Political allegiances aside, what do YOU think?

[AURaptor 1,126]

China already owns *terminals at the port in Long Beach CA as well as operates both gates to the Panama Canal.

Are we sending a mixed signal to the world, that we'll work w/ Communist China and all its human rights issues, but not a friendly Middle Eastern country?

Is this really the national security issue some are saying it is, OR are we just waist deep in more politics?

Discuss

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Short answers:

-while I have some concerns about the Dubai deal, the plusses far outweigh the minuses.

--business is business everywhere and Communist China is no exception. We close our eyes in China's case because of the huge economic potential for us.

--is it not true that a Saudi Arabian company has been operating several of our ports for years? So why is doing business with an UAE company suddenly a big deal?

If we don't want foreign companies operating our ports, why should they allow American companies to operate oil refineries and other businesses on their turf?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

China already owns the port in Long Beach CA as well as both gates to the Panama Canal.

Are we sending a mixed signal to the world, that we'll work w/ Communist China and all its human rights issues, but not a friendly Middle Eastern country?

Is this really the national security issue some are saying it is, OR are we just waist deep  in more politics?

Discuss

222365[/snapback]

I don't think the issue has much to do with national security; we aren't outsourcing security, this company will just be managing the port.

I find this sudden level of alarm raised by the democrats rather amusing. Just a few short weeks ago, they were quite comfortable kicking the blocks out from under the NSA and the Patriot Act but now, all of a sudden, they take issue with this?

These baffoons have no interest in national security. They only see an election looming on the horizon.

[AURaptor 1,126]

FYI, this story was first reported on back on Oct31st. Why it's taken just less than 4 months for anyone else to catch wind of what was coming is a bit baffling.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I have no problem with it.

[Tigermike 3,051]

I have concerns, but think it much overblown by the dems looking for points with the voting public. Anything to make them look like they are strong on national defense. The democrats are looking for a stylish way to make their lack of substance look good.

I also think the Bush Administration should have anticipated the political brouhaha and should have been on the offensive in the PR department. But then again it would not have mattered, the dems would have been for the deal before they were against the deal.

Like Raptor said, this story was first reported on back on Oct 31st. This was not an overnight deal made in a smoke filled back room by the lobbyists and corrupt officials. Were there NO senators aware of this until just last week?

Why have all those people who are screaming to high heavens not worried about the overwhelming number of FOREIGN OWNED ships bringing goods into US ports? Why are they not worried about all those FOREIGN crews on those ships? those ships were loaded by foreigners as well.

When it all gets down to the bottom line, it appears that to the dems national security is nothing more than political rhetoric.

[otterinbham 0]

Given proper oversight, I don't really have a problem with it.

However, I think somebody oughta do a little research to see how the Longshoremen's Union was behind this dustup. Seems like it's a big fat question mark for me.

[AURaptor 1,126]

First, a correction. I originally posted that DPW would own our ports. I mistakenly stated this for the thread because that is what has been reported in the news over and over. Fact is, DPW is NOT going to own, or even run our ports. What is being discussed is DPW taking over operations of several TERMINALS, which are located in OUR PORTS. DPW and there by UAE won't be in control of who comes in and out of our ports, but only the operating proceedures in regards to the terminals, or docks which the large cargo ships tie up to. Security won't change, as I understand it, and our ports will still be OUR ports.

After the big flap of all this has died down, I don't see any real reason why it shouldn't go through. Granted, Bush et al might have handled this poorly, but then again, maybe they didn't. Its very possible that this business transaction is such a NON issue that they didn't feel the need to even comment. After all, this was being reported here in the USA and in England back in October, early November.

I don't see a problem w/it.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

I have concerns, but think it much overblown by the dems looking for points with the voting public.  Anything to make them look like they are strong on national defense.  The democrats are looking for a stylish way to make their lack of substance look good.

I also think the Bush Administration should have anticipated the political brouhaha and should have been on the offensive in the PR department.  But then again it would not have mattered, the dems would have been for the deal before they were against the deal. 

Like Raptor said, this story was first reported on back on Oct 31st.  This was not an overnight deal made in a smoke filled back room by the lobbyists and corrupt officials.  Were there NO senators aware of this until just last week? 

