PeterDavid.net

But I thought he was supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them?

I feel slightly guilty over the twinge of satisfaction that I feel, seeing the results of the Administration exhausting what little trust they had, even from their own party. Maybe this deal is on the up and up. Who knows? but finally, to see Congress start to demand accountability from an Administration that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence, ineptitude, and deceit from the very beginning is a sign that maybe things are starting to turn around.

I laughed a little at the Administration's comments that we have to be careful here, or the US will be sees as playing favorites. For one, favorites to who? By demanding trasparency in a deal with ostensibly an Arab ally, we're showing that we're not playing favorites. Just the opposite, we're demanding the same rigorous test of security from our allies that we demand elsewhere. Second, it's the old "trust me" line. If Katrina showed us anything, it's that, finally, we realize that this administration cannot be trusted.

Actually, the BRITISH company that owned the concession rights to the ports sold the concession rights to a company in the UAE. These operate outside the security corridor already patrolled by the Coast Guard. The ports themselves will be guarded -- and worked -- as always by American longshoremen and Coast Guard patrol boats.

Actually, the BRITISH company that owned the concession rights to the ports sold the concession rights to a company in the UAE. These operate outside the security corridor already patrolled by the Coast Guard. The ports themselves will be guarded -- and worked -- as always by American longshoremen and Coast Guard patrol boats.
----------------------------------------
How dare you let facts get in the way of a good argument.

"Actually, the BRITISH company that owned the concession rights to the ports sold the concession rights to a company in the UAE. These operate outside the security corridor already patrolled by the Coast Guard. The ports themselves will be guarded -- and worked -- as always by American longshoremen and Coast Guard patrol boats."

Actually the company is wholey owned by the UAE government. the same government that supported the Taliban and helped the 9/11 hijackers.

"How dare you let facts get in the way of a good argument."
Indeed!

A bit off topic (okay a lot off topic), but are we going to be seeing a Star Trek New Frontier - Missing in Action thread?

The ports themselves will be guarded -- and worked -- as always by American longshoremen and Coast Guard patrol boats.

Yes, that would be the same system we have in place in which less than 5% of cargo containers are actually being inspected? Yeah, I feel safe.

The real question is one of security. Is it possible that a UAE country could hire an employee who is secretly an Al Qaida operative and will use his position to help smuggle a nuclear or biological device into the country? Hell yeah! Is there sufficient safeguards in place to protect against that? Not according to every independent and bipartisan review of our port security.

Of couse, Georgie is threatening to veto any measure from Congress to block this deal, proving once again that he hasn't got a clue about anything.

I can't help but think about the shitstorm that happened when a similar situation came down when Clinton was considering giving a Chinese company control of some of our west coast. "Treason!" was a common cry among the punditry on Fox "News".

As far as I know, Chinese banks weren't used as a conduit for funding for Al Qaida.

There's an absolutely ridiculous splitting of hairs going on, guys...

The core of the issue is, why are we letting a nation with strong and clear links to everybody we're supposedly fighting against have anything whatsoever to do with securing our seaports?

Brian: According to Amazon, MIA doesn't come out for another week. Did you already get a copy?

Of couse, Georgie is threatening to veto any measure from Congress to block this deal, proving once again that he hasn't got a clue about anything.

If this article on Yahoo is accurate, than truer words were never spoken, Den:

This article on the main page of Yahoo says Bush was unaware of the pending sale until AFTER it had already been approved by his Administration.

Yeah, he's completely smegging clueless alright.

One thing I find amusing (maybe even ironic) is bush calling the opponents of this racist.

Great, Dumbya didn't even know about this transaction before it was approved and now he's vowing to veto any measure to thwart it.

Damnit. Craig beat me in posting the same article.

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2008, a nuclear device is smuggled into the country through one of our ports and detonated in a major US city. The CIA and FBI completely missed it because Bush was ordering them to focus on spying on Quakers in Florida.

You're Karl Rove. How do you craft a response in the media that puts all the blame on Clinton getting a blow job?

We need to step back just a second.


With his poll numbers in the trash, shotgun Cheney on the loose and the American public wondering about the wiretaps we suddenly get something the Rebulicans can use to distance themselves from the administration just before the midterm elections. Smells like Rove to me.

It probably wouldn't annoy me half as much if I didn't live within 15 or so miles of said ports. The British I trust, By the way, just a little more than a country that has leaders who want to wipe a nation off the map - and the people in it and other countries who are of the same beliefs....

Perhaps this has something to do with it?

Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13922695.htm

Well that's hardly shocking. For the past five years, any company with a connection to the administration has been sitting pretty.

And as far as this being some kind of Rovian misdirection plot, I don't think even he's clever enough to engineer the sale of a British company to an UAE company just to give the GOP a boost.

Well Jimmy Carter just came out FOR the deal. That settles it for me. Even though a stopped clock is correct at least twice a day, one will seldom go wrong in doing the exact opposite of what Carter thinks is a sound foreign policy.

Personally, I think this was a terrible idea, not because of any real security fears but because of simple politics. I'm not as outraged as some that Bush was unaware of the sale because I never actually thought that Presidents were supposed to monitor such things but I don't see the sense in trying to stop what seems to me to be a done deal--this sale will not be allowed to stand.

And now the Arabs have yet another thing to scream about. Right on the heels of Al Gore telling them that the USA is discriminating against them they now have proof that no Arab country will be allowed to conduct business here that is allowed to pretty much everyone else.

I'm not aware of the facts that otehrs have mentioned regarding the UAE support of terrorism. According to Reuters it's described as "a staunch ally" and "U.S. warships regularly dock at Dubai's Jebel Ali Port, which is also managed by DP World, and the emirate became the first Middle Eastern port city in 2004 to sign a U.S. pact aimed at deterring the use of shipping containers for terrorism."

"The UAE provides logistical support for some U.S. military operations in the region, including Afghanistan. The Gulf Arab state, an OPEC oil producer, is negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States."

The article (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-22T145021Z_01_L22174752_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-ARABS.xml&rpc=22) also states that Analysts said opposition to the deal stemmed from bias, since the Dubai firm would not oversee security.

But I don't know. Given recent events I just don't want these people in any concievable position of power here. That's not entirely fair, I realize.

So...if the UAE is truly an ally then it is asinine to punish them as if they are a foe and it will hurt us in the long run. If they can't be trusted abd have demonstrated that they can't be trusted (and I don't consider the fact that some of the 9/11 killers were from the UAE sufficiant evidence of that) then the deal should be broken immediately. So which is it? Becaus ethe wrong choice will hurt us.

I'd like to think that the answer to that question can be made fairly, without any regard to how it will affect Bush but it seems that for partisans on both sides that's the first and sometimes only consideration they have.

I'm not as outraged as some that Bush was unaware of the sale because I never actually thought that Presidents were supposed to monitor such things

I'm not so much outraged. Outraged would imply that I'm surprised that he's a clueless twit who doesn't know what his supposed underlings are doing. He already cemented that image in my mind when the words "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job" came out of his mouth.

But don't you think it's odd that he's threatening to use his first ever veto to defend a deal he supposedly didn't know anything about?

I'm also not concerned because two of the hijackers came from the UAE. I am more concerned that funding for 9/11 had been funnelled through UAE banks.

And if it sounds discriminatory to say that we should think twice before allowing an firm owned by an Arab government to have such unlimited access to our ports, so be it. Between 9/11 and the cartoon flap, I'm not in a trusting mood with regards to any government, ally or not, from that region.

But don't you think it's odd that he's threatening to use his first ever veto to defend a deal he supposedly didn't know anything about?

Well, considering that he threatened to use his first veto to defend the right of the adminstration to use torture . . . no, not really.

Well I'm gonna pull a flip flop ala Kerry and say I'm against it. I read somewhere that Jimmy Carter supports this, and that alone can't be good.

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2008, a nuclear device is smuggled into the country through one of our ports and detonated in a major US city. The CIA and FBI completely missed it because Bush was ordering them to focus on spying on Quakers in Florida.

You're Karl Rove. How do you craft a response in the media that puts all the blame on Clinton getting a blow job?

