I've seen many comments about the rover strategy, as frist and hastert have never opposed bush on anything to this point, giving the goppers security bona fides as the bush albatross still dangles around their scrawny necks.
But because so much of their strategy is centered around the personality cult of bush, I don't know how well that'll play in Peoria.
We'll see. It would help if the Dems made buccou noise about it, but, well, you know.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 23, 2006 08:15 AMthis port story might dovetail with the NSA thing thusly:
a) 2002 DeWine amendment to facilitate wiretaps was shot down by the White House. It only applied to non-Americans.
b) 9/11 commission said "the vast majority" of funds for the attacks went through UAE.
am i making myself clear, mr. beale?
Posted by benjoya at February 23, 2006 08:22 AMJosh nails the policy fallacy about the security deal of the "Port-Port" scandal here down at the end of his piece.
The White House's whole premise seems to be that the DPW just isn't involved in the security side of port management. Since that's the case, the whole security argument is bogus.
But if they need to pledge to cooperate and assist with security and counter-terrorism then clearly they are involved in port security.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 23, 2006 08:43 AMyou racist commies just hate our arab masters, i mean friends.
Posted by crappy at February 23, 2006 08:59 AMNo, we're just jealous because they get lip action from Dumbya
Posted by Duckman GR at February 23, 2006 09:48 AMThe President says that this deal has been carefully studied by his administration, but says he was only recently made aware of it.
The President says that Homeland Security will continue to protect our ports, but a recent congressional study says this agency lacks focus, accountability, and planning.
The President says that, "This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America", but Scott McClelland says it is already a done deal.
Is there any reason to believe anything the President has to say anymore?
Posted by at February 23, 2006 10:12 AMThey really have handed the Democrats an issue on a silver platter. Think of all the old Dubya quotes that can be resurrected, like telling Kerry that the U.S. will never cede control to foreign bodies or saying that you are either with the terrorists or against them, despite the long list of support offered not only by the UAE but our friends in Saudi Arabia as well.
Posted by Edward Copeland at February 23, 2006 10:24 AMOne quibble Steve: "The public is now aware that five years after 9/11, this country will no longer have domestic control of many ports."
I believe it was a British company that had control prior to the Arabs. Nevertheless, your point remains strong as I don't think most people realized we as Americans, don't control our own ports.
Posted by weinerdog43 at February 23, 2006 10:41 AMI've been watching the hearings on C-SPAN. One thing I've noticed: Warner, while occasionally making excuses for Bu$hco, is letting the Democratic mambers have a clear shot at the issue. In addition (take a note here, Arlen!), when there is a point of order or more info called for, Warner is being very cooperative about raising the necessary background information for a determination.
But in spite of all of this 'bipartisanship' on Warner's part, I still get the feeling that he's playing both sides off against his continued political survival. That fence is very narrow, so his balance had better be good!
Posted by pessimist at February 23, 2006 10:48 AMThe Treasury Department? It will take a week or so but the media will start linking John Snow's pension to CSX's sale to the Dubai Port company and two very bad thoughts will start to bleed together into one nightmare for Republicans - greed trumps security in the GOP.
Greed trumps security.
Posted by joejoejoe at February 23, 2006 10:54 AMIt will take a week or so but the media will start linking John Snow's pension to CSX's sale to the Dubai Port company and two very bad thoughts will start to bleed together into one nightmare for Republicans - greed trumps security in the GOP.
Three Little Words: Culture of Corruption.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 11:38 AMLook, we've just heard a report last week saying that Homeland Security is a huge mess, poorly (understatement) managed and unprepared for any crisis. So to say, as Bush has, "don't worry because the Port security is being taken care of by Homeland Security" is one of the most frightening statements I've heard. These people are clowns.
Posted by at February 23, 2006 11:47 AMSo many gifts, so much fear.
Hey Dems, how's about argung that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (with good ole US of A federal employees) should be 100% in charge of every United States Port?
Think that might go over well with the public and be an actual national security benefit? Course that would mean not toeing the corporate line.
Posted by euzoius at February 23, 2006 11:49 AMPresident Bush on Thursday defended his administration's decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, "People don't need to worry about security."