Why have all those people who are screaming to high heavens not worried about the overwhelming number of FOREIGN OWNED ships bringing goods into US ports?  Why are they not worried about all those FOREIGN crews on those ships?  those ships were loaded by foreigners as well.

When it all gets down to the bottom line, it appears that to the dems national security is nothing more than political rhetoric.

222662[/snapback]

Raptor says "political allegiances aside" and TigerMike with his head even further up his ass than usual, instead just bashes Democrats, even though some of the harshest critics have been Republicans. The deal is not delayed b/c of Dems-- they have no power-- the deal is delayed due a lack of Republican support for it. Granted, there are people on both sides of the aisle who may be responding from their gut more than their head and some people will use it politically--again on both sides of the aisle since you won't see many Congressmen campaigning with this President this fall-- 34% approval ratings don't have the kind of coattails anyone wants. Dems will use it, Repubs wanting to distance themselves will use it, but there are legitimate concerns about this deal.

Republicans Split With Bush on Ports

White House Vows to Brief Lawmakers On Deal With Firm Run by Arab State

By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writers

Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A01

Faced with an unprecedented Republican revolt over national security, the White House disclosed yesterday that President Bush was unaware of a Middle Eastern company's planned takeover of operations at six U.S. seaports until recent days and promised to brief members of Congress more fully on the pending deal.

One day after threatening to veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle the controversial $6.8 billion deal, Bush sounded a more conciliatory tone by saying lawmakers should have been given more details about a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates purchasing some terminal operations in Baltimore and five other U.S. cities.

Once again, the specter of foreigners gaining control over strategic American assets is sparking an uproar in Congress. And that is reigniting a debate about whether the United States is too open to foreign investors -- or whether it is prone to self-destructive fits of xenophobia.

"This is one where we probably should have consulted with or briefed Congress on sooner," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

But congressional Republicans renewed their vow to prevent the sale from being finalized next month and warned Bush, sometimes in taunting terms, that an overwhelming majority of lawmakers will oppose the sale on national security grounds. "Dear Mr President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO but HELL NO!" Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) wrote to Bush in a one-sentence letter.

The administration on Jan. 17 approved the sale of a London-based company that manages terminals at the U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates.

The U.S. government reviews business transactions with national security implications and decided after a 23-day review by mid-level officials that Dubai Ports World posed no threat . McClellan said Bush learned about the sale in recent days, after it had been widely reported.

In seeking to assuage critics, administration officials noted that the local or state ports authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard would be responsible for security at the six ports -- not Dubai Ports World, which would be responsible for running terminal facilities and loading and unloading ships and storing the containers they transport.

All dock workers are union members who must undergo background checks, officials stressed. Bush said that those attacking the sale were holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than the British port operator that is being acquired by Dubai Ports World.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) rejected Bush's call to allow the sale to go through early next month and they remain committed to delaying it, their spokesmen said yesterday.

Republican lawmakers have been flooded with phone calls and letters from constituents encouraging them to fight Bush over the port deal, even at the expense of GOP unity on combating terrorism -- possibly their best political issue. As a result, Bush and Republicans are divided over a national security issue as never before and bracing for a possible showdown that could force Bush to either delay the sale or veto a Republican bill against it, according to congressional and White House officials.

With the president's ratings mired around 40 percent approval, some Republican lawmakers who face tough reelection bids in November have been looking for ways to distance themselves from Bush without appearing to be soft on terrorism. The president, who once enjoyed near unanimous support from GOP allies on Capitol Hill, has seen a steady rise in Republican criticism over Iraq, Iran, warrantless domestic spying and now the port deal.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said political pressure from constituents is driving the debate. Lawmakers, he said, are "responding to incredible local political pressure."

In a bid to defuse the controversy, Bush has instructed aides to brief members of Congress on Dubai Ports World, its operations and the intelligence community's findings that the firm poses no risk to national security. The briefings began yesterday.

Some of the big names on K Street have joined the Dubai Ports World fight on the side of the United Arab Emirates-owned company.

Once again, the specter of foreigners gaining control over strategic American assets is sparking an uproar in Congress. And that is reigniting a debate about whether the United States is too open to foreign investors -- or whether it is prone to self-destructive fits of xenophobia.

