Bush has approved A Middle Eastern Company in Dubai to take over U.S Port security
POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 17:29
VIEWED: 8053
PAGE 2 of 6
Geezer,
Thanks for the back reference to my earlier thread. Best old threads be kept alive to lower the spin.
But you can't seriously be taking this position that Al Qaeda and its backers are suddenly to be trusted. Here's a small piece of advice: And I apologize for the crudity, but I dont know a better way to say this: Remove your head from Bush's ass. Since the only other supporters of the idea his own staff, who, everyone knows right, have corrupt deals with the buyer, are two democrats Carter and Lieberman?
Because Bush is a democrat. Don't follow this guy down his little pit into hell. Pick out some good republicans you agree with, the Senate is full of talented individuals, all of whom are smarter than Bush. The few I vehemently disagree with most of the time, such as Jeff Sessions of Alabama, are much smarter than Bush. Myself, I have a fair number I look to for decent perspectives on the situations as they develop. Here's why: 1) These guys are really sharp and do thorough research, and 2) They have access to information that we on the outside don't, and so they're starting at an advantage. I don't follow them like people who watch Hannity and Colmes, but I listen to what they say.
The UAE, a country I have great respect for, which is being so nice as to let us use their ports, for which we have rewarded them with this deal, in violation of US law, does not hold the appropriate status to own US ports. National securty issues are only allowed to be addressed by top level allies who have proven a) an undying loyalty to the United States, and b) a level of security equal to our own.
While I certianly by no means want to support an invasion of the UAE, and actually I hold them in some esteem for an arabian nation, you have to consider that before they let us use their ports, they were letting Al Qaeda use them, and are suspected of funding the september 11th terrorist attacks. This indicated a) a lack of undying loyalty to the united states, and b) a level of security not equal to our own.
Here's an idea of who might hold this level of clearance (there is an actual list, which I don't have, but the UAE is not on it,) How about: Japan, Korea, England, Australia. These are nations that not only assist our military, they support us every time, even when we are dead wrong.
I really have to suspect the motives of anyone who solidly sides with Bush all of the time. I think a logical objective individual of any political perspective would find fault with any politician some of the time, and it's hard or more impossible, for me to imagine the existance of a political position that would not lead someone to oppose Bush at least 75% of the time. At least. As an absolute bare minimum. I think if you were a diehard globalist socialist neocon, you could maybe find one thing in four to agree with him on.
My suspicions of people who support Bush all the time are that they do not think for themselves, but fall into one of the following categories:
1. They are somehow in the direct pay of the administration, or their income relies on the support of the administration's policies.
2. They get all of their information from members of group 1. (above) Sadly, as of late, this includes Hannity and O'Reilly
3. They are members of a Christian lunatic fringe who believes that Bush is the ruler who overcomes, as mentioned in the beginning of the revelation of Saint John the Divine.
None of these groups is really above or below the other. As for myself, I find it hard to find a president I agree with 100% of the time. I think my best matches are TR, JQA, and Coolidge. Eisenhower, Nixon are close, and Bush Sr. is pretty close (75%) Regan is probably 65% or so for me. By contrast, Bush is about 25%, probably no better or little better %wise than Clinton. Carter is probably the dem president I most approve of, maybe 40% of the time. Truman is probably 10% of so. (I agree that the Buck does stop there. And that communism was a threat.)
But Bush supporters are 100% lockstep spin. It's like something out of a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by, well guess:
What do you expect when Sir George Bush Sr Treasonous Knight of the British Empire is business partners with the Saudi royal family, the British royal family, and the Bin Laden family in Carlyle Group/Universal Studios/NBC News... Bush Jr's first business partner was Salem Bin Laden, brother to USAma, in ArBUSTo Oil in Texas. On 9/11/2001. Bush sr was eating breakfast with Shafig Bin Laden, brother to USAma, in Washington DC with Carlyle Group. Marvin Bush was running security at World Trade Center and Boston airport on 9/11/2001...
All of this is not news, but there's not a lot of reason to suspect that these aren't the good guys, and that Osama's transgressions were not his own.
The conspiracy theory has failed to connect. And if it ever does, it's not going to do much. What more does it add to say that Bush is responsible for 9/11, even if true? Bush's own treason has already far exceeded this. He has intentionally aided Al Qaeda many times in Iraq, leaving them free weapons, endlessly helping them with his war, intentionally or not, to become a real threat. I'm always on the fence about this, but ultimately, I don't see the point.
The issue here is whether or not Bush is a horrid enemy of America, intentionally. Objectively, Bush is hurting America, whether he means to or not, and what does it matter? Isn't rampant incompetence just as bad as actual malicious intent?
I guess at this point, my opinion of Bush is so low that my opinion of him might actually go UP if someone convinced me he had planned the 9/11 attacks, not because I in anyway support an attack on New York, of course, but I have to say that to avoid the flaming trolls, but because it would mean that he actually was capable of putting a plan into action and executing, something that at the present time I don't even thingm Dick Cheney is capable of. I think what we have is pseudo-socialist blind idealists married to christian end-times neo-crusaders and corrupt oil-prince-kissers of oil-opoly. And collectively, they are a bungling bunch of morons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
No, I don't see that it's a problem as long as security remains with the US Government.
