Fool Me Once, Shame on You…Fool Me Twice, Call Me A Racist?
by Bill Simon
There are three kinds of politicians I don’t like:
1) Those who are stupid.
2) Those who think I’m stupid.
3) Those who are stupid and think I’m just as stupid to fall for their bullsh**.
This is the case this country is faced with now from President George W. Bush with this recent issue of the managment of American ports being taken over by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. I now believe he is not only stupid, but he actually thinks everyone else is just as stupid as he is.
Bush’s reaction to the members of Congress who questioned the deal (”If you pass that legislation to block this deal, I’ll veto it!”) has all the signs of someone more intimately involved in the outcome of this matter than what appears on the surface.
Back during the 1990s when Rush Limbaugh was always holding the Clinton Administration’s feet to the fire, he taught me one very valuable lesson: Follow the money. Well, it’s too bad that Limbaugh has lost that ability since he became a servile sychophant to everything spewed out of the Bush/Cheney White House. I’m still a Republican but I toe no line when it comes to stuff that stinks.
Because, with $6.8 Billion on the line if the sale of the port managment company goes through and is taken over by the United Arab Emirates, something smells mighty fishy coming out of the Bush White House right now with their reaction and amazement that any member of Congress would DARE question the President’s decision. Mighty fishy. To the point where I suspect someone close to the President stands to make a chunk of money off of approving the deal.
According to a FOX News online story, the agreement to sell the ports management company to the UAE had a special clause written in the sale documents. It stated “the [White House Review] committee must agree not to formally investigate the purchase and Bush must not move to block the sale for national security purposes.”
Oh, okay..sure, where do we sign THAT deal to just blindly allow a country that had two of the 9-11 hijackers originate from there control over the managment of our ports?
And, when anyone from Congress has questioned this, the Bush Administration can do nothing else but either threaten a veto or accuse the questioners of being “racists.” Yeah. We’re all just a bunch of racists.
And then, we have Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff weighing in to support the Bush admin’s decision. Let me tell you something, after the story last week in the Washington Post about two screwballs from a Maryland Homeland Security trying to regulate what someone can search for on a public library computer, I don’t CARE what comes out of Chertoff’s mouth, unless it’s some sewage from New Orleans. That guy is just another Bush sychophant who was not chosen for his abilities, but rather for his ability to act as a shill for the Bush White House.
Finally, there’s White House Spokesman Scott McClelland. In a an excerpt I saw today on the news, McClelland, in yet another moment of defense for Bush’s actions (or, inactions, in this case) said “We’ve had top people in the administration looking at this issue because it’s important to the security of the country. We’ve had experts in Homeland Security examine this deal and we think it’s a good deal…”
Do you (”you” being the blog reader) remember watching the movie Raiders of The Lost Ark? Remember the scene at the very end when Dr. Jones/Harrison Ford is sitting in a room with the two government hacks and he advises them that the Ark is something that has to be examined closely because they don’t know what they have, etc., etc.?
And then the head hack answers Dr. Jones that they have “top scientists already looking into it,” Dr. Jones asks him “Who?” The hack just answers “TOP…..PEOPLE.” And, in the end, nobody is seen looking at the Ark because it is packaged-up in a crate and wheeled off to rest in some big guvment warehouse.
Yeah, that’s what we have running our country right now and looking at deals like this port one. TOP….PEOPLE….you know, like Mike Brown…Mike Chertoff…Harriet Miers….all the top ones Bush has access to are all watching out for our country and our backs…
Technorati Tags: President George W. Bush, United Arab Emirates, Follow the money, Raiders of The Lost Ark
Sphere: Related Content
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:51 am
Right on, Bill! Also, with regards to the United Arab Emirates, their banks laundered money for 9/11 highjackers. Further, the U.A.E. was a transfer point for nucular……..I mean nuclear materials (Bush is rubbing off on me; let me cleanse myself post haste).
The spinning going on now would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. GOP Surpreme Cult Leader Dubya calls a snap news conference on the White House lawn to make his veto threat, over what his propoganda linebacker Richard Perle calls a “low-level bureaucratic decision”. Can you say credibility gap?
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:10 am
I think “Dubya” should start being referred to as “Dubious.”
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:21 am
I agree that something just did not sit right with this deal. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 am
The UAE. That be the same UAE that owns and controls Al-Jazeera? Yes, I thought so.
What I really want to know is where Bush learned how to race-bait. Did he pick that up when he was in town for the King funeral few weeks ago?
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:57 am
Don’t be so quick to judge. Rejection of this deal may cause more damage for the USA in the long run.
Besides we have China operating our ports on the west coast.
Lets step back and wait on all of the facts. Those who are spewing their rhetoric now may be the ones who are the fools.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:59 am
The real story is Congress approves trade policy with no regard to National Security, Small business and jobs and wages. My question is if we got into a war, or even a cold war what leverage do we have with everything from computer chips,food and manufacturing is supplied to us by countries like Communist China?
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:11 am
But, in this case, John, it is Congress who is screaming bloody murder about the White House doing something without notifying them.
Congress does do a lot of stupid stuff separate from this.
Maybe a good question should be why has this job been outsourced to other countries for so long anyway? The English are good people, love their accents, but do we not have any AMERICAN companies that are capable of handling this job?
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:24 am
Thanks to all our elected officials who want to put a hold on this deal and even over-ride Bush’s possible veto. Now, when are you going to get as concerned about our Mexican boarder?
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:28 am
Bill,
You are right about Congress finally standing up. My point is if we have a fear of the port situation, we should have a bigger fear of our co-dependency of countries like Communist China,UAE,Saudia… for everything from fuel,food,cloths computor chips…..