From: "Turd Blossom"
To: All Affiliates
Re: Approved Talking Points - Tampa "Nuclear Event"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
The "scandal fatigue" created by Clinton's many peccadillos and overreaches so wore down the American citizen that eventually, even the most egregious abuse was met with a profound response of "who cares?" Thus, the nuclear vaporization of Tampa was not the fault of President Bush: It is the fault of Clinton for creating this pervasive tolerance for scandal that allowed our government's most jaw-dropping lapses of judgement to occur in the last eight years -- lapses that, if not for a Clinton-induced apathy, would have been greeted with a cry of rage and a demand of accountability instead of a yawn and a shrug.

Sasha,

You're good. You're very good.

Here's a twist to add into the debate.

Dubai World Ports would not only grab major ports by buying P&O. Dubai Ports World would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports.

From the British paper Lloyd’s List:

"(P&O) has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring (loading and unloading) of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010."

That, to me at least, does add quite a bit more weight to this being a very bad idea.

In 2008, a nuclear device is smuggled into the country through one of our ports and detonated in a major US city. The CIA and FBI completely missed it because Bush was ordering them to focus on spying on Quakers in Florida.

You're Karl Rove. How do you craft a response in the media that puts all the blame on Clinton getting a blow job?

Blah blah blah ShorthandDateOfAttack blah blah Major City blah blah 9/11 9/11 9/11 blah blah blah Saddam blah blah blah Clinton blowjob blah.

Howzat?

Right on the heels of Al Gore telling them that the USA is discriminating against them they now have proof that no Arab country will be allowed to conduct business here that is allowed to pretty much everyone else.

Oh, it's ok to do business here... if you're a friend of the Bush family.

See: Saudis in the days after 9/11.

Btw, anybody want to add their own captions to this picture, be my guest.

Sometimes, pictures are worth far more than a thousand words. Especially when Bush is involved. :D

More on my prior post on why this is a bad idea:

Check this out.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_4_36/ai_n6130212

Those two ports mentioned in Lloyd’s List handle around 40% of the total shipments of U.S. military equipment.

If we're so worried about appearing racist, here's the solution: put control of the ports under Federal jurisdiction. What the heck does the Department of Homeland Security do that could be more about securing the homeland than providing security for our points of entry. I totally understand that this administration is filled with MBAs, and that one of the keys is labels that sound like one thing, but totally do another thing.

Every time I think there's nothing this administration can do that will surprise me, they surprise me. Not only are they going to hand over partial port security to the UAE, they're saying that to NOT do so would open up the US to world criticism of playing favorites. Ignore for the moment that P&O has ties to the Administration...playing favorites if ever I've seen it...but essentially, the Administration is more worried about our image as FAIR and BALANCED over our image of expansionist and warlike. I totally expect this administration to play favorites....it's one of the perks of winning the election. But to make such an assinine statement that we're worried about our corporate image more than our military one is just ludicrous. How many countries have been invaded because they played corporate favorites? A good deal less than I'd imagine were because they took an expansionist, militaristic stance.

Will: Yes, I already got a copy, and have read it already as well. It's interesting that Amazon says it's not out yet since that's where I bought mine from.

Somebody call the folks at the Fox network ,I think we got the plot for the next season of 24.
Yeesh!!!!
"Jack Bauer has 24 hours to find a nuclear weapon that was smuggled in the country cause some dumbass let a UAE company control the ports that were already not secured properly"
Sad part is at least on TV we know things turn out okay in the end.

And if it sounds discriminatory to say that we should think twice before allowing an firm owned by an Arab government to have such unlimited access to our ports, so be it. Between 9/11 and the cartoon flap, I'm not in a trusting mood with regards to any government, ally or not, from that region.

And I feel the same way. S does Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulture and a bunch of Daily kossacks and others who very seldom are seen in the same side of anything. So it sounds like a bad idea...

BUT-- if the UAE is, as reported, a major ally in shutting down Al Queada funds and if, as reported, we regualrly berth our Carriers in the UAE, is it not possible that the negative fallout from killing this deal will outweigh the benefit? Especially if, as at least one coast guard guy has claimed, this will actually produce very very little change:

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/005374.html

I know what you are saying and agree, but did you notice how readily you repeated the headlines and used terms that indicate the "running of a port" vice the running of a single port facility?

Besides considering the number of acres the P&O operates in New Orleans here is perhaps a better comparison. Between the Head of Passes and Baton Rouge's upper bridge (the head of most ocean going navigation) the two banks of the river measure over 440 miles in length and are dense with vessel handling facilities.

The P&O manages approximately 2,000 linear feet on the East bank. Of the approximately 300 Coast Guard uniformed personnel , 40 member harbor police, 90 member parish sheriff's department, and several hundred security guards that serve the area the P&O will probably be responsible for staffing 3 physical positions with armed guards.

Of course the P&O already provides these armed American citizens, they have been running the container facility for years. What has changed is the P&Os controlling interest stockholder? If this deal goes through the same guys who are on guard tonight will be there the night after the deal is signed. But some weeks later they may have more lights, communications gear, and cameras since the "new' P&O" has been purchased by a company willing to put money into the Coast Guard approved security plan.

The old P&O stockholders balked at the security costs of doing business in post 9/11 America. Meanwhile I am still on duty along with the rest of the Coast Guard, if someone else is "in charge of port security" we haven't been told and know of no relief coming.

Note - the ports are already being run by foreigners. Of a nation that a Prime Minister famously observed, "...had no permanent friends, only permanent interests."

Certainly the change in ownership of a strategic asset merits scrutiny and discussion. But it helps if you understand the problem before you pronounce on the problem. And by that I refer to the politicians and Big Pundits. We little people, we're supposed to raise our voices in question.

But as I noted before, and still hold: This isn't a huge catastrophe. Unless you think the Department of Homeland Defense and the Coast Guard aren't up to their jobs.

Which is a completely different issue that you allow *this* issue to cloud.

Similarly, an Arab American, who claims that the current leadership of UAE is a model for the rest of the Arab world chimes in: It seems patently hypocritical that America wants democracy in the Middle East, champions capitalism and global integration, pushes for reform, transparency, and anti-corruption practices in business, and then turns around and tells those who are practicing what America preaches, Sorry, we think you folks are a bunch of terrorists, so we don't want you on our shores and don't trust you running our ports.

There is no question, though, that this has been handled in a politically clumsy way.

What doesn't help matters is that, according to the NY Daily News, an Israeli company desiring to complete a much smaller deal involving purchasing an American security software company has been subject to tons more scrutiny than the Arab company which has sailed through the approvals process.

PAD

"There is no question, though, that this has been handled in a politically clumsy way."

That's maybe the craziest thing. If the Administration had some common sense and accurate foresight, they might have understood that this action had the potential to be a shitstorm. And taken the steps to make sure the Congress and the public were informed of the reasons why the Administration thinks there's no big to the story.

Instead, they set themselves up to be the targets of yet another conspiracy theory...giving the security of US ports over to an Arab controlled entity, with no advance warning, and very little time for public action to get involved. What should be a fairly routine transfer of authority has now become a political mess.

What happened to the well-oiled political machine that's pulled the wool over the public's eyes for the past 6 years?

BUT-- if the UAE is, as reported, a major ally in shutting down Al Queada funds and if, as reported, we regualrly berth our Carriers in the UAE, is it not possible that the negative fallout from killing this deal will outweigh the benefit?

Maybe it will or maybe it won't. But where's the harm in taking a second look and seeing that areas that are in badly need of security upgrading receive it.

Of course the P&O already provides these armed American citizens, they have been running the container facility for years. What has changed is the P&Os controlling interest stockholder? If this deal goes through the same guys who are on guard tonight will be there the night after the deal is signed. But some weeks later they may have more lights, communications gear, and cameras since the "new' P&O" has been purchased by a company willing to put money into the Coast Guard approved security plan.

If that's what will really happen, then maybe that will be an improvement. Or maybe the company will be infiltrated by an Al Qaida operative who will quietly reassign the guards and allow a few mystery containers to slip through.

Unless you think the Department of Homeland Defense and the Coast Guard aren't up to their jobs.

Well, Yeah.

"Sorry, we think you folks are a bunch of terrorists, so we don't want you on our shores and don't trust you running our ports."

Yes. And your point is?

Call us when political cartoons no longer cause your people to burn embassies.

I'd still like to know, if this isn't such a big deal, why was it treason for Clinton for allowing a Chinese owned company to do the a href="http://ojc.org/adi/ccfall.htm">same.

Damn. I mistyped both links. here's the link about lack of port security.

