Cheney is President, Bush is a figure head.
Posted by goose1 at February 22, 2006 08:21 AMWell, Nero Jr is being very consistent here, he personally never knows about or "looks at" anything involving the guv'mint. He always waits until it blows up in his (i.e. our) face.
I think he IS on top of the latest information involving mountain bikes and video games. Y'all just wait till there's a national security issue involving one of those---then you'll see competence like you never imagined!
Posted by euzoius at February 22, 2006 08:29 AMThe Three Stooges run our government.
Posted by ann at February 22, 2006 08:32 AMDoes "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US" ring a bell, Pretzel Boy?
I guess this is a preview of the Iraq exit strategy.
Pretzel-"War, what war? Don, you know anything about this?"
Rum Drunk-"Is it around here? Why yes it is, North South East and West of it."
Posted by Duckman GR at February 22, 2006 08:37 AMBeing from Texas this whole deal smells like Neil Bush.
Posted by at February 22, 2006 08:40 AMLooks like his denial pf any knowledge is Step 1 in him changing his position on the alleged veto.
Posted by at February 22, 2006 08:43 AMWell, once again the Preznit demonstrates corruption, cluelessness and incompetence all in one package. It's hard to tell what is worse: a pay off for his Arabian oil buddies; the 'duh' moment when he admits he does not know the background; or failing to realize that selling off American jobs to a foreign gov't is not very appealing to most Americans.
Geez, for the want of a competent Democratic opposition.
Posted by weinerdog43 at February 22, 2006 08:43 AMLooks like his denial of any knowledge is Step 1 in him changing his position on the alleged veto.
Posted by fkafjk at February 22, 2006 08:44 AMThe more I think about this, the more I'm stunned by the idiocy. First, his steadfast announcement to veto any bill seeking to delay the deal, then his confession that he really didn't know anything about it until it was already a done deal. Who the hell would let him come out and make such an idiotic statement? Is Rove too busy to keep an eye on him again?
How can anyone paying attention to the President not have some serious questions about WTF is going on in the WH? Even in the reddest of red states, even the most loyal of the cultists cannot possibly spin this into any semblance of sense.
Posted by ann at February 22, 2006 08:48 AMDon't look now, but the real issue is the failure of the Bushco Department of Homeland Security to provide port security, NOT who runs the port.
If you think it's about the UAE management group you've fallen for the sleight-of-hand. It's about the failure of DHS. That's the real story.
Posted by phidipides at February 22, 2006 08:50 AMGeorge Bush: "The UAE port deal is not my friend and to the best of my recollection I have never met the UAE port deal."
Posted by j swift at February 22, 2006 08:52 AMI can't belive the revulsion this story is dragging up. Normally apathetic people are dragging this topic of dicussion up with me and getting their underoos twisted in knots; these are people that are completely uninterested in American-sponsored torture, electronic voting irregularities, and the Plame investigation. They're all seriously saying that this is an impeachment issue if Bush overrides Congress.
Nationalism lives, eh?
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 22, 2006 08:53 AMFrom the AP story:
“My understanding is that he [Snow] has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company,” McClellan added.
But this is a nation of laws, not assurances. That's why they built checks and balances into the Constitution, because assurances are not ironclad, and checks and balances can be, and at least give a real mechanism for enforcement. And isn't that what drives everything, power? For good or bad?
Posted by Duckman GR at February 22, 2006 09:00 AMBut this is a nation of laws, not assurances.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 22, 2006 09:00 AM
*****
That is pure gold, my friend. Well done.
Posted by God Of War at February 22, 2006 09:05 AM
Prediction; There's going to be a public backing away from this deal. They will lose a few points in the polls short term but the risk of losing congress over this will go away and conservative Americans will be able to continue to pretend that Bush is a good president. Later when attention is diverted elsewhere, Bu$hco will try to sneak the same deal in the back door, just like they're trying to do with Social Security privatization right now.
Posted by herbal tee at February 22, 2006 09:08 AMPrediction; There's going to be a public backing away from this deal.
Depends on what Rush-the-Lush, Hanoi-Hannity, O'Strifely, and Glen "Goebbels" Beck say. The "public"...neo-cons in this instance...hasn't had an individual thought in decades. You want to know how it ends, listen to these fucks.
Posted by phidipides at February 22, 2006 09:14 AMP-Dip:
Please accept my apology for my response to your comment on this topic several days ago. It hit me the wrong way at the wrong time, but that's my fault, not yours.
Posted by Steve Soto at February 22, 2006 09:32 AMO'Rielly said if we DON'T do the Dubai port deal, we could lose the war on terror. Fox seems to have gotten a memo from Rupert Murdock to help Bush on this. Does Murdock have money invested in this deal?
What if the fundies take over the UAE government, and threaten port strikes to blackmail concessions out of us in the future?