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
Realize that it was the same President who said he would veto any Congressional action is the one who wasn’t even aware of this until the issue hit the media. The same security that gave us 9/11, no WMD’s in Iraq, and Hamas never winning in the Palestinian elections, is the security that vetted this deal. The same Department of Homeland Security that gave us hurricane inaction and open borders through Mexico is the same one telling us everything is fine with this deal. I won’t even go into the specifics on UAE. Our own ineptness would lead one to believe that we do not take a chance ANY LONGER! We have no control over this company’s hiring practices. Who is to say some ‘clean’ employees are not agents sneaking in all sorts of nefarious items into ports where they know the procedures and security levels?
Karl Rove says the GOP is a post 9/11 party while the Dems are a pre-9/11 party. If this is the definition of a post-9/11 party, the party’s over.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
Bill, don’t be so hard on bush, he’s been lying to the american people for 6 years (he was lying before the supreme court installed him)and getting by with it. Enough are coming out of the fog and seeing what is going on. This is just another secret that was found out. Don’t take the spotlight off them for a minute or they will change the deal and claim victory. You can’t depend on congress to apply much pressure, ole pat roberts is still there.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:49 am
The threat of a Bush veto is vacuous. Neither as President, nor, I believe, as Governor, has he EVER vetoed ANYTHING.
Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave . . .
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:28 am
Consider that terrorist cells have been found in the state of New York. We, citizens of the USA, still allow politician like Clinton and Schumer to make grave decisions against this population. Dubai government or Democrats, what can be the difference.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 am
While I think the sale of the management rights to a UAE-owned company is not a particularly good idea, (some things should just not be for sale), we should be consistent and realistic. The Chinese Communist Army owns management of the Port of Los Angeles, if I’m not mistaken. They also own management rights to BOTH ends of the Panama Canal, thanks to Jimmy Carter. There are other foreign-owned companies running other ports. Additionally, cargo comes from all over the world not just from “friendly” shippers. Additionally, aircraft from places like Saudi Arabia land at our airports everyday. If we want to be consistent we should do something about all of those security risks as well as the ones possibly posed by this transaction. That being said, the sale is a stupid mistake from a political standpoint, divides Republicans and gives Democrats a chance to show how “tough” they are on security (after they heard from the Longshoreman’s union). This deal gives us a chance to have a debate on all these issues if the politicians will allow it. I’m not too optimistic.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Press release from CEO, Port of New Orleans:
http://63.243.21.112:8083/prsrel022106.pdf
I agree with Ed in one sense, the sale is stupid from a political standpoint. But President Bush will never run for office again, so he will probably do some things that would be considered risky by others.
Why is everybody so worked up about this deal? If islamic terrorists want to smuggle weapons into this country, they can do so right now through one of the 360 ports in North America. In fact, it is quite possible WMDs will be found within our borders before being discovered in Iraq, Syria or Iran. Instead of seeking the nearest microphone, Frist, Schumer and the rest should allocate funding to increase container security procedures. With only about 2% being searched, it doesn’t really matter who owns the destination terminal.
Bart
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
bb, why is everyone worked up? Yes, terrorists can go into any port they want. But do we want our President to be complacent in opening the door legally? And do we want American companies to profit from such stupidity? Our politicians already leave the door open to terrorists to come through Mexico. God forbid they actually grow a pair and close one of the other doors. I just wish the movement decrying this one would be as loud and productive as the one dealing with illegals from our south.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Craig,
This is part of an overall policy the Bush Administration has been pushing since taking office. A little research turns up news of a Trade & Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) signed two years ago between the USA and UAE. According to US Trade Rep. Richard Zoellick, “Today’s signing is an important step in promoting America’s export opportunities in the UAE, a top 30 U.S. export market,” said Zoellick. “At the same time, increased trade and economic engagement with the United States can assist the UAE in its ongoing efforts to liberalize and diversify its economy. This agreement solidifies the relationship between our two countries on an economic level which complements our strong partnership in our fight against terrorism.”
President Bush set a goal to establish a Middle East Free Trade Agreement by 2013 with the UAE a key ally in the ongoing process. Currently the USA enjoys a trade surplus with the UAE and counts them as a vital ally in the war on terror. If one studies this a bit beyond the flamboyant headlines and grandstanding acts of morons like Bill Frist, it becomes less concerning that the UAE would operate a miniscule number of terminals at six US ports.
I agree with you on the last statement except I believe the chorus of disagreement should be directed to the real problem of analyzing cargo containers. Every level of government dropped the ball on this incredibly important security concern.
Bart
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Two things, first is a response to the reader who wrote, “That be the same UAE that owns and controls Al-Jazeera?” That would be a big fat “NO” on that one. Al Jazeera is controlled by Qatar, not the UAE. Two different counties.
Secondly, this is not about port security. The security of the ports will still be handled by the Coast Guard and the other U.S. Government agencies that handle security now. The only thing that will actually change is who is writing the checks to those who work at the ports.
As Bill likes to point out, we should follow the money. The difference is that I looked at it in a different way. It seems that there are businesses and labor unions who are nervous over this deal. The unions are the ones that got Schumer and Hillary all upset over this.
The main stream media have been all over this as another issue that they can use to tar and feather this administration. All of that makes this seem worse than it really is. Think of it as a diversion away from their miserable performance in trying to make a scandal out of a hunting accident.
I will agree that I am not completly comfortable with this deal and think the administration should have been talking about this when it started last August. However, this is a deal between the British company (P&O) and the UAE company. The U.S. can only say whether they will accept a contract with the new owners of the current business contract or if they want to go somewhere else.
