignorance. it doesn't exactly endorse the notion of a rigorous review, which only contributes to the image of an aloof, out-of-touch executive that can't even get its own act together.

the man has enough problems: why create one more unnecessarily? as i say, what principle is he defending here?

Posted by: howard on February 21, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

His name was Johnny Chung, visited the WH over 57 times and raised obscene amounts of money for the democrats. 57 times in 8 years, more often than every other month. That's frequent and disturbing.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

He's defending "Internationalism" Howie. That's what the left has been lecturing everyone about for 6 years now. Gore was just in Saudia Arabia telling the Arabs how badly we treat them and now you're complaining that Bush should not be cooperating with an Arab nation? Again, is that a light or a train?

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

howard on February 21, 2006 at 7:19 PM:

what principle is he defending here?

Oh, that's easy...What are they typical reasons Dubya takes a stand on anything? A few possibilities:

- Political gain for the GOP (Think Schiavo, gay marriage)
- Coverup some wrongdoing (Plame outing, NSA spying)
- Enrich self or friends/allies (no-bid contracts, John Bolton)

Upthread, I harped on the political gain angle...I'd also like to see what connections the Bush family or Cheney has to that company from the UAE...Follow the money, as usual.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

And what did he get for it, this Johnny Chung? We know what Abramoff got for his behaviour, but Johnny Chung succeeded only in losing money. The worst you can say about the Democrats is they completely suckered him.

I can't say Democrats are incorruptible, but Republicans have proven beyond any doubt that not one of them is un-corruptible.

Posted by: cld on February 21, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

On a lighter note, another NYT line:

"Sasha Cohen dazzled the judges and slipped past Irina Slutskaya of Russia by a slim margin on the first night of women's figure skating."

Is there no end to Ali G's talent?

Posted by: Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

At least you acknowledged him, that's one step closer to "self-actualization" cld, I am proud of you. "Liberal Internationalism" lives!

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Clinton "suckered" Monica (or was that the other way around hmmmm.....) anyway, it appears as though he "suckered" Chung, lewinsky and the American public. Well done!

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Jay: "Haw, haw, haw. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Haw, haw, haw. Ummm, I got nothin'."

Posted by: Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Jay,

Thanks, but we all know there's little liberal about the Bush Family Internationalism. In fact, their ties to China are a bit more extensive,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/02/19/usat-prescott-bush.htm

having built the first golf course in China in 1988.


Oh, and this is good, Golden Boy's other uncle had to pay a $25 million fine for money laundering,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28396-2004May14.html

Posted by: cld on February 21, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Guess who is president now? And it's rumored that "9/11 changed everything."

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

I have to wonder here if Jonathon Bush's Riggs Investment Bank may not have some connection with the United Arab Emirates port scandal --?

It's exactly the kind of thing they'd be involved in. This may explain the real center of gravity in Bush White House corruption.

Posted by: cld on February 21, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

This is so orchestrated.

Separate the Republican Congress from the White House before the 2006 election. Make it look like there is real congressional oversight in a one party federal government.

Posted by: ranaaurora on February 21, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

as i've said before, i really enjoy Jay: one rarely gets to sample the wares of the full-blooded college republican prick in such an unvarnished and idiotic format.

we'll ignore his rants about johnny chung as completely and totally irrelevant to anything in 2006, and instead limit ourselves to his idiotic "internationalism" comments, which even by jay's rather debased standards are tripe.

indeed, it's hard to make any sense of them at all: apparently, in college republican prick-land, any kind of idiotic argument is regarded as sensational if it lets you say "that's what the left has been lecturing everyone about," accomapanied by the sound of orgasmic laughter.

here in the real world, the left has argued for the usefulness of international insitutions, the validity of lawfully entered-into treaties, the value of allies. What the left hasn't argued for is assigning a national security matter to a state-owned corporation of a country with a poor track record on 9/11. admittedly, this requires thinking a little, as well as an awareness of the facts, but we don't count on jay for those things.

as for "internationalism," that's not a "principle," mon petit cheri, or to put it more carefully, it's not a "principle" that means anything in the bush administration. You don't get to pick one event and say "this proves i'm an internationalist" when everything else about your foreign policy proves you aren't....

Posted by: howard on February 21, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

I dunno, ran, do you think they are capable of planning that far ahead? Seems they are only masterful at reacting, not acting. Which means whe should put a lot more bags of flaming dogshit on their doorsteps.

Posted by: Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 7:47 PM:

Is there no end to Ali G's talent?

