This article at commondreams exposes who it is who is really behind the outcry against the UAE ports deal.

Think it came from the progressive community??? Think again!

It was RWer Frank Gaffney, right-wing PNACer, who pushed the ports story into the spotlight!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0224-07.htm

n/t

So, wouldn't surprise me in the least that he's all pissed off about UAE getting the contract (plus, he knows the UAE supports the Israel boycott).

They've even been all over DU the last couple of weeks. Almost exactly the same. I think we've been conned. Those aren't progressive talking points!!!

He IS horribly anti-Muslim. Here's more from commondreams:

Ariel Sharon was too left-wing for Gaffney, and that's who started all this!

What else can I say?

Look, the guy is way WAY WAY pro-Israel to the exclusion of even the U.S. He is a complete bigot with respect to Arabs and Muslims.

Think about that and the fact the UAE supports the boycott of Israel for its human rights violations. BushCO is acting inconsistent with Gaff's shallow, rigid ideology. So, I'm not in the least surprised that Gaff is actually making logical arguments pertaining to the port contract. I came up with the same positions BEFORE I read anything other than a couple of headlines.

I understand your concern. However, this isn't the first time one of the neocon crowd has voiced opposition on a matter. They actually took issue with the number of troops sent into Iraq and criticized how Bush has conducted the war. So, this isn't totally unusual.

Think about...research...the SOURCE of all these untruths and half-truths about the UAE. Don't be swept along with arguments that are being presented because of an ulterior motive.

These arguments are successful because they combine a legitimate concern: Bush's failure to do enough to protect our ports (as Kerry pointed out during the campaign), with outright lies and half truths that are scary to us about the UAE. Let's instead get to the heart of the matter, and attack Bush because of his port security failures overall, instead of bashing a country that is a moderate middle eastern state.

The PNACers want to destabilize the middle east, remember? What better way to do it than undermining those countries that are fairly liberal in their policies? They are angry about the boycott, but you don't see the PNACers ever pressuring Israel to abandon apartheid policies that are stealing Palestinian land. The boycott will end when there is a just peace, and that requires that Israel modify policies too. Don't go along with the PNAC game plan.

no to this deal? How will going through with this deal moderate Israeli policy? I don't support this deal for many reasons. Just because a neocon happens to find a problem with it also, does not obligate me to suddenly do an about face and begin to support it.

...because they don't touch the reason this port deal has mee royally pissed off. Here, I'll redden it for truth:

It doesn't matter to me whether the company is owned by Britain, Mexico, Canada, or any other nation. Securing the vulnerable ports of this nation is a job which should be held solely by American citizens. Anything less by default places our country at greater risk.

As far as I can see, the people who keep bringing up the "bigotry" angle- as if it were actually a legitimate reading of the anger over this- are the ones playing into the neocon hands. The fact that that angle keeps popping up, despite repeated statement as to why people are angry about it, is proof of that.

competing drug and arms trading interests. Both UAE and Israel have become major centers for drug trafficking and money laundering. Having control over the ports would allow UAE to favor illegal Arab imports and exports.

The real story is whether the M$M will be able to change the heart and minds of Americans. Bush has been "you are either with us, or with the terrorist." I am very interested to see if the M$M can convince American that the UAE is a "moderate middle eastern state".

Te neo - cons see that Bush is weak. They will attack him if it makes the GOP stronger. Watch fear play with the 2006 elections.

I am against this port deal because I do believe some things should be federalized. I was for Federalizing airport security after 9/11 and I'm for federalizing the ports!!! Yes, I am concerned about UAE terrorist connections; however, I don't care if their purple, blue or green--so quit the prejudice crap!!!!! I am concerned about corporations, like the one who kept us safe on 9/11, securing our ports and airports. It's the bottom line baby, who cares about safety---and if something happened, what are we going to do-slap their wittle hands? What happened to the security company responsible for the WTC and especially the airports--nothing, absolutely nothing. YOU CANNOT SELL ME ON THIS DEAL!!!!!!

lets see if M$M can sell 'mericans that UAE "are with us". Of course this would be no big deal if white people ruled the port (like the English). My local airport has been run by a shitty bus company in Scotland for 9 years now.

here is a bernie link that you may enjoy http://www.canofun.com/cof/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=17297

If those contracts contain a means for other foreign corporations (or U.S. corporations, for that matter) to avoid legal process and compliance with U.S. laws, that freaks me out to no end. I don't think ANY corporation contracting for a public service or infrastructure development activity should be awarded an escape clause from legal liability in our country. That's just fucking insane!!!

And, yes, I am with you about federalizing such services and development activities. They involve interests that benefit ALL Americans and should be federalized. The privatization of so many basic American needs is horrifying to me.

getting worked up.

of idiots all of a sudden?

co-opted by the the RW in congress who are just trying to save their butts, imho.
I was thinking of Pres. Clinton's, and Wes Clark's approach.

believe has supported his wife's position, which is pretty much that port security should remain in US hands.

Is this correct?

different sets of objections, different perspectives...
same desire.

So are Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.

Jim Baker, George Bush, Bill Frist, et al are FOR it.

Which side are you on? Bush, or the Dems?

back in the '90s. Is this who progressive want to lead them???



:rofl: This guys nuts!

So why has everyone repeated HIS talking points against the UAE deal???

conclusion for different reasons?

The deal is not good for national security, gaffney might think so for racist reasons, but I think so for security reasons. I don't think any other country should be in charge of our own security, whether its britain, canada or zambia.

