WHAT'S THIS? NATIONAL REVIEW?
WHATTA BUNCH OF KNEE-JERK UNINFORMED LEFT-WING PROTECTIONIST NATIVIST POLL-DRIVEN RACIST CRACKERS!
DID I MENTION THEY'RE RACISTS?
BUSH IN 2008!!!!!
-Dan
Posted on 03/03/2006 9:36:59 AM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The 45-day delay for more investigation into the United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World looked last week like a port in a political storm. Now it looks more like a trap.
The 45-day review at best freezes the debate in place, preserving a status quo in which the White House is taking a political pounding. At worst, it allows the opponents of the deal, who have the offensive, to keep picking away at it, whether by airing (and distorting) past Coast Guard concerns about DP World or highlighting the company's participation in the Arab boycott of Israel. The White House, incredibly, is on the wrong side of a 70-20 national-security issue that has more resonance than the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency wiretapping program. This is simply a debacle, shaping up as a lose-lose for Bush. If he loses on the Hill, he will be humiliated and identified with the unpopular deal. If he wins, it’s hard to see how he won't be doing so against the grain of public opinion, harming himself on national security in a cause — having DP World manage the terminals — that is not of fundamental importance.
The deal is unpopular among Republicans — almost 60 percent of whom oppose it, according to polls. The ports controversy is actually wreaking the damage on Bush's political base that the Harriet Miers nomination only threatened to inflict. Congressional Republicans aren’t going to let Sen. Chuck Schumer, who will surely find a reason to oppose the deal no matter what, get to their right on port security, and many of them actively want to split with the president on a high-profile issue.
Although many of our friends have sincere doubts about the deal, we have yet to hear a compelling argument against it. So it is with regret that we say the deal should be jettisoned. That seems to be where the trajectory of this controversy is headed anyway, and the sooner it happens the less painful it will be for the administration. There are many more important issues on which Bush should, nay must, spend his dwindling political capital, the war in Iraq foremost among them. To realize this is to prioritize, not to panic.
Nixing the deal will be a blow to our relationship with the UAE, but Bush should get credit from them for fighting for the deal and sticking up for Dubai. Surely there will be some subtle way to compensate the UAE in another area. Bush's credibility with Congress — after his veto threat and saber rattling — will take a blow. But not as large a blow as he would suffer if he kept fighting and lost (or if the issue were to stay red hot and contribute to a GOP loss of Congress). Republican members of Congress will surely be relieved to put the controversy behind them.
The technicalities of how to do that will have to be worked out, but the 45-day delay itself shows that, in this case, the legalities can be massaged to suit the politics. Whatever the exit strategy ultimately is, it won't be pretty. But nothing about this episode has been edifying. Bush should get out as soon as he can.
-Dan
Silly nonsense. PresBush hasn't killed one terrorist himself.
One thing is for sure, you're killing what little credibility you had left on FreeRepublic prior to this DPW/UAE ports issue.
"We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port outside the United States," Franks told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
The former Iraq war commander explained U.S. reliance on the Dubai port facility by saying, "We know he difference between an enemy and a friend."
"The Emirates is a friend," Franks aid. "That is the best run port that I've ever seen."
I'll go with Gen. Tommy Franks's real experience.
One thing is for sure, you're killing what little credibility you had left on FreeRepublic prior to this DPW/UAE ports issue
Well you are FR's resident expert on nonsense.
Will wait for your inevidible whine that I am stomping on your 1st amendment rights.
Freedom of the press can be a bitch. :)
-Dan
Yep, and freedom to criticize the press can be a bitch for the "all knowing" press.
So far, so good.
Still, defending this DPW/UAE ports deal is a deadend road for you harpies.
MATTHEWS: Great to have you here. You're an expert.Rob Scavone is the executive vice president, general counsel at P&O Ports, North America, which presently runs the ports the Dubai Ports World is seeking to operate. Mr. Scavone, will remain in his job when Dubai Ports World acquires P&O Ports, North America. He's here to discuss port security only.
Help me out here. This is a question we keep asking on the show. When a container moves from another port to one of the American ports, one of the six American ports, who is responsible for making sure nothing dangerous is carried in those containers?
ROB SCAVONE, P&O PORTS EXECUTIVE: That would first be the shipper who owns the cargo, followed by the vessel operator, the container carrier, then the customs or governmental authorities in the port where the vessel is loaded, some of whom allow U.S. customs authorities to screen and inspect cargo there. And finally, by customs and border protection in the U.S. Coast Guard when the vessel arrives in the United States.
