Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S.

AP via yahoo.com ^ | March, 10 2006 | JENNIFER LOVEN

[McGavin999]

I've always been shocked at just how dumb these guys are. They get elected because they are charismatic and not because of their brains. They hire a staff (people who for the most part have spent their entire careers in DC) to keep them informed, but when asked questions, most of them don't even know what is in the bills they have sponsored.

[mad_as_he$$]

Your post is full of wild assumptions and faulty logic. We could easily win a war against 1.2 billion Muslims if we really wanted to. Bush in his wildest dreams wouldn't even think of it. After all just last week he called Pakistan a "great Arab nation".

[RS]

" We could easily win a war against 1.2 billion Muslims if we really wanted to. "

Just what does "win a war" mean in the context of terrorist attacks ?

[mad_as_he$$]

Easy no more Muslims.

[RS]

So your intention is to convert by the sword or put to death 20% of the population of the Earth ?

[sanjacjake]

This whole thing, with some of the comments on yhis
subject, reminds me of the Civil Rights controversies
in the 60s's. The Blacks will never get off welfare...
the Blacks will never integrate with whites..etc...now
it's the middle east...Muslims,etc. What pctg. of them are actual siuiciders, killers,etc. What percentage of
our killers are part of an ethnic group? Do we banish
them from our society? I think Bush was/is on the right
path, but he has the same tendency to rush into these
situations without the proper explanations,,,,,, Jake

[John Valentine]

Wrong on all counts.

Our government was NOT created "to protect individual rights" - although that was ONE of the underlying principles of its organization. It was created to to ensure our mutual security.

"Free trade has made unwilling individuals sacrifice their livlihoods" is a socialist utterance If I ever heard one. Nobody at any time in the history of our nation has ever asserted that any individual had a "right" to any given livlihood. Such an assertion is absurd for two reasons.

First it is beyond the power of the government to ensure, except by robbing other unwilling citizens to pay for work they otherwise would not buy. Second, it is incompatible with the purposes of ensuring the GENERAL welfare, which requires that government consider foremost the aggregate effects of its policies.

So, far from being "utterly incongruent with the responsibilities of the federal government and violates the spirit of the US Constitution", free trade, such as it exists (and it most assuredly does not) is entirey consistent with, and in furtherance of, the express purposes and intentions of our Constitution.

[John Valentine]

I would rather have an American owned and operated company to run the ports.

And I'd rather drive a Bentley. So what?

What is it about the running of cargo terminals that makes you think that you ought to have a say in the ownership of the companies that own the operating rights?

This is a purely commercial deal that has nothing whatsoever to do with your thoughts, feelings or concerns unless you happen to be a stockholder.

Also, why are you coming to this party just now?

Where have you been for the paast fifty years? American cargo terminals have had a number of foreign owners, including companies from Norway, Britain, Holland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China and others for decades.

You are either a Democrat trying to make points on a manufactured crisis, or you are part of their stampede.

I'll stick with ignorant in either scenario.

[XJarhead]

Do you realize that there are thousands of crimes in the U.S. that use money funnelled through the U.S. banking system, or that are financed by Americans? Yet, we don't consider our own country or our own banking system complicit in those crimes, do we? Because most of us are intelligent enough to realize that even an honest system can be misused by bad people.

Likewise, the mere fact that some hijackers hailed from the UAE, or that some bad money was moved through the UAE banking system, doesn't mean that the leaders of that country are evil.

Given your name, your position on this is quite the irony. Reagan named the Soviets the "Evil Empire", yet he worked with Gorbachev in Iceland to try to find common ground on security issues. And that was with the Soviet Union, a country overtly dedicated to our destruction. Not with a country like the UAE that has, for more than a decade, played welcoming host to the busiest non-domestic U.S. naval base in the world. Without a single security breach, terrorist incident, or assault on military personnel on liberty in the city. Not one.

[hedgetrimmer]

Our government was NOT created "to protect individual rights"

Only if you're not an American.

Ensure mutual security?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Free trade has made unwilling individuals sacrifice their livelihoods" is a socialist utterance If I ever heard one.

How old are you? I am curious to know as many people just getting out of high school seem to have no concept of the rights of individual liberty. Far from being socialist, the idea that ones individual liberty is protected by all goes back to our founding. However, the "free traders" have turned this upside down, saying individuals must give up their liberty so that whole sectors of our domestic economy can be traded away so that our USTR can broker trade agreements. Don't you see that this is wrong? A true American doesn't make individuals unwillingly pay a price for the whole society. That is the socialist concept and that is a mechanism of "free trade".

