|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 75 of 154:
| 
Feb 24 21:50 UTC 2006 |
My examples are from the GW book of "Shock, shag, and Awe" where we ignore
Mugabe in Zimbabwe and pretend Saddam is the baddest man on the Earth (cuz
we didn't find any WMD.) Meanwhile, all our foreign policies are actually
based on any money deals we can grab for our Arab business partners of the
past.
|
i
|
|
response 76 of 154:
|
Feb 26 13:35 UTC 2006 |
Considering how long this fuss has lasted, i don't see any explanation
except willfully ignorant efforts to look like stupid, bigoted jingoists
fitting the facts.
That's about a comforting as seeing the politicians involved show up at
Klan rallies and talk loudly about "protecting white rights".
Has any mainstream American media outlet shown any interest in the facts
yet, or is "Two-headed Bat-boy Born in Cave!" selling too well for them
to bother with any stupid facts?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 154:
|
Feb 26 19:50 UTC 2006 |
I'm still waiting for the facts. A few have come out, such as there will be
no change in local administration and employment - but I'm not sure how much
I believe what some have said to that effect. I'd like the whole story. I'm
not even sure *why* foreign companies manage any of our ports. Who is paying
who less to do what?
|
gull
|
|
response 78 of 154:
|
Feb 27 06:27 UTC 2006 |
I just think it's funny to see Bush hoist by his own petard. When he
was busy making sure were were scared of those Ay-rabs he should have
thought about the effect it'd have on business deals with 'em.
|
klg
|
|
response 79 of 154:
|
Feb 27 12:11 UTC 2006 |
Although, it shows a lot more about, to quote Chas. Krauthammer, "those
idiots in Congress."
|
bru
|
|
response 80 of 154:
|
Feb 27 13:16 UTC 2006 |
Heard some more on this today from an ex-CIA analyst. He says that the CIA
knew Bin Laden was seeking a Nuke to use against the U.S. in 1996, and that
the CIA was in position 10 times to take him out before 9/11. Do you remember
the Clinton irdered air strike on the abandoned camp in 1999? Seems that
Osama was visiting some friends from the Emerite, and someone in the
Administration called and told the Emerites to move becasue they did not want
to have an Emirite prince killed in the strike. Tehy probably told Osama to
get out of town as well.
So the UAE not only funneled money and other support to the hijackers, they
were close friends of Bin Laden.
Now, that being said, they have done a lot since 9/11 to not perticipate in
any terrorist activities, adn even sent troops to Iraq to help the U.S.
effort.
They are also allowing Private U.S. companies to build a Spaceport for
Tourism. I have talked directly to a number of UAE princes and their military
excort last year, adn they struck me as ratehr canny businessmen, but very
attuned to their privelaged status. They do not think highly of americans,
but I get the feeling they don't think highly of anyone who is not an Emerite.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 81 of 154:
|
Feb 27 15:34 UTC 2006 |
>>>> So the UAE not only funneled money and other support to the hijackers,
they were close friends of Bin Laden.
So let's attack Iraq.
>>>>Now, that being said, they have done a lot since 9/11 to not perticipate
in any terrorist activities, adn even sent troops to Iraq to help the U.S.
effort.
That's like a blank statement , without any proof. How are you absolutely
certain that UAE doesn't support any terrorist activities. Are you similarly
certain about Saudi Arabia ? or Pakistan ? they also are helping the US with
their GOAT ( Global Onslaught Againts Terrorism ).
|
bru
|
|
response 82 of 154:
|
Feb 27 20:10 UTC 2006 |
I don't, other than the reports from the government and the news reports I
have seen and read.
Thats why I still don't like this idea, but I am not totally against it
either.
|
richard
|
|
response 83 of 154:
|
Feb 28 01:10 UTC 2006 |
When the bipartisan anti-Dubai deal supporters in the Congress said
that if Bush vetoed their bill to kill the deal, that they would
override it. The funny thing is what the news reports said Bush was
planning to do if there was an override vote-- he was organizing his
staunchest supporters in congress to do a filibuster in the Senate.
Thats right, the same President Bush who wants to do away with the
filibuster, wanted to use it here. Is that hypocritical or what?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 84 of 154:
|
Feb 28 01:24 UTC 2006 |
It's not hypocritical.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 85 of 154:
|
Feb 28 02:08 UTC 2006 |
I wouldn't say it's hypocritical, but it's a bit strange that Bush came
out full-bore in support of the deal, and then admitted/claimed that
he'd only just found out about it via news reports.
