Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation
-----------------------------------------------------------------

And, freeperland explodes.

I find it very odd Carter would say "I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates" when he knows Bush is an idiot.

Maybe he's speaking out in support to thoroughly confuse Bush supporters.

Maybe that's his intent :shrug:

He's being Rovian here, and tossing it back that he's sure his moronic subordinates did a good job.

"I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat" Carter

It's a subtle dig, forcing Bush to present the good job he did scrutinizing the deal.

to it.

Jimmy Carter's "endorsement" has them all twisted into little moonbat-shaped pretzels. It's quite hilarious.

Don't know yet. Waiting for Rush to be on.

LOLOLOLOL They probably don't take a shit unless Rush says it is time to do so.

You are right. His listeners cannot think for themselves. That is why I became the Anti-Dittohead. You can't agree with somebody just because they are usually on your side.

So it goes with Carter. It has to be a trick. I know no other reason for Carter to support Bush on this of all things.

Impeach Bush. Free America.

the right thing to do. That's what I respect about him - he didn't make this statement to show support for bush. It is his honest opinion.

Welcome to DU :hi:

that crafty old man! I busted out laughing when I read it, it was revealed today that none of the people charged with making this decision spoke to the 911 commission (who tied hijackers to Dubai) or members of the investigation into terror links there in the 90's.

Total incompetence and not following the rules. Bad Repugs! :spank:

How many posts in that thread comment on selling the Panama Canal? I know these guys think the canal was sold at the behest of the (evil) UN, but even though Carter signed the treaty to hand it over in 1999 GHW Bush was in office when it was handed over.

Why didn't he renege on the treaty if Carter was so wrong?

Clinton was President in 1999. Not Bush.

I think that is what the poster meant. Gotta read a bit more carefully :)

Panama in ousting Noriega.

and denying that "BushBot" is an insult! :rofl:

I'm all teary-eyed. :evilgrin:

and they were already having trouble spinning it as a good thing. although some were valiantly trying. pity that the only way they could do was to basically say americans are incompetent to run our own ports.

I am strill trying to figure that one out. :think:

`I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

And I am sure he hasn't

"I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat."

Now he's put it on * to respond to this. Which of "his subordinates" made sure this is "not a threat"? This is actually very smart on Carter's part.

jimmy knows what the hell he's doing here....

Franklin said those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Welcome to neither.

Lance was reprimanded by Bank regulatory folks for his role in the attempted Arab takeover of Washington DC banks (the American Bk/Chevy Chase bank/Union (?)BK scandal)under Reagan.

Of course we now know that Arab influence in DC banks was accomplished via a more GOP path once the Carter/Dem - actually also GOP -path was closed. Indeed just about all the banks in DC had an ethics problems.

that I have seen so far. I am totally befuddled on this and am looking to the DU'ers for answers to the screechers in the office.

Watch the hearing on CSPAN tonight, they should replay parts of it. Those "subordinates" showed their incompetence today. :)

Early prediction (or keen observation depending on when I hit the Post Message button)

...this thread will hit a 100 in no time flat...with tires spinning...

Sorry Jimmy - I love ya, but Bush has not done a good job on anything.

when he said good its just putting the spotlight on Bush to proove he's good!!!! :sarcasm:

But seriously what the hell is wrong with Carter & Clinton why can't they tell it like it is?

Bush is a VERY bad president

in a parallel universe!

higher-ups who are on the committee that approved the sale.

Trusting Bush has "done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat" is like trusting Bush, Chertoff & Co. did all they could to help Katrina victims during the flood, or trusting BushCo. did a great job against all threats pre-911.

NOT!

they make after they unmercilessly attacked him after Mrs. King's funeral. I wonder if O'Reilly will suddenly think he's a better Christian.

My bet is he has ulterior motives in this comment.

...Bush doing a good job "with his subordinates" to make sure "this is not a threat."

For one thing, in dealing with the ports, and other vulnerable points in security, you don't "make sure this is not a threat." Think of this: Say, the Saudis or the UAE sheikdom bought out our nuclear power plants. Would the idea be to "make sure this is not a threat." I mean, come on.

Second, Bush's "subordinates" have been a disaster on security issues. Think of Brown and Chertoff (FEMA and the Homeland), Cheney, Libby, and Rove (destroying an entire CIA counter-proliferation project), Rumsfeld (sending the Nat'l Guard, our emergency responders, to Iraq--not to speak of the security problems in Iraq itself). And then there's Rice, and Bolton, and the toadies and yes-men throughout the junta.