...That 'Boutros-Boutros-Boutros Ghali' interview still cracks me up...

Kenji on February 21, 2006 at 8:17 PM:

do you think they are capable of planning that far ahead?

Yep. They're pretty patient, up to the point of getting what they want...Afterwards, not so much; then the 'entitlement of the elite' mentality kicks in and they get real greedy and stupid.

Seems they are only masterful at reacting, not acting.

Working ideals instead of plans forces them into that mode...And the only thing that the national Republicans seem to be good at is planning elections.

Which means whe should put a lot more bags of flaming dogshit on their doorsteps.

Heh. We should be doing that anyway, just for shits and giggles.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Britain has a poor track record on 9/11? That's where the company is headquartered, the UAE just became major share holders. Howie, you do a good job on the personal attacks though which I am thinking qualifies you for a potential DNC leader. Well done!

oh and BTW, I don' think you can use "usefulness" and "international institutions" in the same sentence. (Read: UN)

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

jay my boy: i'm just warming up in my personal attacks on a dipshit like you, but i have nothing to do with the DNC. Would that they were as skilled at personal attacks as the RNC, the masters of the craft.

That said, it's nice to learn from a college republican moron that there was no national security reason to keep the chinese from buying an american oil firm. i suppose this means that the bush administration is merely possessed of anti-chinese bias.

meanwhile, of course, the united arab emirate isn't a shareholder: they are the owner. rather a difference, wouldn't you say? or is that the kind of distinction that eludes the simpleton mind?

as for your inability to understand "usefulness" and "international institutions" in the same sentence, it merely proves my point: neither you nor the bush administration have the slightest interest in "internationalism," so don't go waving it as a principle that bush is upholding.

Posted by: howard on February 21, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

"F"in' "A". the bushcriminal has had at least 2 dozen Bitburg's already and he's still in office. Show's how far the US has further slid down into the repukelican sesspool in 20 years - quite a trend started by ronny the happy idiot and that pile of sewage attwater

Posted by: zoot on February 21, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

grape: Oh, that's easy...What are they typical reasons Dubya takes a stand on anything? A few possibilities:

- Political gain for the GOP (Think Schiavo, gay marriage)
- Coverup some wrongdoing (Plame outing, NSA spying)
- Enrich self or friends/allies (no-bid contracts, John Bolton)

Yes, sure, but #1 and 2 are only means to #3, which is the single consistent thread that runs through every action of this administration. Follow the money, indeed.

And Kenji is cracking me up with the Ali G. and flaming dogshit remarks.

Posted by: shortstop on February 21, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Don't believe this one is a political decision. This one has big bucks for Bushco somewhere in the mix.

Would not be surprised at all to see the Carlyle Group involved in this. All of it done under the secrecy veil of national security.

W is showing Duke Cunningham how corruption is done!

Posted by: RickG on February 21, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

What a bunch of whiners. What, exactly, would lead any of you to question President Bush's judgement?

Oh, right.

Posted by: Noam Sane on February 21, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Not a chance in hell that Bush's base likes this. Did Bush lose a bet or is he out to prove that his rabble will swallow anything? Or is this damage control for the post-Bush Republican party - giving them a chance to boldly distance themselves from him.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on February 21, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Dare I admit it, but you actually got one thing right Howie. The Penisular and Oriental Steam Co. in London was sold to Dubai. My bad. I while I have stated previously that I am against this (another thing you missed) I am now thinking it may be a good idea since you seem so virulently against it. Extending an olive branch to an Arab ally is a good thing, hard for me to believe that a democrat would oppose that but hey stranger things have happened. This London based company has been charged with port security for many years prior to this sale and now since "Arabs" own it, you're against it? Why do you hate Arabs? Also, there was a previous president who had a profound statement regarding building alliances with those with whom you have conflict: Trust but verify. Ring a bell.

The Chinese bid for Unocal is a non-issue. First of all Unocal is small to medium player in the oil markets and only a fraction of their product is distributed in the US. Secondly, most of Unocal's reserves, primarily based in Asia, are under long term contracts, something Beijing would not want to break considering their recent economic surge and presence on the world stage. Again, building allies in unstable parts of the world can ba a good thing, jeez, even Jimmy Carter is a proponent of this Dubai contract. (wait, maybe I should re-think this).