Den, what was the story about the Chinese? I don't remember it.

What happened to the well-oiled political machine that's pulled the wool over the public's eyes for the past 6 years?

Well oiled machine? Are you kidding? The fact that Bush has had so many victories is DESPITE the efforts of the communications people. Peruse any conservative blog over the last 6 years and one often sees the complaint "Now why isn't the White House making this argument?"

There were two parts to it:

One involved a Hong Based company Hutchinson Whampoa taking over operations of the ports at either end of the Panama canal. This was accompanied by horror tales of the Red Chinese Military denying our ships access to the canal.

The other involved a Chinese company, COSCO, which signed a deal to run some of our west coast ports and came close to leasing the former Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The Long Beach deal was killed do to political outcry.

Both companies were accused of being fronts for the Chinese army and would result in nests of Chinese spies infiltrating our ports.

Now, I'll be the first to acknowledge that China is a brutal dictatorship, but as far as I know, they aren't obsessed with killing all Americans.

Here's a link on the Long Beach Story.

I don't know if COSCO is truly an arm of the People's Liberation Army, but I don't think that the PLA didn't help finance Al Qaida and 9/11 the way that banks in UAE did.

Okay, I need to proof read better or at least try not to post when my boss is around. :(

That should have been "I don't think the PLA did help finance Al Qaida".

I'd still like to know, if this isn't such a big deal, why was it treason for Clinton for allowing a Chinese owned company to do the same.

I don't see too many saying it isn't a big deal and the ones who are aren't, near as I can tell, the ones who called the China deal treason (Who were the ones who called it treason anyway?)

At any rate, whatever the wisdom of the sales to China, the point here is whether or not allowing foreigners to own ports with the explicit exception of Arabs will end up playing right into the hands of the Al Qaida forces. At the very least we should expect the UAE to make some public retaliation--I'd expect their people to demand it, not entirely without reason.

Will that hurt us? Does it matter? At this point the politics have overtaken just about any mere facts that might come out.

The Administration should have painted this as a victory in the war on terror, with a compliant UAE overcoming its dubious past and reaping reward, a lesson to our less helpful "allies" in the region (assuming that's the case). How they missed seeing the perfect storm of conservative resistance to Arab control of US assets and liberal resistance to anything that comes out of the administration is beyond me.

Another take:
http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/090568.asp

Which concludes with the reasonable statement "I guess the issue comes down to whether one concludes that the UAE is "demonstrably unreliable" as Michelle (Malkin) puts it, or whether they are "very, very solid partners" as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says. I can see how smart folks can disagree."

Definitely an issue that has made for some strange bedfellows.

Meanwhile, a far bigger story is being missed--the bombing of one of the Shiite's holiest sites in Iraq.

One might pause to marvel at how Muslims went nuts over a few supposedly blasphemous cartoons when it is from within their own ranks that those who are able to destroy mosques emerge. But that's for another time. Al Qaida may have finally hit on a way to get the anarchy they have sought.

One last post- http://www.cfr.org/publication/9918/uae_purchase_of_american_port_facilities.html#10

An unusually impartial FAQ on the issue. At this point though, I still think the facts don't matter much. This ship has sailed.

The heck with the UAE...let's give the contract to HitlerBurton, DicKKK Cheney's Toy Company.

Wow, Bob, you really are bucking for the title of X-Ray Jr, aren't you?

... the Arab company which has sailed through the approvals process.

Actually they don't seem to have gone through the approvals process at all.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation/

Sasha,

You're good. You're very good.

Thanks.

I think.

:)

It's always disturbing to channel your inner Rove.

Al Qaida may have finally hit on a way to get the anarchy they have sought.

Not sure who's really to blame for that mosque bombing.

Although, there have apparently been retaliation murders on the part of Shiites against Sunnis.

So, I pose the question here that I posed somewhere else: how many such incidents does it take before we can officially declare Iraq in a civil war?

Does any of this matter? Bush's supporters feel no pain. They're all too busy singing Kumbaya in the streets over the pending legal ban on abortion.

Maybe I'll move to a country that doesn't have a facist government for a change.

Dunno Rich, doesn't look like there are any actually "free" countries left in the world.

Random points:

At any rate, whatever the wisdom of the sales to China, the point here is whether or not allowing foreigners to own ports with the explicit exception of Arabs will end up playing right into the hands of the Al Qaida forces.

Personally, I think it should be a federal law that only US owned companies should run our ports, but what do I know?

At the very least we should expect the UAE to make some public retaliation--I'd expect their people to demand it, not entirely without reason.

In which case, I would fully expect this administration to make the same response that they made when any other foreign government got into a snit over their decisions - "Fuck 'em."

Actually they don't seem to have gone through the approvals process at all.

Seriously, is anyone even attempting to make a counter argument that this approval sailed through as a favor to a well-connected company?

One might pause to marvel at how Muslims went nuts over a few supposedly blasphemous cartoons when it is from within their own ranks that those who are able to destroy mosques emerge.

Which exposes the hypocrisy of fundamentalists. Not that they'd care.

Wow, Bob, you really are bucking for the title of X-Ray Jr, aren't you?

What? You think he isn't X-Ray?

Not sure who's really to blame for that mosque bombing.

As per usual, they're ultimately blaming us, although maybe in this case they have a point under Colin Powell's "You break it, you bought it" theory of occupations.

So, I pose the question here that I posed somewhere else: how many such incidents does it take before we can officially declare Iraq in a civil war?

Consider it done now. But don't worry, I fully expect the Bushites to issue another declaration of victory by, oh say September of this year.

Join me, Sasha, and we shall rule the galaxy as father and son.

Bush the idiot earns his name again.

Wasn't port security one of his talking points after 9/11? And isn't port security STILL in the same place now as it was then? Underfunded and ineffective, with only 5% of shipped cargo screened (let alone inspected)?

All sizzle, no steak. PR fluff and no substance. Incompetent oafs.....

""All sizzle, no steak. PR fluff and no substance. Incompetent oafs.....""

Agreed.

So how did these guys get re-elected anyway...?

As they pointed out on the Daily Show, we can rest easy knowing our port security will be just as inept as it was before.

So how did these guys get re-elected anyway...?

Gay marriage, calling people cowards, dragging us into a war that we should've never gotten into.

All the usual BS from Republicans.

""Gay marriage, calling people cowards, dragging us into a war that we should've never gotten into.

All the usual BS from Republicans.""

I'll buy that...kinda scary that folks out there think those are the real issues hurting our country...

Because Karl Rove convinced everyone that if Kerry was president, everyone would turn gay, and then get blown up by the terrorists.

My question is why do we need other countries to manage our ports in the first place?

Can't we manage anything ourselves anymore?

As they pointed out on the Daily Show, we can rest easy knowing our port security will be just as inept as it was before.

Which is why I find it hard to swallow that Bush really didn't know about this deal. After all, there has been about half a dozen independent and bipartisan reports since 9/11 detailing how woefully inadequate port security is in this country. You'd think the president would pay attention to something that would impact on port security or at least on people's perception of port security.

Oh wait, he ignored all of those reports on port security.

So, I guess he wouldn't have paid attention to this deal.

Gay marriage, calling people cowards, dragging us into a war that we should've never gotten into.

That and the Democrats keep nominating these total douchebags to run against him.

Any other administration in the history of this country that displayed this level of both corruption and incompetence would have been raked over the coals. But the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot.

1 Speaking of wire tapping
http://contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/morrissey%20quizzed%20by%20fbi_23_02_2006

I guess the SMITHS aren't on Dubya's IPOD

Now this is interesting.

Staunch ally, indeed.

More fun facts about our staunch ally.

"My question is why do we need other countries to manage our ports in the first place?

Can't we manage anything ourselves anymore?"

Hell, we outsource just about every other job in this country, what do you expect?

And the rest we give to illegal immigrants.

Personally, I think it should be a federal law that only US owned companies should run our ports, but what do I know?

I could live with that but since apparently 80% are foreign owned it will probably cause a lot of trouble. If it turns out that turning the ports over to US companies actually decreases the competance in how they are run it would obviously be counterproductive.

I wonder how many foreign ports are US owned? Obviously, if we institute a US only policy we will probably lose control of them. fair's fair. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but one must look at all of the consequences. So far the ports have not been used for terrorism so we need to be careful about making cahnges for the sake of making changes.