These include former Senate majority leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), and a Democratic power couple in Washington, former representative Tom Downey (D-N.Y) and Carol M. Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Dole's law firm, Alston & Bird LLP, led the effort by Dubai Ports World to steer its proposed acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. through the U.S. government approval process.

A senior White House official, who discussed internal strategy under the condition of anonymity, said Bush realizes that Republicans are dug in and that he may have to compromise. "We are sensitive to the fact that people have taken firm positions," the official said. But that effort was complicated by the disclosure that Bush and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow were unaware until this week about the purchase agreement and the administration's approval of the transaction last month.

Snow, whose department chairs the secretive executive branch panel that reviewed the proposed sale, told reporters in Torrington, Conn., that "I learned of this transaction probably the same way as members of the Senate did, by reading it in the newspapers."

Scores of lawmakers have complained that the transaction was not sufficiently scrutinized. Some lawmakers said Snow's comments reinforced the image of a quick and easy approval process.

At the Treasury Department, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), which includes Cabinet officials and White House aides, examines sales with potential national security risks and usually attracts little attention.

Administration officials did not consider the sale of port terminal management to a Middle Eastern company dangerous or potentially controversial, White House aides said. Foreign-owned companies including a Chinese operation have controlled terminals at various U.S. ports for years -- and lawmakers have rarely complained. The White House said intelligence officials reviewed the sale and raised no concerns.

In a private briefing for House aides late yesterday, administration officials from the departments of State, Defense, Treasury and Homeland Security said the CFIUS met only once during a 23-day review of the sale and that the few objections raised were quickly addressed.

A Homeland Security official, for instance, argued successfully that the UAE company should be required to open its books without the threat of subpoena, participants said. Dubai Ports World agreed. Administration officials said they were trying to get a copy of that agreement to provide to lawmakers. The Associated Press reported last night that the administration, before approving the ports deal, secretly required the firm to cooperate with future U.S. investigations.

Under a 1993 amendment to the law that helped create the review panel, a more rigorous 45-day investigation is automatically required if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Patrick Mulloy, a member of the government-appointed U.S.-China trade commission and a critic of the approval process, said that Treasury officials throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations have routinely ignored the 1993 language.

"The culture of the department is to oppose [the longer review] as an impediment to foreign investment," he said.

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...?referrer=email

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Politics aside, people are ranting in igonorance over the UAE deal. They fail to mention that several ports are already operated by Saudi Arabian companies (and were under Clinton) and one port is even operated by a company based in China. It is almost a moot point who operates the ports. The devil is in the detaails and the detail is in the ships coming into the ports. Most of the ships coming into our ports come from foreign countries, are operated by foreign crews and are carrying foreign cargos of which only a small sample are inspected. Get the picture?

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Politics aside, people are ranting in igonorance over the UAE deal. They fail to mention that several ports are already operated by Saudi Arabian companies (and were under Clinton) ...

222840[/snapback]

So 9/11 didn't "change everything" afterall?

[Tigermike 3,051]

Politics aside, people are ranting in igonorance over the UAE deal. They fail to mention that several ports are already operated by Saudi Arabian companies (and were under Clinton) ...

222840[/snapback]

So 9/11 didn't "change everything" afterall?

222848[/snapback]

So you are saying that because of 9/11 Arabs cannot invest in America? Yeah you for sure know all about heads being in asses.

And as is usually the case the great liberal hypocrite from Texas has reading comprehension problems. No bashing of democrats, just the truth.

But answer a couple of questions. Was the Bush Administration in accordance with the law when they signed off on this deal? Did all aspects of the deal go though all the hoops, bells and whistles required by law? Did none of these congressional "experts" not know of this deal until a week ago? They could have read the newspaper, it's been in the works for months. So why the uproar now? The only conclusion an honest person could come up with is they planed the uproar to make political points or that this is another in a long line of manufactured scandals & blunders attributed to this administration. Was this a spur of the moment action or has this deal been in the works for months? Is this a bad deal or an example of Congress' overstepping its authority into purely executive matters. Congress was not denied information, it has been in papers for months. This entire brouhaha was and is just another example of demagoguery by politicians, on both sides of the aisle. If the critics of this deal are not playing up the prejudices and playing on the emotions of the public, then tell us what they are doing. Neither them or YOU have said anything or provided any reason the deal should not go thru. And don't go into national security concerns because this company will not be in charge of port security.

