[-V-]

Bush has given his blessings to the sale of key U.S. east coast ports to an Arab company overseas. Add that to the fact that our ports were already a major security risk considering that 85% of the cargo containers go unchecked.

Let's recap:

This administration chooses to promote illegal wiretapping of taxpaying U.S. citizens and renew the "Patriot" Act's assault on American's civil liberties because we are in a "war" on "terror", but will let nothing stand in the way of someone(?) making money on a foreign business deal that puts our ports and incoming cargo in the hands of the Arabs.

Do I have that right? Is it possible, I have that right???

(oh, and did Cheney really shoot an old man in the face?)

[BenDover]

This is unbelievable. Although the argument could be made that the UAE is an American ally in the "war on terror" and that card-carrying American longshoremen will be manning the docks, there is no doubt that the UAE served as a financial and operational base for the 911 terrorists!!! Even assuming the intentions of Dubai Ports World are honorable and legitimate, why run the risk that the same type of infiltration might occur at our ports??? The result could be absolutely catastrophic.

And not just any old ports either. New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia!! Why not just send a formal invitation to the terrorists to explore this new opportunity??!!

Crazy. I hope there is still a way to block this.

Here's a link to the story as it appeared in the Houston Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3669663.html

[FDRfollower]

Awwww! Come on you guys, can't you see the BRILIANCE of the administrations decision!!

Let's see, for years now, we've been closing all our manufacturing, taking advantage of slave labor elsewhere. Exports are collapsing, so we obviously don't need ships anymore, since we don't make anything anymore. Create the biggest speculative bubble in history to make us the Importer of last resort, and voila! Start wars that destabilize the entirety of southwest Asia and the area of significant oil production.

It makes sense! No wonder folks voted for this guy twice.

:bs:

[sweetpea]

Inexcusable.

Chertoff and GWB are gonna get strung up on this one if they don't reverse course soon.

I hope states and cities void the leases and/or the contracts.

[sweetpea]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060221/D8FTFTJ89.html


Something is amiss. President Jimmy (let's give away the Panama Canal) Carter is agreeing with GWB.

[JamesP]

Bush Says Port Deal 'Ought to Go Forward'
President Threatens to Veto Any Congressional Intervention
By BEN FELLER, AP

WASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - President George W. Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports must go forward, and he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now this is truly entertaining! After launching a "crusade" and shamelessly fomenting and feasting, politically, on American's fear of Arabs (who hate us for our freedoms), the Bush administration is having to justify a business "deal" turning over key American ports to an Arab company.

[BenDover]

It gets worse, folks....

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of 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.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Link here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/

[haus]

For several years, this British company (http://www.securewest.com/) provided shipboard security for many, many American-flagged merchant ships, particularly commercial vessels under contract to Military Sealift Command. I have firsthand knowlege of 5 companies (Sealift Inc., Maersk Lines, Keystone Shipping, American Overseas Shipping, and SeaLand), that used SecureWest, and that's a large chunk of the U.S. shipping industry.

Typically, on a given watch, there would be a British special forces veteran and a Ghurka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghurka). Nicest guys in the world when everything was calm, and scarier than SEALs when something was happening.

About a year ago, the Coast Guard issued a non-binding advisory against having foreign "riders" aboard ships. This put shipping companies in the position of looking very bad if they kept SecureWest folks on board. Nobody feels safer without a SecureWest detachment on board.

(Tangentially, I don't know of any company that got rid of Filipino riding gangs. Now I don't have anything against Filipinos, but ask any Filipino: there are a lot of Filipino groups like Abu Sayyaf that'd love to blow up a U.S. ship.)

The whole point is this: why decrease actual shipboard security in the name of making ships "American Only," just to turn around and give port operations to a UAE company?

[JamesP]

White House Has Ties to Dubai Firm Taking Over Ports

www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022206Z.shtml

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six US ports has at least two ties to the White House. One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World, the other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the US Maritime Administration.

[MAGI]

There is also connection to the Carlyle Group, see GHB.....one of six who set up this firm:http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

We know Momma had little faith in GWB, so it would be no surprise little Georgie was kept in the dark.

The secret "stuff" that goes on day in and day out is horrendous! Selling out America will do the people behind ALL this, little harm, as they are ALL heavilly invested outside the U.S. and saving brazillions :D of tax dollars.

Of all I have read so far on foreign Gov'ts buying us out, I think this little piece speaks pretty loudly:

"The Secret Deal For Our Ports
by Scott Shields, Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 09:36:07 AM EST

Two stories have emerged recently. One is that Bush didn't know about the deal to turn over operations of American ports to the United Arab Emirates. The other is that Bush's administration had worked out a secret agreement with the UAE to clear the way for the deal. So which is it?