Which isn't to say I'm against (or for) this deal--I don't know enough
to give an intelligent opinion on it. The only thing that particularly
worries me (from both a security and economic perspective) is that the
more I hear, the more it sounds as though there was precious little
oversight before approving the deal. But, two thoughts: 1)I keep
hearing, "they won't have anything to do with port security", but
whether true or not, they would (presumably) have access to all sorts of
info bad guys would find extremely valuable, so whomever runs the port
darn well better be trustworthy. 2)I wonder if those who accuse the
deal's opponents of paranoia or racism would feel differently if the new
port boss was, say, Iran or North Korea or Libya.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 86 of 154:
|
Feb 28 03:39 UTC 2006 |
Bush doesn't want to do away with the filibuster, he wants it eliminated
from proceedings involving Federal Judges and Supreme Court nominees.
How is seeking a filibuster on some legislation concerning ports
hypocritical?
|
klg
|
|
response 87 of 154:
|
Feb 28 03:41 UTC 2006 |
ard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard
LIES
I have never heard President Bush support a ban on the filibuster,
except to say that in cases of advise and consent, judicial nominees
deserve a vote. Your typical Left Wing lies are showing.
gain -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES again -- Richard LIES --
Richar
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 154:
|
Feb 28 17:26 UTC 2006 |
klg is lying again, bush and his people have openly advocated eliminating the
filibuster altogether.
and mcnally, how is it not hypocritical for bush to have suggested use of the
filibuster after having suggested its elimination?
|
klg
|
|
response 89 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:01 UTC 2006 |
If that is true, then RW ought to have no problem substantiating his
claim.
But he didn't.
|
twenex
|
|
response 90 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:06 UTC 2006 |
You just contradicted yourself. Learn to speak English. And i say that
condescendingly not as an American-hater, but as a cretin hater.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 91 of 154:
|
Feb 28 18:45 UTC 2006 |
Bush and his minions threatened to put the kibosh on filibusters for
judicial nominations. They claimed they planned to do so *only* for
said nominations, but of course it would be easy enough to use the same
procedure ("nuclear option") for any filibuster. Guess it comes down to
how much one trusts the word of Bush & Frist & Co.
|
richard
|
|
response 92 of 154:
|
Feb 28 19:51 UTC 2006 |
johnnie you can't put the kibosh on filibusters for judicial nominations
unless you kill it altogether. bill frist, the majority leader, made it clear
that he wanted to get rid of the filibuster altogether. as did bush.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:16 UTC 2006 |
Of course, the Republican ONLY suggested killing fillibusters because they
are in the majority in Congress. If they weren't they'd be speaking
differently. Sheer hypocrisy.
|
tod
|
|
response 94 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:28 UTC 2006 |
THey wanted to kill fillibusters cuz they like to kill.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 95 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:33 UTC 2006 |
I bet C-SPAN ratings would improve dramatically if they replaced it
with a kill-ibuster.. "You can confirm Judge Alito over the Judiciary
Committee Members' dead bodies.. Raaaaarrrrghhh!"
|
klg
|
|
response 96 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:34 UTC 2006 |
Richard - Were you asleep? The "nuclear option" was to have barred
filibusters for judicial nominations only.
Here is how it was reported in The Hill:
A group of 14 Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal that will
avert the use of the so-called "nuclear option" to end the judicial
filibuster - at least for a time.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 154:
|
Feb 28 20:34 UTC 2006 |
GW is actually referring to Cheney's alter-ego "Vito"
|
nharmon
|
|
response 98 of 154:
|
Feb 28 21:10 UTC 2006 |
I think eliminating the filibusters on even judicial nominations is a
bad idea, and if the republicans were not the majority party they would
not be suggesting it.
But the point here is that nobody seems interested in posting an actual
quote where Bush has advocated removing all filibusters. Or did I miss
it?
|
richard
|
|
response 99 of 154:
|
Feb 28 21:32 UTC 2006 |
I wasn't talking about the compromise "nuclear option" they worked out, I'm
talking about what Bush and Frist *actually* wanted to do.
|