Posted by TIKI AL at February 22, 2006 09:47 AMIt's like the White House is determined to paint Dubya as out of touch and not in control, but that plan doesn't seem consistent with his defense yesterday unless he blindly backs anything his appointees say or do and we know that isn't true (just ask Christie Whitman or Paul O'Neil or Colin Powell).
Posted by Edward Copeland at February 22, 2006 09:49 AMO'Rielly said if we DON'T do the Dubai port deal, we could lose the war on terror.
Huh? What kind of freakish logic led to that statement? Damn I knew I should have tuned in to watch falafel head last night.
Did anyone see the guy on Countdown? He said this was a "canard" and that we really have nothing to worry about with the UAE running these ports. Olbermann didn't object but he seemed a bit wary or skeptical.
Posted by ann at February 22, 2006 09:55 AMI have a problem with any foreign govt or company leasing our ports.
It is my feeling that our ports, being the lifeblood of our economy and our security should be US Govt run. Which was pointed out to me earlier, as is supposed to be: US Govt = US People.
The big problem that I see is that if the UAE, or any of the other companies (most of them leased by China Corps, BTW) want to really fuck the US, they can close the ports.
This would shut down our economy.
I believe that it should be a new WPA where the US Govt purchases all leases of our ports and puts US People to work.
Posted by Anjha at February 22, 2006 10:02 AMO'Rielly said if we DON'T do the Dubai port deal, we could lose the war on terror.
Huh? What kind of freakish logic led to that statement? Damn I knew I should have tuned in to watch falafel head last night.
Did anyone see the guy on Countdown? He said this was a "canard" and that we really have nothing to worry about with the UAE running these ports. Olbermann didn't object but he seemed a bit wary or skeptical.
Posted by ann at February 22, 2006 09:55 AM
*****
Well fuck, if we didn't "do" 9/11, we couldn't have had a War On Terra.
Logic pretzels on sale now @ FOXnews*
*lies
Being from Texas this whole deal smells like Neil Bush.
so basically you're saying that we're in this deal because the UAE group bought him the most hookers?
Neil makes his brother look like Frances Fukiyama in comparison!
Posted by leftAhead at February 22, 2006 10:27 AMIronic: the political party that tells us "government is the problem" is willing to sell our port operations to a government owned business. Why don't they just put up a big banner that says: We're incompetent but other governments aren't!
Posted by ann at February 22, 2006 10:27 AMAnyone catch Joe Scarborough last night? It was a mind boggling scream fest against Bush. Couldn't ever imagine Joe had it in him but he really plowed into it, like watching them eat their young. He had 2 rep strategists on, one who kept trying to maintain lockstep and the other who just crashed the gates. Laurence O'Donnell was on and he was just sitting back smiling the whole time.
Posted by mainsailset at February 22, 2006 10:41 AMSnow + Sanborn appointments = too coincidence in this deal.
Posted by Via at February 22, 2006 10:45 AMmainsailset, I can't watch Scarborough without screaming swear words at the TV. He drives me nuts with his Christian Right Opinion "news".
Posted by Anjha at February 22, 2006 10:47 AMWhat kind of dumbass can simultaneously claim:
a) he's so confident in his administration's determination that he'll veto legislation to the contrary, and
b) he didn't know about the deal at the time?
Posted by dj moonbat at February 22, 2006 10:52 AMStv, sspct tht ths frgn dl s n xtnsn f th ‘rndrng’ prsnrs f wr t ‘frgn’ cntrs fr trtr. Ths bys pssbly hv ‘trtr’ brgs nd ‘crg’ shps stffd by Pntgn/C/Spclly pprvd rmy prsnnl f th lk f Nz Dr. Mngl. (D y rcll hw th gvrnmnt ws shppng nclr stff crss th cntry? Th Wnnbg, f ll thngs.) Ths Prsn Glf rb cntry, , r whtvr, ds nt clm ‘dmcrcy.’ (Lt’s nvd!) nd ddn’t thr ld gy jst d ff? Prbbly cnnctn thr wth th nw kng nd t wll thrd bck t th K bnch f CG, (ld crprt gngstrs). Ths, gng by hstry, r nw kng f th s n f r C grmd chldrn, lng sd whvr s rnnng ths Prt Mngmnt Cmpny.