I am sure that if a company here could handle this business, they would step up and volunteer to do so. After all, in the current political climate, they would be guaranteed this multi-billion dollar contract.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
David,
Regarding your last paragraph: “I am sure that if a company here could handle this business, they would step up and volunteer to do so. After all, in the current political climate, they would be guaranteed this multi-billion dollar contract.”
Truthfully, I’m not sure of ANYTHING when it comes to this Administration. The fact is they did just handover the entire contract for rebuilding Iraq to Bechtel Construction, which is a subsidiary of Halliburton…therer was no bidding process offered.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, this administration is terribly arrogant in a lot of areas. The Valerie Plame affair is just one that strikes me off the top of the head. There are many other cases of mea culpa FUBAR from the Bush Administration.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
David,
There used to be a major US based terminal operation company; CSX World Terminal — Charlotte, NC. That was until Feb. ‘05 when DP World purchased the CSX WT division of CSX, Inc. for $1.6B. CSX WT had no operations stateside, but gave DP World entre into many countries including Venezuela and the Dominican Republic in our hemisphere.
There was no protest to DP World buying a major US based terminal operator last year. The current outcry is a combination of xenophobes, disappointed media hacks and anti-free trade zealots hoping to gain support leading into the ‘06 election season.
Having read a bit about this deal today, the only thing that might be of interest to conspiracy theorists ‘following the money’ is the story of Dave Sanborn. It was announced on January 25th that Sanborn is President Bush’s choice for Maritime Administrator (described as a “key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member”). Sanborn at the time of the appointment was in a management position with DP World having joined the UAE company a year previous.
Bottom line: does anybody really believe this president, who has made the war on terror his centerpiece issue, would risk approving this deal if there was even the slightest chance for terrorist activity as a result? Go after him for growing government, but no way he can be impugned for agreeing to this transaction.
bb
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:20 pm
bb,
I love your optimism. But it’s clear that the long term strategy in the Middle East, Bush’s focus on his war on terror, is seriously lacking. We push democracies and free elections. Then when we get those and don’t like the results we scream. Hamas in the PA was a monster of our own making. For the idiots who did not see that coming, they deserve to be fired. For those who never saw the insurgency in Iraq and potential civil war, they obviously failed to see what happened in the former Yugoslavia.
As for your question on Bush risking his centerpiece issue, I ask you if he was truly focused on security, why is border security both by sea and land all made some economic issue rather than security. Our borders are pourous. Anyone and anything can get across the border at any time. But if someone decries this, they’re labeled racist, xenophobic, anti-capitalist, or whatever. Bush is hiding behind money on a critical issue. And then his cronies march out with their sound bites and insults all at the expense of the issue he claims to hold dearest.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Interesting……..
Article from today’s Washpost:
National Security Fears Well Grounded
From the article:
Joseph King, who headed the customs agency’s anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.
He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver’s licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.
Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World’s operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.
There is another editorial in the NYT today, by Clark Kent Ervin, which I cannot link because of their firewall. Here is a little excerpt — maybe someone can get to it to post it here:
….. but again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the CoastGuard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting these standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Try Googling “dubai carlyle bin laden”
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:30 pm
The 12 people who signed off on this deal:
Treasury Secretary John Snow (Chairman)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez
D.O.M.B. Director Joshua Bolten
U.S. Trade Representative (to the WTO) Robert Portman
Chairman of Council of Economic Advisors Edward P. Lazear
Director, Office of Science & Technology PolicyJohn H. Marburger, III
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Stephen Hadley
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Allan Hubbard
——————————————————————————–
February 24th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Craig,
There is no doubt our borders are about as solid as melted ice. President Bush should be doing more, but this is the result of years of mismanagement. It will take a while to correct.
Here’s a ‘deep thought’ — why is it ok to racial profile a port purchase but not at airport security checkpoints? If congress really desires to address homeland security, a bill would be introduced ASAP eliminating TSA (even better would be abolishing the Dept. of Homeland Security, but it has become a permanent govt. boondoggle). Re-allocate TSA funding to border / port security — container checks.
bb
February 24th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Again, the problem is not with the sale of this business. It is within our government’s security beauracracy.
Each of the managers and employees that is spoken of that may be brought in by Dubai would have to be vetted through immigration and approved for such a visa. If they are found to be suspicious or a threat, they wont be allowed in regardless of how much pressure the terrorist outfits put on the company.
If our government is really protecting our borders, then those undesirables will not be allowed in. The problem is with our porous borders. If these people really want in, the sale of this business isn’t what they would have to use to come in. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers came in through a business. They came in as students and such.
The cry of this business being a threat to our security is a smoke screen for other political purposes. Our port security will still be handled by our government agencies, not by Dubai. It is within our own government that approvements should be made.
The weakness in security isn’t with this company, it is within our own government agencies and the fact that the liberals have said that there are to many things (profiling comes to mind) that we can’t do to ensure our borders are more secure against the terrorists.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Ah, of course, David…just chalk this all up to a bunch of liberal objections.
Here’s a little bit of new information that probably won’t change your mind, but to those of us who have an open mind AND a belief that there is something fishy about this deal, it adds a little something else to the background of the story, other than what seems to be your basic contention that “Bush is great and we should trust him because he is our Republican President.”
FOB connections to financial deal with UAE.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Bill, I have never said that this is just “a bunch of liberal objections.” I, also, have not once said anything close to, “Bush is great and we should trust him because he is our Republican President.”
This is putting words that I have not written, nor have I uttered. I have found numerous instances where our current President has gone lacking. However, I do not subscribe to the current conspiracy theories on why this sale is being approved.