Keep getting angry though Howie, because anger and personal attacks have always played well in the political arena. Good luck in '06 and '08.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

cld: In fact, [Bush family] ties to China are a bit more extensive

Let's not forget, "House of Bush, House of Saud." From Salon, Did the Saudis buy a president?:

How much money has flowed from the House of Saud to the Bush family and its friends and allies over the years? No one will ever know -- but the number is at least $1.477 billion.
If the Saudis had been happy with the presidency of George H.W. Bush -- and they were -- they must have been truly ecstatic, in the summer of 2000, that his son was the Republican candidate for president. Indeed, the relationship between the two dynasties had come a long way since the seventies when Saudi banking billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz and Salem bin Laden had flown halfway around the world to Texas to see James Bath, George W. Bush's old friend from decades before. Even bin Mahfouz's subsequent financing of the Houston skyscraper for James Baker's family bank or the Saudi bailout of Harken Energy that helped George W. Bush make his fortune were small potatoes compared with what had happened since.
The Saudis could give donations to Bush-related charities. They could invest in the Carlyle Group's funds or contract with one of the many companies owned by Carlyle in the defense sector or other industries. (People tied to Carlyle as partners, advisers, counselors or directors of its companies have included the most powerful people in the world: Former president George H.W. Bush, former secretary of state James Baker, former British prime minister John Major, former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci and former head of the Office of Management and Budget Richard Darman.)
More... [reg. req.]

For those who don't know, Salem bin Laden in the aforementioned excerpt is Osama's older brother. Salem died in 1988 when he crashed a plane in San Antonio, Texas. Three months after Salem's death, OBL formed AQ. Just some factoids.

grape_crush: I'd also like to see what connections the Bush family or Cheney has to that company from the UAE...Follow the money, as usual.

Yep, I concur. The Bushies are all about money, money, money and they have profited greatly from their ties to the Saudis and the bin Ladens who invested in Poppy Bush's private equity firm, the Carlyle Group. So I would not be surprised if the Bushies and/or the family's Carlyle Group won't gain from this Dubai port deal in some way if not in many ways. IIRC, the Saudis and the emirates are on good terms.

What a plutocracy! And that applies the USA or the UAE.

howard,
On the mark at 8:15 PM and again at 8:40 PM.


Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Nice to see you, Apollo.

Posted by: shortstop on February 21, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, what you say may be right. I'm going to enjoy the shitstorm just the same.

Trust but verify...hmmm....that's the guy that sold arms to our enemy and subverted the constitution by laundering the money and sending it back out of the country.

His successor pardoned everyone involved before they were charged with a crime, in the process getting himself off the hook.

Then, eight years of relative peace and prosperity, ending with a nice nest-egg, which W promptly confiscated and shared, mostly, with the affluent.

You know the rest - the August 8th memo, 9/11, unnecessary war, another 3000 dead Americans (soon enough), Abu Graib, torture memos, Katrina, and now this.

W's approval ratings are currently 30 points lower than Clinton's when he was impeached - and that's down from 90% after the attack.

Swiftboat this, asshat.

Posted by: Noam Sane on February 21, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Same to you, shortstop.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Lets see:

Cheney= Haliburton no bid contracts. Big bucks for Haliburton.

Rumsfled= Tamiflu for global bird flu. Big bucks for Rumsfeld. (Hes on the board of directors.

Daddy Bush= United Arab Emirates. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes.

Bush better hurry. So many scandals, so little time.

Posted by: Sideline on February 21, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop on February 21, 2006 at 9:16 PM:

Yes, sure, but #1 and 2 are only means to #3, which is the single consistent thread that runs through every action of this administration.

Point taken, and I agree with you fully...means to an end...

Follow the money, indeed.

And the question "Why is he doing this?" is just beginning to be asked...I'm starting to have a feeling that there may be more to this than what's on the surface.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

From the AP article:

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily.

"Voluntarily"???

Let us note for the record that under the Bush Administration, companies that ship millions of giant containers into the US only have to let inspectors check them for nuclear weapons if they, you know, feel like it. If it wouldn't be too inconvenient, or interfere with profits.

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

grape_crush: I'm starting to have a feeling that there may be more to this than what's on the surface.

You can say that again. It's got to be payola as shortstop also pointed out. I mean the Bushies don't do anything without dollar signs attached.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Noam, "eight years of relative peace" Please. Of course I guess you can call it peace when you stick your head in the sand while the Khobar towers, the WTC, the USS Cole and the Murrah building in OK City are attacked. Also, you might want to ask the folks in Waco how at peace they felt while the feds killed them all over a minor weapons charge.

That "guy" was also the guy that ended the cold war and set the stage for all of the "prosperity" in the 90's by giving huge tax incentives for Corporate R&D which led to the technology boom of the 90's. Or did you think Clinton, who was elected in '92 waved a magic wand and instantaneously the economy improved? Is that how it worked?

"Unnecessary" war? I guess we were all just tired of you "pretend" peace when we fail to acknowledge the obvious. Keep plugging along though with these half-baked conspiracies because they are all mainstream issues and will serve you well in the next election. I promise.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Saw this cited over at The Corner. CHRONOLOGY-Major acquisitions by Gulf Arab investors

Feb 16 (Reuters) - United Arab Emirates-based investment company Istithmar PJSC reports that, through $2 billion in participation notes issued by UBS AG, it controls 2.39 percent of Time Warner Inc.'s (TWX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) stock, according to a U.S. regulatory filing on Thursday.
Following is a chronology of some investments and bids by Gulf Arab investors armed with vast quantities of oil cash:
* October 2004 - British water utility South Staffordshire agrees to a 143 million pound ($247.8 million) takeover by Bahrain's First Islamic Investment Bank.
* December 2004 - State-owned Dubai Ports pays $1.15 billion for the global port assets of U.S.-based CSX Corp. (CSX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), outbidding the world's two biggest container port operators.
* January 2005 - The government of Dubai buys a $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler AG (DCXGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), becoming the auto maker's third-largest shareholder. The purchase was made through the government's Dubai Holding company.

More...

Now this is funny! An NRO reader speculated that "we're being bamboozled by the left here..."

LOL!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 21, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jay's so cute, flailing away at delivering his talking points while the adults talk...

And Apollo 13, thanks for the earlier namecheck...fisking is fun...I'm trying to google up some background info on 'portgate', but all I'm getting so far is stuff that's in the public domain...no neat-o conspiracy theory-type stuff yet...

'Tho Treasury Secretary John Snow has some relation from his CSX days.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

apollo, are you trying to make a case for a possible Muslim threat? Remember there is no threat. Just think back to the 90's when it was all peaceful (according to Noam).

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

grape, the adults are talking? And here I thought it was just the ill-mannered name-calling liberals.

Posted by: Jay on February 21, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

And more:

A powerful member of the the Saudi royal family, Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, owns a major stake in Eurodisney and has been instrumental in the past in bailing out the financially troubled amusement park.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, how much do they pay you? We keep asking you guys, and you never respond. Are you paid directly by College Republicans, or is it some other outfit?

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Jay's an insufferable ass, of course, and I don't want to give him any comfort -- but I'm not sure how I feel about this deal. It's not the sort of issue one can make a snap judgment on without reading up on a lot of background.

I *do* think there's some reflexive Islamo-bashing in the general political reaction. Autocratic Gulf State governments aren't run by Islamic radicals -- they're in jeopardy from Islamic radicals every bit as much as we are. Al Qaeda doesn't bomb Saudi Arabia just for practice ...

That said, there is no doubt a genuine infiltration issue, and we are dealing with shipping large containers which aren't adequately inspected as it stands. Even if the Coast Guard remains in charge of security, it's a little unnerving to have to worry that much more about our already barely-inspected ship containers ...

Politically, though -- it's a fucking *howler*. Do I believe this is staged, a la ranaaurora? No, I don't think so. It was an inside dealie, possibly to make Bush money but definitely to reward a friendly Gulf state for some reason legit or illegit.

I don't think opposing Bush makes the Republicans look all that good. Oppose the head of the party just makes the party look that much more incoherent and fragmenting. If this becomes the *very first* veto of Bush's presidency, the symbol of a sweet deal for the A-rabs is going to rattle the red-staters enough to make it, umm, quite insteresting.

We'll see. I've got to go read up.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on February 21, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

That's a pretty weak troll, Jay...I'll give it a 2 out of a possible 10.

Now run along; we'll play later when you become more interesting.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

A powerful member of the the Saudi royal family, Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, owns a major stake in Eurodisney

Well, that explains why there's been no recent "Aladdin" sequel. Unless it was actually the Bush Administration getting worried that Iraqi prime minister Al-Jafaari wouldn't appreciate another film featuring an evil caliph named "Jafaar" who rules over Baghdad...

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush family has long had a creepy, incestuous relationship with many oil sheiks, from Salem bin Laden bankrolling Dubya's first business failure to Bush meeting with Prince Bani Sadr shortly after 9-11 to allowing the bin Ladens to flee the country after 9-11 without being interrogated (tortured?) for what they knew about the whereabouts of Osama.