Th bv hs pssbly bn sd fr dcds, bt ndr dpr cvr; th nly rsn fr ‘rndrng’ PW’s t lld cntrs s t bth tst nd nvlv r pppt rgms n r scl crms trght. Whl t’s rltvly sy t nvlv tsd crprtns nd gvrnmnts wthn th rlm f prftrng nd pwr, vn t th cst f mllns f lvs, t pss th tst f trght physcl dvsttn f hmn bngs whn th bstrctn lvl f cvr s s cls t th prncpls f crm, tht dcptn bcms nly pssbl t th mst stbbrn f ptrtc gts. Yt, w hv th prcdnc wth r prsnt WH cbl, wth thr hrd f fft gts n th Hll, nd thr crprt bckp sttng n th Crt f Sprm Kngrs. D r pcfd Tlvsn xprts gv dmn bt DC? N, nd thy lv t ngh t sk fr mr, whch s cmng. (f crs, t’s n ccdnt tht r scl nstttns hv frgmntd drng th lst 100 yrs, rght? s hv mntnd n th pst, r crprtns knw bt bt hmn psychlgy, thnks tnks r nt.)
W mst rmmbr tht ths rlng srvnts f r crprtns hv mch n cmmn: thy gv xcss wtht nhlng, (thy prctc lt), nd thy hv sm grp f rl dts wrtng rprts fr thm t dgst, mmrz, bjctfy, nd mk ‘rlty,’ nd thy lv tht crprt rgnztn mdl t gt thngs dn. ll cms cmpltly wtht fr f Gd. nd ths s thr mst mjr f wknsss. n thng fr sr, ths Prt dl s nt cmplctd; frthr, th Hll f fft r tppng thr hnd f hypcrsy nc gn n tht f thy wr trly cncrnd bt brdrs nd trrrsts, thy wld frc thrgh mdrn ‘Grt Mnchrn Wll’ n bth th Mxc nd Cndn sd t frc ll ppl ntrng t prsnt dcmnttn.
n fw shrt sntncs, n cn cvr cnsdrbl dcptn, nd ths wtht ffrt.
Bu$hCo is not interested in protecting the ports or doing any real National Security.
If Halliburton proposed this technology it would already have been implemented.
The Govt - DHS - still have not developed a plan:
"A number of companies in the shipping industry are waiting to see what the government's security requirements will be, Petrizzi says."
Dumb-asses. Chertoff's resignation needs to come with Cheney's.
Posted by Anjha at February 22, 2006 10:55 AMann: O'Reilly's "freakish logic" was that UAE is one of our arab allies on the war on terror, and if we insult them by recinding the port deal, they will no longer help us, thus causing us to lose the war.
Anjha: Scar-bore has a "shroud of Turin" beach towell. He makes the Pope look sectarian. He makes me look for a place to throw up.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 22, 2006 11:08 AMDoing a little digging I was able to come up with 2 PNAC names Wolfowitz and Zoellick tied to
Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem.
Maybe it's a straight PNAC deal. Whatever it is, it can't be good for the citizens of the USA.
Posted by bbtb at February 22, 2006 11:34 AMBeing from Texas this whole deal smells like Neil Bush
Posted by Nimer at February 22, 2006 11:49 AMI think this timeline best explains what this is all about:
December 17, 2002
Carlyle Group buys CSX Lines for $300 Million in a deal arranged by CSX CEO John Snow.
January 13, 2003
John Snow nominated by George W Bush to be Secretary of the Treasury -- will leave CSX with special pension of $2.5 Million a year.
CSX rail corporation, where Snow previously served as Chief Executive Officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004.
Let me know if I am wrong about this.
This is beginning to make some sense to me. From what I gather from my quick read on Sukuk is that it is an alternative to the current debt market around the world that Muslims can use based on the restriction of their religion.
Where this starts to make sense to me is that this deal must be the beginning of what the greedy financial gurus in Bush's world see as the creation of a new securities market that would allow them to trade and speculate with the billions of dollars of Muslim money that was not available to them until now.
I started to read this paper and started to get it.
http://www.islamicfinance.de/suk.../ sukukrisks.pdf
The corporate elites that run this administration are pushing for this as a way to start a new speculative financial play ground that would eventually be worth trillions in Trading Volumes
Former Reagan Chief-of-Staff, ex-Treasury Secretary, ex-Secretary of State, ex-NSC Council Member, ex-GWB chief legal advisor, etc. and, as Sirota pointed out, US Envoy re: Iraq debt holds the key here.
James A. Baker is Senior Partner of Baker Botts, a legal firm very active in Middle East affairs - perhaps most visibly as legal representation for the Saudi Royal family in the lawsuits brought by the families of 9/11 victims. Baker Botts is very active in Egypt, Kuwait and Dubai, too.
In fact according to Bakerbotts.com, on April 15, 2005: "the firm expanded its presence in the region by opening a Middle East regional office in Dubai to complement our existing office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia." Why? "Baker Botts' Dubai office provides service to clients in a number of sectors in the energy industry, including oil and gas exploration and development, oil field services, electric power, LNG, petrochemicals, pipelines, and gas-to-liquids."
Baker Botts has a clear, vested interest in the Bush Administration's push toward a "free" trade agreement with Dubai. That's just the tip of the proverbial Bakerberg. James A. Baker is also senior counsel to the Carlyle Group where The Guardian has reported his stake at an estimated $180 million US.