Put simply, the British firm that now controls our port operations has offered these contracts for sale and the UAE company has offered to buy them. Where is the administration complicity in that? No one has been able to point that out with any real evidence. The circumstancial stuff that you have quoted shows why they may not be fighting this transfer, but does nothing to show true complicity on the part of the administration in the sale itself.
Where is the evidence that the administration has forced or coerced the Brits to sell these contracts to the UAE?
Secondly, the original objections concerning the security of the ports has been shown to be nothing but a smoke screen. Ditto with the complaint that we are turning over the running of the ports to a foriegn power. A foriegn power already runs them. True, I trust the Brits a lot more than the Arabs due in large part to their support of our country.
As far as Mr. Bush and company, I think one of the biggest failings is their record on government spending. They have expanded spending more than any other administration, to include FDR, in our history.
I am hoping that our next President is a true fiscal conservative and doesn’t just pay lip service to free markets. Likewise, I am hoping that the Congress will grow a spine and stop the runaway spending spree that we have been on.
As for this issue though, I see it as something that does warrant monitoring, however, the current complaints are not registering much with those who objectively look at the facts.
My first response was to be against it. After looking at what was really going on, and the extent to which foriegners run our ports, to include those areas in Los Angeles being run by China, I don’t see any real reasons to blow these things out of proportion.
As for having an open mind, you seem to be using as one of your facts that someone in the Bush administration use to work for CSX and didn’t know about a sale of part of that company that happened AFTER he left that company to join the administration. That sounds like you are using something that Mr. Snow may really not have any information about to attempt to show a connection that may really not exist.
I am not yet convinced that you are wrong. I just have not seen any real evidence that would tend to show that you are right on this.
Trust me, there is plenty not to like about Bush without having to manufacture stuff. And, yes, the arogance of this administration would tend to cause concern.
I would agree to monitoring this situation and putting legislative controls on the operation as to issues relating to national security issues. Other than that, I don’t see a problem.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I can’t believe we’re honestly saying there is no difference between Britain running this and UAE running it. First of all these two countries are VASTLY different. Britain’s government is not one who recognized the Taliban while denying the existence of Israel. UAE is a country in the heart of a region filled with those hating us. The risk is far greater that a terrorist could work his way into this company and gather info on our ports. The risk is far greater that a terrorist could utilize access to this info to smuggle anyone or anything into this country. You may say there are far easier ways. Why yes there are. But those who are fighting us want to inflict the most damage to us. What better way to break us apart than using our own laws, government, security, and ports to inflict harm on us. They maximize damage and terror. And the risk of this deal causing an attack or opening the door for one is far too great for us to take a chance.
Keep in mind that the terrorists running rampant all over the world have either blackmailed their own governments or bought employees to assist with visas, passports, clearances, etc. Who is to say this couldn’t still be done with this deal? Personally I think UAE’s track record on this war on terror is about as good as the Saud family running Saudi Arabia. They all give token efforts but when it all comes down to it, they’ve done more to aid and facilitate these groups than have helped us. And now with this deal, we’re selling ourselves out for a quick buck while increasing the risk of terrorism spreading. Using Reagan’s ‘cost-benefit’ method, I’d say the risks outweigh the benefits.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
And, the British government does not own the company that owns P&O. The government of the UAE owns the company buying P&O.
Ever heard of a regime change? Those events can happen VERY easily in the totalitarian states of the Middle-East.
Bart is clueless. As is President Dubious.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
It is true that the government ownes DPI. It is also true that there are huge differences between P&O and DPI. However, it is also true that most of the objections to the sale of P&O to DPI are being based on emotions and not an objective look at the facts in the case.
There is nothing wrong with basing objections on emotions when the potentials are as great as they are in this case. I just think that we should be honest as to where these objections come from. My main thrust in my playing devil’s advocate here has been to attempt to point out that emotions are the driving force for those objecting for reasons other than political gain.
To often people are fooled by politico’s who are claiming an interest they really do not hold, but are doing so for political reasons.
An example of this is the Democrats that are objecting to this sale when the real reason is that they are pandering to the longshoremen and union types and/or other “constituent groups” that have something to lose on this deal.
Yes, there is risk in this deal. And, yes, there are questions that should be addressed.
I am glad that there is a delay that will allow Congress to persue those areas that need to be addressed. My fear is that there is a political climate that will not allow a fair hearing of the facts in this case.
It should be noted that this has to do with the sale of one foriegn company to another foriegn company. For those who want to point the finger at the Bush administration and say it is something that they are doing are really stretching it. The administration had nothing to do with forcing or coercing the sale. It has a lot to do with our Government turning over control of these operations to foriegn governments in the past. That was done by administrations before this one. I don’t think it is fair to blame the current administration for the sins of the previous ones.
I also think we should look back and put some context to this current situation. Which administration sold over 80 modern F-15 aircraft to the UAE? And, why didn’t we hear an uproar of objections over that transaction from the mainstream media and from the likes of Howeird Dean and Hillary? Maybe because it was Bill Clinton that did that? BINGO!!!!
Now, with this deal, we have all sorts of complaints. Some of them are valid. However, most of them that have been covered in the press have been for political gain. Some of them are claiming to be based on facts that have been discounted by the real facts, but I consider to be valid due to their being based on emotional reasons that have to do with the individual’s feeling of safety and security.
Another fault of the Bush administration is their inability to recognize the emotions behind people’s reactions to events. If they were to plug in to the American people, they would recognize that they are full of emotion and that those emotions are something that should be weighed in making decisions. The problem is that they are to pig headed to recognize this. I do hope Karl Rove reads this!!!
I do want to point to two of the responses here that drive home what I have been trying to point out. The first one shows how people use disinformation to “prove” their point.
That writer said, “The UAE. That be the same UAE that owns and controls Al-Jazeera? Yes, I thought so.” As I already pointed out, this is totally incorrect as Al Jazeera is based in a different country (Qatar) and has no connection with the UAE.
The second writer said what I have been trying to get people to do and that is look at the facts in this case. He said, “Don’t be so quick to judge. Rejection of this deal may cause more damage for the USA in the long run.
“Besides we have China operating our ports on the west coast.
“Lets step back and wait on all of the facts. Those who are spewing their rhetoric now may be the ones who are the fools.”
Has anyone here really tried to do that? Comment Mr. Simon?
February 27th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Here is an article for your consideration in this matter. I hope that all will read this and then think about it. After doing that, I hope you respond.
http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/091037.asp
I don’t think this is any where close to what we have been given by those who are proud to be the mouth piece and propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
Oh, and enjoy the article. I hope it is informative.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:57 am
David, Nonsense, the article is nothing but a rehashing of the white house talking points. The whole right wing gang was parroting the same thing today. You got your copy I see.
Gosh, if I didn’t know better I would think your whole argument is nothing more that bush propaganda. I have found that when right wingers are accusing democrats of something one can pretty well bet that is what the right wingers are up to.
Not to worry, it’s pass, too much money involved for the publicans to drop it. As with all things republican, follow the money.
February 28th, 2006 at 5:02 am
I can see that the “PC” in your name must mean “Politically Correct”. How is it that when something supports what a Republican says it is just a rehash of talking points, but when it supports what a Democrat says, it is the truth?
As for following the money, maybe you should see which party has collected the most contributions from the very rich. That would be the Democratic Party, not Republican. Funny how the party of George Soros and company claims to be the party of the average Joe.
Now, with that out of the way, I guess I should point out that you have approached this subject with a closed mind that is either incapable or unwilling to look at it objectively. Again, you prove my point on the power emotions in this situation.
I just hope you don’t pull an intellectually dishonest ploy and say that your opposition is based on nothing but facts. Or, is your opposition based purely on your dislike of this administration?
That last question is fairly asked. For five years there have been many people that have been against everything this administration has done purely because it isn’t one from the Democrat Party.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:31 am
Speaking as a Democrat……….
Out-of-control budgetary and trade deficits are bad for America, regardless of which party is in power.
Lying to the American people is a bad thing, whether the subject is oral sex or weapons of mass destruction.
Trusting our port operations to totalitarian regimes (or companies owned by said regimes) is an inherent security risk, whether that regime is based in Beijing or Dubai.
It is amazing to me that after 8 years of unrelenting hatred and attacks, the Republicans’ primary line of defense today is ‘Well, Clinton did it too!’, or some variation thereof. I suppose one of two changes have occured; either the GOP has come to appreciate the Clinton presidency after all, or two wrongs can now become a right in a post 9/11 world.
February 28th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Please read, and comment.
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) — A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company’s Web site.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.
At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company “could affect national security.” Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.
But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.
“We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment,” said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.
“The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns,” said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.
The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the U.S. attorney general and the Senate committee’s legal counsel a finding on the administration’s interpretation of the 1992 amendment.
Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.
Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.
“Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media,” he wrote.
According to Kimmitt, the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.
Kimmitt said because the 2005 Chinese proposal had caused such an uproar before it ever got to CFIUS, the lack of reaction to the Dubai deal when it was reported on last fall suggested it would not be controversial enough to require special notification of Congress.
Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.
Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about the United Arab Emirates involvement in U.S. ports could risk alienating the very countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.
“It’s very important we strengthen bonds … especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It’s important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination,” he said.
The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a “dirty bomb.”
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A “risk analysis” is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship’s history, the cargo’s history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.
None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.
Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.
“The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues,” Muldoon said.
The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans — that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
“The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now … but who’s to say that couldn’t change, or they couldn’t be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy,” said Muldoon.
In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.
CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier “precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection.”
“All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a ‘trusted’ shipper’s complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers,” CFR wrote.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Why are you still whining JohnBill (or is it BillJohn with the payee’s name before the payer, I never can get that right)?
At the request of DP World, there will be a 45 day re-review allowing all you querulous demagogues an extended bitch session. You can leave the North Church tower, you and your xenophobic partners on the left got what you wanted. Celebrate, enjoy the moment, kiss your life sized Hillary blowup sex doll!
Bart
February 28th, 2006 at 9:50 am
bb,
At the request of DP World? Never mind that the 45 day period was a legal requirement ignored in the first place. Never mind the Coast Guard and a few other agencies had reservations about this passing. Reservations? Sound like those who had reservations and doubts about Iraq having WMD’s and being such a threat. Or reservations about pushing democracy in places like PA and Lebanon where democratic-elected terrorists have a huge foothold now.
Tell me would you support Venezuela or Columbia owned companies taking control of ports such as Miami and New Orleans as well? In this age of PC “we can’t offend these people”, we’re at war. I’ve had this shoved down my throat and now I believe that if we’re at war, you don’t open the door to risks. It’s all about risks here. Do you take a chance in war? NO! Do you take this risk? NO! But people like you like to call others names and say people are xenophobic. You sound like all of those liberals who were against profiling on airplanes, etc. It’s all about money to you and you’d sell your soul to terrorists if it meant a quick buck.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:05 am
From Meet The Press transcript:
SENATOR WARNER — It says (referring to the just rec’d extension request), “DP World and POPNA,” that’s the British, “jointly request,” now, they’re requesting, that’s a key thing, “that the CFIUS process on a nonprecedential basis to conduct an aview—review full and 45 days for the acquisition.” So there it all is. And I…
MR. RUSSERT: So the company is requesting a 45-day review investigation …
SEN. WARNER: That’s correct.
