Ya just gotta wait of it!!

[Backpacker]

Rooster

Per usual you find ONE story that kind of supports your view and that becomes your Bible, again rose colored glasses. If you bothered to read more news reports and political magazines you would see that all the Homeland Security agencies are vehemently opposed to the deal, that cabinet rep is a Bush appointee so of course he supports Bush. The heads of the CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, etc. all advised the president very clearly their opposition which Bush has chosen to ignore.

 

What will it take Rooster, to see Boston or Baltimore in flames before you see how myopic Bush is being. Long Haul is correct, if Kerry was president suggesting this deal you would be branding him as UnAmerican, just like you do with people who disagree with your own viewpoints.

[frankj]

John-in-KC: It is Frist, and DeLay, as well as any Republican in a close race for Congress in the coming mid-term election. The Democrats will seize the issue as one they can use to show how they support the War on Terror. Where does that leave the Republicans seeking re-election? They have to show somehow, that they are even more against the deal than the Dems, but do it without making the White House look bad. A difficult task -- what's needed is a scapegoat.

 

One positive outcome I see is with members of Congress from both parties falling over themselves to get in front of TV cameras to howl about security at home, maybe something will actually get done about illegal immigration, particularly along our southern border.

[wyomingi]

While I think the public concern over security at the ports is overdone and is being stirred up for political ends, I also think that the Bush administration is getting what it deserves. They whipped up public support for the invasion of Iran by implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Now they see no problem with dealing with a county with strong ties to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Public statements by our president continually emphasize that we are at war with terror and that he has been given extraordinary power to limit freedom in this country. If this is the case then shouldnt he be subjecting this deal to extraordinary scrutiny?

 

I would like to know if our government will be listening to the port operators phone calls.

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Seems to me that Rooster pretty much represents the other side of what might be called the "screaming Bush hater" side of the coin. That would be the side that lovingly supports Bush regardless of his actions and can see no wrong in anything he does. At least, that's how Rooster seems to be coming off on this particular topic (by my read, anyway).

 

As I said early on in this thread, it remains to be seen whether the port deal is really a security problem or not. The real issue is that Bush allowed his own party in Congress to get blindsided by this. His desire for secrecy in all things is now even locking out those who would normally support him. With no re-election to worry about, he can basically be a loose cannon now.

 

And Rooster, there does come a time when you have to trust your leaders. But, that trust has to be earned, and I can't think of much that this president has done to earn that trust. Secret dealings with oil industry leaders to define energy policy. Secret imprisonments and torture, using some stilted views of international law that, as far as I can tell, most rational governments object to. Secret courts doling out secret pronouncements. Going to war for reasons that were tenuous at best, and misleading at worst. (Anyone actually believe the current line that Saddam was really a bad guy and that's why we invaded? If so, you should plan for a few more invasions using that logic). The War on Terror? What happened to that? What we've seemed to accomplish with that is just to create more enemies than we had before.

 

Sorry. I didn't vote for the guy, but honestly hoped he'd do something we could all be proud of. So far, I don't see it.

[packsaddle]

Prairie, I agree with most of what you said. The one departure I have is that I did trust the guy at first. I gave him the benefit of my trust and later the benefit of the doubt. But when it came to light that he KNEW the wmd thing was doubtful, his lie earned my contempt. Under no circumstance will he ever have my trust again. And every decision made by him, past and future, must also be suspect. The other actions you cite just push them farther into the status of 'criminal' as far as I'm concerned. I wish I could offer some hope for the future but I can't.

[John-in-KC]

To packsaddle: If I am reading you, you report your belief that the incumbent Administration is committing criminal acts. There is a solution for you: Advocate your Representative introduce a Bill of Impeachment.

 

To all: I see, this morning (2/27/06) on google news, way of Reuters, that the Dubai Ports World Company is willing to accept another full 45 day statutory review of the contract and their operations. IMO, they are doing the right thing to help make this go away.

