STILLWELL: Bush and the Ports: The Honeymoon Is Over

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/8/6 | Cinnamon Stillwell

[SmithL]

When the story broke that the Bush administration had approved a British-owned company's sale of U.S. port operations to one headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, all hell broke loose.

The company at hand, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, so not only would we be handing over operations of our ports to yet another foreign company, but also to a foreign government. The fact that the deal was approved without the legally authorized 45-day investigation normally required when acquisition by a foreign government and security concerns are involved, certainly doesn't help. Then there was President Bush's claim that he knew nothing about the deal until after it had been approved, which wasn't terribly reassuring.

On top of it all, the original report that only six ports were affected by the deal turned out to be misleading. It is in fact 21 ports that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard. For some reason, much of the media continues to report the lower figure.

The firestorm over the ports deal has exposed a rift on the right and a political opportunity for the left.

[sarasota]

In other words, the Republican Party is dooooooomed.

[SmithL]

Seen the Light Ping

FReepMail me if you want on, or off this low-volume Ping list.

[Wasanother]

There was also an incurable rift for the Patriot Act and the NSA program yet for everyone of these rifts the Republican's have been able to overcome them and pass good alternative agreements. This will be the same process.

[tx_eggman]

Cinnamon Stillwell

Gotta wonder how she worked her way through journalism school ...

[SmithL]

You have questions, we have answers:

The making of a 9/11 Republican

[MNJohnnie]

Another. OH How I wish, I wish this were reality. Another example of a Junk Journalist who writes a story based on what she WANTs to believe, not what the reality is.

[MNJohnnie]

The company at hand, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, so not only would we be handing over operations of our ports

I see the Port Deal Hysterics in the pay of the Democrat Party sill WILL NOT report the truth. 9 terminals, out of 300, in 6 Ports is NOT "handing over operations of our ports". When they tell you THIS lie in the third week of the story, despite it being nuked since about the 3rd day of the story, you can pretty much plan on everything in the article being distortions, lies and hysteria.

[tx_eggman]

You have questions, we have answers:

Thanks for the link, I'll start paying attention to her.

[eskimo]

The company at hand, Dubai Ports World, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, so not only would we be handing over operations of our ports

I see the Port Deal Hysterics in the pay of the Democrat Party sill WILL NOT report the truth.

What was not true?

[Right Cal Gal]

But as Charles Krauthammer pointed out, all this hand-wringing by Dimmis is posturing hypocrisy. Because if they attempted to search a Middle Eastern dressed in a burnoose, speaking Arabic and acting suspicious in the airport, this leftist b***h would be the first one screaming "RACIST! PROFILING!"

[Wasanother]

If I'm recalling correctly, a bill passed in both Chambers of Congress will not become law until it's either signed by the President or 30 days have passed to where the President has neither signed or vetoed the bill and a law can not be enforced retroactively.

[Echo Talon]

On top of it all, the original report that only six ports were affected by the deal turned out to be misleading. It is in fact 21 ports that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard. For some reason, much of the media continues to report the lower figure.

Sniff sniff, just because you manage 1 terminal at a port does NOT mean you control the whole port.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Let me know if you ever get an answer to that question. Not insults as usual, but an answer.

[eskimo]

I will if it isn't just more hysteria.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

Bush must go.
Spending billions to kill Iraquis won't keep us safe.
Closing the borders will, but Bush is totally and willfully incompetent in this matter.
Bush must go.

[goodnesswins]

I'll bite....we are NOT "handing over operation of our ports." There are TERMINALS (landing places for barges/ships) which will have individuals (Americans, union members) working there who will now get a paycheck from a Dubai Company instead of a British Company.

[Wasanother]

Have we been attacked on our soil since 911?

[clawrence3]

You mean other than "handing over operations of our ports", "45-day investigation normally required", "President Bush's claim that he knew nothing about the deal until after it had been approved, which wasn't terribly reassuring", "21 ports that are at stake, which would give the United Arab Emirates control over almost every major shipping terminal on the Eastern Seaboard"?

Read more at sfgate.com

[SmithL]

Bush must go.

It sure looks like he'll never be reelected.