Hope this helps Craig…gotta go, high bid on my soul just submitted on ebay by some a-rab guy.
Bart
February 28th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Still wondering what this little blurb was. Still doesn’t answer why this was fast-tracked the first time and not done right then. Still wondering why a country and a company that refuses to recognize Israel has this privilege. Strange that others who do this get refused even a glance in their direction by our government. This company will not allow any Israeli origin items to go through the ports in other regions they control. What will happen when the issue comes to our ports? And then if they do allow Israeli goods, what will their people back home think of this? This whole deal smells of problems. Funny how the agencies who’s job it is to root out these issues and find problems with this are shoved to the side. Why are the experts always ignored? WMD’s, Katrina, etc. The list of ignoring those career analysts continues…..all about the Benjamins.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:32 am
david, I’ll give you another thing you can bet ye life on, everything that comes out of the whitehouse, right wing talk radio, TV and press is meant to mislead, decieve or is an outright lie. Like yesterday, today and the next few days the white house, limbo, hannity, faux news, and the crew were all together with the message and I believe you were suckered into repeating the misleading untrue tripe from rove.
Your statment about Soros is a prime example of the misleading nonsense you try to make people believe.
david, one thing you have to remember is not everyone is as idealogicly driven and as easily bamboozled as you are. The truth is easily determined, listen to what the white house and it’s minions are pushing and the truth will be somewhere on the opposite of that position.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
PC stand for Perpetual Cynic?
February 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
PCDavis,
Is the statement about Soros misleading? Isn’t it George Soros who has supplied the Democratic Party with three different 527 groups to use as mouthpieces and to subvert the campaign contribution laws? MoveOn.org is only the largest of the three. He gave millions to the Democrats in different forms during the last election to attempt to swing the election towards Bush.
In fact, if you were to really look at the contributions given to the parties, you will find that George Soros gave more money to the Democrats and anyone gave to the Republicans by over two to one! Add in the Hollywood “elite” and you have quite a group of multi-millionaires that the Republicans could only dream of.
No, the line about Soros is unfortunately true.
As for lies, quoting faulty intelligence about WMD’s isn’t a lie. If it is, then we have quite a group of liars which include everyone from the Clinton administration, the entire Democratic Congressional leadership and even Howard Dean.
I don’t use the Democrat comparison to try to say it must be alright since they did it too. I use it to show the duplicity of those who are now trying to attack this administration with those claims.
Maybe we should listen to what the MSM, Democratic National Committee and Democrats in Congress say and figure that it must just be the opposite.
It also seems that you are ideologically driven to say that whatever this administration, Republicans in Congress, RNC, and those 10-12% in the media who are conservative claim is a lie. What about the other 88-90%. They couldn’t be lying? Did Dan Rather tell the truth about those forged documents or did he lie to the American people to try and swing an election?
It seems to me that you are willing to ignore the facts to accept the pablum that is being fed to you by those of the left.
Actually, if you listen to both sides of the argument, you will find that the truth is usually somewhere in between. You just have to be willing to be open minded enough to accept the facts.
As I have already said, I am against this proposal on emotional grounds. I don’t trust those governments in that area of the world. I have seen to many times that they claim to be friends while teaching that the U.S. is the Great Satan to their school children in the Wasabi ran schools.
However, I am at least honest enough to state that which is the truth and don’t try to hide behind claims that disparage the administration due to ideological claims. I, also, don’t buy in to the lies that are being fed to us, through the media such as ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, etc…
Again, there is plenty that this administration has gotten wrong, however, there is a lot that it has gotten right.
I bet you still think that the tax cuts were just for the very rich and the middle class didn’t benefit at all. Likewise you probably think that the economy is still performing badly and that Bush’s tax cuts caused the deficit and the recession.
If so, you have proved my point. Not only that, you have proven that you are not so ideologically pure as you are trying to let on.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Ok, for those who don’t believe that this isn’t being pushed by the Democrats for purely political reasons, maybe you should read what is being reported today. I bet that this doesn’t show up like this in the MSM. It will be spun until you can’t recognize it!
“Democrats are using the Dubai Ports World deal to refute Republican accusations that Democrats are soft on national security, the Boston Globe reported on Tuesday.
“Democrats are now suggesting that the Bush administration is weak on national security for approving a deal that would allow a Dubai-owned company to manage some of the terminals at six major U.S. ports.
“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued a statement on Monday, saying, “Republicans Have Pre-9/11 World View.”
“And the Democratic National Committee issued two press releases on Monday, blasting Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Sen. John McCain for defending the administration’s ports deal.
“Both Frist and McCain have speaking engagements on Tuesday, and the DNC said they would have “a lot of explaining to do.”
“Republicans should “follow the lead of Democrats [who are] working to improve homeland security and protect our nation’s ports from future threats,” one of the DNC press releases said.
“In the same vein, another DNC press release said, “Democrats know that homeland security begins with hometown security, and are fighting to protect our ports from current and future threats.”
“Sen. Frist (R-Tenn.) said over the weekend that his initial dismay over the ports deal has waned, as he has learned more about it.
“On Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer introduced a bipartisan bill that would give Congress the final say on the deal, following completion of a mandatory 45-day investigation.
“DP World already had volunteered to submit to a 45-day security review of the deal.”
I just love the line “Republicans Have Pre-9/11 World View.” Isn’t that what we are being told that the Republicans have been saying about the Democrats?