I can only think that Carter was speaking tongue in cheek, and, as you say, has ulterior motives. I mean, these people went in and slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people who had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with 9/11, and our now turning our major port facilities over to a country that two of the 9/11 perps called home?! (--or maybe Carter knows something about 9/11 that WE don't). (Hm-m-m...)

that he had a mischievous look on his face when he said this. That being said, even if he meant it, it was probably him being diplomatic. Please, he is such a good man, I do not want to see him demonized for this error in judgment.

This one will be BushCo's undoing.

You can't scream "terrah, terrah" for five years and then all of a sudden agree to put the ports under the management of an Arab nation.

Ain't gonna fly. This is so bad even the most STUPID American gets it.

threatened to veto any proposed legislation that delays the deal, and he still won't ask for Cheney's resignation ;)

Will they make a profit off our ports? Does our treasury get any money?

out and say that it's a bad idea because Arab's would be running the show. He certainly phrased his question that way.

:eyes:

This is not about national security, but about nativism and raw fear and scoring political points. It's a shame to see DU playing this game that plays into the hands of fear-mongers and racists, but it looks like we have more than our share of these people.

Can anyone cite a problem with Dubai Port World's operations anywhere?

Can anyone show an actual link between Al Qaeda and DPW (beyond "I googled UAE and terrorism and got XXX hits!")?

Can anyone tell me how the government of the UAE aids and abets terrorism?

Can anyone tell me how long the US has been contracting out port operations to foreign companies?

Can anyone tell me how many nukes or WMDs have been discovered entering our ports?

Can anyone tell me who is actually in charge of security--not operations--at our ports?

I think it's stupid to give our port operations over to another government, if someonelses government can run our ports, wouldn't our own do at least as good a job, and with more democratic oversite.

Stories like this give me pause, which is about corruption, which should be just as big a concern as terrorism.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/22/MNG7L2GHCB1.DTL

whether it's a privately-own or a government-owned company, foreign or domestic. What matters is the security oversight, which has to be excellent, REGARDLESS of who runs the ports. It's silly to think that our ports or airports are any more safe if they are contracted out to some bozo without much expertise, as opposed to a mega-scale company specializing in maritime operations. I think it's fear-mongering and xenophobia at its finest on display here.

What bothers me more is the possibility of cronyism. It should be a competitive process, just like any other transaction in a capitalist society.

Can anyone cite a problem with Dubai Port World's operations anywhere?

I can't think of anyone willing to have a foreign presence in their port.

Can anyone show an actual link between Al Qaeda and DPW (beyond "I googled UAE and terrorism and got XXX hits!")?

Well there are those Saudis who hijacked the jets during 911.

Can anyone tell me how the government of the UAE aids and abets terrorism?

See the above answer.

Can anyone tell me how long the US has been contracting out port operations to foreign companies?

This apparently is the first time anyone has tried to do so, at least with the coverage that's coming in on it.

Can anyone tell me how many nukes or WMDs have been discovered entering our ports?

Well there is the time a news crew managed to successfully smuggle low levels of uranium into an airport.

Can anyone tell me who is actually in charge of security--not operations--at our ports?

That's a good question, seeing as how the UAE could be notified of weaponry for the U.S. Army-of all things-coming in to our ports.

companies - in fact, P & O manages more than 100 ports in 19 countries, DP I think operates in a similar number of countries and PSA also operates in multiple countries.

Saudis come from Saudi Arabia, not UAE.

I don't know about all the ports but the Miami operations has been part-owned by P & O since at least 1994. I would suspect the others a similar amount of time.

And according to something in the nation, the UAE hosts more US navy ships than any other port in the region. SO I record they're plenty aware of the comings and goings of US weaponry.

It is not a shame to see DU playing this game just to score political points. We desperately need to score some political points. The Repukes lie and distort to score political points all the time. Look at what they did to John Kerry.

In this case, Bush's own lies and distortions about Middle-Easterners are coming back to haunt him. We haven't done anything. His own lies and distortions are hurting him, and you blame us for enjoying that? I'm loving it!

More popcorn, please. :popcorn:

-Laelth


Edit:Laleth--verb tense.

Jimmy knew damn well what he was doing when he voiced his "support."

This is payback for all the crap he's had to take from Freep-tards blasting him over his allegedly nasty CSK-funeral remarks (they weren't nasty at all).

He's a smart mofo, and this was wonderfully played.

:shrug:

None at all!