Yeah.Right.Sure. I loved their defense of the deal when they said that DP promised to be really, really careful and follow security procedures. They promised.
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 12:02 PMEuzoius is right. The whole theory that everything should be privatized is being repudiated by reality. All America really needs is a Democratic party willing to act like the Democratic party and the Republicans would be the minority party for 20 years
But that's not what K Street is paying for.
Anyone in the Bush League Administration who was curious about what civil war in Iraq would look like.......so far it looks like 7 dead GI's in one day. A few more days like this, coupled with the PortGate scandal and Bush will be at 30%.
Posted by at February 23, 2006 12:03 PMDUBAI DEAL BUSTS UNIONS
Recently heard a Longeshoreman on the radio stating that the Dubai deal means that the foreign company can ignore unions and hire at will (at whatever wage the choose).
Foreign company in charge of ports = no unions at ports.
Posted by at February 23, 2006 12:09 PMLet's also note that for all the "evil genius" rhetoric regarding Rover, he seems to have no real control of what issue will explode next.
I mean, after years of US port security being literally ignored by government and press, now it's all we're talking about. For a week, anyway.
Libby the Liar, illegal presidential spying, Deadeye Dick, Iraq civil war, Dubai Ports R Us---it's "government" by scandal and we have no idea this week what will be blowing up next week.
Posted by euzoius at February 23, 2006 12:12 PMOf course, the British owners were a private company, not a government arm as is the case with Dubai. Though I have to admit that we also have ports that are managed by China and Singapore.
Posted by Edward Copeland at February 23, 2006 12:16 PMRecently heard a Longeshoreman on the radio stating that the Dubai deal means that the foreign company can ignore unions and hire at will (at whatever wage the choose).
That doesn't make sense. Aren't these ports being managed by a foreign company already? Does any U.S. business operate any of our ports?
Posted by ann at February 23, 2006 12:22 PMi also saw the hearings on the 'span. when they took calls afterwards, the response was unanimous against the deal. and warner said that levin had a good point.
Posted by benjoya at February 23, 2006 12:33 PM"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America"
This is very easy to read/hear as "we aren't concerned about security" period...seems like awfully easy spin, even for the Dems.
I seriously think one of the biggest problems for the Democratic party is that they're short on wordsmiths. Getting the public to agree with you is all about semantics, and the Dems suck at phrasing things well. The Rethugs, on the other hand, are excellent at it.
One other question about this port debacle: why have no American companies been vocal/vying for this contract? Here we are talking Britain, China, UAE, etc...do American companies not "do" ports anymore? Seems like if you were an American company, this would be an easy (and lucrative) catch with some flag waving and "buy American" PR.
Posted by at February 23, 2006 01:00 PMThe so called "Democratic Leaders" are frozen in fear. Thru years of secret wiretapping this administration has dirt on EVERYBODY. The Democratic leaders will not speak out for fear of their illicit affairs will be made public, which would ruin their chances of re-election. The fear of their names by their favorite porno sites has them scared to death. In short, there is no "Democratic Leaders".
Posted by curious at February 23, 2006 01:50 PMIn an effort to deflect attention and concern over the upcoming ports deal with the UAE, the Bush administration has decided to go with a known association instead.
Having interviewed many top managers in this organization over an extended period of time, the WH feels it poses no threat to America, particularly as the US government has direct control over the managers in question.
Lastly, they are willing to accept a contract with any stipulations the US may make, as well as up the lease bid to 10 billion. The company is not well known in the US, but it is under the name AQAI (Ali's Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq), and is managed by Mr. O. Bin Laden, Mr. Dr. A. Al Zawahiri , and Mr. A.M. al Zarqawi, all whom have extensive import/export and shipping experience.
More importantly to the Bush White House, the AQAI is willing to supply stevedore workers for a wage $3.95 US an hour. The immense savings undoubtedly clinched the deal for the financially troubled Bush administration.
With any luck, all will go well, the US will save a pile of cash, and we will establish a more secure relationship with our Middle Eastern allies.
Posted by tempus at February 23, 2006 02:43 PM