Another point confirmed as to what I have been claiming!
It is all about trying to position themselves for the next election, not about what they really think. Remember, they are the party that used the military as an international meals on wheels, tried to turn our military over to foriegn commanders through the U.N., etc… And, now to make themselves look tough on National Security, they are misleading the American public on this deal. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny.
February 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
David,
Instead of going off on some vast left wing conspiracy and media bias, what of the conservatives, many VERY highly respected, who are attacking this deal? Why is it any time Bush or someone in the GOP does wrong, the kool aid crowd rushes to blame some liberal cabal for the whole issue? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Whatever happened to “it’s a stupid move no matter what party did it?”. Are we that polarized that we have to blame everyone else? And why blame Democrats who happen to be in the minority here? Last time I checked it was the GOP in charge of the three branches of government. How is it that when one of the branches fouls up we go running to blame Clinton, Rather, Soros, Fonda, etc? This is weak and pathetic and it represents a child’s behavior of blaming everyone but the one who’s at fault?
February 28th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Craig,
Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote. I was not blaming a vast left wing conspiracy for attacking Bush. I was giving some intellictually honest observations about those on the left who are using this to attack the President.
There are those who say that this deal is just something that Bush is doing to help his rich buddies out. The problem with that is that he didn’t know about the deal until he received the breifing on the approval of the deal. He had no input and had not tried to broker this deal. It was a deal between two foriegn companies.
Again, I am against this deal because I don’t trust the governments in that section of the world. My concerns are based more in emotions that in dealing with the minutae of facts. I only claim my feelings on the deal. I don’t try to use conjured up reasons to object to it and I am not using it as another reason to attack the administration.
The comment that I made about Soros, Rather, Clinton and the rest were made to prove individual points directed at claims made by PC Davis. They were not an attempt to blame them for this deal. In fact, I didn’t blame them for anything.
You may have missed part of what I said. Let me repeat it for you again, “I am against this proposal on emotional grounds. I don’t trust those governments in that area of the world. I have seen to many times that they claim to be friends while teaching that the U.S. is the Great Satan to their school children in the Wasabi ran schools.”
How much more plainly can I put it. Yes, I am against what the administration is doing, but not for the manufactured reasoning that is being put out by those on the left to attack the administration and garner favor, improve the poll numbers of and mislead the American people on certain politician’s beliefs so that they can win election this year on a platform that they are the party that is tough on security for the country.
As for those from the GOP that are against this deal, I say good for them. I am glad that they are listening to their constituents on this. That is what they are suppose to be doing. However, I haven’t seen any of them attack the administration or use it for political gain. I have watched as they said they had concerns that they needed to have addressed before they could support this deal. That is a far cry from what we are hearing from the likes of Charles Schumer and company.
Again, I am glad that some of the GOP are voicing opposition to this deal that I am also against. Did that get through?
Oh, and one point of contention. The GOP controls both houses of Congress and the White House. The do not control the Judiciary. Neither party can make that claim. As long as the Ninth Circuit remains like they are, as well as a few other circuits, no one can honestly say that the GOP controls the Judiciary. Also, there are enough swing votes on the Supreme Court to keep that from being a truely valid claim. Just an observation.
I hope I cleared up some of your confusion no what I said and why I used the reference to certain individuals that I did.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
I didn’t know Rep. Peter King and Senator Susan Collins were members of the Democratic Congressional Caucus.
BUT, my objection to this deal is very simple: Regime changes occur relatively frequently in that region of the world.
The UAE does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. That is tantamount to someone who believes the Holocaust didn’t happen. (See Iran, Present Day.)
The UAE has been pals with the USA for approximately 5 years. Tell me, David, if someone raped your wife/daughter 5 years ago, apologized for it, went to jail, and was released after serving 5 years for good behavior, would YOU go into business with them today?
February 28th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
David,
I would like your opinion on this article.
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities–primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.
Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.
Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.
Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.
Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.
They were wrong.
At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for “free market economists” who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)
The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.
On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005–$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression? Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
By the way Pete Peterson Nixon Treasury Secretary has made simular comments. Bruce Bartlet and Paul O Neal have been outspoken about the out of control spending killing our economy.
February 28th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
david—Oh my, you do talk. The problem is it’s in circles commonly called spin. It is mostly nonsense, irrelevent, building strawmen-tearing um down all the while hanging with the talking points.
You noted that the MSM members you don’t like are pointed out as giving unreliable information and I agree, however, you left out the greatest misinformation outlet that exists in this country, faux (fox) news. If it wasn’t so serious thier news programs would be classified as comic sitcoms.
You laid out a number of things labeled “if you believe”, so I’ll use your same list and label it “if you don’t believe” as a standard of our credibility. You know you remind me of bush without people following him around telling everyone what he really meant when he said……….
You make a long post and then come back with another long post denying or saying what you really said in the first post.
You have a excellent education in conservative mythology and are very fluent in it.
Everything that comes out of the white house is meant to mislead, decieve or is an outright lie. You been brainwashed, bamboozled, flim-flamed and fooled, did bush tell ye he loved ye?
March 1st, 2006 at 4:58 am
Bill,
The answer would be “No”, and that is part of the reason that I am against this deal. I don’t trust the governments in that area of the world. I agree with your reasoning.
What I don’t agree with is the people who are using this as a reason to bash this administration and concocting reasons that are refuted by the facts of the case. When the facts don’t fit the case, the make them up as they go along.