Not to be tin-foil, but are they planting all ex-President's with "Current Admin." chips? Between Jimmy and Big Dog, seems our ex-Dem Prez's are oddly too often crossing to the Repug "line(s)."

Of course you can't trust an Arab right? I mean let's play the Xenophobia card. This move by Dems and Repugs targets the fear of the other in the culture wars.
Why would Bush do it? Well it’s a way of letting the Arabs on our side know we trust them.
And its consistent with letting Big Business do what it wants, on the basis that they will back Bush and his ilk. In other words, this move is entirely consistent with Bush’s corporatism! Let Big Business (and free capital flows) reign!
So it seems like our feckless leader has made a politically tone deaf move—very very very tone deaf--but also a move that follows necessarily from his geopolitics,or more correctly, from his multinational corporatist economics.

Assume his basic geo-economics: Keeping friendly Arab investors on board is necessary from the perspective of global capital flows. Bush has to let stock market funds go where they will. That’s a requirement of what the US and US-dominated world financial institutions require all the time of developing countries. (Imagine what would happen if we refused Arab money and imagine if Arab capital fled? Imagine Chinese capital fleeing? Imagine Japanese capital fleeing? Are you imagining a depression?)

On the other hand, America IS the Xenophobic country that changed French fries to freedom fries. I hope the recent move by Iran to call Danish pastries Rose buds of the Prophet Mohammad (or something ridiculous like that) reflects on just what fools we looked like to the world. (Don't most people on DU share that view? Or is fear of the other now a Democratic value among us?)

Query: which party benefits more by staking out reactionary Xenophobic policies? Which party can stoke these emotions into angry votes better? Just asking....It’s so obvious that the Rethugs batter the Dems with this patriotism of scoundrels again and again.

The irony here, the tone deaf President has a quandary where his economic policies are openly at odds with his party’s hatred of the other. Read: racism.

And no, I am not a Bush supporter, and if you would like to advise me to go to Free Rethuglic and spew my crud there, someone already beat you to it! I also don't think that just because someone is an Arab, that they cannot be trusted--look at Helen Thomas, an Arab American who is among our finest!!!!

: )

I'm willing to believe that you're not.

However, your rhetoric certainly agrees with what we've been hearing out of the White House yesterday and today.

How do we reconcile that?

It doesn't take a Bush supporter to recognize what Bush will say.
Did you listen to Daniel Shore of NPR last night? He said the same thing I did.

perhaps intentionally.
The Bush administration has repeatedly told us they will not deal with any country supporting terrorists. You're either with us or against us.
Bush and his attack dogs told the country, pre-election, that if Kerry was elected, he'd put the French in charge of our country. And his dim-witted adherents actually believed that swill.
So. Now we have a country known for harboring terrorists, a country who recognized the Taliban officially (one of only 3 countries to do so), and a country that housed two of the hi-jackers who murdered thousands of Americans on 9-11.
Also a country with close business ties to The Carlyle Group and the Bush family and friends. But we're not supposed to know about that, are we?
And these are the people this administration wants to put in charge of our woefully unsecured ports.
This is from an administration which has continually used "national security" to justify the most egregious attacks on our Constitution. This administration has condoned torture, domestic spying, the carpet bombing of children, racial profiling, and outing a CIA agent.
But now, WE'RE the anti-Arab cabal because we have legitinate concerns about our safety.
You can't possibly believe this.

Ding-ding-ding! We may have a winner!

the best about people. He can't be right about everything.

He has some dignity. He doesn't pander to xenophobia. My guess is that he hasn't seen any compelling warrants for denying this deal on the merits (not the politics). He qualified his statement by saying he is sure the president did his due diligence on this deal. I wouldn't be so inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt there, but Carter isn't going to just jump on the Islamophobic bandwagon to get a little bump in the polls. I respect him for that.

will think it's wrong?

I don't get Carter's position. Does he not see it as more conflict of interest directly running into the Bush Crime Familys Administration.

"
...
The Unknown History of James Carter

The two faces of imperial power include the iron fist military intervention and the "soft sell" of electoral frauds, intimidating diplomacy and democratic blackmail. Jimmy Carter is "the quiet American" of Graham Greene fame, who legitimates voter fraud, blesses corrupt elections, certifies murderous rulers, encourages elections, in which the opposition is funded by the US state and semi-public foundations, and the incumbent progressive regime suffers repeated violent disruption of the economy.

..."

more:
http://counterpunch.org/petras07082004.html