First it is beyond the power of the government to ensure, except by robbing other unwilling citizens to pay for work they otherwise would not buy.

So now the government must ensure that "free traders" can use slave labor via "free trade" agreements because that is the only labor they are willing to pay for? Because the US taxpayer through the federal government IS paying for this, and undermining their own future at the same time. Once you get a government guarantee to protect slave labor as a means of producing our goods, as in our "free trade" agreements with China, India, Viet Nam and so forth do, it is only a matter of time before slave labor becomes the norm once again in the United States.

Second, it is incompatible with the purposes of ensuring the GENERAL welfare,

So preserving individual rights DOESN'T promote the general welfare of the country? How so, if the government is predicated on protecting individual rights, how can denying them to our citizens promote the general welfare?

free trade, such as it exists (and it most assuredly does not) is entirey consistent with, and in furtherance of, the express purposes and intentions of our Constitution.

Really? Is that why our founders decided that TARIFFS were a constitutional way to fund the federal government? We all know that income tax was created so that the "free traders" could put the burden of paying for the government on wage earners and thus allowing them to eliminate constitutional funding of the government and give them leeway to enact "free trade" policies.

I am afraid everything you have said is wrong on all counts.

[hedgetrimmer]

What is it about the running of cargo terminals that makes you think that you ought to have a say in the ownership of the companies that own the operating rights?

National security. All American citizens must have a voice in this matter, it is their duty.

Do you think for one minute, when we as a country, were in other wars, that the US allowed foreign agents to operate their ports? If we are truly in a war, the WOT, why would we let anyone other than loyal Americans operate port facilities on our coasts? To let any other country access would fly in the face of nearly 300 years of securing our nation in order to capitulate to the "free traders" who disdain American independence. Or maybe you believe this isn't a serious war, that its just an artifice of the corrupt "free traders" in power, and we have no security risks at this time.

[samm1148]

I've spent ten hours now pouring over this port deal. What was lacking in the whole thing was an explanation of just why DPW was the best choice. Now I'm so darn conservative that I think of myself as to the right of Rush Limbaugh. So it was not without recrimination that I found myself seemingly on the other side.

One of the things I wanted to do since the pro-deal people could provide no clear, logical, concise reason why the deal should go forth (beyond that of which "you are an racist, sexist, homophobe if you oppose it). I tried my darndest and here are the results:

Dubai Ports World is a wholly owned government entity. In choosing them CFIS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the US) conducted the standard 30 day review of the state-owned company but failed to complete a second 45 day review required by law. I wonder why that is? (I'm not throwing out innuendo. I'm asking a genuine question)

Dubai's ports rank 13nth in the world out of 30. Now I don't know port operations but what does that mean? Are they the 13nth best company?

I want to tie this link directly to this comment. This is an excellent article I found on the Emir or Prime Minister of the UAE (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48963). I'm sorry to post the links this way I'm new at this part. But frankly this guy appears to me as another nutcase in the making.

I found this article on military.com (a great site for us military guys and gals btw). It is an unbiased article on port security written after 9-11 but before this ports debacle. (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent/1,12044,FL_ports_103001,00.html)

The UAE still does not recognize Israel. Pro-porters dismissed this saying 'that is true for all Arab countries'. Yes it is but that neither makes the act right nor acceptable. In fact it is endemic of the same hatred that drove those planes into the Twin Towers.

Then there is there complicity with Osama Bin Laden that has been documented in the 9-11 report. There is an implication that an emirate official warned Bin Laden of US survellience. How can we trust that same country now?

We are indeed in a war. And it is time for our allies to act as such and not as business partners out to make a buck. Charles Krauthamer summed this up so much better than I could:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/opinion/13959430.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48907

http://acertainslantoflight.blogspot.com/2006/02/ports-deal-strategic-security.html

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/03/04/27/85645.html

[John Valentine]

I am staggered by your complete lack of understanding regarding our form of government and the thrust of the two trends of political thought today - socialism and free enterprise.

You have everything turned on its head. You are truly enmired in a socialist mindset, yet somehow you have got this confused with conservatism, individual liberty, and limited government. It's staggering that all these confused idea could co-exist in the same mind. It must be wonderful to be you.

Just one point. NO government, not our government, not ANY government, from the beginning of time, was ever established to protect individual liberty. That idea is rubbish, complete and utter trash. It is an idea unworthy of the human mind. I can't imagine where you ever got such a totally bizarre notion.

Governments are established to secure peace and security, and economic stability. Individual liberty is always, of necessity, placed at risk by the establishment of government. That's why perfect individual liberty is epitomized by the LACK of government, not by its establishment.

Ever hear of anarchy?

Our government is particularly characterized by limits placed upon it by the founders to protect individual liberty (enumerated powers, for example) from the powers of government. But this is surely qualitiatively different from the reasons for its founding. The two are different, most profoundly so.

You are confusing the reasons for the establishment of our government and the structure and constraints upon it established in the mechanisms of its establishment.

Your errors of thought just go on compounding from there, without restraint or constraint, leading you to horrible errors of logic, leading you to insupportable conclusions, and to the deluded beleif that you are espousing conservative values when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Almondjoy]

Uh actually we voted him to office to make the decisions for us for 4 years because we believe in him.

He got my vote.. and he's got my backing. If democracy doesn't work for you maybe you need to go somewhere else.

The point to remember is that most American's don't have any clue what they are talking about. The uneducated make up about 70% of this country.

They go back their daily lives just making gut reactions to everything because they can't be bothered to read the facts.

I read the facts on the port deal and I'm not a simple minded fool who doesn't understand the foreign policy implications of this deal not going through.

[John Valentine]

Now, if you wish legislation tht would require US cargo terminal operators to be American companies, maybe that would be acceptable, providing that it could be done in a way that conforms to our treaty obligations.

BUT, it is a dramatic step away from the way our ports have been operated for half a century.

And, it leads to other conundrums. How do you define an "American company"? Can there be NO ownership of shares in such a company by any foreigner? What about shares in the stock of a company that itself owns some shares in the terminal operator?

How about the ships themselves? Do you want to let foreign ships into our ports? If so, why? Are you not concerned with our national security? You say you are?

If the shipping companies that operate the shipping lines can't be trusted to run their own terminal operations in US ports, how can they be allowed to bring their insecure ships into our ports at all?

Listen, your positions are nonsense. I know I'm not going to change any minds on this, because opposition to the "ports deal" is not based on reason. It is pure yahooism. It is harming our national interests. It is playing to both Democrats and terrortist who once again see a confluence of interests.

[hedgetrimmer]

Just one point. NO government, not our government, not ANY government, from the beginning of time, was ever established to protect individual liberty.

I said individual RIGHTS.

Which shows, YOUR errors of thought just go on compounding from there, without restraint or constraint, leading you to horrible errors of logic, leading you to insupportable conclusions, and to the deluded beleif that you are espousing conservative values when nothing could be further from the truth.

[hedgetrimmer]

providing that it could be done in a way that conforms to our treaty obligations.

Globalist!

[hedgetrimmer]

What you really mean It is harming your national globalist interests

[Reagan Man]

First off, comparing activities in the UAE banking system with activities in the US banking system, is like comparing apples and figs. It shows a fundamental flaw in your argument. The government of the UAE is deeply involved in all internal aspects of its national banking system.

Here is a partial list of organizations and individuals with Dubai/UAE ties that were designated after 9/11 by the Bush administration, to have their assets frozen, as part of the War on Terror.

· Al Baraka Exchange LLC, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakaat, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakaat Group of Companies Somalia Ltd., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakaat Finance Group, Dubai, U.A.E.; Mogadishu, Somalia
· Al-Barakaat Financial Holding Company, Dubai, U.A.E.; Mogadishu, Somalia
· Al-Barakat Global Telecommunications, Hargeysa, Somalia; Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakat International, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Al-Barakat Investments, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Baraka Trading Co., Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat Construction Co., Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat Group of Companies, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat International Companies (BICO), Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakaat Telecommunications Co. Somalia, Ltd., Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakat Bank and Remittances, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakat Global Telephone Co., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Barakat Refreshment Co., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E. · Parka Trading Co., Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.
· Red Sea Barakat Co. Ltd., Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.
· Jim'ale, Ahmed Nur Ali, Mogadishu, Somalia; Dubai, U.A.E.

The UAE has a long record of ongoing ties with terrorism and human rights violations within their own borders. Just because you condone a society and culture that has theocratic oil rich Sheiks operating wealthy, third world kingdoms, doesn't mean the rest of us hold the same set of beliefs.

Finally. Comparing the USSR with the UAE shows a serious lack of sound judgment on your part. There is no comparison between the two. That doesn't mean the US govt is required to give any foreign nation who has a record of strong ties to terrorism, open access to manage commercial terminal operations at US ports of entry.

[John Valentine]

Change "liberty" to "rights" and I stand on what I said.

Either way.