So how did these guys get re-elected anyway...?

The ZDemocrats chose Kerry. Because they thought he was the most electable. No, really.

That and the Democrats keep nominating these total douchebags to run against him.

Oh great, now I have to clean a coffee/saliva mixture off of my keyboard. Thanks a LOT, Den.

BTW, thanks for the info on the UAE. In fairness, it is now claimed that they have been very cooperative since 9/11 and their cooperation is considered essential in controlling Al Qaida money since the UAE is pretty much the Swiss Bank of the middle east.

As for the bit about camel jockey slavery, let's not kid ourselves--outside of Israel there is not a single country in the region worth a jot, at least as far as the leadership goes. If the leaders of just about everyu Arab country (and Iran) were lined up against the wall and shot it would be, by almost any moral judgement, entirely well deserved. But we ahve to work with what we have. Not that this means we have to give them our ports.

I think you put it well: You'd think the president would pay attention to something that would impact on port security or at least on people's perception of port security. It's looking more and more like there wouldn't have been much impact but how anyone could have missed what would be the obvious perception is beyond me.

>So how did these guys get re-elected anyway...?

Voters.

There may be a nation, somewhere, where the majority of voters vote in an intelligent, well-informed manner but, if so, I've yet to run into it.

I wonder how many foreign ports are US owned?

If we own any foreign ports, then I'd really have to question why we aren't controlling our own then.

The ZDemocrats chose Kerry. Because they thought he was the most electable. No, really.

And, iirc, he got more votes than Gore and Clinton ever did.

Apparently not so unelectable after all, as the Right would have you believe.

And, iirc, he got more votes than Gore and Clinton ever did.

Apparently not so unelectable after all, as the Right would have you believe.

Yeah, he also got more votes than Kennedy, Lincoln, Washington and pretty much everyone who ran during a time when there were less voters.

The next nominee will probably break his record, for much the same reasons. Even if he or she loses.

As for the right being the ones pushing the idea that he was unelectable--he got 3 million votes less than Bush. I'm not sure any other credible nominee would have done that badly. I don't know that Dean would have won but I think he would have put up a much smarter fight.

But hey, you'll have another chance to nominate him.

>So how did these guys get re-elected anyway...?

Voters.

There may be a nation, somewhere, where the majority of voters vote in an intelligent, well-informed manner but, if so, I've yet to run into it.

Sad isnt it ,much easier to go with the emotions ,ignorance and "isms " when making your decisions then to use some common sense or heaven forbid read a book or a newspaper ,once in a while

There may be a nation, somewhere, where the majority of voters vote in an intelligent, well-informed manner but, if so, I've yet to run into it.

Don't worry. The next time an election goes your way you'll be amazed at how swiftly the voters will have smartened up.

"And the rest we give to illegal immigrants."

Well, to be fair, a lot of the jobs we give to illegal immigrants are jobs most people would never want in the first place :)

Oh great, now I have to clean a coffee/saliva mixture off of my keyboard. Thanks a LOT, Den.

Anytime.

BTW, thanks for the info on the UAE. In fairness, it is now claimed that they have been very cooperative since 9/11 and their cooperation is considered essential in controlling Al Qaida money since the UAE is pretty much the Swiss Bank of the middle east.

It may very well be that they are very cooperative now, but it looks like prior to 9/11, things were different.

Speaking of which, I caught a little of the deputy secretary of the treasury testifying on MSNBC last night. He cited several cases in previous administrations in which foreign companies were given control of our ports w/o a full investigation.

Now, what could have happened since the end of the last administration that might make some people change the way people view this issue?

I wonder.

If nothing else, I hope this issue shines a light on how criminally irresponsible our port security has been since 9/11.

As for the bit about camel jockey slavery, let's not kid ourselves--outside of Israel there is not a single country in the region worth a jot, at least as far as the leadership goes.

True. But if there's a booming boy slavery trade in the UAE, it might shed some light as to why Michael Jackson wants to live there now.

I wonder how many foreign ports are US owned? Obviously, if we institute a US only policy we will probably lose control of them. fair's fair. I'm not saying it's a bad idea but one must look at all of the consequences. So far the ports have not been used for terrorism so we need to be careful about making cahnges for the sake of making changes.

But part of the problem we've had is that we tend to fix things after the terrorists have taken advantage of them. Report after report has shown that our ports are vulnerable, but the President and Congress have refused to put more money into security (that $300 trillion dollar hole we've dug ourselves into might have something to do with it). I'd rather we improve things now than wait for the terrorists to try something.

True. But if there's a booming boy slavery trade in the UAE, it might shed some light as to why Michael Jackson wants to live there now.

Jesus. Hadn't thought of that.

I'd rather we improve things now than wait for the terrorists to try something.

No question. Actually, if they'd put some of the money they've blown on airport security into the ports it would be better. Not that I'm complaining about how safe the airports are but I really think that they are not where the future action will be. No 9/11 style attack will ever happen again.

I'm not concerned about the idea of a nuke being shipped into a port either, since it would be way smarter to just walk it over the border. I'm worried about some of those giant tanks of flammable stuff you see as you drive into NYC. It seems as though this is a pretty common feature in a lot of cities. I suspect it wouldn't take much to set them off.

>Don't worry. The next time an election goes your way you'll be amazed at how swiftly the voters will have smartened up.

Sorry, no. In this country, at least, it's a matter of if they get it 'right', it's almost by accident, or because there wasn't any other option open to them.

Consider in '88 when the Conservatives (Canada's answer to the Republicans) were re-elected with a majority, following one of the most scandal-plagued administrations in Canadian history, and after a promises-laden campaign. The day after the elections, they came out and said they weren't going to be able to keep their promises, because the government's finances were in worse shape than they had thought. Uh, how could they not be aware? THEY were the government before the election! This makes them either liars, or incompetent. Yet, lots of people believed them and thought they were doing a good job.

Or, in '93 when, after another five years of nearly wrecking the country, they were handed a devastating electoral defeat, going from 177 seats down to 2. Unfortunately, the Liberals (Canada's answer to the Democrats, sort of) won. I'd been a Liberal supporter pretty much all my voting life, but even to me it was evident they were lying through their teeth about all their fine election promises (tip off: they kept telling people "trust us, we'll tell you how we intend to do all that AFTER the elections".) So, of course, they broke pretty much all their promises, yet voters kept going "but, but, they PROMISED!"

Worse: that election saw the introduction of a new party which ran on a platform incorporating a balance of the best ideas of the right and the left. Fiscal responsibility (appealing to Conservatives) and making sure the little guy didn't get trampled in the process (appealing to the Liberal type voters.) They outlined exactly how they would accomplish this in a credible, detailed manner, using the government's own published, verifiable figures. They got my vote.

So, of course, not one of their candidates got elected.

Yet, still, Canadians whined about there not being an alternative to the Big Two parties.

I repeat: the average voter, by any standard of intellect you care to name, has all the brains of a piece of granite.

Bill -
The next nominee will probably break his record, for much the same reasons. Even if he or she loses.

I doubt it, as the %-age of the voting public has most likely decreased over the last few decades, save for the last couple of presidential elections.

Bladestar -
Well, to be fair, a lot of the jobs we give to illegal immigrants are jobs most people would never want in the first place :)

10-15 years ago, most fast food places were filled with people who weren't illegals.

I doubt so much has changed in so little time, as to whether people would actually work such jobs.

No, the problem is not the jobs, it's more likely the pay, and the fact that nobody should have to work a job at the piss-poor minimum wage rate (or worse).

"I'm worried about some of those giant tanks of flammable stuff you see as you drive into NYC. It seems as though this is a pretty common feature in a lot of cities. I suspect it wouldn't take much to set them off."

There was an interesting disaster novel, whose title escapes me at the moment, about that ten-fifteen years back. A liquid natural gas supertanker comes a cropper just outside New York city. It didn't explode or catch fire, but one of the tanks ruptured, setting loose a huge cloud of freezing gas which pretty much froze anything it touched solid. The authorities were presented with something of a problem as the city was faced with an invading cloud which would kill anyone it came in contact with, assuming a stray spark didn't set it off first, causing the tanker to go up like a tactical nuke.

Fortunately, FEMA didn't exist back then, and the various levels of government were actually competent (this was fiction, after all) so, though many people did die, the majority were eventually saved.