You take offense that I pointed out the actions of democrats but hasn't it been you guys mantra that we should get other countries involved in the war on terrorism rather than go it alone? Well the only reason the critics can give is that it is Arabs. Is promoting democracy in the Middle East a basic foreign policy goal (of ANY administration)? Would democracy in the Middle East not benefit the United States and the entire world? What better way to do that than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Obviously Congress (and any democrat) doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.

The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, is a close ally, providing the United States with valuable intelligence and cooperation in the war on terror. To void the deal would make the United States a hypocrite on free trade and also provide fuel to the fire for Al Qaeda. Democrat critics of the war on terrorism have said that we should rely more on foreign policy than military force in the war. This deal conforms with those demands. But now they don't like it because "they hate Bush".

Oh and by BTW get your head out of the asses of Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, Hastert, Durbin, Byrd,,,,,,, If you look for information rather than just regurgitate what they tell you, on hells bells never mind that will never happen.

demagogue

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Politics aside, people are ranting in igonorance over the UAE deal. They fail to mention that several ports are already operated by Saudi Arabian companies (and were under Clinton) ...

222840[/snapback]

So 9/11 didn't "change everything" afterall?

222848[/snapback]

So you are saying that because of 9/11 Arabs cannot invest in America? Yeah you for sure know all about heads being in asses.

And as is usually the case the great liberal hypocrite from Texas has reading comprehension problems. No bashing of democrats, just the truth.

But answer a couple of questions. Was the Bush Administration in accordance with the law when they signed off on this deal? Did all aspects of the deal go though all the hoops, bells and whistles required by law? Did none of these congressional "experts" not know of this deal until a week ago? They could have read the newspaper, it's been in the works for months. So why the uproar now? The only conclusion an honest person could come up with is they planed the uproar to make political points or that this is another in a long line of manufactured scandals & blunders attributed to this administration. Was this a spur of the moment action or has this deal been in the works for months? Is this a bad deal or an example of Congress' overstepping its authority into purely executive matters. Congress was not denied information, it has been in papers for months. This entire brouhaha was and is just another example of demagoguery by politicians, on both sides of the aisle. If the critics of this deal are not playing up the prejudices and playing on the emotions of the public, then tell us what they are doing. Neither them or YOU have said anything or provided any reason the deal should not go thru. And don't go into national security concerns because this company will not be in charge of port security.

You take offense that I pointed out the actions of democrats but hasn't it been you guys mantra that we should get other countries involved in the war on terrorism rather than go it alone? Well the only reason the critics can give is that it is Arabs. Is promoting democracy in the Middle East a basic foreign policy goal (of ANY administration)? Would democracy in the Middle East not benefit the United States and the entire world? What better way to do that than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Obviously Congress (and any democrat) doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.

The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, is a close ally, providing the United States with valuable intelligence and cooperation in the war on terror. To void the deal would make the United States a hypocrite on free trade and also provide fuel to the fire for Al Qaeda. Democrat critics of the war on terrorism have said that we should rely more on foreign policy than military force in the war. This deal conforms with those demands. But now they don't like it because "they hate Bush".

Oh and by BTW get your head out of the asses of Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, Hastert, Durbin, Byrd,,,,,,, If you look for information rather than just regurgitate what they tell you, on hells bells never mind that will never happen.

demagogue

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

222850[/snapback]

demagogue

  1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

That's our President. Role reversal is an interesting thing. He was so effective at demogogueing the "war on terra" that now he's having trouble reigning in his own party. But it's good to see that you didn't stray from the WH talking points too long. Guess they got you back in for a brushup brainwash:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

You slam Dems, ignore Republican comments, including your own conclusion that "Bush has lost his mind." And then you call me a "hypocrite". Classic.

Funny how you say anyone who wanted to pay attention would have known about the deal when the WH admitted Bush knew NOTHING about it. Neither did Rumsfeld. Or Chertoff. Glad it was so closely reviewed.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Politics aside, people are ranting in igonorance over the UAE deal. They fail to mention that several ports are already operated by Saudi Arabian companies (and were under Clinton) ...