All of this is O.K. with the hard right-wingers who care only about winning/stealing elections and nothing about integrity, honesty or cozing up to those who routinely bend Americans over an oil barrel and ream out our assh*les...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 21, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, shush. the grownups are talking now.

Posted by: cleek on February 21, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

That's gotta hurt.

Posted by: Sideline on February 21, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 10:18 PM:

Well, that explains why there's been no recent "Aladdin" sequel.

It also possibly explains the snag concerning the release of Farenheit 9/11...Also, Disney owns ABC, so you naturally have to wonder how all of that together affects what we see on the news.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

alas, poor jay, suffering from reading comprehension issues as well as college republican brainwashing.

at 5:22, i noted the foolishness of bush's line in the sand from a political standpoint.

at 7:19, i made explicit reference to the fact that you don't like the deal, and you're part of the base that he cares about, and wondered again why he would think he was defending some great principle rather than say "i'm going to ask the committee to review this again," especially given that rumsfeld, supposedly part of the unanimous approval, claims not to have heard of this approval until this weekend.

at 8:15 i pointed out the silliness of thinking that bush was defending the principle of "internationalism," and at 8:40 i noted that your seething hatred of the UN pretty much proved my point that "internationalism" isn't the issue here.

and from this, you intuit that: a.) i don't approve of this; b.) that i am guilty of stupid generalizations about "arabs;" c.) that i hate "arabs," which is to say that you made up shit out of whole cloth. no surprise there.

my comments were on the politics of this, because, oddly enough my sweet, that's what kevin's original posting was about. i'm of mixed feelings about the deal itself although leaning against it because this is a national security matter, but at no point have i written a single syllable about how i personally think about this issue. "b" and "c" were just your typical college-republican level projection: like i say, you've got a response for everything and knowledge of nothing.

now, as for china and unocal: did the administration go the mat on that one? why gosh and golly, no they didn't. they allowed the "national security" issue to carry the field, which is to say, they have no principled stand of "internationalism," which, again, is my point.

your foolishness about the clinton years, both in terms of terrorism and in terms of the economy, is quite marked, but since they are well off-topic, i won't spend any more time on them.

as for "anger," my poor blithering ass: you have not a single original thought in your head. i'm not "angry" in the slightest at you or the electorate: you're simply a pathetic (but charming, oh so charming, which is why i'm on record as "enjoying" you) example of the mindless college republican propaganda robot and i despise you for it, but i'm not angry. The electorate i'm never angry at.

i'm angry at george bush and dick cheney and karl rove for the thuggish and stuipd way they run the country, but that's what we call "justified" anger.

Apollo 13: thanx as always!

Posted by: howard on February 21, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Mo Money!...From a different thread:

Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF New York Daily News WASHINGTON -
The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House. One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Starting to see some dots; wonder if they'll make a full picture.

Posted by: grape_crush on February 21, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

The world looks more and more like "Syriana".

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 21, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Brosz, rdw, FF, et al: the bill is due. I blame you all for your moronic parroting of talking points and shouting down reasonable alternatives within the GOP. You are all to blame when this crashes down. How much can you trust this administration on anything? Only a moron would go back to stand-in for the whack-a-mole president at this stage.

Posted by: Sparko on February 21, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

howard, Apollo 13--

Has it been stupid lately? I can't tell. All I see are rdw posts.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 21, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

pale rider, our new friend jay certainly spouts a lot of nonsense, but i'd say that, by and large, the old bush-enabling spirit and the stupidity it spawned ain't what it used to be.

Posted by: howard on February 21, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Pale,

Stupid as always. Nothing new. SSDD.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 22, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, "Of course I guess you can call it peace when you stick your head in the sand while the Khobar towers, the WTC, the USS Cole and the Murrah building in OK City are attacked."

Let's see, one, two, three, four. Yes, four bombs. And crooks associated with all four bombs promptly arrested and jailed.

How many bombs went off in Iraq today?


Jay, "Also, you might want to ask the folks in Waco how at peace they felt while the feds killed them all over a minor weapons charge."

The military advisor at Waco and the fellow who specifically recommended the gas attack, was Famous Fruitcake General Boykin, now in charge of military intelligence in Iraq. "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army," sez Boykin. You have to admit, he has the gift for gab.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

And let's not forget the United Arab Emirates have recently purchased Michael Jackson for some unfathomable purpose.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

It's amusing how clueless all you clowns are about this country (the UAE). The "infiltration" meme is especially absurd - al Qaeda poses a much greater risk to this country than the US, so the UAE has done, and does much more than the US in combatting and controling it. The "poor track record" meme is equally as absurd. Before 9/11 this country had lax bank regulation. Now, after 9/11, it doesn't. You guys have no idea what they've done here to combat radicalism, but its a lot more than you'll ever know.