The UAE and others in that area fly wide bodied passenger jets into NY and Chicago airports several times a week. If they wanted to hurt folks they could 9/11 probably 50 places in one day. If security is an issue I don't see that it's going to be any different.
If this is an economic question, ie American assets sold abroad that already happened P&O is a British company.
I have to ask you Jenny what you think happens to all that money that you pay these people for oil? Do you think it all goes on gold plated bath fixtures? It ends up being used to buy assets abroad even in the US. You say in effect "in exchange for your valuable oil we give you our valuable greenbacks." If later you stop them from using that money to buy things they want then those "very valuable dollars" no longer look to be so valuable. It's like scrip, a kind of fake money that some industrial robber barons used to use to pay workers back in the 1800's. It could only be used in company stores that charged higher prices for the same commodity. In the end it was outlawed. If you pay someone for a service or product you cant do that and then deny them the right to spend their money where they like.
Thanks for answering the question, from the way you were heming and hawing I figured you didn't so its great to get a straight answer.
I guess time will tell, wether its a good idea or not, I personally think its not good!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The issue here is whether or not Bush is a horrid enemy of America, intentionally. Objectively, Bush is hurting America, whether he means to or not, and what does it matter? Isn't rampant incompetence just as bad as actual malicious intent?]...
I don't think that Bush and his administration are incompetent, I think 99.9% of everything they do is deliberate and planned. Their arrogance, spin, lack of ownership and respossiblity, and outright denial and, or whitewashing of incidents attest to that!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't think that Bush and his administration are incompetent, I think 99.9% of everything they do is deliberate and planned. Their arrogance, spin, lack of ownership and respossiblity, and outright denial and, or whitewashing of incidents attest to that!
I used to think so, but now I'm not so sure. I get the whole crooked agenda thing, but there are sevreral things I think that have happened that they didn't intend. I think it's just gone out of their control. They (Cheney, PNAC et al) thought they were geniuses, but in reality they're just B students.
Here's just a few things off the top of my head that I think haven't gone as planned:
1. They probably thought they'd be in control of Iraq by now. Even if all they're doing is stealing oil, they steal less oil by botching the invasion.
2. They probably thought they'd be in control of Congress. The Republican revolt has taken them aback. I think that Frist, Hastert and Boehner opposing the port deal isn't an actual revolt, it's Bush staging a revolt, adapting to the reality of having a list from Hagel & Chafee to Graham & Shelby.
3. They probably thought they wouldn't be under indictment for everything. They probably hoped no one would find out about most of their deals. The fact is that everything you and PN post, our Senators are already aware of, and they frequently use the information, subtely. The conspiracy has cleverly created the tinfoil hat image, and I've heard the term tossed about in a couple of sessions of congress. But they know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
2. They get all of their information from members of group 1. (above) Sadly, as of late, this includes Hannity and O'Reilly
As of Tuesday, Sean Hannity was dead set against Bush's decision. I don't know if he's changed his mind since then.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But Bush supporters are 100% lockstep spin. It's like something out of a horror flick.
Well, Dream, I consider myself a Bush supporter, but I don't think he's right all the time, and I currently disagree with him on this decision. I don't have access to all the information he does, however, so I might change my view if I did. As I see it now, though, I think it's dangerous to let any foreign business own control of one of our ports (even our beloved British cousins).
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As for myself, I find it hard to find a president I agree with 100% of the time.
Regarding finding a president with whom I'd agree 100%, I can't think of any human being with which I agree 100%.
As an avid Bush supporter I will say he has made plenty of mistakes (who among us hasn't?), but I can't think of many people I'd rather see currently calling the shots than he.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think my best matches are TR, JQA, and Coolidge. Eisenhower, Nixon are close, and Bush Sr. is pretty close (75%) Regan is probably 65% or so for me. By contrast, Bush is about 25%, probably no better or little better %wise than Clinton. Carter is probably the dem president I most approve of, maybe 40% of the time. Truman is probably 10% of so. (I agree that the Buck does stop there. And that communism was a threat.)
I disagree with much of what you say in these forums -- including your views on what you call "conservatism", but I find myself strangely agreeing with you on most of your favorite presidents. That scares me.
Although, I probably disagreed with Reagan as much as you have (about a third of the time), I'd have to list him as the overall best, with TR, Nixon, Lincoln, JQA & Coolidge up there, as well. Hoover was a good man, too, and got blamed for something over which he had no control (although, in hindsight, he certainly could've reacted better to it when it did happen).
My one big disagreement with your above list is Bush Sr. I voted for him, but never cared much for him. It was one of those "hold your nose and pick the lesser of two stinkers" votes.
BTW, I initially liked Carter in the late 70's, but my opinion on him has completely reversed, and I can't think of more Presidents who were worse than he -- nor have since done more harm to his country by speaking against it while abroad than he has.