I've never seen gaffney's part in this until this very thread, so to say he's "leading" me is completely wrong.

maybe try some decaffeinated coffee?

:beer:

to support Bush's policies (or anyone else's policies) unconditionally. That is really foolish.

We know what side the Neocons -- like Gaffney -- are on. And we know what he stands for. We don't stand for that here.

Why the hell would a progressive support Bush???

Answer that, CB...

Don't you support Bush in that???

:rofl:

We shouldn't be advocating xenophobic approaches to the solution of any United States problems.

Why the hell would a progressive support Bush???

Why the hell would a progressive support Bush???

or threaten.

This selling of port security to UAE is a BAD IDEA, even if it was one of the PNAC group who leaked the story.
Just like Harriet Miers for Supreme Court was a BAD IDEA. Sure, she sent the freepers and neo-xtains into a tizzy but she was still woefully unqualified.

Let's not get to sounding like the freepers, with that childish, football team "We won/You lost" or "If you're for it, we're AGAINST it!" attitude.
We are out here because we are CONCERNED ABOUT OUR COUNTRY AS A WHOLE, and not just because what we do will piss off the freepers and neo-xtians.
Gods know it's tempting...but we do have bigger fish to fry. :patriot:

The talking points are almost exactly the same, and many are inaccurate attempts to fan up flames of fear of Muslims. Why have progressives gone along with this?

gaffney is not leading us into objecting. Heck, 70 some odd percent of everyone thinks its a bad idea. Are they all being led by this one guy that apparently only you knew was opposed to the deal?

frankly, I don't care for you implications in this thread. Take a deep breath, step back and think about it logically.

What, exactly, are you trying to do here?

:shrug:

Gaffney made these claims in his February 13th article, all of which we have since found are not true:

That the UAE would "own" the port.
NOT true.

That (as arab) port managers they might "conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive."
This is Islamophobic nonsense...

That the workers themselves would be from the UAE and not Americans.
NOT true.

That the UAE is "the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred..."
A misdirection...this implies that the UAE as a country was responsible for the terrorists, which is completely untrue.

Now, if those issues that he raised are in error, don't you think if others who have opined on this issue had done their own research they would have found out that those issues were untruths? Instead, they repeated the exact same major errors; that's why I think they've just been repeating Gaffney's talking points. Although they may not be aware of it.

The story had been published in the trade press journals and other regional papers, but Gaffney has bragged that his pushing of the story is what will force Bush to abandon the deal:



The push to get the deal nixed

is coming from right-wing Muslim-hating PNACers!

You know...the same guys that came up with lies about Saddams WMDs, in order to force the US into a war...Remember???

and don't really care. I know my first reaction to the new was WTF is wrong with these people? At this point my grandchildren will still be paying for all the bells and whistles security changes to sand castles in the air brought on by * and his DHS. Well, hold the fort. If these bastards are going to bleed us dry over terra!, then I'm all for stopping them dead in their tracks and demanding that they show some evidence that they are doing their jobs.

Has nothing to do with racism. Has everything to do with them whipping up fear in this nation and hatred and hard feelings in the Middle East at the same time. Let them eat their lies.

countries who have done us no harm. I'm not saying that port security isn't important, but that we have been led into an attack on a country that may not at all deserve it.

That attack has been led by a RW neocon, playing on and manipulating our fear for reasons that apparently have to do with Israel as much as the US. That's made pretty clear from his bio. He is pro-Likud, and has taken positions to the RIGHT of Sharon!

We shouldn't have listened to him, imho. Yes, take care of port security, but don't let a neocon steamroll us into attacks that aren't warranted.

On the face of the facts alone, that the UAE provided funds and safe haven for terrorists and two of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE, that argument is without basis. The UAE is not without fault and rightly deserves some of the criticism it receives.

You appear to be confusing the arguments about how the terrorists used UAE banks with an erroneous idea the UAE providing funding to them. The UAE did NOT provide funding to the 9/11 terrorists! And even the banking argument is a spin. Because some of the terrorists, prior to 9/11, had bank accounts in the UAE doesn't mean anything. The terrorists used banks in NEW YORK! Does that mean that NY was "supporting terrorism"???

The "safe haven" argument is not much different. Several of the 9/11 terrorists lived in the US for years before 9/11. Why hold the UAE to a standard that we ourselves cannot meet? Timothy McVeigh was from the United States. Does that mean that the entire US population and our government support terrorism???

Haven't we gone through this before, Skidmore? Why continue to repeat arguments that aren't true?

major infrastructure--e.g. power plants and like utilities, railroads, airports, or roads should be owned by foreign governments.

Finito.

before that is not true?

And what about this: CIFIUS is requiring a 45-day investigation of an Israeli software company's proposed purchase of a US company, because it might involve Israelis ultimately being the ones to guard some classified U.S. military and intelligence computers.

Is there going to be an equal outcry in support of CIFIUS on this issue???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2141252&mesg_id=2141252

Check out this other thread on another pending UAE deal and CFIUS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x556273

In security, in labor justice, in economic investment that benefit people over profits. The outcry is engineered by these con men is about protecting an ally of US empire abroad, that really goes against the interests of working folks.
Port ownership and control should be a state-owned and controlled democratically, by and for the people.
but those that attack this deal don't care about that, they just care about attacking Arab-owned companies... wouldn't care if it were a Chinese company (already operate some ports).
In fact, shouldn't we be worried if a US company is involved, and might possibly have ties to the notorious Bush regime?

http://capwiz.com/adc/issues/alert/?alertid=8527491&type=CU

BACKGROUND:
On Monday Feb 27, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced to a crowd of several hundred people that the takeover of US port operations by the UAE-based Dubai World Ports (DP World), was not a simple transfer of title, adding "We have to stand here together to fight against this occupation that could take place if we don't do something about it." He continued, "We wouldn't transfer the title to the Devil; we're not going to transfer it to Dubai."

The Senator's brief remarks were part of a rally in Newark, New Jersey where Democratic members of the Senate, including Representative Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ,) criticized the takeover of US port operations by DP World and attacked the administration’s stance on the acquisition. To view a transcript of the rally click here.

While ADC values honest and fair debate, and fully supports all measures to keep our country safe, the Senator's comparison of Dubai to the Devil is unacceptable. His comments compound paranoia, and outright racism in order to make otherwise unsubstantiated points.

TALKING POINTS
Unfortunately these remarks are part of a larger trend of bias rhetoric and backlash surrounding the debate over port security. This is not an issue of controlling US ports, ownership of the ports will remain with state and local entities. Additionally, DP World will only be operating at some terminals at ports and will not have control over the ports as a whole. For example DP World will take over P&O's operations at 2 of 14 port terminals in Baltimore; 1 of 5 in Philadelphia; 1 of 3 in Miami; 2 of 5 in New Orleans; 4 of 12 in Houston, and 1 of 4 in Newark.

To be clear, neither DP World nor any other port company determines or sets standards for security in the US; these are determined by the US government alone. Congress has passed regulations to that effect. Enforcement of security and customs will remain under the control of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The same people who are currently carrying out these operations will continue to do so.

seems weird. I had a talk with Sen. Lautenberg about the monopolies the cable co's had in our area. I understood the Devil, Satan, context. He said that he was just in a meeting with Condi, this was, Bushes first term, I said look into their eyes, they have no soul, it is weird but that is what I do to judge people.

That's why Devil makes me wince.

Yep, it's all about Israel. I said last night that the fact that Dubai Ports World supports the "boycott" (some Middle Eastern countries observe it in name only), and that it's probably frosting AIPAC's nuts.

Betcha that it comes out that the sale of the ports to DPW is on the condition that they stop honoring the Israel boycott.

to conservative/liberal once again!

religious orientation?

That's stereotyping.

This was just irrational and illogical enough to turn the reptilian RW mind against the Bush Co.

There have been so many other things. The Katrina response...way the Iraq war is going...

Hey! I wonder if part of this is to distract from the PNAC failed plan of "bringing democracy" to Iraq.

That's something nobody should have listened to either.

again as healthy. The fall guy could be Bush. Expendable. The CO. Survives.
That's why this whole Country must realize it's been polluted by greedy destructive disease ridden ideology. The RW needs to be discouraged from controlling any decision concerning the welfare of the general public.

Again we search for logic. We are fighting the illogic of a controlled media machine but I think we are lifting the blinds.

Frank Gaffney is a tool.

But if he said the sky on sunny day is blue, I'd have to agree with him.

to justify the opposition are true???

I seem to remember some stories about wmds, for instance. Remember, aluminum tubes...Saddam has wmds, mushroom clouds, Niger yellowcake...etc. etc.

Why do we trust the neocon's stories now?

There was one story another DUer posted about a threat by ObL to infiltrate the UAE, and then when you actually read the article, it said, "Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message." Jeez! But everyone just seemed to miss that in the hysteria of something more to slam the UAE with. They didn't care if it was phony! LOL

I'm wondering how many of these claims will really stand up to the light of day. How many are outright lies? How many are neocon spin?

...that doesn't mean they are always wrong on everything.

In terms of national security, I don't have to believe a lot of rumors about the UAE to believe that it is simply a bad idea to allow foreign governments (or even foreign corporations) to control our ports.

Regarding Iraq, I was against the war and I didn't believe the Neo-Con scare talk about WMDs and the rest. However, that doesn't mean that Saddam ws not a problem and a potential danger who had to be dealt with in other ways.

I think the real issue is much bigger than that, however. It reflects a lot of otehr problems, suh as selling off our nation's assets and economy to outside fores and subverting our laws and policies to prop up the gods of Global Capital.

The problem I have is that Gaffney sent out a lot of xenophobic, Islamophobic bits of misinformation about the deal, that have completely colored the debate about it, and made it difficult to discuss rationally.

For instance, the deal isn't for "ownership" but is more like a lease. DPW would manage terminals within the ports, but wouldn't be the only company doing so. I don't know if that degree of involvement really equates to "control of our ports."

I agree with what you said about Saddam, but hope that my example didn't work against my own argument. My point was that some of the material that the neocons provided to justify our actions against Saddam was either simply 100% untrue, or was such a twisting of the truth that it was the same as being 100% untrue. I really don't think that the UAE is remotely eqivalent to Iraq under Saddam.

And there very well may be larger issues, my concern is that we look at the REAL issues, not get swept away in Gaffneys misrepresentations about the UAE.

Let me give you an example. Several days ago, and again yesterday, someone posted something about a letter to the UAE, purporting to be from ObL, that claimed that al Qaida had "infiltrated" the UAE. People went bonkers in these threads. EXCEPT, if one took the time to read a little more about it, one came across the information that the letter had never been verified as actually being written by anyone in al Qaida. So, that bit of "evidence" was completely worthless. It reminded me a lot of the supposed reports about Niger yellowcake, used to lie us into war in Iraq, which, if you recall, turned out to be complete (neocon?) fabrications - they were forged. Yet I even heard a Congressional Rep bring it up today on C-Span, with absolutely no mention of how the letter had not been verified as being from al Qaida!!! And at the very same time, the SAME people are ALSO using the argument that the UAE has TIES to al Qaida! This is absurdly illogical. Even if the letter was really from al Qaida, such a threat from al Qaida would show that the UAE wasn't cooperating or even in a relationship with al Qaida, wouldn't it???

We all need to step back, and take a deep breath.

Don't know why this upsets you so. Big Deal, some crazy lying wingnut is against the ports deal.

Personally I think it is a bad idea, and I came to that conclusion w/o this Gaffney person.

But maybe it will make you feel better to know that Rush Limbaugh is for the Dubai Ports Deal.

A variety of rightist figures oppose the Iraq war: persons such as Buchanan, Raimondo, and a host of others. Indeed, a fair selection of even worse types, overt racists and bigots and militia-man types frequently complain of it, and often in precisely the same terms some left and progressive folk do. Are we then to conclude that opposition to the war is evidence of rightist orientation, or a rightist plot, or perhaps even that left and progressive people ought to speak loudly in support of the administration's venture in Iraq? This Gaffney fellow, according to the artcle you cite, has set up a group to oppose dependence on foreign oil: doubtless in consequence of this you propose that we should all drop any agitation for alternative energy sources and fuel conservation, while questioning whether anyone in favor of such measures has been duped by neo-cons, and proceed instead to hail the purchase of a "Hummer" as the height of progressivism?

It is obvious this deal is disasterous politics for the administration, and pretty clear it is bad policy to boot. Why should we go against the grain of the people in this instance, when it is certainly running in a direction favorable to us?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

arguments - Islamophobic, Pro-Israel-hawkish, extreme RW arguments, many of which are UNTRUE - against this deal, when there are PLENTY of other reasons to oppose Bush.

nobody ever went broke underestimating the intellect of the average american.

You have saved me a good deal of bother by that....

"Democracy is a form of government based on belief the people know what they want and ought to get it, good and hard."

not owned by any one group and regardless of who broke or leaked the story, if it is true and factual, and it is + what is being left out...it does not matter and should not matter who supports it. we cannot take our marching orders based on agreement with a group or disagreement with a group. fact is fact and no one seems to remember that anymore.

...which is a FAR more relevant and important issue anyway. Why focus solely on the UAE?

I think that even here at DU, it was some of the highly pro-Israel-hawk-type posters that got this and kept this issue all stirred up. Maybe we should take the time to honestly discuss the reasons for US policy decisions regarding the Middle East - for instance, the reasons that Israel isn't the innocent victim in the dispute, contrary to what many in the US have been led to believe - instead of getting spun on this deal.

Yes, there are many who are upset that the UAE continues to support the boycott against Israel. It was only yesterday that that aspect of the opposition to the deal was finally revealed. Why don't we debate the merits of the US position on that?

(Please don't read anything in between the lines of what I've said here. I favor a peaceful, negotiated solution to the I/P conflict and believe both sides have made errors and that both need to make concessions.)

The people who are moved by this mostly think leftists have no interest in the safety of the people and the country anyway, and so would pay no attention to criticisms of port security from a left source, however accurate and cogent they might be. To such people, that a vital element of security is being entrusted to an Arab entity, and further, one that can easily be portrayed as penertrated by, if not hand in glove with, al Queda, is an indispensible highlighting of everything that is feckless, greedy, and wrong with this administration, and shows its claims of putting the security of the people and the country above all to be a hollow sham. The further detail that the Arab government in question adheres to the boycott of Israel merely solidifies the perception it is, at bottom, on the other side from the United States: you will not like reminding of the fact, but it is a fact that the great majority of the voting public identifies with Israel, considers it an ally firmly on the side of the United States, and views hostility to Israel as an indicator a government is not wholly with the U.S. on an important matter. It makes no difference at all what you may now adduce to demonstrate they ought not feel this way, for it will not make the slightest difference to the fact that they do feel this way. That makes this detail a useful garnish on the whole plate of vittles....

"Where are the people, Sir? I must hurry there and lead them!"

Thank you, sir.

A very helpful look at the reality of the situation. Sometimes we let the right/left division obscure our vision, often to our detriment. Perhaps it's frightening for some to think that their supposed "mortal enemies" on the right really share with them several common goals for the good of the country. We're all Americans and I think it's time to remember we are in this boat together.

and spilling on to Progressive web sites.

So go against the "grain of the people"?

You bet.

There is no accounting for tastes....

If you think dislike and distrust of the other in human beings requires fanning by "the media" to constitute a serious political force, then really, there is not anything further to say to you.

"Somehow, the obvious maintains its capacity to surprise."

imho, (and I say that with all due respect). Bush's poll numbers were WAY down and heading ever downward when this issue hit a couple of weeks ago.

Progressives don't need to be making neocon's arguments in order to win against Republicans! LOL They have screwed up on so many things it's hard to see how this issue really makes much difference. We can afford to choose. Why choose this one, brought to us by our neocon, pro-Likud, right-wing nutcase buddies???

I say we can easily make an issue of overall security of US ports without turning it into a ugly racist thing. Bush created so much fear, let's turn it against him in a way that doesn't harm any other American group.

And if you still disagree with me I'd like to remind you of the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII. Was that also an ultimate result of just the sort of thinking you are supporting? One fans xenophobic flames only at great peril to our democratic institutions. This is a horrible fire, that once ignited, is very hard to put out.

What would you have advised those politicians who saw a chance for partisan advantage by creating xenophobia against the Japanese in WWII??? Don't you see that what you're advising is the same thing? You are aware that your strategy will put Arab-Americans at risk, aren't you? And hate incidents against them are already significantly up since 9/11.

I don't think you can answer the questions I pose here and still maintain that creating or exploiting xenophobia is a good idea.

Why choose an issue that just slams Bush??? The Republican-led Congress has neglected port security. It's the Republican Senators and Representatives we need to win against. Bush isn't going to be running again.

By focusing the attack on BUSH, which is what the neocon approach to the UAE deal wants us to do, we allow the Republicans a chance to distance themselves from Bush, thus throwing away an issue for this fall's elections.

If, instead, we focus on WHY didn't we put more money into port security (and it turns out the Republicans have nixed several efforts), then we are in a better strategic position in for the fall. The fanning-xenophobic-flames approach you have been advocating is focused only on Bush. It gives the Congressional Republicans a chance to look good for their constituents by coming out against the deal. Very short-sighted, imho.

Why let the Republicans off the hook by running with the neocon bait?

Progressives do not demonize other races.

Period.

Nothing happens by accident with this crew..

The timing of the "leak" was exquisite ..too late to DO anything about it, but just enough time to let republicans "challenge their leader, like brave little warriors".. and a 45 day "window" that will allow enough time for the whole thing to blow over..

and in the meantime, asll the "yukky stuff" is off the front pages

Frank Gaffney's first piece got into the media in several outlets, and the RW spin machine went into overdrive. Problem is, some of what was being said

wasn't true!

Yet here the lefties go repeating all this stuff, and thinking that they're being clever for doing so. I'm afraid we've fallen for a RW, pro-Israel-hawk, Islamophobic, neocon's plan.

Many of the experts in port security say that we need to do things to strengthen ALL ports - this deal isn't that important in light of overall needs. But instead of focusing on what's really important, we've followed this neocon Pied Piper, who has mesmerized us with outright lies, half-truths, and fear-mongering about Ay-Rabs.

Wasn't he the one that wanted to "take out Al-Jazeera, one way or another" a while back?

Of course, some of that may have to do with dueling advisors, but it just goes to show he doesn't have a vision of his own.

I can't help but wonder if Bush is being bashed partly to undermine any plans he may have for putting any kind of pressure on Israel, and/or to resist what is becoming increasingly likely: an upcoming effort to make permanent the land-grab by the Israelis.

These ideologues don't just wake up one morning with a heavy conscience and decide to blow the whistle on one of their own unless there is a bigger agenda they are trying to protect. It just seems odd that this past week 3 prominent Neoconservative PNAC types have taken a swipe at Dimson. I wonder what could be the underlying rationale for this is a coordinated assault. Whatever it is, Bush's goose is cooked - he pissed off the wrong people. We should all be shuddering at the idea that it isn't the american people who will propagate the end of this presidency but his own war mongering, profiteering cabal.

this follows right in the wake of the Zionists.

why was that so hard to figure out? :shrug:

Have you ever heard of Stephen Flynn? He wrote "America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us from Terrorism" and is a twenty year Coast Guard veteran, a retired Commander, and a Port Security expert.

we need to be concerned about. Our overall port security needs to be upgraded...and the Republican-led Congress has not done enough.

idea...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x550651

And why do YOU spend a good portion of your day on this on DU? And hello "wordie" the port deal is most certinaly going through. You won. I hope it pays well. You know I think I dislike being manipulated by those that claim to be my friends more than any Republicans. And the ports deal is not an evil plot to make all lefties just like neo-cons.

It's common sense to not trust those that have let us down in everything to do with our security.How much are they hiding? What's the real reason? Easier access to the next war- Iran as some have speculated? Hoping for another 9/11 part 2? Massive payoffs to the Bush crime family? Or maybe just blackmail-give us your ports or else. I can't take this shit anymore. I hope nothing ever happens but if it does-a little of the blood can be on your hands too, buddy.

I'm hardly a friend of the Republicans! And I'm not really saying to support the deal, I'm just saying that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be led into opposing a deal because the UAE has a boycott against Israel, or because there has been misinformation about "terrorist ties" floating around.

Have you ever heard about how the US interned our Japanese citizens during WWII? Not because they had done anything, but because someone ELSE had done something, and we held them guilty for what others had done. Can't you see how this has a lot of parallels?

The UAE didn't attack us on 9/11, any more than Saddam did. They weren't responsible, any more than our Japanese citizens were responsible for attacks on the US in WWII. This tendency to make broad sweeping generalizations about groups of people based on questionable evidence is something I don't like about our society.

Blame me for that if you will, but I'll continue to speak out about it.

that other thread this person started..

on this issue, wordie worked tirelessly in the anti-Alito campaigm. Your insults are ill founded and you should apologize. Wordie is an honorable person who studies the issues in great detail before making comments. Anyone can call names and hurl insults. Wordie is one of the few DU'ers I know who does not stoop to that level. K&R to keep the dialog going.

Explain to me why the UAE port deal is a GOOD idea. Explain to me how this is GOOD for America.

All I hear is that "it's not quite as objectionable as you think it is, you racist xenophobe you."

So, why is it GOOD?

And when you are explaining why it's "good", whose talking points will YOU be using?

I'm saying that I want to see it debated using facts, not shameless fearmongering. I want to weigh the plusses and minuses.

And when I use terms like "shameless fearmongering" I'm not necessarily talking about you, or anybody on DU. I'm just characterizing what some of the arguments against the deal really are. I'm asking DUers not to be swayed by those sorts of arguments; I'm not saying that DUers are xenophobic themselves.

There really may be reasons why the deal isn't a good one, or there may not. We have 45 days, let's see what unfolds. I want answers to quite a few questions.

Simply because a neo-con is against the deal?

maybe we should outsource our mexican and canadian border management too

Control over your ports, airports, etc. is apolitical to me. It's just common sense. I'm sure a lot of right wingers, at least the ones who aren't married to their sisters, are against raping kids. That's not a political issue either.

If it gets The Idiot's Goat, I'm all for going AGAINST him!

I don't care where it came from! Regardless, all I've heard is that it's a "done deal!"

Now we have Israel backing it too?? Something is MORE than FISHY about this factoid!!!

Gaffney is against the port deal because he's racist.

Progressives are against the port deal because it's bad for this country - a corporate deal to benefit the elite without any regard to security or us.

So we all end up in opposition - got there from different places. :hi:

Why am I not surprised?

I did some story tracking on this. I don't believe it blew up because of Gaffney, I believe it blew up because of the Florida shipper that's suing to stop the deal.

I do think there's a lot of inside bullshit going on. But, knowing that the shipping industry is what makes the capitalist world spin 'round, I'd like to hear more of what the shipping industry has to say.

good marks for security.

That doesn't mean, however, that the US should outsource port security to ANYBODY.

From the AP story on the 11th Feb:



Gaffney's editorial appeared on 13th Feb, and his language is considerably shriller than Schumer or Kreitzer:



Looking at the articles and editorials available in Google News, it was the New York papers that first took up the serious objections, on the 14th and 15th, eg NY Post editorial, NY Sun report of Schumer news conference, and quoted Schumer. So I'd say Schumer was the first driving force behind this, not Gaffney.

I wasn't aware of just how early in this debate were Schumer's statements. I still believe that Gaffney's comments and appearances on cable news programs have been a major driving force behind this. But your info shows that there were other forces too, so I stand corrected as to Gaffney being the only early influence.

And as for Schumer...well, I have the deepest respect for Senator Schumer's positions on many other issues, but I do believe that when it comes to anything involving Israel he has a bit of a blind spot. I won't go into the details here, because it really would be OT. I will say that I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find that a major objection that Schumer may have is the UAE boycott against Israel. I'm not convinced that the boycott represents evil incarnate, as several politicians seem to have been implying recently. I realize there are strong feeling on this, of course, so let me hasten to say that I believe both sides in the I/P conflict need to change.

Schumer's comments about national security would be a whole lot more convincing if he had raised a similar cry when Long Beach, California turned over two large terminals to COSCO, a state company owned by the Communist government of China. China's military leaders at one point threatened to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons if America were to interfere with China's efforts to capture the island nation of Taiwan. Why no outcry from Schumer about that deal?

Also, P & O operations in other countries have also been purchased by DPW. Terminals in England, France, Belgium and Canada will be affected by this acquisition. But the outcry against it is only here in the US. (It's five years of "terra terra terra" that's responsible for that, imho.) Here's a link to a map showing the extent of the operations that are being transferred, FYI:
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207408&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

People can come to oppose the same thing but have different motives for opposing it. That does not make the thing owned by a particular group or untrue.

Israel supports the deal for god's sake. Jewish Americans, however do not. So you are missing the point. Israel has nothing to do with this and even if it did, that is, have something to do with leaking the story, how does the story become untrue?

It is true that UAE funds and continues to fund terror activities. This is not new.
It is true that the Bush family has a close relationship to the Saudi regime
It is true that the Bush family has such close ties, that days after 911 they flew them out of the country
It is true that Dubai and UAE traffic in children and women and are graded at the near bottom of human rights violators by the UN
It is true that UAE is a dictatorship, posing as royalty, and protected by US interests against their own people
It is true that UAE deals in proliferation and provides staging ground even for terror groups
It is true that they were one of the few countries to recognize the Taliban, which should alarm everyone given where Osama was
It is true that the Bush family, UAE and other countries and their proxies laundered money from drugs, guns, and sex trade via a banking operation known as BCCI (look it up please)

It is true that Neil Bush is subsidized by UAE
It is true that this deal is a Baker operation all the way
It is true that this deal was not reviewed by any relevant body of government for security violations
It is true that the port company controls the security on their grounds
It is true that the port company hires/fires/trains/screens security staff and facilities
It is true that despite whatever protocols the US imposes, the port company is not obligated to follow them
It is true that UAE happens to contain Muslims
It is NOT true that the religious background of the regime has anything to do with the opposition to this deal - not for progressives or any person of real conscience.

Because how many of us really want child sex traffickers having port access, let alone port control where they hire their own security staff?
Because how many of us really want arms dealers responsible for inspecting containers and crates?
Because how many of us really want one of the world's worst human right violators using slave labor as a matter of practice to have access to our ports and containers big enough that two refugees were found living in one?
Because how many of us want the guys who helped with debit cards, banking transactions, even fed-ex packages to and from the hijackers of the 911 attacks having any access to this country?
Because how many of us really want the guy - Baker, who took the case to defend the Saudi family against the victims' of 911 law suit against them - making still more millions by helping structure this deal even after the Saudi family and UAE would not turn over bank records of the hijackers?

So, just because I have common sense does not mean that I agree with Ann Coulter or any other racist cow. It simply means that I am against this deal for the above reasons and they have nothing to do with the right, left, center, top or bottom. Fact is not owned by any group or political faction.

And really, enough with the Israel bashing as you do not seem to know the facts of any of this. Israel supports this deal! So you see, this is not about anything other than the greed of this administration and our own concern about our own security. Israel depends on the US for security and money. If the US says jump, Israel jumps. Because what would happen if the US pulled funding and protection?

One more thing to consider: Iran wins the Iraq war, Hammas takes over for the PLO, anti-jewish sentiment is on the rise, concentration camps are being built here and all over the world (Halliburton's big deal to build facilities that will house slave labor), and Geneva is out the window. Yes, I can see how this benefits a client state like Israel. So please, do let the whole Neocons are Jews go, because they are not and even Neocons don't like the Bush regime, which should suggest that whomever is driving this ship, is probably closer to home and pretty obvious by now.

Hope that helps.

or else are very selective negative facts that you've chosen to try to convince people. "Truth" comes from a much wider set of facts, which if viewed in entirety might not support the view you are trying to promote.

I won't go through the supposed "facts" one by one, because it's clear it would do little good.

I do take exception to this statement, however:
So please, do let the whole Neocons are Jews go, because they are not...

As with much of the rest of the "facts" you presented, that is utterly false. You did not see me say any such thing. I won't even bother to debate the issue either. I tend to have a nuanced view of what the neocons are all about; I am not a black-and-white thinker. Don't presume things about me that exist only in your own mind, please.

and devoid of any racist rhetoric. They could care less about Gaffney's take on the issue. DUers should be guided by them because the present strategy is a success. Let's go with what works.

Don't get me wrong.
It's good to do.
Substance is important. We all understand that.

But....
We are in a very critical battle here and all that I focus on is that the issue has sparked an awakening of the masses, which is a very good thing.

If there is anything that the last couple of years has exemplified ,it is that the real substance of an issue is beyond the sheeple these days.

This is the political environment we find ourselves in, and we have to work with what we have and not what we want.

It doesn't matter how we got here with this issue at this point.

Just like the VP didn't intend to shot some guy in the face, some have shot themselves in the foot and I'll bask for a while in the well deserved aftermath.

The concept that we can't be anti-terror, proAmerica or pro democracy because con talking points refer to the same is ridiculous. For them, it's JUST a talking point, and nothing more. Anyone that asks us the difference, say that when we say we are for national security, it's got a meaning that gets translated into action. When they say it, they mean backing Bush while NO steps are taken.

Fact is, the ports deal IS a dumb idea and Bush SHOULD be pilloried for it, and not just becuase Bush has been inflaming anti arab, anti ME sentiment and equating terrorism with arabs for years.

anti-terror or proDemocracy are all of a sudden verboten because neocons also support these ideals.

America is a big tent, the biggest one of all. Let's keep her that way, focus on the issues and not try to introduce a bunch of phony hysteria into complex situations that require reason and thought.

or anti-terror or not pro-Democracy???

Over and over I repeat that I'm not even saying that anyone necessarily SHOULD support the deal. Just don't use neo-con arguments against it, please. There may be OTHER reasons that the deal either is good, or not.

And thanks for supporting my argument in that last sentence. The part about introducing "a bunch of phony hysteria into complex situations that require reason and thought," is EXACTLY the point I'm making. Many of Gaffney's arguments were designed to interject a "bunch of phony hysteria into a complex situation." That's the entire point of my OP.

Who is using xenophobic arguments? Me? Senators Clinton or Schumer? I mean, you sure SEEM to be accusing us of using their xenophobic talking points?

If not, then why are you here asking US to stop using them?

If not, then why should WE care that some other turd has HIS OWN reasons for opposing the port deal and HIS REASONS are bad?

You'd better get your story straight, dude. I'm feeling a little miffed.

Summary: Faced with widespread criticism in recent weeks, the Bush administration and some of its supporters have promoted numerous false and misleading claims intended to downplay the approval of a deal that would turn over control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- and cast critics of the transaction as racist, politically opportunistic, or both. The media, in turn, have often repeated these claims without challenge or correction.
On February 11, the Associated Press reported that Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- intended to purchase the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O) in a $6.8 billion deal, thereby acquiring the leases to terminals at six major U.S. ports. The AP's disclosure that the Bush administration had approved the takeover a month earlier sparked a bipartisan outcry from members of Congress, governors, and national security experts. Many cited what some major media outlets have described as the UAE's "mixed" record on terrorism and further claimed that the administration flouted federal law by failing to conduct a full review of the national security implications of the deal. In response to these concerns, DPW -- which had reportedly been working in close coordination with the White House -- requested on February 26 that it undergo the full investigation. While the deal is expected to be finalized today, DPW has suspended the part of the transaction relating to U.S. ports pending the results of the additional review. If members of Congress and the Bush administration ultimately agree to the transfer of these leases, DPW would assume control of the terminal operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans.

Faced with widespread criticism in recent weeks, the Bush administration and several of its supporters have promoted numerous false and misleading claims intended to downplay approval of the DPW transaction and cast their critics as racist, politically opportunistic, or both. The media, in turn, have often repeated these claims without challenge or correction, as Media Matters for America documents below.

#1: DPW is simply "Dubai-based"

In reporting on this controversy, numerous news outlets have ignored the fact that DPW is state-owned, referring to it simply as an "Arab company" or "Dubai-based." But the distinction between a company owned by a foreign government and one simply based in a foreign country is critical as a matter of law.

snip

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030005

of all the reasons the deal is a bad one!

And just to clarify ONE MORE TIME:

I don't think that ALL the arguments against the deal are xenophobic, nor do I think that all those who oppose the deal are xenophobic. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm only saying let's reduce the number of xenophobic arguments - as progressives, let's choose not use those - and then we can get on with the business of an actual debate about what ever merits or not the deal may present.

scare headline?

And if we're truly progressives, why are we supposed to blindly support a program that puts another GOVERNMENT in charge of US shipping interests, with serious security implications, as well as possible union-busting and further export of US jobs and money? DPI is a state-owned corporation, don't forget, so it's another dimension beyond even the usual outsourcing, which is harming our economy and our own corporations.

Also, why are progressives supposed to support outsourcing of jobs and resources, and why are progressives supposed to blindly support The Bush Administration, which has totally f***ed up the M.E., and whose family and closest associates are up to their ears in the oil industry, which has also completely f***ed up the entire M.E.; and which has personal and economic links to oil rich states in M.E., who have done bubkus to promote peace, or use their considerable resources to help alleviate the poverty and joblessness that prevails throughout most of the 22 Arab League states as well as the P.A.?

Even the wealthiest Arab state is about on a par with Greece, in terms of per capita income, and Algeria, which has vast natural gas reserves, has an income of about $6,700/year. Syria is a bit over $4,000/year - and people wonder why there is unrest? People wonder why the terrorists gain traction?

Actually I'm kind of suprised at you. Progressives, theoretically, aren't in bed with big business and they do NOT support the bigoted practices either of state embargoes, which are ILLEGAL in the US, and which spill over into bigotry within the oil industry itself.

As the Democratic (and other) leaders are suggesting, this situation should be carefully reviewed.

Progressives don't let George Bush lead them around by the nose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria

the story was wiggling it's way round congress, they knew about provisions some 2 months ago i'd heard...

The left loves America. I'm not too sure about the right--they seem to be more interested in what Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and Wildmon say Jesus wants than anything remotely connected to what America is supposed to be.

I would expect the right to be solidly behind the ports deal considering it's something Bush wants, and Bush's desires have long trumped the needs of the US in their eyes for a very long time. Name the issue, and if America is on one side of it and Bush on the other, they almost always line up behind Bush.

The ports deal is very obviously wrong for America--not just because it's a foreign country, or a country in the Arabian region, but a country that laundered the money used to finance the 9/11 attacks. They're terrorists, plain and simple, and if Bush walked his talk we'd either be sanctioning or bombing the UAE, not discussing handing them the security of twenty-one major American container ports. Because as you know, in Bush's eyes any party that supports terrorists is a terrorist themselves, and you can't get much more supportive than laundering money for them.

But because it's something Bush wants, I really expected the right to be solidly behind the deal. Free trade, union busting, all that shit. That they're not is quite a surprise.

Maybe they'll realize all the OTHER anti-American things Bush does.

thing, not everybody on the right is a rich white dude. Many voted Republican because of fringe issues - they're scared of gay marriage; abortion; they're very religious, they think the Democrats are soft on terror etc, though recent polls are showing a reverse in that regard.

We've lost a lot of voters because preachers got up and scared people, the Democrats are The Sons of Satan, etc. A lot of folks have voted against their economic interests because they thought Bush is a good ol' boy and are now seeing HIS interests, the interests of the wealthy and the powerful, aren't necessarily those of the working person. This is especially true when unions are busted and jobs go abroad.

Health insurance, social security - those are core Democratic issues. We need to reach back out somehow and snag back some of our voters. Economic issues should trump bigotry and fear - somehow the Bush pr machine scared the voters in 2004.

The issue of Americans protecting America is very important and also, this hemorrhage of jobs and money abroad has got to stop. There are American companies, American workers, who need the business. People with big bucks - their money can grow anywhere - so they send it abroad, where it does America little good.

Maybe people are starting to see this.

arguments, by people who may not realize they are repeating things that aren't true. :sigh:

For instance: the deal doesn't take jobs away from American workers. We've covered that a jillion times, yet even at this late date, there are people repeating that untruth.

The people who are repeating those sorts of untruths must be doing it for propaganda reasons. I'm saying that we should look into the plusses and minuses of the deal, without letting those who would attempt to influence us emotionally take the upperhand.

That's it for me on this thread. Bye, everyone!

:hi:

Both left and right have spoken out against the current deal. Normally this shouldn't be surprising, but the country has become so polarized that it comes as a shock when both sides are saying the same thing.

The more important issue isn't this particular sale but overall port security. This has been a Democratic issue for years. Democrats urged measures such as improved port security in response to 9/11 while Republians chose to play politics wtih 9/11 to push thru goals having nothing to do with 9/11, such as the invasion of Iraq.