The Carlyle Group's documented dealings with the government of Dubai have been extensive. Having bought CSX World Terminals in 2003 for $300 million, Carlyle just two year's later flipped it to the company now known as Dubai Ports World for a nearly 400% profit of a cool $1.12 billion.
CFIUS Chair John Snow was head of CSX for 20 years before "retiring" from his post to become Treasury Secretary. Under Snow's leadership, CSX paid no federal income taxes in three of the past four years. He presided over the CSX sale to Baker's Carlyle Group. In addition to other extravagant perks of his contract he will reap tens of millions of dollars upon the transfer of CSX to D P World.
The circle closes even tighter with the nomination of DP former Head of European and Latin American Operations, David Sanborn who has been handpicked by the President to be Administrator of the Maritime Administration. Sanborn graduated from of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy. According to dpworld.com he "previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.
Sanborn was hired by DP in 2005."
There's even more here than meets the eye and much of it leads back to Baker.
So sorry for the double post. :?( My browser freaked out!
Posted by AQnacher Forester at February 22, 2006 12:25 PMAF:
Not a problem; I deleted your second post. Do you have background links for that information? That is good stuff.
Posted by Steve Soto at February 22, 2006 12:28 PMWhat kind of dumbass can simultaneously claim:
a) he's so confident in his administration's determination that he'll veto legislation to the contrary, and
b) he didn't know about the deal at the time?
nice work with that scalpel, counselor.
Posted by benjoya at February 22, 2006 12:35 PMSteve, I found one connection. Looking for others.
Posted by bbtb at February 22, 2006 12:50 PMbbtb, here's a link (hat tip to Randi Rhodes)
just another crony appointment
Here's a good link about how concerned the Republicans are about securing our ports:
Posted by ann at February 22, 2006 01:27 PMRe: Carlyle
A poster at LGFWatch submits the following:
"In the Nov 6 Independent on Sunday (London) was this little tidbit: Dubai
International Capital, also gov't owned, 'has invested $ 100m in a Carlyle
fund.'"
I can't find a reference on the 'Net, or otherwise corroborate...but I'll keep looking.
Please accept my apology for my response to your comment on this topic several days ago. It hit me the wrong way at the wrong time, but that's my fault, not yours.
Steve, I'm not sure what you are apologizing for. You most certainly don't owe me an apology for your previous statements. What comes from reading your thoughts for two years is the knowledge that you weren't attacking me. I took what you said to be reasoned and an indicator of your passion for the subject. Passion is a very good thing. But, thank you! I appreciate it.
Back to the topic:
Bu$hCo is not interested in protecting the ports or doing any real National Security.
And that's the problem. The ports can be managed by Mother Theresa Enterprises, Inc. It doesn't matter as long as DHS operates from the SNAFU system of port security at all ports, not just 6 of them. The ports are not secure NOW, and it has nothing to do with UAE management.
Posted by phidipides at February 22, 2006 03:01 PMHey Mr. Taliban, tally me banana, daylight's goin' and the chimp's gotta eat.
I hear the big fluhing sound as America goes down the drain. We're going down 'cause of pres'dint shit-for-brains.
A good link on UAE and it's popularity to companies like Halliburton and the Carlyle Group is Forbes, Trading with the Enemy from 2004.
The European-American Business Council spells out our interest in its (follow the link) Policy Papers.
And if you have subcription to 'the nation', it lays it on the line about Baker-Botts. (Or you can Google it under Baker-Botts.)
Posted by bbtb at February 22, 2006 03:25 PMOn Lou Dobbs, they just mentioned some of the former pols. that Dubai Ports is/has lined up to ship (pun intended) this deal through. Among them are Bob Dole and Tom Downey.
Somebody at ABC news is wearing kneepads, they practically called Bush a foreign policy genious for supporting this deal. They also soft sold the idea that an arab government that doesn't reconize Israel, a more hardline position than some other arab countries have, and whose government controlled banking system was the main scorce of funds for the 911 attacks, is a reliable partner in seaport security.
There is a lot of elete power being lined up behind this thing, it is going to be a parade of beltway power brokers pushing the limits of privledge for the elete on this.
Some very educational posts; thanks all, I learned a lot.
Posted by at February 22, 2006 06:51 PMbv s mn; thnks gn.
[Editor: ignore=off]I have a problem with any foreign govt or company leasing our ports.
Anjha, I couldn't agree more with that statement. It is one thing to have a British Company running our Ports, but quite another thing to have a Company that is Government owned managing our Ports. What will be interesting is where Bush goes from here on the issue. Maybe he can pull out the pictures Rove has of fellow Republicans, and presto, no veto override by the Republicans.
Posted by Judith at February 22, 2006 08:18 PM