My Dad thought Truman was the best thing since sliced bread. I have to admit I haven't studied his Presidency that much, so I'm unqualified to offer an opinion either way.
Incidentally, both of my parents were Democrats for over 40 years. However, both of them eventually left the Democratic party -- with my Dad registering Independent (shortly before he died), and my Mom becoming a Republican. If you want to know why they left the Democratic party after 40 years of faithful support, I can sum it up in one word: Clinton. After he was elected, neither of them wanted to be associated with that party again.
As such, I still maintain that Clinton was the best thing to happen to the Republican party.
BTW, Reagan was my first vote for President (although, as a teenager, I was out campaigning for Nixon in '72). I sorely miss the Gipper.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
a horror flick.
Well, Dream, I consider myself a Bush supporter, but I don't think he's right all the time, and I currently disagree with him on this decision. I don't have access to all the information he does, however, so I might change my view if I did. As I see it now, though, I think it's dangerous to let any foreign business own control of one of our ports (even our beloved British cousins).
You're a wee bit late. P&O have been running those ports since 1999. That's what's going on here. A British company bought this stuff 7 years ago and is now being taken over by a Dubai company. It's not as if the Dubai company is buying it from a US company.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4480542.stm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You're a wee bit late. P&O have been running those ports since 1999. That's what's going on here.
I know that. That's why I mentioned "even the British". In other words, I'm not just saying this because it's the UAE. I don't think any foreign companies should be allowed to own U.S. ports.
Naturally, we can't go back and make people who already own them give them up. If we are going to prohibit foreign companies from owning them henceforth, however, the law should prohibit all of them, though -- not just some.
Just my opinion. No one listens to me, so it really doesn't matter.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's ok, until they decide no American companies should own oil platforms in their country or a US ports company tries to buy a stake in a port in Japan or....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon,
I honestly think, from a summary of what you post, that I'm working from more information than you are. I don't mean this as a condescending statement. When i started getting actively involved in politics a couple years ago, working for candidates, etc., I thought I was "informed." I was sadly mistaken. I was woefully ignorant. I was informed relative to what the MSM was forcefeeding the public, but I was nowhere near as informed as I needed to be.
Objectively, the person in this forum who is working from the most information is Pirate News. He just knows more about politics then the rest of us. That doesn't make him more right, but he is more informed. I'm familiar with probably a solid majority of the stuff that he posts before he posts it, but the fact that there is occassionally new stuff here is an indication he knows more than me. I suspect Finn is pretty well informed also.
Whether or not me make the right choices with the information we have is a matter of judgement. None of us can say for sure that our judgement is correct.
My view of 'conservative' is based on a historical perspective, plus the one I first became aware of, and the one I get from members of the Senate. Nixon, to me, is a solid conservative. Bush Sr. was pretty conservative. Reagan less so. There are some people in the Senate who are most 'conservative' objectively, which is not to say that they are the people that I most agree with.
I'm probably slightly moderate. Lincoln Chafee is to the left of me on almost every issue. For instance, he doesn't support the privatization of social security, I do. I agree with Hagel most of the time, but I probably agree with Graham and equal amount, and he's objectively much more conservative. But objectively, I think the most conservative members are Dick Lugar, John Warner, maybe John McCain, probably Arlen Specter. People like Oran Hatch, who get's the media's stamp as being conservative are really just more partisan. Hatch is like an anti-Kennedy. Kennedy can be counted on to support the democratic party position 100% of the time. Hatch will support the GOP 100% of the time. People that the media now pegs as most conservative are really just "Most Bush" like Jeff Sessions. He's probably a conservative, and if he weren't tied to Bush with a doggy collar, he'd be a better conservative.
But a real, pure, conservative would probably vote again every budget this administraction has put forward. They would have opposed the healthcare package, and they would certainly oppose the port deal. They would have opposed torture. Actually, a hardcore firebrand conservative would legislatively oppose this administration, so maybe McCain and Graham are most conservative, because they've both done so.
I guess one thing I would suggest is to read the far left press, follow their blogs etc. They will bombard you with bad idea after bad idea about what we should do, and they will fail to convince you of any of it, but there is information there which doesn't make it into the right wing press. What I didn't come to until after I had been involved in politics is that i came around to this position:
It's not that Bush is not a good converative. It's that he's not a conservative at all. Not even remotes. He doesn't try. He's not even interested. He doesn't have his own copy of Goldwater's book, or any other of the definitive works on conservatism. He's not a subscriber to the philosophy. That doesn't mean he's a liberal, but he's not a conservative to a greater degree than he's not a christian.
He supports some positions, on occassion, from the party platform, but he doesn't do so very strongly, he may just do it to not get fired. Everything that follows out from his position in the MSM is pretty much spin.
Bush is an all image front to Cheney, who is also not a conservative. Bush feels, if he just attacks liberals and gays and abortion enough, people will mistake him for a conservative. He sets his position up as a long list of things that he opposes. Collectively, that list is chosen strat
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME