Please, I'm confused and I Need a Lurking Freeper to Explain

See, here's my dilemma. I can't understand how "The War President" who has "Post 9/11 thinking" can entrust our port security to a country that was directly involved in that attack. Two hijackers are United Arab Emirates' citizens, 11 hijackers' last stop before entering the US was there, half the money used in the attack came from there, and the banks continue to launder money for terrorists and drug dealers. To boot, the UAE has sworn to "destroy Israel", which, if I remember, is our only reliable ally in the area. How am I to feel safer when a company which is owned by that country is in charge of the security of the ports of Miami, New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, Philadelphia and New Orleans?

The Bush Administration has carted out Michael Chertoff to tell us not to worry, he's checked everything out and everything is A-OK. But isn't this the same Michael Chertoff who handled that Katrina thing. Excuse me if his assurances seem to be a little shallow to me, will 'ya.

To my DU friends, this is the best issue going. When I ask my freeper friends these questions, they almost cry. It's unbelievable. I haven't had this much fun since Nixon resigned.

I too am having too much fun with this one.

wish I had thought of it, that is funny.

:wtf:

is in the form of questions.

"I don't get it, you're a Bush supporter, maybe you can explain how we're safer by turning our port security over to a country with known terrorist ties?" "Perhaps you have some insight into this rather strange development".


That's a great one. This is so much fun that I hope it doesn't get settled until November.

We just need to trust them to do the right thing.

to understand those big words like dilemma and assurances?

don't take no big smart demmycrat librul with some fancy shmancy college de-gree ter figger out wha's goin' on. Prezdent Bush done told ya'll nigh on a while back, that it were Saydamn Hoosane in cayhoots wit' that O'sammy been Lowdown feller, what bombed them thar towers in New York. Saydamn was Eyerackee, not no Uknighted Arab E-mirate. So thar. An' you folks all thanks yer so dang smart. Well, tha's all I gots to say now, got's to call in my hound dog, and go git in bed with Daisey Lou. An' no smart re-marks 'bout Daisey bein' my cousin now, Ya'll hear?

thanks for the laugh. despite so many problems, america's colloquialisms rule man, i love 'em!

with the world in the shape it's in, if we couldn't have a laugh now and then, we'd all go bonkers. Seriously.

with yer hound dog.

"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

note on the US mortgage so when (not if) a WMD or terror attack comes through one of
their ports it will allow bush and company to declare martial law and @ the same time ask
for a better rate for our great grandchildren to pay off the debt that was run up creating an
Islamic theocracy in Iraq.

BTW Why do you hate America?

louis c.....The * Cabal thought this would be like any of their other issues....they would announce it and it would go away...he...he..they miscalculated....just like they have miscalculated everything they have gotten their greedy Haliburton devil claws on.....

I was only 7 or 8 years old when Nixon resigned.....I am hoping that I will see what a resignation and impeachment of a president is all about....
:popcorn: I will take some salt and butter with that popcorn please.

This is extremely fun. I like the part where Bushie refused any examination of the issue by Congress. What on earth were they thinking?

Shut up hippie!!

Stop saying that!!

At least Adam and Steve won't be able to get married!!

Rush and Sean and Bill say it's OK!!

B-B-B-BILL CLINTON!!!!!

In fact, I have been here much longer than you have. But, to my understanding, the security aspect of our ports has not been turned over to Arabs. Only the operations of loading and unloading the ships. I object to even this part of it, but we must get the facts straight when making our arguments. While security of our ports is still being handled by Americans, the sale to Arabs facilitates just another portion of our country being owned by foreign interests. Look where that has gotten us!

that's where the problem is

....I just wanted to point out that port security remains in the hands of Americans. The sale to Arabs could increase the likelihood of security breeches, but inspections would still be done by Americans. I am steadfast against any sale of America to foreign interests. They only have profits in mind, not workers.

Sorry for the crappy source, but I also heard on CNN (somewhat less crappy source), and this was the first link I found.

harassing library patrons and people with peace stickers on their cars. They won't have time to check containers coming in to Arab ports.

hence the "security"issue

What are you talking about? We don't need no stinking facts? What, are you part of some reality-based community or something? Obviously, you didn't get the memo. We create facts. We control the message. We can make the sheeple believe anything we want. :sarcasm:

In all honesty, I appreciate your desire to "set the record straight" on this issue, but what we're seeing here is the left learning and exploiting the tactics of the right. Frankly, in this case, I don't care what the facts are. While I am not willing, personally, to distort and lie to bring them down over this, I am positively gleeful that the * cabal is taking flak over it.

-Laelth

Thanks for listening. I just needed to say that.

Hmmm? Would make a great T-shirt.

And one of the ports in question is Baltimore. I don't think I even need a tinfoil hat to think of possibilities here.

You have FREEPER FRIENDS?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

"When I ask my freeper friends these questions, they almost cry."

You have to understand that I represent over 250 workers in a single building. I come in contact with another 100 who are non-union or other union employees.

I belong to a fraternal club where the mix is about 25% bush apologists. When I say freepers, I really mean anyone who voted for Bush and continues to support his policies.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12504

He's as pissed as we are, here's a snip:

"Usually Sen. Chuck Schumer is off on one of his rants, but this time, he is making sense. We outsource enough of our jobs to other countries as it is. To outsource our seaports is insane in my opinion. We are opening the door to potential terror threats. It's a national security blunder of major proportions if we allow this to happen."

or SUVs (wannabeHummers)

:puke:

I'm not one of them, but this matter goes well beyond national, partisan politics.

This may well be where the citizens come together, finally.

but...here are some crazy ideas I came up with.

1. Big money kick back deal on this one for "someone" or "someones"

2. Get this deal in place, knowing Dem's could win next election (be it Congress/and or Whitehouse)..
then once deal in place is hard for next government to remove...then bingo attack on ports happen...then bingo attack happens on Dem watch...then bingo people forget or don't care that Arab port deal was done by Repugs...and they will blame Dems....:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: <--sorry, but why else would this deal go through???? lol I think.

3. Money

4. Chertoff, said don't worry it's ok, we've checked it out..all is fine..nothing will happen (paraphrasing from his interview with Blitzer)...soooooooooooooo they will NOT Let. It. Happen.
No LIHOP this time? Rest Easy???

5. Money

Are real, significant numbers of them angry enough to vote against the chimp? What happens in one or two days when limpballs and hannity have told them that it's all okay? They'll obviously fall for it; they've fallen for everything else. I just think it's a dangerous trap to depend on freepers to stop this. They aren't independent thinkers, to put it mildly. I need to see our Dem leaders speaking up. Why aren't they?

LMAO !! You're being much too kind.

Most freepers will die before they admit Rush Limbaugh lied to them, or that Lord God Bush is not immaculate.

They are like the Germans who still screamed "heil hitler" as Berlin burned around them.

Freepers are loyal to their party, not their nation.

and when one or more of our port cities goes up in a mushrom cloud, the idiots will find some way to blame it on Clinton -

It's that they would have to admit that we have been right all along. They just can't do it.

Look for bush to look worse in the days ahead and a new repiglican to start bashing bush. Their main hope to win in 2008 is to distance themselves from him and put their allegiance behind a new candidate that more reflects their values (tougher on immigration, et al).

If I wore a tin hat I would say bush will help this along as he and his cronies groom the next gop candidate for office. bushy boy is but a mere figurehead of a larger plan and has gotten what he wanted out of the deal. He will retire and have no worries while many will suffer because of him. He was a puppet, willingly, and will dance off stage left to become that real boy he wants to be - out of public eye doing the crazy crap he wants to.

A little thing like the constitution never stopped the chimperor.;( But regardless of the chimp himself, will all this "outrage" stop even a few of them from voting repuke? Don't think so.

you're racist.

That's their answer today!! Tomorrow, you may be unpatriotic and Wednesday you'll probably be UnChristian. Then, they'll either start over with racist again and go through UnChristian. Until Christmas, at least, that will be the drill. Hopefully at Christmas, someone will put a thesaurus on their Christmas list and then there can be more than three names -- I mean answers.

:patriot:

emdee (not a freeper)

IOKIYAR
criticizing a war president is unpatriotic.
We're turning the corner.

ok i give up - even the freepers are beginning to realise that they don't matter to Bushco, they are convenient 'fodder units', foot soldiers in a war that they have no interest in fighting.

btw has anyone got the latest on what Fox and Limbaugh et al are doing with the story? The silence is deafening.

don't watch Faux News, can't stand Limpballs.