I doubt we'd be so lucky in the real world.

Thought du jour

"People everywhere enjoy believing things that they know are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they know."

-- Brooks Atkinson
Globe & Mail 0602.24

Don't worry. The next time an election goes your way you'll be amazed at how swiftly the voters will have smartened up.

1) What StarWolf said, with the addition of:

2) Depending on how many easily-manipulable-with-no-paper-trail voting machines are in place, I think it's an arguable proposition that this country is ever going to have another national election with trustworthy results.

TWL

So you think there's no chance that Democrats will increase their numbers in the House and Senate this year?

Hey, woouldn't a better title have been "Sitting on the Dock of Dubai"?

Great, Starwolf just told the terrorists how to exploit one of our most vulnerable points, our ports. It's a good thing the government has a lockdown on secu r i t

damn

LNG products would be replacing crude and refined oil products in the US by now if we could get over the safety issues. No one wants to build transfer facilities close to land for just the reasons Starwolf mentions. So we'd need offshore pumping facilities and underwater pipes to bring the LNG to shore. But then the pumping facilities would be hard to protect, since you can't control the access from the water as well as you can on land with fences, walls, and gates and such.

So you think there's no chance that Democrats will increase their numbers in the House and Senate this year?

How do you get that from what I said? (That's also assuming I'm the one you're responding to, which could be my error.)

I think there's a chance they'll increase their numbers, yes -- possibly even a decent chance. I would not attribute that to any particular degree of or increase in voter intelligence.

Hey, woouldn't a better title have been "Sitting on the Dock of Dubai"?

Ow. Ow ow ow. Very nice.

TWL

"This makes them either liars, or incompetent."

Can't it be both?

Tim,

Can't take credit for it, I ran into it somewhere on the web.

Well, I figured if one really believes that the voting machines are being rigged by Rove and Co, it stands to reason that they will use them to win. I mean, what's the point of being mustache twirling evil if you don't USE it?

Just out of curiosity, StarWolf, how DID they save the city from the giant freeze gas?

Personally, I think it should be a federal law that only US owned companies should run our ports, but what do I know?

I wholeheartedly agree...I mean, I'm all for the world govt. people coming together, and all that other feel good crap, but this is a serious security risk. Not to mention that we should NOT NOT NOT trust an extremist Muslim country. Or an extremist Christian country...or any radical foamy at the mosth type. but I dare say the the radical Muslims in the Middle East have more than earned our total distrust. Call me when they aren't rioting over cartoons, killing each other, or electing terrorists as the leaders of their country.

What? You think he isn't X-Ray?

Nahhh.....he sounds nothing like X-ie.

Also, he isn't posting all the time...

that is something X-ray could never deal with.

"Well, to be fair, a lot of the jobs we give to illegal immigrants are jobs most people would never want in the first place :)"

I hate that line. This is one of those lines that gets said so often that no one thinks about it before they say it. If they did, they would realize how full of it that line really is. Please, name just one of these mythical jobs that "we" won't do.

Construction? We nail lots of illegals on the local construction sites around the Central Virginia area. Thing is, I know lots of people who are legally in the U.S. that have no problem with doing that job. I have two uncles who are in the biz as lifers (because they enjoy it) and I did it through my high school years.

Fast food joints, gas stations or quick marts? There are lots of legal teens and adult part timers who have no problem with that work. Don't know many people who "won't do" that kind of work.

Hard labor or "working the fields" for a living? Hey, I grew up country (and I'm only just turned 35). Most of my friends did that kind of summer work on summer vacation. We didn't dislike it any more then we disliked any other honest living. Many of my friends have siblings who are 8 to 10 years younger then they are who have done the same thing we did. Not seeing much of a shortage of able bodies who are also willing in this arena.

I know lots of people who, when they were out of work, would have gladly taken just about any job they could find. Thing is, they couldn't always find those jobs. What I've found, both personally and professionally, is that the some employers in those fields often don't want to pay minimum wage or above to get this kind of work done.

The smart ones pay minimum wage. They can deny knowledge of the person being illegal if they played within the labor laws. I actually saw an employer in Florida get busted for paying around $3.00 an hour to illegal day laborers and not kicking in any benefits. He was dumb because he had no out when he got busted. When he got shut down, an employer who used legal labor moved in and filled almost every job he found with those "people who didn't want to do that kind of work".

******************************************************************************************************

"I think there's a chance they'll increase their numbers, yes -- possibly even a decent chance. I would not attribute that to any particular degree of or increase in voter intelligence."

Nah...... The Ds will only increase their numbers in the next two elections or win the 2008 race if they start learning to play smarter then the Rs. Playing smarter does not mean playing louder, dirtier, more dishonest or more disingenuous then the Rs. They've shown that they can do that very well. They've shown that they can do shrill better then most. They just can't seem to pull off "smarter" lately. This is actually a kinda scary prospect for the future of the Democrat party when you consider that they've basically been getting outsmarted at every turn for six years by an administration that runs like the Three Stooges meets Howdy Doody.

The Ds have been getting handed one winning hand after another for six years now. What do they do with them? They throw them down and bet all their chips on hands filled with nothing and a pair of twos. You can't win the game if you play like a twit and you can't get public support for your side if you show that, while your opposition is foolish, you are both foolish and recklessly, aimlessly careless in the course you choose to take. They way they've been acting with the last few GOP "scandals" and SCOTUS nominations..... Well.... I don't see the Ds' national party figuring that out anytime soon.

Complete list of P & O North American port operations from web site (and not 6 like the news reports say):
Portland, ME
Boston, MA
Davisville, RI
New York/New Jersey
Philadelphia, PA
Camden, NJ
Wilmington, DE
Baltimore, MD
Norfolk, VA
Miami, FL
Gulfport, MS
New Orleans, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Beaumont, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Galveston, TX
Houston, TX
Freeport, TX
Corpus Christi, TX

Now will someone please tell the Chimp and Rummy?

>Just out of curiosity, StarWolf, how DID they save the city from the giant freeze gas?

Other than the basic plot, I fear it was pretty forgettable. Some of the cloud did make it into the city and killed people, but the bulk of it didn't get that far. City officials may have opted to risk towing the thing back out to sea from the side away from the container breach, but don't quote me on that. If it turns up in the next few days, I'll let you know. As I think on it, I'd have been tempted to try cloud seeding, if the conditions were right, in the hopes of provoking rain which, while falling through the cloud, would have frozen and thus helped raise the overall temperature of the gas.

Any physics majors can check me on that?

Well, I figured if one really believes that the voting machines are being rigged by Rove and Co, it stands to reason that they will use them to win.

But you'll note that I didn't actually claim they were being rigged in said manner. I said that they have no paper trail and are easily manipulable, both of which are verified fact at this point.

Those two conditions make it difficult for me to trust ANY election outcome, regardless of whether I like the result -- and I said above that the problem was having elections with trustworthy results.

At this point, heavy partisans on either side could claim a rigged vote, and nobody would have the slightest chance of debunking the claim. If that's not a threat to democracy in action, what is?

Now, having said that ... I just got home from a Dar Williams concert and am seeing my six-week-old nephew tomorrow, so I'm in way too good a mood to start any battles. :-)

Any physics majors can check me on that?

Well, this physics teacher says it sounds plausible enough for decent fiction. :-)

TWL

PAD,

There is nothing wrong with a UAE based company, not a government company, renting dock space at our ports. This is like Saudi Air having a terminal space at LaGuardia.(Which they do.)

The GOP outrage at the port deal, which was known and written about by the Wall Street Journal since November, is nothing more than posturing to distance themselves from Bush during an election year. When Lindsay Graham does this, I'm not surprised, I'm amazed it took him so long. Even John McCain thinks the port transfers are a good idea.

Hillary Clinton, in a fit of nonsense, has said we need to use caution before we "transfer soverignty" over our ports. WHAT?? Nothing like that is even being proposed. Yes, we're talking about the UAE, which (a few people , NOT the government of)has ties to Al Queda and the 9/11 highjackers, but we're also talking about Dubai, which is the most pro-american city-state in the UAE and which is a confederacy at best.

Comparing working with Dubai on ports to working with terrorists is like the police arresting you because your next door neighbor was caught on camera robbing a bank. "You live next door, you must have been involved! You must have known and did'nt tell us, that makes you guilty!"