 

 

[packsaddle]

John-in-KC, I can hear you snickering. But I've been there and done that. So all I have left, if I read you right, is to continue to state my opinion in these pages and to 'be prepared' with "told you so" at every opportunity. Have a nice day.

P.S. I received similar comments years ago when I was telling my buddies that Nixon was a crook and later when I was telling them that Reagan had Alzheimer's. Told them so too.

[Rooster7]

Seems to me that Rooster pretty much represents the other side of what might be called the "screaming Bush hater" side of the coin. That would be the side that lovingly supports Bush regardless of his actions and can see no wrong in anything he does.

 

I doubt very much that theres anything I can say that would change your mind in regard to that conclusion. However, the facts are, while I do like Bush a lot, I never said the port deal was a good idea. It may be a horrible idea. Its too early for me or anyone else to really know. Still, I happen to believe that our president, his administration, and all the agencies that support him, might know things that we do not. Regardless, it's so incredibly early in the discovery process, I feel its fair to say that those who condemn Bush based on what they know today, are simply exposing their political leanings and their lack of common sense.

 

As I said early on in this thread, it remains to be seen whether the port deal is really a security problem or not.

 

Actually TRUE.

 

The real issue is that Bush allowed his own party in Congress to get blindsided by this.

 

But this statement is incredibly wrong the real issue is not how well President Bush appeases his own political party or even if he works well with them (which, is desirable, but not necessary). The real issue is how well President Bush is working to serve us the Nation. If his actions harm this country, then we have good reason to criticize him. If his actions serve us well, then we do not. This needs to be examined without political hysteriasomething that has not occurred yet.

 

Prairie_Scouter seems to believe, those unwilling to jump on a bandwagon preordained to ridicule the President, must love him unconditionally. Sorry this is bad logic and a poor excuse for those who lack judgment. Yes, America is free and its great that we all can express ourselves publicly without fear of reprisal from the government But this right, does not make our words honorable. So, it may be your right to express contempt for the President but I have little respect for those who spew nonsense, just so they can feel good about themselves and the political party of their choosing.

 

[John-in-KC]

Mr packsaddly,

 

Sir, rest assured I AM NOT SNICKERING when I said that.

 

I did not spend over a quarter century in battle dress, voluntarily surrendering some of my free speech rights, to ever say something like that without a straight face. One of the "gut-check" reasons I counsel Cit in Nation is the kids need to understand the process of citizenship!!!!

 

I agree, it may not go very far ... now. Who knows what will come to public light next? Opinions in the district do shift over time.

 

BTW, I grew up in California: The story of how Nixon defeated Helen Gehagen Douglas is an old story in my family; he was distrusted since four years before I was born!!! FWIW, I was taking AP US History and Government in my 11th and 12th grade years (SY 72-73 and Fall 73 semester). The classroom was a constant lab in the process, thanks to the hearings and the onward slide of the Administration.

 

YIS(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[packsaddle]

Yep, and too late...I had already voted for the guy. I guess I'm too gullible, which explains why I fell for the Bush line. Shame on me.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Rooster,

I don't hold the guy in contempt. I just think he's doing a really bad job. And, I think we're getting dangerously close to confirming that his administration knowingly misled the American people into a war. We're not quite there yet, but getting closer as time goes by. If it wasn't for Cheney spreading fear during the last election cycle, I don't think there's any way he would have been re-elected.

 

I think the American electorate made a bad choice in 2004 (the Supreme Court made a bad choice in 2000, in my view). Only history will tell whether that's a correct assessment or not. I do know that the next administration will take years to correct the damage done in relations with our former allies. And we're hundreds of billions of dollars away from fixing the damage we've wrought in Iraq. And our kids will be paying for the tax cuts the President insists on pushing for, since we don't have any money to pay for them now.

 

So, you're right, I'm not going to be changing my mind about this president.

 

However, in regards to this thread, his big mistake was not keeping the Congress informed on a transaction that his handlers had to know was going to be a hot potato once it went public. It was a bone-headed mistake that could have been easily avoided.

[scoutingagain]

"However, in regards to this thread, his big mistake was not keeping the Congress informed on a transaction that his handlers had to know was going to be a hot potato once it went public."

 

PS,

 

Have to disagree with this. At this point I think Rove, et al, have woefully underestimated the degree to which this administration has lost credibility with the American people, and not just with those that have historically opposed him, but with moderate and conservative Republicans as well. About the only folks I see left that fully support the President is the religious wing of the Republican party.

 

Outside of a handful of candidates in the Bible Belt, I don't expect many Republicans up for re-election to be asking of alot of support from the Bush administration. Look at the reaction to this administration by the Republican Governors this week.

 

SA

[funscout]

For those of you who insist there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what do you call the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein used to kill MASSES of Kurds? I'm sure the left-behind relatives of these dead Iraquis are seethiing with anger over people who claim that their loved one's deaths were not a massive trajedy.

[LongHaul]

First I need to ask, If you had prior suspicions concerning the attack on 911 and they were ignored would I told you so be of ANY solace now? When its too late, Its too late! The more I read about DWP and the Bush Administrations ties to the UAE the more freighted I get. Just some stuff Ive come across trying to increase my knowledge of this issue.

http://www.senatedemocrats.net/node/475

 http://www.senatedemocrats.net/node/471

 In South Florida, U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, and Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, held separate news conferences urging greater study of the deal. Foley said he's worried because the United Arab Emirates has been named as a transfer point for nuclear components shipped to Iran, North Korea and Libya. It also was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government, and it is discussing plans for free trade with Iran. "If tensions rise even more with Iran, who would Dubai side with?" Foley said at the Port of Miami. The U.S. Navy has been using the port of Dubai as a veritable base for years. The Dubai port is the only one in the entire Persian Gulf with the capability of handling aircraft carriers. DPW has just acquired British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), which has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to load military equipment at the Texas ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010, where almost two-thirds of the supplies for the U.S. military begin their passage to war. Halliburton This company truly has a guardian angel: former Halliburton CEO and now Vice President Dick Cheney who looks out for its interests from the White House. The result? $8 billion in contracts rebuilding Iraq in 2004. CEO: David J. Lesar Military contracts 2004: $8 billion Campaign contributions in 2004: $217,199 (Oil & gas related) The biggest windfall in the invasion of Iraq has most certainly gone to the oil services and logistics company Halliburton . The company, which was formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, had revenue of over $8 billion in contracts in Iraq in 2003 alone. And while Halliburton s dealings in Iraq have been dogged everywhere by scandal including now a criminal investigation into overcharging by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root for gas shipped into Iraq Vice President Cheney manages to be doing quite well from the deal. He owns $433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options worth more than $10 million dollars. Halliburton has a large base of operations in Dubai .

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk0MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY4ODYwNzEmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky

The 45 day period mandated by law for review of foreign contracts such as this was ignored.

 President Bush, almost in the same breath said that he didnt know anything about the deal but would veto any attempts by Congress to stop it.

 I remember a Republican President who once said something to the effect; If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and sounds like a duck ITS A DUCK Hey! maybe this is a job for Cheney.(Cheap shot, I apologize)

 LongHaul

P.S. I anyone has links to anything favoring the DWP deal that go beyond "Just support Bush" or that rely on the Arab bashing defense please post them. 

[SR540Beaver]

funscout,

 

20 minutes ago, I had a Chicken, Bacon, Ranch on Monterey Cheese Bread from Subway. 5 minutes ago, I finished eating it. I no longer have it. I did at one time, but no more. What Saddam had in his arsenal and used a decade ago and what he had when we invaded are two different things. No caches of WMD's have been found in the three years we have occupied Iraq. No evidence of it existing or being moved has been provided from the covert boots on the ground prior to the war or from satelite surveilence. From all indications, it was all destroyed prior to the war.