222840[/snapback]

So 9/11 didn't "change everything" afterall?

222848[/snapback]

So you are saying that because of 9/11 Arabs cannot invest in America? Yeah you for sure know all about heads being in asses.

And as is usually the case the great liberal hypocrite from Texas has reading comprehension problems. No bashing of democrats, just the truth.

But answer a couple of questions. Was the Bush Administration in accordance with the law when they signed off on this deal? Did all aspects of the deal go though all the hoops, bells and whistles required by law? Did none of these congressional "experts" not know of this deal until a week ago? They could have read the newspaper, it's been in the works for months. So why the uproar now? The only conclusion an honest person could come up with is they planed the uproar to make political points or that this is another in a long line of manufactured scandals & blunders attributed to this administration. Was this a spur of the moment action or has this deal been in the works for months? Is this a bad deal or an example of Congress' overstepping its authority into purely executive matters. Congress was not denied information, it has been in papers for months. This entire brouhaha was and is just another example of demagoguery by politicians, on both sides of the aisle. If the critics of this deal are not playing up the prejudices and playing on the emotions of the public, then tell us what they are doing. Neither them or YOU have said anything or provided any reason the deal should not go thru. And don't go into national security concerns because this company will not be in charge of port security.

You take offense that I pointed out the actions of democrats but hasn't it been you guys mantra that we should get other countries involved in the war on terrorism rather than go it alone? Well the only reason the critics can give is that it is Arabs. Is promoting democracy in the Middle East a basic foreign policy goal (of ANY administration)? Would democracy in the Middle East not benefit the United States and the entire world? What better way to do that than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Obviously Congress (and any democrat) doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.

The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, is a close ally, providing the United States with valuable intelligence and cooperation in the war on terror. To void the deal would make the United States a hypocrite on free trade and also provide fuel to the fire for Al Qaeda. Democrat critics of the war on terrorism have said that we should rely more on foreign policy than military force in the war. This deal conforms with those demands. But now they don't like it because "they hate Bush".

Oh and by BTW get your head out of the asses of Schumer, Kennedy, Clinton, Feinstein, Hastert, Durbin, Byrd,,,,,,, If you look for information rather than just regurgitate what they tell you, on hells bells never mind that will never happen.

demagogue

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

222850[/snapback]

demagogue

  1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

That's our President. Role reversal is an interesting thing. He was so effective at demogogueing the "war on terra" that now he's having trouble reigning in his own party. But it's good to see that you didn't stray from the WH talking points too long. Guess they got you back in for a brushup brainwash:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

You slam Dems, ignore Republican comments, including your own conclusion that "Bush has lost his mind." And then you call me a "hypocrite". Classic.

Funny how you say anyone who wanted to pay attention would have known about the deal when the WH admitted Bush knew NOTHING about it. Neither did Rumsfeld. Or Chertoff. Glad it was so closely reviewed.

222855[/snapback]

Here is the thread title,

Political allegiances aside, what do YOU think?, About DPW *and * our ports?

if you can't stay on subject, then shut the hell up.

No I call you a hypocrite for making any and all thread personal. You who in the past have made the statement that there should be discussions rather than pot shots and personal attacks at each other. You who are usually the first to do so in any and all threads. Hypocrite extraordinaire thy name is texastiger.

Oh and BTW would you care to answer any of the questions above? What's wrong have Moveon & the DNC not sent you instructions yet other than to continue with the Bush bashing?

[quietfan 233]

Well, despite the topic of this thread supposedly being "political allegiances aside", looks like most of the responses are deeply immersed in political allegiance. I do think it's a mistake to make this a "Democrat vs. Republican" battle because there are many powerful voices from both sides of the aisle complaining about it.

A big thing to me: As with Cheney's hunting accident, I'm really surprized the Administration could not have anticipated the PR ramifications more clearly. Even when I've disagreed with W & Co., I gave them credit for being more politically astute than they demonstrated in the way they handle the public reaction in either of these situations. If I were a big Bush supporter, I would still be taken aback by how they fumbled the public relations aspect of these stories.