If you're gonna give Bush a tough time, stick to when he actually does something wrong.

Kevin

One more thing:

The ports ARE, and will continue to be secured by the United States Federal Government, not Dubai. Imagine that if the US actually did inspect 100% of all shipping cargo.

I can hear the cries now: "The Bush administration is throwing out the Constitution and raping our rights with illegal searches of cargo belonging to our citizens, with no warrants, including children's toys! What is wrong with our President when our country is not safe and he's spending time searching boxes of action figures!"

The more that comes out the more this looks like a phony crisis.

Consider the scenario Den proposed above--someone sneaking a nuclear device into the country. A very legitimate fear but why would they use a ship to do it?

There's a chance it would be discovered even before it left it's country of origin (At least if the country were the UAE, which was one of the first to sign up on a deal that allows us to do that--hopefully this controversy won't scotch that). It could be boarded and/or sunk at any point along the long voyage. The number of days it would take to get to the USA increases the likelihood that info would leak out.

But they have the ports, right? A nice place to land. Well hell, if I were a terrorist--and it's become obvious that I and pretty much everyone on this board would make better, smarter terrorists than the real ones--I'd forget the whole ship idea and go right for an airplane. You afraid of ports? Airplanes land in every major city of the world and they come from just about every country in earth, with the possible exception of Cuba and Iran (and Iran just proposed resuming direct flights to America.)

An airplane would be faster and could land in any city you want, not just those on the coast. My Japanese friends assure me that an airplane is large enough to hold a nuclear bomb.

Our only chance to stop this sort of thing is at the source. For that we need the cooperation of the scumba...er, allied governments in the region.

Now if one absolutely has to blame Bush for something, feel free to criticize the ham handed tone deaf politically naive way this was handled. And lets tie it in to last week's news--maybe if the Administration had come out strongly to condemn the cartoon riots, had stood up squarely for free speech, maybe then the public would have trusted them when they said this was a wise deal.

My guess is that the cartoon riots--already forgotten by the press--had a major effect on the public. They've pretty much given up on the Muslim countries, decided they are too alien to us to be able to trust. I saw some of my most liberal colleagues just shake their heads and say "These people are nuts."

When the history of the 21st century is written, I wonder if there will be chapters written about the influence of 12 cartoons.

Bill,

If I were a Terrorist, trying to sneak a nuclear bomb into the US, or any other creepy thing, I wouldn't bother with a port either. I'd sneak it thru the Canadaian border in a sleepy border town. (For the record, I have no intention of doing any such thing) That's why this is a non-issue.

I live near the Vermont border and have crossed to Canada many times over the last 20 years, mostly with ease. I have a friend who parked in a Canandaian village and strolled through the woods into the US on a lark. (He was buying postcards) Now, he got "caught" and got sent a large civil fine for illegally re-entering the US, but you get the point. A backpack full of anthrax on the Long Trail is worth five nukes, and who needs that pesky Coast Guard meddling with your cause for Allah?

I don't want any of these scenarios to occur, of course, and I don't think it would come as a revelation to Al Queada or anybody with a $5.95 Rand McNally map that this is possible, so I'm not telling tales out of school.

What all this adds up to is that wether Dubai, Britain or the Holy See rents a seaport dock space or even several is a red herring. The only way we keep America, or really Western Civilization safe, is to make the point that political violence which specifically targets civilians is NEVER EVER an option, because the retalitory cost is far to grave.

Kevin Ryan

I'm sorry, but Bush has absolutely no one to blame for this but himself. He has spent five years speaking the language of terrorism, keeping Americans jumpy and frightened. It benefited the GOP, it benefited his reelection. And now it's biting him on the ass, because Americans in general and New Yorkers in specific hear that Arabs are going to be overseeing the ports and boom, five years of fear mongering blows up in Bush's face. And it's exacerbated by the perception that Bush is perfectly happy cozying up to powerful Arab concerns when it means money in the pocket of big business.

The issue, to my mind, is not so much the port safety as it is Bush's obliviousness to the results of his own actions, a myopia shared by his handlers.

PAD

In light of PAD's most recent comment (just above), people might find this of use:

http://www.youaredumb.net/archive/2006/2/24

TWL

It's not that they're Arabs, it that its a company that has ties to two of the 9/11 hijackers and has laundered money for Al Queda.

Sure there are other ways to smuggle a nuke into this country besides ports, but why the hell should we leave this gigantic hole in our security in the light of the possibility that someone could try to do something?

I can think of dozens of things that are easier to do then smuggling a nuke through a seaport besides even driving it across the Canadian border.

Hell, why bother with a nuke? A suitcase full of anthrax is easier do smuggle through. Hell, why bother with a suitcase? Just infect a few dozen people with smallpos or something else that's easily transmissible person to person. Or just sneak into a meat packing plant with a few vials of mad cow prions.

Just because there are scenarios that might be easier to pull off doesn't mean we should be ignoring the possibility that our ports aren't secure.

Oh, and Kevin, about the possible outcry if all shipping containers were actually inspected: I wasn't aware that foreign commercial shipping containers had civil rights.

And Dubai ports isn't a UAE-based company, it's wholly owned by the government of that country.

As for the timeframe and worry about word leaking out before the ship got here, well, the basic elements of 9/11 were allegedly in the works for years and somehome they still managed to get caught with our pants down.

I agree with PAD. No, the real security risk of this country isn't that big of a deal, but Bush has gotten himself caught between his constant fearmongering about how only he can protect us from terrorists and his family's instinctive need to fellate every Arab royal they encounter.

He has no one to blame for this blowing up in his face but himself.

Well, first of all, Dubai did not launder money for the 9/11 highjackers, money was laundered within the nation of Dubai, which is like saying the City of New York laundered money for the Gotti Family. Dubai is the New York of the Middle East.

Same goes for where the hijackers came from. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia originally. Except they got thrown out and were living out of country when the hijacking went down. That two of them are from Dubai is irrelevant. Its like saying the US commited the Oklahoma bombing because Tim McVeigh is from the US.

And, this whole effort is supposed to be about stopping terrorism, so I can't hold Bush responsible for talking about terrorism for the last five years. I can give him credit for doing so on the other hand. Terrorism is a scary thing, hence the word terror in it. 3000 people died because we spent the 1990's ingoring terror, and only by focusing on eradicating it will it go away. Fear is a useful tool, Peter, if there's something to be afraid of.

I can remember a time, when Bush was critisized for not having taken terrorism seriously enough. That Clinton warned Bush about Bin Laden, and Bush "refused" to take action. (Boy, I love the rehtorical power of the word refuse, it makes it seem like Clinton walked up to Bush's desk with the 9/11 plans and Bush said "Nuh-uh! nothin doin! I'm going on vaction, go away!") Now that Bush IS taking terror seriously, Peter, you can critisize him for that too?

Thats why I pointed out what would get said if Bush was inspecting all cargo. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. No Den, foreign shipping containers do not have civil rights, but the owners of the containers do, and if so much as one owner of one container was American, duck, cause it would hit the fan but quick, count on it.

What isn't supposed to be about is anti-Arabic racism. The US is against Arab terrorists, not Arabs, but it seems to me that those opposing the Ports deal are doing so because its an ARAB country buying the lease. It's almost as if Chuck Schumer was engaging in racial profiling, eh?

I would agree that the Democrats are pandering to people's base instincts of racism and fear for political points against Bush. This from the same people that called Colin Powell the houseboy and Uncle Tom. I give it about a week before I see Hillary warning us that "if them towelheads get boats in America, it'll be over my dead body!"--That'll put the fear of God into 'em, don't ya think?

Kev

But, Kev, Dubya doesn't take terrorism seriously. If he took it seriously, he might decide that maybe just sending US troops into Iraq, without any training whatsoever in local customs, could possibly be a not-so-good idea, that could recruit more terrorists for various organizations.

As for smuggling nukes in from Canada, an al-Qaeda operative tried that once, back in '01, at the Blaine, WA, border crossing (apparently with the idea of blowing up the Space Needle during the New Year's celebration). He made it about five miles past the border crossing. He's in prison now. Didn't work so well, did it?

Yes, you and I know that the border of Vermont and Quebec isn't quite the same as the border of Washington and British Columbia, but remember, emotionally these people are used to nations that could be driven across in a day, given good roads. I doubt that they really grasp the difference, no matter how many maps they read (how many Americans really grasp what the terrain in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region is like, even though many newpapers and magazines have published maps of the area?).