The information on the contents of the container, the manifest information that the vessel operator has, is sent electronically to customs officials in the United States before the vessel is loaded, but that information, people may be surprised to learn, is not given to us. Customs knows what's in the boxes. The vessel operator knows what's in the boxes, but we are not advised what's in the boxes.
MATTHEWS: What I'm trying to get at if something were dangerous to come into the country, a container of nerve gas for example, who would the terrorists have to bribe or deal with to get past? If you wanted to put a container of nerve gas aboard one of these containers, who would you have to get past to get that done or have a good chance of that getting through?
SCAVONE: You've highlighted the main issue that we do try to address and our government tries to address, which is the point of origin of the container, and that is where our security efforts have primarily been focused.
MATTHEWS: But whatever the answer is to that question, it doesn't relate to what happens once the container reaches the ground in the United States and certainly has nothing to do with who owns that particular terminal operator.
MATTHEWS: Well, the terminal operator, in other words, in this case, Dubai Ports World, and you as one of their assets, your company, P&O, would you check what was in the container, or does it simply go to the address who it's addressed to and they get to open it?
SCAVONE: No, we follow the instructions of customs. They tell us what containers they want to inspect, among those that they haven't inspected before the vessel was loaded. We give the containers physically to them. That, by the way, is done by our longshoremen. Nobody moves, touches or even counts a box unless he's a longshoreman.
Customs takes it, they do whatever they want to do with it, whether it's non-intrusive inspection with x-rays or radiation detection or whether it's physically opening the box and restuffing it. Then they give it back to us. Nothing leaves any one of our terminals until Customs and Border Protection allows us to release it to the cargo owner.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me put it this way. If something dangerous comes into the United States and explodes on Broadway or somewhere else, and we find it came in, in one of the containers, who would we got to find out how it happened?
SCAVONE: You would start with customs, because they would have all the information about vessel loading and contents and whatnot, and then you would trace back through the vessel carrier to the point of origin and their customers. Highly unlikely the terminal operator in the United States would have anything to add to that equation.
MATTHEWS: So he wouldn't—your company would not feel a duty to start sniffing around these containers and opening them up because why? Why wouldn't you do that?
SCAVONE: It's not our property. The containers are sealed before they are dispatched from the foreign country, and one of the whole principles of containerization is that that seal remains on until it's received by the cargo owner in the United States.
Whatever Todd, when you let out "ratty rat rat" your gig is up.
LOL I must admit, I'm at a loss for words.
But if your PINGing the Head Bush Sycophant to this thread, you must have troublemaking in mind.
That is precisely the kind of destructive attitude that so many conservatives and Bush loyalists have long encouraged (or at least not protested against) for quite some time. Now, they are giving lectures on xenophobia? Too little, too late. The Bush loyalists can hardly surprised when the genie of xenophobia they released (or at least let run free) ultimately bites them in the butt.
Detractors of this deal, Dims and Repubs alike, are looking more and more like shrill xenophobes with their objections.
This might be why there's less discussion of it, eh? Merits of the debate aside, supporters of the deal have given themselves a rhetorical black eye. They sound like RATs.
In what way has Bush promoted, encouraged, or passively tolerated xenophobia?
Many here on FR equate all muslims with terrorists out to kill all christians who won't convert to Islam, but Bush hasn't. And I sure don't either.
Please cite one speech where Bush appears xenophobic.
Kinda of actually. This NRO editorial states there is nothing wrong with the deal, yet NRO is advocating a crouch in the corner and sucking the thumb in the fetal position, because of oversampled democrat polls.
At least I'm for something, not against everything.
It must suck to be you.
Okay, the flypaper is out. Lets see how many FRiendly flies you draw.
It's one thing to oppose the terminal deal because you believe it is bad policy. I can respect that opinion if even if I don't agree. But it is something else entirely to oppose it not because it is bad policy, but because it is politically unpopular. I'm not exactly sure who you mean by "Hamiltonians", but NRO's gutless stance on this makes them persona non grata to me.
If by "flypaper" you're referring to your personal attack on me -- without having the courtesy of pinging me, I might add -- you're right, it pretty much does look like something flies would stick to.
Now you can do what you always do: hit the abuse button and whine about being personally attacked.
I said Bush loyalists, not Bush *directly* himself. Also, I noted that these loyalists had generally tolerated xenophobes like Ann Coulter and the the "sand jockey" crowd at Little Green Footballs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.