Politics aside, I hope one good thing comes of "portsgate". By shining the spotlight on port security, maybe this will result in serious improvements in our port security efforts, which lag dangerously behind what we've done in airports. Regardless of who runs the ports, we need to do better than inspecting only 5% or less of all the containers coming into our ports. The way things are now, it would not be too hard to smuggle a suitcase nuke or drums of nerve gas into any of our major ports. And that is a problem that should be immediately addressed regardless of who is running the port, or who sits in the White House, or who controls Congress.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

demagogue

   1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

That's our President. Role reversal is an interesting thing. He was so effective at demogogueing the "war on terra" that now he's having trouble reigning in his own party. But it's good to see that you didn't stray from the WH talking points too long. Guess they got you back in for a brushup brainwash:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

You slam Dems, ignore Republican comments, including your own conclusion that "Bush has lost his mind." And then you call me a "hypocrite". Classic.

Funny how you say anyone who wanted to pay attention would have known about the deal when the WH admitted Bush knew NOTHING about it. Neither did Rumsfeld. Or Chertoff. Glad it was so closely reviewed.

222855[/snapback]

Here is the thread title,

Political allegiances aside, what do YOU think?, About DPW *and * our ports?

if you can't stay on subject, then shut the hell up.

No I call you a hypocrite for making any and all thread personal. You who in the past have made the statement that there should be discussions rather than pot shots and personal attacks at each other. You who are usually the first to do so in any and all threads. Hypocrite extraordinaire thy name is texastiger.

Oh and BTW would you care to answer any of the questions above? What's wrong have Moveon & the DNC not sent you instructions yet other than to continue with the Bush bashing?

222868[/snapback]

Welcome back, Tex. It's been a while. You must have got your direct line to Screamin' Howie Dean's desk repaired.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

demagogue

   1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

That's our President. Role reversal is an interesting thing. He was so effective at demogogueing the "war on terra" that now he's having trouble reigning in his own party. But it's good to see that you didn't stray from the WH talking points too long. Guess they got you back in for a brushup brainwash:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

You slam Dems, ignore Republican comments, including your own conclusion that "Bush has lost his mind." And then you call me a "hypocrite". Classic.

Funny how you say anyone who wanted to pay attention would have known about the deal when the WH admitted Bush knew NOTHING about it. Neither did Rumsfeld. Or Chertoff. Glad it was so closely reviewed.

222855[/snapback]

Here is the thread title,

Political allegiances aside, what do YOU think?, About DPW *and * our ports?

if you can't stay on subject, then shut the hell up.

No I call you a hypocrite for making any and all thread personal. You who in the past have made the statement that there should be discussions rather than pot shots and personal attacks at each other. You who are usually the first to do so in any and all threads. Hypocrite extraordinaire thy name is texastiger.

Oh and BTW would you care to answer any of the questions above? What's wrong have Moveon & the DNC not sent you instructions yet other than to continue with the Bush bashing?

222868[/snapback]

Welcome back, Tex. It's been a while. You must have got your direct line to Screamin' Howie Dean's desk repaired.

222878[/snapback]

Thanks. I see you're still the same old GOP talking points broken record with no support for your assertion. Interesting, though. You always make the same baseless claim that I'm parroting someone, but as it has been clearly shown, my thinking is original and you are totally unwilling to reply regardless of what I say.

Flying fighter jets in the TANG is very honorable.  NOT flying in the TANG b/c you have been grounded for failing to take a physical after being trained to fly fighter jets is not.  At that point he was no longer meeting his obligation.    How do you justify that, BTW?

210782[/snapback]

Funny, I don't recall the attacks against Bush this way. Terry McAuliffe, then chairman of the DNC accused him of being AWOL, your boy Rather tried to get him with forged documents, and your war hero Kerry said Bush never showed up for training at all.

210798[/snapback]

That time you at least recognized my arguments were my own. And yet you refused to respond because my comments weren't the DNC line. Decide, will ya?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Yep, you're back.....talking about everything but the subject at hand.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Yep, you're back.....talking about everything but the subject at hand.

223040[/snapback]

Only because I'm replying to your off-topic post.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Other than chiming in to bash the President (shock ), attacking TigerMike, and pasting some BS article; you have yet to bring forth your own opinion on the DPW deal. Where do you stand? I've got a pretty good idea....the same place you always stand; directly across from this administration. Nice robot!

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Other than chiming in to bash the President (shock ), attacking TigerMike, and pasting some BS article; you have yet to bring forth your own opinion on the DPW deal. Where do you stand? I've got a pretty good idea....the same place you always stand; directly across from this administration. Nice robot!

223043[/snapback]

What is robotic is your standard claim that every post is a "Bush Bash" and that a straightforward, factual article is "BS," without refuting a single point in it. No thinking required for your posts. Funny, Tigermike says Bush has lost his mind, which I've never said, and yet you think I'm the one being so harsh to your King.

I've pretty much said where I stand. In short, it was handled surprisingly badly, it has been mischaracterized by many in the media and both parties and thus overplayed, but, nonetheless, does raise some concerns I think are legitimate. A pretty evenhanded, balanced view, actually. Which is probably why you missed it.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Other than chiming in to bash the President (shock ), attacking TigerMike, and pasting some BS article; you have yet to bring forth your own opinion on the DPW deal. Where do you stand? I've got a pretty good idea....the same place you always stand; directly across from this administration. Nice robot!

223043[/snapback]

What is robotic is your standard claim that every post is a "Bush Bash" and that a straightforward, factual article is "BS," without refuting a single point in it. No thinking required for your posts. Funny, Tigermike says Bush has lost his mind, which I've never said, and yet you think I'm the one being so harsh to your King.

I've pretty much said where I stand. In short, it was handled surprisingly badly, it has been mischaracterized by many in the media and both parties and thus overplayed, but, nonetheless, does raise some concerns I think are legitimate. A pretty evenhanded, balanced view, actually. Which is probably why you missed it.

223065[/snapback]

Once again it is obvious you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course. I never said that and I think you know it. In the future if you can not understand what is said and how it is meant, don't try to twist things to fit your agenda.

PS - I can provide the exact quote if you need it.

[channonc 466]

Politics aside, I hope one good thing comes of "portsgate".  By shining the spotlight on port security, maybe this will result in serious improvements in our port security efforts, which lag dangerously behind what we've done in airports.  Regardless of who runs the ports, we need to do better than inspecting only 5% or less of all the containers coming into our ports.  The way things are now, it would not be too hard to smuggle a suitcase nuke or drums of nerve gas into any of our major ports.  And that is a problem that should be immediately addressed regardless of who is running the port, or who sits in the White House, or who controls Congress.

222874[/snapback]

Couldn't agree more. Americans in this country need to wake up!! The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes. We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security. These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Politics aside, I hope one good thing comes of "portsgate".  By shining the spotlight on port security, maybe this will result in serious improvements in our port security efforts, which lag dangerously behind what we've done in airports.  Regardless of who runs the ports, we need to do better than inspecting only 5% or less of all the containers coming into our ports.  The way things are now, it would not be too hard to smuggle a suitcase nuke or drums of nerve gas into any of our major ports.  And that is a problem that should be immediately addressed regardless of who is running the port, or who sits in the White House, or who controls Congress.

222874[/snapback]

Couldn't agree more. Americans in this country need to wake up!! The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes. We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security. These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

channonc, why do you think no one in congress has wanted to take the lead in this? There would be strong public support for better security all around, at least I would think so. Why not legislation proposing just such a move, by several Senators (R & D)?

[quietfan 233]

Politics aside, I hope one good thing comes of "portsgate".  By shining the spotlight on port security, maybe this will result in serious improvements in our port security efforts, which lag dangerously behind what we've done in airports.  Regardless of who runs the ports, we need to do better than inspecting only 5% or less of all the containers coming into our ports.  The way things are now, it would not be too hard to smuggle a suitcase nuke or drums of nerve gas into any of our major ports.  And that is a problem that should be immediately addressed regardless of who is running the port, or who sits in the White House, or who controls Congress.

222874[/snapback]

Couldn't agree more. Americans in this country need to wake up!! The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes. We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security. These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

channonc, why do you think no one in congress has wanted to take the lead in this? There would be strong public support for better security all around, at least I would think so. Why not legislation proposing just such a move, by several Senators (R & D)?

223109[/snapback]

Good Question. Seems like this would be a win-win situation for anybody in Congress. There'd be strong public support, there would probably be some good "face time" in the media, and you could probably bring some federal dollars to your home district without it being labeled "pork".