No Den, foreign shipping containers do not have civil rights, but the owners of the containers do, and if so much as one owner of one container was American, duck, cause it would hit the fan but quick, count on it.

Nah, if Americans don't care if Bush taps their phones, they won't care about whether a shipment of GI Joes gets rifled at the docks.

Fear is a useful tool, Peter, if there's something to be afraid of.

But there is always "something to be afraid of" -- and that fear in and of itself does not constitute a justification for pushing a particular policy.

Bush has appealed to everybody's worst instincts, Kevin -- for you to completely dismiss it while bringing up a few ill-chosen phrases on the Democratic side is basically just acting ill-informed. The Bush campaign ads strongly implying "if Kerry wins we'll all die" (remember the "Wolves" ad? remember many of Cheney's speeches in October?) are nothing more than fear-mongering towards a political end.

And as for "the same people that called Colin Powell the houseboy" ... if memory serves, that was Harry Belafonte. If you could let me know exactly what position he holds in the Democratic leadership, I'd like to know about it -- and for you to use this as an example while decrying others' generalizations about Dubai is bordering on the deeply hypocritical.

TWL

As for smuggling nukes in from Canada, an al-Qaeda operative tried that once, back in '01, at the Blaine, WA, border crossing (apparently with the idea of blowing up the Space Needle during the New Year's celebration).

Whoa whoa whoa--somebody was caught with actual nuclear material??? Was this hushed up? This is the first I've heard of it.

Tim,
I thought the 2004 election was relatively free of overt fear mongering, at least compared to previous ones. Face it, every presidential election has elements of "Republicans want to poison the water, make old people eat dog food and drag Black people behind trucks" element, to go along with the "Democrats want to take all your money and spend it on pornographic art displays while our enemies build laser generated Death Stars" memes.

I thought the wolf ad was clever, though most thought it sailed right over the average voter's head. But then, I liked a lot of the Dukakis ads that portrayed the supposed Republican handlers trying to spin Dan Quayle, which everyone said were way too subtle.

Kevin, Tim is correct about the "Houseboy" comment--near as I can tell only Belafonte and lots of grouchy bloggers have ever used that to describe Powel. One could argue that since all of the Democrats did not immediately decry his remarks they were giving them approval--the same argument used against republicans every time some prominent conservative says something stupid--but I think that's a bad argument no matter which side uses it. There isn't enough time in the world to waste distancing ones self from every foolish utterance from aging former celebrities.

Now those who continue to appear on stage with him...fair game, though Belafonte is the very model of logical decorum compared to the shamefest that is Al Sharpton.

Anyhoo...I, for one, can't wait until the 2008 election. First time in 52 years we won't have a vice-president or incumbent president running. Who the parties choose to have as their standard bearer will reveal a lot about them. Should be interesting.

Whoa whoa whoa--somebody was caught with actual nuclear material??? Was this hushed up? This is the first I've heard of it.

Okay, Bill, it was a slight exaggeration, to simplify a point. He was, in fact, smuggling in regular explosives. Think how much more difficult it would have been if he'd been trying to bring across something that needed to be encased in radiation baffles...

Point being, since the folks who work for al-Qaeda can't be that bright (how smart is it to associate with a group that wants you to bow yourself up?), they're likely to find themselves deterred by this example. Instead, they'll look for some other way to get their boom-boom on, probably either by ship (untried, might work) or by plane (it worked before, didn't it? And won't Allah shield them from the eyes of the infidels?).

That was, of course, supposed to be "blow yourself up", not "bow yourself up". Fracking typo demons...

I have to agree with Tim. The 2004 campaign was full of fear-mongering about terrorism. The wolf ad was one example, even if it did sail over many people's heads. Beyond the ads, there was a great deal of rhetoric in the speeches by many Republicans that greatly implied that a vote for Kerry was a vote for another 9/11.

As for the Dukakis ad being clever. Well, maybe it was too clever for his own good. He did lose after all.

Point being, since the folks who work for al-Qaeda can't be that bright (how smart is it to associate with a group that wants you to blow yourself up?), they're likely to find themselves deterred by this example.

And yet they've managed to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in world history and several smaller ones. Sometimes you don't have to be smart, just persistant and have a nearly endless supply of dupes looking for their 72 virgins.

Instead, they'll look for some other way to get their boom-boom on, probably either by ship (untried, might work) or by plane (it worked before, didn't it? And won't Allah shield them from the eyes of the infidels?).

The ship idea is one we really need to worry about. Actually, if they can get a nuke, they wouldn't even need to unload it at the port, just sail up New York Harbor or the Chesapeake. If they got stopped by the Coast Guard, they would still likely be close enough to a populated area to detonate it in the harbor and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

The ship idea is one we really need to worry about.

Well, we already know it can work on some level - the attack on the USS Cole was done by small boat with explosives.

Or just imagine if one of those cruise boats actually did get hijacked. Haul a nuke aboard one of those, and you've got plenty of hostages to make a civilized nation think twice before sinking it in open waters.

Anyways, we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on airline security, but I still don't feel any safer. I mean, sure, I know I won't get to be flown in to a building, but instead I get to wait and see whether some nutter jams a pair of scissors into my neck or something.

Oh, and that stupid $2.50 fee security bs fee we're paying? The government wants to double it to $5. And I'm sure security won't get any better if that happens.

I thought the 2004 election was relatively free of overt fear mongering, at least compared to previous ones.

That's your prerogative. I don't.

The 2000 election didn't seem to have much of a "we're all gonna die!" feeling to it, though it certainly got nasty in spots. The 2004 stuff, however, oozed fear-mongering to me on a level not seen since 1964's "daisy" ad.

First time in 52 years we won't have a vice-president or incumbent president running. Who the parties choose to have as their standard bearer will reveal a lot about them. Should be interesting.

Yes -- it'll reveal who can sew up the money machine early on with empty promises. If it actually reveals something about each party's core beliefs, now THAT'll be interesting.

TWL
feeling very cynical today

My prediction: Whichever party nominates a senator will lose. If both parties nominate one (say, Clinton v. McCain), the advantage will go to the Democrats because of Bush fatigue.

Looks to me (right now at least) that Evan Bayh is emerging as a strong Democrat contender...

He did some good things as Governor for Indiana...

Boy, that's a lot of critiques. I'll take 'em one at a time.

1. I'm not sure that Bush did send troops into Iraq without training on local customs. In fact, since the military has been familiarizing overseas troops in foreign customs since World War II I'd bet he did in fact have them trained.
What that has to do with wether Bush is serious about terrorism is beyond me.

2. Jonathan, yes it is true that some people get caught sneaking things across the border, others don't, and it only needs to work once. What we were originally talking about is wether a terrorist would need to use a port cargo container to smuggle a weapon into the US or if there was an easier way. I maintain there's lots of easier ways. An we also aren't talking about the average Arab, but a trained terrorist on a mission for which he would be provided maps.

3. Seeing as the NSA tapping scandal has been on the headlines for weeks now, I imagine Americans DO, in fact, care if their phones are bugged. However, what wound up coming out of that news cycle was that the administration was not running around bugging everyone, but only international calls. You can still count on major headlines the second one american's cargo gets searched without warrant or outside of the regulation book.

4. Bill Mulligan makes an excellent point that there's almost always politcal mongering during elections. (Who woulda thunk?) This speaks to my point that those who don't like Bush will critize him wether he searches 5% of cargo or 95%, wether he raises taxes or lowers them or wether he holes himself up in the White House or spends the rest of his presidency in Texas.

5. Yes, Harry Belefonte made the houseboy comment, and no, he isn't in the democratic leadership, but he sure is around them a lot, and regulary appears on liberal talk shows. When I referred to "Democrats say...", I meant that, same as "Republicans say..." might include Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

Oh note to Tim Lynch, who made the comment that bringing up a few ill-chosen coments from the democratic side is "ill-informed"....how many ill-chosen comments from the left would you like to qualify me as "well-informed"?

Kevin Ryan

Seeing as the NSA tapping scandal has been on the headlines for weeks now, I imagine Americans DO, in fact, care if their phones are bugged.

Except that we're constantly told by the talking heads class that this isn't a big deal and Americans fully support Dubya on this. My own reading of the polls shows it to be more of a 50-50 split, but then, I'm not paid by Fox "News" to spout my opinions.

