Comments on: Dubai Ports: Who was Right, the President or Congress?

By: parsimonious mom

parsimonious mom — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:08:01 +0000

I am still confused on this issue. I honestly don’t understand the deal. It seems on one level you don’t trust people whose religion tells them its okay to lie to unbelievers if it ultimately furthers islam objectives.. On the other we should reward countries who are slightly to the right of whacko to their avowed anti-anti-anti anything not sharia law neighbors. And we have had chinese port operators on the west coast with no apparent conflict.

By: The Plumber

The Plumber — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:44:23 +0000

The ports deal and border enforcement are inexorably linked. If there were any indication that the Bush administration cared about border enforcement, the ports deal may have been pulled off.

The Bush administration cares nothing about border protection. I’m glad Bush and his Arab tyrant buddies in the UAE took a hit on this.

Oh, and btw, the dhimmicrats and the media adopted my position on port security, not vice versa. I wasn’t going to change my position just because some leftist had a moment of clarity or saw a political opportunity.

By: Rob Pfriender

Rob Pfriender — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:59:54 +0000

Nice article:)

By: Rajncajn

Rajncajn — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:05:15 +0000

Don’t know about this one. Hard to see this one is…Port security should be just that.

By: loveloki

loveloki — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:03:50 +0000

well, hman, i’m going to have to wonder, here, if there was any apparent benefit for big money in this republican opposition…it turns out that rep. duncan hunter r-calif. and others are considering legislation that would block foreign companies from owning our ports and other infrastructure. it seems the carlyle group and bechtel will benefit through discounted prices when buying out these foreign owned operations. the fear! fear! terror! terror! routine is just a smoke screen for big money as usual.

By: HMan23

HMan23 — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:18:46 +0000

Funny, but the title made me think the analysis would center on Congress as a whole. But the analysis places all of the blame on Congressional Democrats. Hmmmm … the vote in the House Appropriations Committee was 62-2 against. The only reference to republicans in the mix seems to be making them out to be victims – “Unnerved contemplating the left proclaim itself tougher than the right in the war on terrorism, several Republicans in Congress joined Democrats in disparaging the deal …The media successfully framed the controversy, convinced even the Republicans to join the debate on its terms.” I seem to recall quite a few Republicans against this deal from the outset.

Personally, I think both sides have made a mountain out of a molehill, but, this is nothing more than a political response to the culture of fear that Bush has promoted since 9/11. Bush’s agenda is to make Americans feel less safe at every turn – “The terrorists are coming!! The terrorists are coming!!!” – Let’s profile them at the airports, let’s spy on Americans without a warrant, let’s invade a country having nothing to do with 9/11 as a preventative measure against future attacks. This is a DIFFERENT sort of war and we need to approach it differently. Forget international law – forget how our allies may feel. Bush/Cheney created this hysteria to their benefit, and now that same irrational fear is biting them on the backside. They brought it upon themselves, in my opinion.

It’s also ironic that the same administration that has tried to justify its policies on torture and detainment of prisoners, and is occupying Iraq is now all of a sudden so concerned about anti-American sentiments in the Arab world. And, there was not much concern from Bush about damaging our relationships with our “allies” when we invaded Iraq- yet consideration of our Arab allies is now a vital part of the analysis.