It's entirely possible that the two are not mutually exclusive. Members of the Bush administration could have cut a secret deal with a foreign government for control of our ports without the President ever knowing. But if that's true, doesn't it prove that Bush is completely out to lunch when it comes to actually leading this country? Here's an overview of the Bush administration's secret conditions (or lack thereof) for approving this deal, from the AP.

************************************************** ***********
Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

************************************************** ***********
Essentially, these conditions weren't so much about protecting Americans from potential wrongdoing by a foreign power, but rather protecting a foreign power from accountability to Americans. It's incredible. And I'm left wondering who in the administration was involved in setting the parameters of this agreement. For example, what level of involvement did Treasury Secretary John Snow or Maritime Secretary David Sanborn, both of whom have a special interest in seeing the deal approved, have in hammering out the details?

The Republican ideal of Bush as vigilant protector is laughable. Their man behind the curtain is napping on the job."

[JamesP]

Interesting post, Magi.

There are so many intriguing & chilling aspects of this story, for example:

1 - What part does our impending war with Iran play in the importance of maintaining close ties and good relations with the UAE?

2 - Politically, is Rove & Co setting up a choice between:

Bad: Incompetent, scary, radical, unpopular right (Bush administration)

Better: Moderate right (Repub Congress: a check on the Bush admin w/o having to go Democrat)

Worse: Weak on defense, vacillating, counter culture, Democrats

[MAGI]

Interesting post, Magi.

There are so many intriguing & chilling aspects of this story, for example:

1 - What part does our impending war with Iran play in the importance of maintaining close ties and good relations with the UAE?

2 - Politically, is Rove & Co setting up a choice between:

Bad: Incompetent, scary, radical, unpopular right (Bush administration)

Better: Moderate right (Repub Congress: a check on the Bush admin w/o having to go Democrat)

Worse: Weak on defense, vacillating, counter culture, Democrats

I neglected to source The quote about the article below, James. There are some interesting comments following Scott Shields story.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/2/23/9367/69713

[BenDover]

More incriminating evidence against the UAE as a "partner" in our struggle against terrorism:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060223/cm_huffpost/016217;_ylt=A86.I1wnBP5De9YAjhL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBj MHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Why is Bush so adamant about this issue?

[MAGI]

As BuzzFlash says, "Surprise, Surprise, UAE gave 1 million to Bush Library"

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3681451.html

National
Feb. 23, 2006, 5:58PM
UAE gave $1 million to Bush library

By WENDY BENJAMINSON
Associated Press

A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.

The UAE owns Dubai Port Co., which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight.

The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.

The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.

The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.

Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997.

The chief executive of the Dubai company, Ahmed bin Sulayem, did not donate individually.

The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans — such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay — and big Republican donors.

Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library.


Just a few adopted Bush family members................as well as most rethuglican congressmen (helping by writing the laws which have allowed this ALL to come about )..................


I HOPE "WE THE PEOPLE" ARE PAYING ATTENTION!

November 2006 is coming! Time for change!

[Jane of Arc]

February 22, 2006

Drug smuggling made easy: Why GWB wants to sell America's ports to his friends?
by Jane Stillwater

Profits from the heroin trade are astronomical. Those of us who work for a living just to keep on top of paying the rent can't even grasp the amount of money involved. It's a lot. In 2004, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa stated that, "The Afghan trade in opiates constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion."

Prof. Chossudovsky goes on to state that, aside from oil production and weapons sales, the sale of opiates is the largest producer of revenue in the world.

Full story:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jane_sti_060222_drug_smuggling_made_.htm

[haus]

Cheers to Bob Fertik (http://www.democrats.com/uae-21-ports) for getting the word out on this:


UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported...

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover. (read more... (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r))

[FDRfollower]

This is funny, :lol: you brought up the issue of the drug trade. The P&O shipping lines history dates back to the days of the British Opium Wars. You know, where the British Em'pah got all their wealth from. Enslaving millions of Chinese with Opium and murdering millions of Indians to grow it.

And of course, the British Commonwealth is where most of the proceeds of the drug trade today are laundered through. What great partners.:thumbup:

[tcnj_libertarian]

February 22, 2006

Drug smuggling made easy: Why GWB wants to sell America's ports to his friends?
by Jane Stillwater

Profits from the heroin trade are astronomical. Those of us who work for a living just to keep on top of paying the rent can't even grasp the amount of money involved. It's a lot. In 2004, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa stated that, "The Afghan trade in opiates constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion."

Prof. Chossudovsky goes on to state that, aside from oil production and weapons sales, the sale of opiates is the largest producer of revenue in the world.