Heck, they're not even all that het up about the cartoonifada, I mean, I can still buy Carlsberg in the liquor store across the street from my villa.

But hey, I guess the "all ragheads are terrorists" notion plays well in the 'burbs.

Posted by: bartman on February 22, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

ABC News just ran a story saying this is all just an embarrassing mix-up.

Bush misread the report that Homeland Security had prepared for him on the issue of port security.

He thought it said that "Dubya" would be in charge of all the ports, not "Dubai."

Posted by: Windhorse on February 22, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

UAE may be the Denmark of the Middle East, but my concern is simply that I don't think any foreign entity should control any US port facilities.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Another visiting troll thus sayeth: It's amusing how clueless all you clowns are about this country (the UAE). The "infiltration" meme is especially absurd....

Save your scorn for your leaders. And clean up your filthy DeLay-Abramoff-Libby-Reed-Etc. pigsty while you're at it.

What do Repubs have to say about Dubai? NYTimes, Feb. 21, 2006:

The confrontation between Mr. Bush and his own supporters escalated rapidly after the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, joined Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Gov. George E. Pataki and a host of other Republicans in insisting that the transaction must be extensively reviewed, if not killed. That put them on essentially the same side of the issue as a chorus of Democrats, who have seized on the issue to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.

Now run along. You've got an uprising on your hands. A lot more liberals hang out here than Bushie's base to propagandize even though it's hard to tell sometimes when Mellon Scaife troll spittle breaches the levies.

But hey, I guess the "all ragheads are terrorists" notion plays well in the 'burbs.

Why do you hate America? LOL! Uh, sorry. Backlash from cons asking libs that question one time too many. Jay already done it upthread.

Down s'here in the Deep Ole South, a bastion of red-state diehards, Bushie wingnut heads are spinning in the 'burbs and particularly in rural areas. Heh. Deal with it. The GOP stirs up evil-doer hatred and then points fingers at liberals. Nah, it's your fart that stinks and the base got a good whiff of it. Red-state Southerners were gobsmacked straight into irate over the "gull-durned furiners" taking over everything. With NOLA on the list, and still reeling from Katrina, the Deep South ain't too happy. Dubya's Dubai veto announcement ain't flying well either.

Might be something to ranaaurora's comment at 8:14 PM. Hmm. If we see a spate of GOP presidential contenders and if-y incumbents going on record against Dubya and taking a stand with Frist, something smells like a Turdblossom. Interesting conclusion from conservative Bob Barr in today's op/ed, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution [Emphasis added]: "If these guys were serious about improving the integrity of and security at U.S. ports, a little housecleaning by a company not beholden to the unions and the status quo might be just what the doctor ordered." Oh, yes. There had to be a reddish silver lining somewhere.

In the meantime, I'm getting an education on how extensively entrenched offshore companies are in American seaports. Understandable in import/export but still!

Windhorse: He thought it said that "Dubya" would be in charge of all the ports, not "Dubai."

ROTFLMAO!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 22, 2006 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

a little housecleaning by a company not beholden to the unions

Oh, yeah. Terrorism is the fault of...unions.

If you asked these guys "Have you, finally, no shame?", they'd respond, "What do I have to be ashamed of?"

Posted by: brooksfoe on February 22, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

This is not an 'arab' issue. It is a 'Bush trust or lack there of' issue.

If you still trust this administration, and you are NOT on the payroll, seek professional help.

Posted by: msbuch72 on February 22, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

It is interesting to see now how some of the REPUB elite -- John Warner and John McCain -- are now backtracking on opposing the Prez on the Dubai issue. Wait a minute! We have to give the Prez the benefit of the doubt here? I don't think so. This is SO wrong, I am shaking with rage that bushco thinks it can do this and get away with it.

The real story now should be what is in it for the Bush family? There must be a connection to the Carlyle Group and Dubai, and the quid pro quo is definitely out there; we just need to have full disclosure and a proper investigation not conducted by the administration itself. I'm thinking this can be another of the issues used to bring impeachment proceedings against the fatuous president. We need to get the Republicans out of office so we can get these hearings going -- and as soon as possible.

This administration is so reprehensible, so greedy, so incompetent, it is hard to understand how they have not been dragged off to jail already.

Posted by: marvc on February 22, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly