OK I'm feeling very uneasy about this port issue

[Texacrat]

My worry, especially considering opposition from the Republicans, is that is opposition to this port deal promoted mainly by anti-Islamism? President Carter supports Bush on this deal and whilst there is no problem with Republicans tearing each other apart, I'm really ambivalent as to whether I support the Presidents or Congress on this matter ... Can someone please enlighten me? :)

[Deja Q]

1. Why would Carter support Bush?

If Carter came out and went into detail why it isn't a bad thing, I'll certainly listen.

My hypnosense tells me something is not quite right with this deal though...

[Texacrat]

4. I heard the Carter thing on CNN

I'll try to find a link though

[Texacrat]

6. Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

[Twist_U_Up]

27. Sounds like the Bush Goon Squad made a visit.

Probably after Carter dissed bushy at CSK funeral. But then again Carter has not come out on how screwed up our elections are. Sure he has made small comments about elections here but nothing that crosses into reality.

[thefloyd]

2. Me too

My mind is literally choking on pretzels.
:popcorn:

[MissB]

3. .

:spray:

[peanutbrittle]

5. This might help...for starters

Makes you wonder if the UAE is blackmailing this
administration? My guess is it has to do with the
administrations ties to the Carlysle group and war
$$$.


Results Overview


You searched for events and entities and essays and topics and timelines and projects containing the text 'united arab emirates' in the title or description.

* 44 events found.
* 1 entities found.
* 3 essays found.
* 1 topics foun

http://cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=united+arab+emirates&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

Just one more example of this mis-administrations ties to the terrorists

[Lindsay]

7. My stand on the deal

is that if BushCo is for it, I'm against it.

Beyond that, my chief issues are that (a) this company is owned by a foreign government, not just a foreign company, and (b) there needs to be some serious research done on who in the Bush junta benefits financially from this sale, because I suspect that's what's really behind this.

[Hatalles]

8. We need to be consistent...

... and demand that no foreign entities should be in charge of our ports. Americans should be in charge of our own security. My only concern is that some on the left are inadvertently using Islamophobia as a lever to bag on Bush. We can still criticize Bush, however, we need to focus on the larger problem without sinking to the right-wing's xenophobic lows and perpetuating those ugly sentiments -- our security should not be outsourced to ANY OTHER nation.

[Texacrat]

9. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Britain in charge of this port before?

If so, I see double standards by at least some people ...

[Hatalles]

11. Yes, I think you're right on that.

[emulatorloo]

12. How many people who are upset knew that?

I didn't. . .and I think it is a bad idea. . .

[Tamyrlin79]

17. Me, too.

Bad idea to let any foreign entity control our ports, IMHO. The only difference is that the UAE deal just exacerbates the security flaw (and the flawed thinking) and makes it more obvious and a more serious issue to the average Joe.

[magellan]

20. The reactionaries need to stop and think

There are people who were surprised to learn our port operations belong to ANYONE but a US company, and think it's a bad idea no matter what country it is, British, UAE, or otherwise.

And there are people like me who not only think that's wrong, but also see the obvious money connections in this deal for what they are. The guy who Bush** tapped last month to head the Maritime Administration -- David Sanborn -- runs Dubai Port World's European and Latin American operations. And Treasury Sec Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004. It all ties into the Carlyle Group and big $$ payoff for all the players.

The cronyism in this administration, carried out on a world scale to the absolute detriment of Americans, is galling.

[ROakes1019]

22. Great Britain

A company in Great Britain had the contract for operating the ports. The company, not the government of Britain, sold the rights to the UAE government. See the difference?

[spanone]

24. The UAE company is STATE-OWNED by the UAE.

The British company is an independent company based in England. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Hatalles]

28. Would it be okay if the UAE company was not state owned?

I see tighter security with a state owned company than I do with a privately owned company... that said, I don't think ANY foreign entity should be in charge of any of our ports.

[Tamyrlin79]

14. exactly.

Well said. He's trying to say "It's okay for the British, so it's discriminatory to not allow the UAE to do the job."

That may be so, but I don't think the British should be doing it either, even if their company ISN'T owned by the state (ie, explicitly controled by a foreign government) and in spite of the fact that Britain doesn't have UAE's documented ties to terrorism. No foreign entity should be in charge of American borders. Period.

And, besides: what's wrong with the government hiring Americans? That means American companies, with American worker, producing American jobs. I don't see the problem with that.

[Hatalles]

18. In framing the issue this way, we also make it last.

If this remains a story about the UAE taking control of a few ports, it will pass. After this initial reaction, if the Democrats make it an issue about outsourcing our security to foreign entities, we gain the upperhand.

[emulatorloo]

10. If Bush is playing the race card, then I think we need to be skeptical

He is nothing if not disingenous.

This deal isn't about reaching out to Arabs, it is about Cash in his pocket.

Personally I think it is insane to put our ports in the hands of a foreign government.

[LisaLynne]

16. I totally agree.

This administration has pulled that trick with nominations before. It's an old trick of theirs.

The point is, as you and other have said, it doesn't make sense to have ANY foreign GOVERNMENT in charge of our ports. Period. I don't care if it's Canada (no offense, my friends to the north).

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

15. this is bushco's own carefully-fostered racism for profit.

it's completely appropriate that this is the vehicle which destroys them.

I'm singing, dancing, humming, grinning......joy, joy, joy.

NO foreign power should be controlling access to the united states. this is our job.

and you should be ashamed of yourself for buying bushco spin. shame shame shame. go sit in a corner.

[Misunderestimator]

19. Too funny.... I knew this would be fodder for um...

welcome to DU :toast:

Carter does not "support" Bush on this deal. There. You enlightened now?

[High Plains]

21. Did you listen to Carter on CNN?

He said Bush was correct.

On edit:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations dealFormer President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.

BY LESLEY [email protected] - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

[Misunderestimator]

23. He qualified it with presuming that they had taken all the necessary

precautions.

'The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. `I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.'

Where does he say he agrees? What else should he say... "I'm sure that it's going to be a problem, and that the president and his administration have not done a good job" ?? :eyes:

[High Plains]

25. Spin it as you wish.

[Misunderestimator]

26. spin it as YOU wish

[High Plains]

29. I listened to the man say the words.

Are you seriously trying to tell me he does not support the Bush position on this?

[Misunderestimator]

30. Yes. I am saying that he qualified his "support."

In a very clever way actually. If he had said that he did not support Bush, that would have become the story. If he said he supported him without qualification, I would be worried. Since he said this...

'The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. 'I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.'

I don't have a problem with that. Carter is a brilliant man, with a command of the English language. I don't understand why you interpret that as supporting Bush's position.