Full story:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jane_sti_060222_drug_smuggling_made_.htm

What a wonderful argument for the legalization of drugs! Less criminals (obviously), all of this money moving about in the open economy rather than in the black market, and to top it all off, all of these opiates could (and would) be taxed! What a great way to bring money into the government and stimulate the economy! Last, but not least, is the fact that the taxation on opiates would likely act as a deterrent, at least to some, thus decreasing the amount of drug users (people consumed by vices, perhaps, but who should not be made criminals) in the population!

[Jane of Arc]

What a wonderful argument for the legalization of drugs! Less criminals (obviously), all of this money moving about in the open economy rather than in the black market, and to top it all off, all of these opiates could (and would) be taxed! What a great way to bring money into the government and stimulate the economy! Last, but not least, is the fact that the taxation on opiates would likely act as a deterrent, at least to some, thus decreasing the amount of drug users (people consumed by vices, perhaps, but who should not be made criminals) in the population!

I agree!!! And while we're at it ... let's take the US government out of the 'morality police' business and make prostitution legal. And I really want the government out of people's bedrooms. So, let's allow gay marriage because ... who cares! It's their business and no one else's. And last but not least, let's get those government hands off my body! I, my doctor, my husband/boyfriend, my God will decide if I choose an abortion, not the government.

[FDRfollower]

What a wonderful argument for the legalization of drugs! Less criminals (obviously), all of this money moving about in the open economy rather than in the black market, and to top it all off, all of these opiates could (and would) be taxed! What a great way to bring money into the government and stimulate the economy! Last, but not least, is the fact that the taxation on opiates would likely act as a deterrent, at least to some, thus decreasing the amount of drug users (people consumed by vices, perhaps, but who should not be made criminals) in the population!

Sorry tcnj_libertarian, I have to take the contrary position. :argue: Let's not get to this though,
:rapidfire: :lazer: we'll leave the enraged bombast to IloveBush and Sweetpea. 8)

Are you actually suggesting that our communtities, cities, states, and nation gain its revenue off of drugs? Is that because you are resigned to our fair country being the new Roman Empire, subjugating people around the world with our military and looting their populations through globalization, while our population is kept in a drugged state ala Bradburys Fahrenheit 451 or Huxleys Brave New World type nightmare? Are you resigned to being part of the No-Future generation and you need drugs to shut out the horrible scene our world looks like.

Or, do we face all the problems and go about solving them. What does that require? One, we have to raise the living standards of the 4 billion of our fellow human beings being kept in a substandard conditions by the Oligarchy Jane D'arc mentioned. Now that's a BIG issue to work on. One, that's going to require developing a fusion based economy ultimately, and to do so, would require a VERY highly skilled, scientifically literate population, one that couldn't be stoned out of their gourds. Two, returning to a manufacturing dominant economy and dumping this service economy crap and globalization. The idea is, that the mission of our nation, should be the supplier of high-technology capital goods for developing nations, and again, to do so would automatically provide sufficient revenue for cities, states, and the nation. I don't know what you mean by "stimulate" the economy (do you mean how a prostitute "stimulates" a client). If you want to reduce vices, launch a great mission to benefit humanity, optimism is the best weapon against vice. Most baby boomers would probably tell you that the moon landing was the only ray of hope in the horrors of the late 60's and early 70's.

[tcnj_libertarian]

Sorry tcnj_libertarian, I have to take the contrary position. :argue: Let's not get to this though,
:rapidfire: :lazer: we'll leave the enraged bombast to IloveBush and Sweetpea. 8)

Are you actually suggesting that our communtities, cities, states, and nation gain its revenue off of drugs? Is that because you are resigned to our fair country being the new Roman Empire, subjugating people around the world with our military and looting their populations through globalization, while our population is kept in a drugged state ala Bradburys Fahrenheit 451 or Huxleys Brave New World type nightmare? Are you resigned to being part of the No-Future generation and you need drugs to shut out the horrible scene our world looks like.
Absolutely not. First of all, nowhere did I suggest that our country presently or in the future would have its entire revenue generated by the sale of drugs. I'm simply saying that the drugs are out there; they are being bought and they are being sold; one may consider them immoral, but they should not be considered crimes; and that, in light of these facts, there is no reason they should be outlawed, and many reasons to believe that, once legalized, drugs would have a beneficial effect on our economy with little or no detriment to our society.

Illegal drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, are used despite being illegal. Being illegal is not a deterrent, and as I'm sure you know, when people want drugs, they have absolutely no problem getting them. So what exactly is criminalizing drugs doing for our society? It's simply turning many people into criminals! When the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21, all it did was make tons of high school and college kids criminals. All gang related crimes are due to illegal drugs. If drugs were legalized, there would be that many fewer criminals and that much less drug-related violent crime. As for people who did not previously use drugs, I am sure that some people would take up drugs, at least certain drugs such as marijuana, which are no worse or better than currently legal drugs. Other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, provide their own deterrents in their danger and their threat to the user's life. Truly, if people are not deterred by the horrible things that heroin addiction can cause, then simply passing a law and threatening them with jail time is not going to deter them either. Drugs provide their own deterrents for me, and likely for you as well, as well as the rest of the population, and legalizing them would produce few, if any, ills while producing many benefits.