You won't find a lurking FReeper who can answer your question because they will reply with something very inappropriate like "F*ck Clinton, it's his fault these terraists are running amok!" and get themselves tombstoned. It never fails.

I'm you're friendly lurking Freeper. I'm here to answer all of your questions.

:popcorn:

is that this was also done in secret. If they dare try to pull the deal now on UAE after all they told them it's a done deal and gave the approvals they , well...uh..expect some terror soon :rofl:

I'll answer all the questions you like.

The decision to allow this deal is wrong. Leaving out the hard-core conspiracy theories, why do you think they allowed it?

PS- Chertoff did not directly handle Katrina. He had a very small part...

You think it's wrong. But then why would Bush even consider this move? A large portion of his base voted for him on war and security issues. This move compromises his integrity in these areas. What say you?

Thank you for asking the question in a respectful, serious manner. Frankly, I expected to be met with outright vitriol.

I really don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say it is probably a lame PR stunt. I'm not saying that's a good reason, but it's the most likely IMHO. Whatever the reason, it's unnacceptable.

interested to try to understand where you folks are coming from. Unfortunately we disagree so fundmentally on so many issues that it's very hard to listen to one another.

Anyway, a PR stunt? I can't help but wonder, for what purpose? This seems like the sort of PR the Administration does not need, particularly at this time when the media appears to be considering switching allegiances. A little. How can this possibly benefit Bush and/or the republicans in general? Or do you mean something different by PR stunt?

To me the logic flow is something like this:
1. Republican party is small tent - most people in it think alike but disagree on levels of same thing and how to go about it (immigration, tax cuts, security, defense, et al)

2. Democrats, large tent, tries to have things both ways in same party.
To wit - see my post #32 (I think off hand)
On one hand part of the dems think bush mihop'd the whole 9/11 thing, and think that the freepers went overboard in characterizing muslims as evil terrorists. Then there is lihop crowd and then the 'avg' crowd if you will.
Now the dems are coming out saying we fear foreigners and are aghast at muslims running our ports because 'some' people from there (a few hijackers, which some in dem party don't believe anyway...) attacked us on 9/11.

Basically, it is a mixed messaged from the dem party as a whole - where as repugs on this one mainly think that bushy boy is wrong on principle. It appears (to me and others, and I have been reading du since shortly after it fired up) that dems just want to bitch about bush for anything he does even if it means they are not following their own ideas (ie, again, 9/11 inside job, way fundies branded muslims wrong, etc and so on).

Does that make any sense at all?

Absolutley. Those on the right who think Bush can do no wrong are idiots. Those on the left who think everything he does is wrong are idiots. I find it refreshing to know that there are still folks who can look at things objectively...

just biased.

Myself often included in that...though I try to get the straight story.

I meant as in lame attempt at positive PR...ie "see we don't hate Muslims, we continue to work with them while we conduct this war, blah, blah." Like I said, it's only a guess, not a vote of support!

And you may very well be right.

Carlyly Group's involvement in port security company


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x473813

but also more reading (worth it tho):


Who the hell cares what YOU think? (good compilation with links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x474465

Ask yourself: Why is Bush so damned determined to keep the port deal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=482138&mesg_id=482138

UAE corp. exec. to be U.S. DOT Administrator. (Jan. 06)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x472586

Edward Copeland (52 posts) Mon Feb-20-06 03:50 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2471299&mesg_id=2471307
1. This thing is smelling worse all the time
On top of the bipartisan criticism of this plan, including Tom Ridge, a poster on my blog tipped me off to this angle: a key executive of the UAE company was appointed by Dubya in January to a key transportation department post overseeing maritime issues and serving under Norman Mineta.

Here is the link to the company's own press release:

http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39




Port security should have been an issue before Bush decided to sell it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2471299&mesg_id=2471299
Link:
Key lawmaker says U.S. should freeze port deal
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/centredaily/news/local/13914905.htm?source=rss&channel=centredaily_local

the connection to it all - Carlyle Group involved in port security deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2471320#2471323
also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x473813
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x474295
Link: http://www.bridgedeck.org/mmp_news_archive/2002/mmp_news021219.html
and: http://www.nsnet.com/archive-1-2005-02.html
and: http://www.informare.it/news/review/2003/b030303.asp


Our Ports are a Tradeoff!! All about $$$ and Oil
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x471124
Link: http://www.oilandgasnewsonline.com/bkArticlesF.asp?Article=14878&Section=1947&IssueID=336 (also other links in OP)

UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE--Space program to UAE!!!
Randi just read an article about someone moving a program or business to the UAE to build rocket ships! What is happening?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x482110

BUSH SAYS HE WOULD VETO LEGISLATION TO STOP DUBAI PORT DEAL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x482124
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x482418
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2473610
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2122983
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2473610&mesg_id=2473610
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2473635
Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT004834.htm

He is the DIRECTOR of Homeland Security (sic). It was his JOB!

Since it smacks of being xenophobic/racist (what, those evil muslims will be helping out with our ports?) or that some here think it was all mihop and therefore the real threat is not UAE but bush and crew - read American people, which would be worse than uae.

If the official story of 9/11 is true than having uae take over part of port operations is scary, otherwise why would anyone care?

(On Edit, I'm sure you're right about many liberals, especially after reading your reply to another post above)

But we're not talking about ALL muslims or ALL Arabs here, are we? We're talking about one country: the UAE. So let's keep the accusations of racism and xenophobia to a minimum.

The fact that there are an unsual number of coincidences regarding that nation and the 9/11 hijackings does not mean that Bush knew, nor that I am a MIHOP theorist. It means that I would have a problem with outsourcing this type of business to Canada, much less a nation that is, well, bad. It also means that George W. Bush is a gigantic asshole whom has been seriously mislabeled by the MIHOPpers and LIHOPpers: he didn't "Let It" or "Make It," he just didn't give a shit. And he's continuing to not give a shit.

From the OP:
Two hijackers are United Arab Emirates' citizens, 11 hijackers' last stop before entering the US was there, half the money used in the attack came from there, and the banks continue to launder money for terrorists and drug dealers. To boot, the UAE has sworn to "destroy Israel", which, if I remember, is our only reliable ally in the area. How am I to feel safer when a company which is owned by that country is in charge of the security of the ports of Miami, New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, Philadelphia and New Orleans?

and hears about at work.

Let me see if I can help:
bush sucks, 9/11 was inside job, he hates arabs and wants to kill them and steal their oil, muslims are good people americans are bad.

Then when bush allows them to monitor our ports the people are mad at him because he let a terrorist country handle our ports, which hypocrisy, but then the dems come out and say: they attacked us on 9/11, we canot trust them, yadda yadda yadda

Which seems like playing both sides of the fence.

Spend some time in the hicksville bars in Ohio, where they have kill bin laden posters hanging on the wall, and this is the kind of thing you hear.

Sure it may make sense to you and most here on du - but the message we are projecting is not always real clear (which happens in a big tent party).

But I was born and raised in Hicksville. I know where you're coming from, I just didn't see it at first.

This is the problem I have with most of the Democratic leadership. They're willing to stand on whatever's popular or seems to be the most vote-getting, and what people RESPECT is someone who at least appears to stand on principal, i.e. John McCain, who until recently I thought was "not totally evil," and the remarkably, frighteningly electable GWB. It's our biggest downfall as a party and as an ideal.

how do we fix it?

My uncle was a dem mayor here in Ohio, damn good one in a repug area too. He stood for something - he learned politics from grandpa who was a repub mayor but still cared deeply for the common man (of which he was one as he did not make much money).

bush knows his base, the largest part of it, fairly well. Our base is all over the place at times and hard to pin down - again I go back to 9/11 and such things where we can see some here ripping a candidate for not being hard enough on bush while others think they said the right things and so on. Our candidates are all over the board on things from gay marriage to taxes to terror, and a concise clear message is not always evident - except for to raise taxes, christians suck (tell that to jfk...), and so on.

We have an image problem. We want the right things for people, we want to help them. But I don't think they can see past the image problem to the details.

We need people who are going to stand up, speak their minds, and not take shit off nobody. Do what's right, period, and to hell with the consequences. Harry S. Truman comes to mind. We need someone who can communicate to even those of us who come from "Hicksville" at times, and talk to those in Intellegensia-land on other occasions. Bill Clinton comes to mind, and GWB and Reagan. They only had the first half of the equation, but were at least canny enough to get aides, talking-heads, and think tanks to speak to Intellegensia-land for them.

What we're ALL loking for -- Liberal and Conservative alike -- is Mr. Smith.

Too bad he was shit-canned for no good reason...

It's quite possible for 9/11 to have been carried out by a small cell of people from arab countries BUT with financial/logistical/practical support from American interests (or assets with American political connections).

To be honest, I can't believe even a British company was allowed that much access to our ports to begin with. But really, I would have as much of a problem with any foriegn corporation having that much control over our ports. Actually, I have a problem with us subcontracting such a job to ANY private hands at all, I would think this would be a job for the government myself.

Chertoff, "of the devil" in Russian, is the nation's Chief Stalinist with a little Nazi thrown in. He'll be locking you up one day after he confiscates all your guns... Hint: Burn your NRA card and bury your guns underground. ;)

:hi: Mardi Gras is next Tuesday... though we are celebrating already. ;) :party:

(Yeah, asshole, but Clinton's not the president. I'm not talking about some kind of hypothetical what-if situation, I'm talking about what really happened. Clinton's not the president anymore. And besides, if he were, we would probably be back in the greatest time of relative-peace and prosperity this country's ever known.)

Well, would you really have trusted Kerry to handle this after the way he turned tail and ran from Vietnam?

(The answer to your question is three-fold: Yes, I would trust him more, especially after the way he earned that pocketful of medals, and See the answer regarding which man is currently serving as President, and Why am I having this conversation with someone who is so obviously an irrational freeper?)

Clinton would have traded it to the UAE for a blowjob!

(Back to the Clinton's penis thing... And before you continue, no I don't think that Vince Foster's suicide was a CIA hit)

I thought all you LIEberals were supposed to be "multicultural" and "tolerant?" Why all the hostility? Aren't you all being racists now?

(No. This nation's problem has never been with Arabs or Muslims, it's been with nations that have supported and financed terrorism against the United States.)

On edit: to point out the painfully obvious, I'm not a lurking Freeper. Just someone who has had an eerily similiar conversation to the above earlier today.

Not a Freep but the answer to your question is easy…….

911 was MIHOP (see link in sig line) so the * Admin knows that “the terrorists” are trumped-up Bogey-Men and throwing some biz and Big Bucks to their UAE buddies is no big deal. In fact, it’s their reward for going along with the biggest ruse in history.

out of all the explanations, this one seems to be the easiest to swallow (no clenis pun intended). if you can swallow the 911 MIHOP that is. i didn't before, but this port deal is making me think otherwise. those in the bubble really have no fear that the UAE would allow an attack through, because 911 was a domestic attack, or at least a LIHOP.

i better get my tinfoil hat.

...to check it out. Well, some think it's another one of Bush's "brilliant" ideas, they call it rope-a-dope. He put up Harriet Miers to insure that Alito got in. Now, he sells ports to UAE so that Halliburton can jump in and save the day by agreeing to take over the ports and we will all breath a sigh of relief!

Some of them are fed up with Bush, even call him stupid. But, bottom line for many is that no matter how awful it is with Bush, just imagine what it would be like if we had a Pres. Gore or Kerry. As if we'd all be in concentration camps or something!

This time with the selling off of the ports to Dubaii I just feel sick

This could be the one.

You see, we can't impeach Bush on all the real stuff, like the lies, plame, the War, secret dealings and things like that until we control congress.

we can't control congress unless we grab hold of an issue that resonates with those folks who need a simple issue. This is it.

Now, keep this hush-hush, okay? Come closer and I'll whisper it:

The A-rabs weren't really the bad guys... someone else did the 9/11 carnage and Bushco just pretended it was A-rabs... so, see why Bushco isn't afraid of A-rabs controlling our ports? He's blowbuddies with the A-rabs! Shh! Don't tell the freeper idiots! ;)

but I went to their site tonite and I can't find any freepers who think this is a good idea either. Out of over 2,000 posts I don't think I found more than 5 who thought it might be a good idea.

the Port of Long Beach or Long Beach Harbor or whatever to the Chinese.

This is the new talking point on one gunnut board.

Clenis done it so it must be OK.

The few with more than one brain cell were quick to point out that President Bill Clinton has nothing to with this debacle. Still, the gunnut fascination with "The Clenis" lives on.