However, what wound up coming out of that news cycle was that the administration was not running around bugging everyone, but only international calls.

And Quakers.

You can still count on major headlines the second one american's cargo gets searched without warrant or outside of the regulation book.

1) Current law allows for the searching of international cargo containers w/o a warrant. The only reason that more aren't seached is lack of resources. (Incidentally, some of the more vocal critics of the port deal, like my personal favorite Sen. Santorum, have repeatedly voted against additional funding for port security). Put simply, a commercial shiipping container does not have the same expectation of privacy as, say, your house does.

2) If the inspectors simply follow the rules and regulations on the books for inspections, then they have nothing to worry about. The heart of the wiretapping issue is not that Bush can't order them. It's that he found it too much of a bother to follow the rules for FISA, so instead of asking Congress to revise the law, the just decided to ignore it.

3) If, even after they follow inspection rules to the letter and they still get criticized, they have an ironclad counterargument in favor of 100% inspections: "My critics aren't taking protecting this nation seriously. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11."

Of course, all evidence so far indicates that port security is one issue that Bush doesn't take seriously.

Den,

What evidence are you referring to? Or, actually, not referring to?

The government, by the way, were not wiretapping quakers, they were attending anti-war meetings open to the public.

And Quakers.

And PETA, and anti-war activist groups, and...

The list isn't quite so short nor foreign-dominated as the Bush Administation & Pentagon would want us to believe.

Oh note to Tim Lynch, who made the comment that bringing up a few ill-chosen coments from the democratic side is "ill-informed"....how many ill-chosen comments from the left would you like to qualify me as "well-informed"?

Actually, that's not what I said. I said that dismissing Bush's appeals to fear while simultaneously trying to use said ill-chosen comments as evidence is what makes you look ill-informed.

The post is up there -- anybody who wants to can go have a look-see.

Your willingness to change the substance of my critique does nothing to change the impression that you're ill-informed.

TWL

What evidence are you referring to? Or, actually, not referring to?

You mean besides the fact that five years after 9/11, virtually nothing has been done to improve port security? That nothing has been done to improve the dismal 5% inspection rate?

The government, by the way, were not wiretapping quakers, they were attending anti-war meetings open to the public.

Riiiight. Explain to me again how they were considered a "threat" in the first place?

Den,

5% is considered an appropriate sample size. The amount of cargo searched has never been a valid concern. I sad it before, we COULD search all the cargo, each and every one, however, if we did, we'd hear complaints that import/export economy was being slowed to a crawl, that the government was out of control, etc. As I've said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There is no question that since 9/11, the government HAS in fact prioritized additional security. One cannot have it both ways, that Bush is "fear-mongering" be focusing on terror, and that he has nothing about terror at the same time.

As to the Quakers, how were they considerd a threat in the first place? That's easy. First of all, it wasn't "The Quakers". It was the "Friends Anti-War Coalition", who pro-actively critisied the government's efforts to fight terror. ANY group who is actively opposing government action is likely to be investigated, no matter who's in the White House.

However, investigation itself is not a big deal. See, once again, we can't say Bush did'nt do enough to investigate terror, then critize because he did investigate. Investigation just means we looked to see what was going on.

There are community groups with names like "Arabic Freinds of Peace and Harmony", who later turn out to be funneling money directly to Al Queda. There are groups with names like "Friends of the Earth" who burn down houses because the owner works in an animal testing lab, so I have no problem with investigating stuff.

Have you ever been looking for your car keys and looked under the sofa cushions, only to find they were really hanging on the peg by the door? You just investigated the sofa, just turns out there was nothing there, same with the Florida Quaker group.

What becomes problematic is inapropriate investigation techiques. What the DOD did in Florida is send in an agent to go to a public meeting that ANYONE can go to. I have no idea who that agent talked to, or about what, but I do know THAT AGENT found something he felt was a threat. Maybe it was someone talking out their behind about "taking down" George Bush, or the local kook who said he planned to blow up the local Dairy Queen cause the government agents there were plotting to turn him over to aliens, who knows.

In any case, the Anti-War Group was desginated as a threat by THAT AGENT. Apparently, later on, no action was taken and the designation was changed to "peaceful group".

Here's how NBC news summed this up when it made the news: BUSH ADMINISTRATION MILITARY SPYS ON QUAKERS IN WHEELCHAIRS!!! Well, Bush didn't do anything himself, neither is the entire DOD responsible, and even the agent on site took no further action. So, really, nothing happened, no big deal. Be wary of Rethoric, no matter who's.

Kevin Ryan

ANY group who is actively opposing government action is likely to be investigated, no matter who's in the White House.

It's always good to see people dismiss the actions of our government so readily.

Kevin, if those troops did get training in local customs, that would have to mean that they were deliberately ignoring that training when they arrived - breaking into houses without announcing their presence in any local language, then acting shocked when the locals opened fire on what seemed to be burglars; forcing women to remove their head coverings, and even have their skirts searched; even treading on the grounds of a mosque - and this is completely leaving aside Abu Ghraib, or some of the interrogation techniques reportedly used in Guantanamo Bay...

Personally, I would prefer to think these actions proceeded from ignorance, rather than widespread malevolence. If malevolence, then our country has fallen already, and is beyond redemption. Ignorance just means our troops have something to learn.

Incidentally, I have made and received a large number of calls from overseas. I own a Dell computer, you see, and all of their departments, from credit to accounts receivable to tech support, are in India and the Phillipines. Further, until recently, my cohusband was in the Navy, and deployed to the Persian Gulf region a number of times (I'm not sure I'm at liberty to disclose the number), so some of our calls came from places like Bharain, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia. It seems quite likely that my telephone contacts have been monitored by the government, which offends me for two reasons: 1) I object to having any of my freedoms abrogated without even the courtesy of an after-the-fact warrant (remember, FISA provides for the warrant to be issued up to 72 hours after the actual surveillance takes place), and 2) tracking my telephone was a shocking waste of the federal government's time and money - time and money better spent pursuing real terrorists, in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Baghdad, rather than phantoms in the sunny vistas of San Diego.

Kevin, there's this agency called the Department of Homeland Security. I'm at a loss as to explain what they do, but it seems that whatever it is, has nothing to do with the title appointed to it.

If your point was to say that we can't just trust what things are called, but there's a need to look at the facts the lie behind the title, I think that's well made. But while we're looking into all those innocent-sounding groups, maybe it's ok to be asking a few questions about the truth of what goes on in our own government?

5% is considered an appropriate sample size. The amount of cargo searched has never been a valid concern.

Then explain why the 9/11 commission cited it as a critical weakness.

I sad it before, we COULD search all the cargo, each and every one, however, if we did, we'd hear complaints that import/export economy was being slowed to a crawl, that the government was out of control, etc. As I've said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And I've already said that I don't buy that argument for a second.

As to the Quakers, how were they considerd a threat in the first place? That's easy. First of all, it wasn't "The Quakers". It was the "Friends Anti-War Coalition", who pro-actively critisied the government's efforts to fight terror. ANY group who is actively opposing government action is likely to be investigated, no matter who's in the White House.

Gee, and here I thought stating you disagreed with the government's policies was considered an important part of the political process and protected by the 1st Amendment.

Silly me.

However, investigation itself is not a big deal. See, once again, we can't say Bush did'nt do enough to investigate terror, then critize because he did investigate. Investigation just means we looked to see what was going on.

Bullshit. They weren't just investigated. The Pentagon classified their meeting as a "threat". And if there's one group that has a long history of producing violent radicals, it's the Quakers. /sarcasm.

Anyone who classifies the Quakers as a "threat" is a freaking moron, no matter how you try to spin it.

Here's how NBC news summed this up when it made the news: BUSH ADMINISTRATION MILITARY SPYS ON QUAKERS IN WHEELCHAIRS!!! Well, Bush didn't do anything himself, neither is the entire DOD responsible, and even the agent on site took no further action. So, really, nothing happened, no big deal. Be wary of Rethoric, no matter who's.

Since when did I become the spokesman for NBC news? That was a bit of exaggeration, but it was stupid thing to investigate. I'm sure Bush didn't order this directly. Hell, I'm starting to think there's very little he actually does pay attention to when it comes to the actual details of governing. But it is definitely a product of the paranoid and secretive mentality of this administration.