Or, do we face all the problems and go about solving them. What does that require? One, we have to raise the living standards of the 4 billion of our fellow human beings being kept in a substandard conditions by the Oligarchy Jane D'arc mentioned. Now that's a BIG issue to work on. One, that's going to require developing a fusion based economy ultimately, and to do so, would require a VERY highly skilled, scientifically literate population, one that couldn't be stoned out of their gourds.
Two questions: First, what makes you think that all of the bright, scientifically literate people would take to doing drugs constantly? Second, what makes you think that the bright, scientifically literate of today do not use drugs? I know many incredibly bright kids that smoke marijuana. I also know many bright people who don't use drugs, and still wouldn't even if they were legalized (me included). I disagree with your assertion that the legalization of drugs would create a drug-dependent society. This is not Huxley's world; most people do not need soma to make them happy.

Two, returning to a manufacturing dominant economy and dumping this service economy crap and globalization. The idea is, that the mission of our nation, should be the supplier of high-technology capital goods for developing nations, and again, to do so would automatically provide sufficient revenue for cities, states, and the nation. I don't know what you mean by "stimulate" the economy (do you mean how a prostitute "stimulates" a client). If you want to reduce vices, launch a great mission to benefit humanity, optimism is the best weapon against vice. Most baby boomers would probably tell you that the moon landing was the only ray of hope in the horrors of the late 60's and early 70's.
Well, you said it right there -- there are better ways than legislation to reduce vices. As for supplying high-technology capital goods to developing nations, thats a wonderful idea, but it should be done at the will of philanthropic business owners; the government should get its hands out of our economy.

[FDRfollower]

[QUOTE=tcnj_libertarian]Absolutely not. First of all, nowhere did I suggest that our country presently or in the future would have its entire revenue generated by the sale of drugs. I'm simply saying that the drugs are out there; they are being bought and they are being sold; one may consider them immoral, but they should not be considered crimes; and that, in light of these facts, there is no reason they should be outlawed, and many reasons to believe that, once legalized, drugs would have a beneficial effect on our economy with little or no detriment to our society.
http://www.bigleftoutside.com/archives/grasso.jpeg

Ok, I have to be quick this time, but answer me this. What is the former head of the New York Stock Exchange doing in the jungles of Columbia, collaborating with Narco-Terrorists?

And I have to ask you. Your argument sounds very similar to the position of Milton Friedman, George Soros, and George Shultz. Shultz and Friedman, both support fascist dictatorships, like the Pinochet dictatorship. Are you just taking their view?

[haus]

I've gotta side with tcnj on this one.

If you stroll around Amsterdam and then stroll around Singapore, you don't see much of a difference. In Amsterdam, most drugs are legal. Singapore has (and enforces) a death penalty for "intent to distribute."

I'd much rather save the money we spend on the "war on drugs," and put it towards social security/medicare/education/etc. Then open up a tax revenue stream on sales and spend that on education.

Decriminalization would also open up god knows how many prison cells. There's a lot of money to be saved there, as well as the civil benefit of not sending hundreds of thousands of people to "crime university."

I spent a couple of minutes looking around for economic impact links, but everything I found looked like it had been written by people that were high. :)

[FDRfollower]

If you stroll around Amsterdam and then stroll around Singapore, you don't see much of a difference. In Amsterdam, most drugs are legal. Singapore has (and enforces) a death penalty for "intent to distribute."

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement Haus. Could you be a little more clear please?

[haus]

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement Haus. Could you be a little more clear please?

I picked two countries to compare and contrast. Both little countries. Both fairly well off. One has an extremely strict set of drug laws. One has an extremely loose (and unenforced) set of drug laws. Based on informal observations, there is no dramatic societal difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands explains the policy in the Netherlands. If I had a magic wand, the only thing I would change about it would be to make the federal government the distributor (like liqour in Canada). From a macroeconomic standpoint, decriminalization would problably cut down the per-unit price and therefore the profit margin for supplying countries. It would destroy the criminal infrastructure in place for drug trading. It would allow us to reassign resources from the farcical "War on Drugs" to more useful social programs. And it would cut, by at least half, the number of people imprisoned in the U.S.

And what's the downside? People would use drugs. Gasp! Oh, wait, they already do.

That said, I don't think it'll ever happen in the U.S., because the decriminalization and legalization movements here seem to be a little scatterbrained. All anyone needs to thwart a political action by NORML is a packet of Cheetos.