Also, I am really tired of the demagogue attitude of certain people who are stating that they are against this for one reason, only to find out that they are against it for purely political reasons that has nothing to do with how they have demonstrated they feel.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:12 am
PCDavis,
Try posting without the personal attacks. You are very well versed in the liberal spin of personal destruction, though you haven’t gotten it down to an art yet, and of throwing up strawmen to hide behind.
Again, you have not offerred one shread of anything that shows you are correct in any way on any issue.
As for the tax cuts being only for the very rich, you must define very rich as anyone who pays taxes. Those cuts were across the board rate reductions.
As for the economy, it is doing a lot better than what it was back in the forth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001. That is the six month period that had the negative growth that was used as signalling the start of the recession. Keep in mind, that was Clinton’s final budget, occurred before Bush’s tax cuts and the majority of that time was before he became President.
Gee, those nasty facts keep getting in the way of a good spin line. By the way, I think I could probably do that with the majority of your arguments against Bush. Just be honest and say that you don’t like this administration because they are psuedo-right wing and not from the left.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:19 am
Mr. Konop,
I liked that article. The problem with the trends that are mentioned is that they go back a lot farther than just five years ago. That type of problem has been going on for over forty years that I know of. I live in a mill town that has watched the mills disappear as the jobs went overseas.
I just find it interesting that the dates didn’t go back to show that the problems mentioned existed for the previous eight years too. In fact, they could follow that all the way back to the 1960’s. That would touch both parties equally. Eventhough the Republicans have held the White House for the majority of those years, Congress was controlled by the Democrats for more of those years. I think that balances it out.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:32 am
Mr. Konop,
I forgot to point out something that I said on 2/14 at 4:19pm on this site.
“As far as Mr. Bush and company, I think one of the biggest failings is their record on government spending. They have expanded spending more than any other administration, to include FDR, in our history.”
Again, that is a good article. However, I still think it fails to point out that these problems go back a long time!
May be it is time to vote Libertarian?
March 1st, 2006 at 9:25 am
david, You said up the way that bush and co. had done a lot of good things. I have thought and thought and can’t think of any. Fill us in on some of the good things bush has done for all the people of this country, verifible things, not dreams, not myths. We already know the great things he has accomplished in Iraq.
Tax cuts have never helped the economy yet the conservatives keep promoting the old myth and bush proved it again. Gotta hand it to ye, ye stay right on the talking points and stray very little. We pore dumb liburls just don’t understand the genius of bush and everything is the fault of the democrats and Clinton.
Ye gotta remember david, not everyone is as dumb and easily fooled as you are.
March 1st, 2006 at 9:35 am
Actually, in this case, I thnk PC may be right.
Our economy appears to be humming along due, not to taxcuts, but to increased government spending. And, the increases are quite substantial, as seen by each year’s deficit, along with the growing debt.
Cutting taxes while increasing the size of government by spending more is NOT a “conservative value.” It’s a smokescreen.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Yet, it seems that every time that higher taxes are implemented, the economy stalls and slips in to recession. With the Clinton tax increases, the greatest raise in taxes took effect in 1999. By October 2000, the economy had stalled and was in negative growth.
Another strange thing occurs when taxes are lowered. The economy grows. This happened in the early 1960’s under John Kennedy, in the 80’s under Reagan, and again under Bush.
With high taxes, you remove money from the economy and thereby slow the economy. With lower taxes, that money is in the hands of the people who spend it and thereby grow the economy.
That isn’t talking points. That is economics 101.
PC Davis, you should really look at history. Lower tax rates have always increased Federal Revenues by expanding the tax base and grown the economy. Higher tax rates have caused the economy to slow and leads to lower Federal Revenues as the tax base shrinks due to cost cutting measures of corporations.
As for the higher government spending not being a conservative value, I will agree with that and is one of the things I have against this administration. If you will scroll up to my comments of 2/24/2006 at 4:19pm, you will see that I said, “As far as Mr. Bush and company, I think one of the biggest failings is their record on government spending. They have expanded spending more than any other administration, to include FDR, in our history.” So, as you can see Mr. Simon, I agree with that whole heartedly!!!
Again, as I have said several times before, there are enough things against this administration without having to manufacture anything.
As for Mr.PC Davis, the problem we have with the deficits is not due to the tax cuts, it is due to the increase in Federal Spending!!! The Bush Administration has increased spending by $1.50 for every increased of $1.00 in Federal Revenues. That leads to deficits.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Judicial response to political grandstanding by NJ Gov Corzine…At least the judge has a clue unlike the xenophobes out there…
Federal judge nixes New Jersey lawsuit against ports deal
By JANET FRANKSTON
Associated Press Writer
March 1, 2006, 2:19 PM EST
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge on Wednesday ruled against a request by New Jersey to order an investigation into a United Arab Emirates company’s takeover of some U.S. port operations.
U.S. District Judge Jose Linares also said the state will not be privy to documents the company gave to a federal committee reviewing the deal. Linares said the state “needs to show an immediate need for those documents.”
The $6.8 billion acquisition would allow Dubai-based DP World to buy major commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia. Critics of the deal say it could compromise national security.
The Bush administration agreed Sunday to the state-owned company’s request for a 45-day investigation of the deal’s potential security risks, and Linares said that review should be sufficient.
“The very action now is taking place,” said Linares, who added that if the review does not take place, the state could reargue its case.
New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber said despite the judge’s decision, she was satisfied because she believes the state’s lawsuit prompted the company to agree to the 45-day review.
“I expect the investigation to be above board and real,” Farber said after the ruling.
In court, a lawyer for the Justice Department said the administration had not received a letter from the company formalizing the 45-day review.
Farber said if the letter doesn’t come, the state will go back to court.
The state had argued that the company’s promises of a 45-day review was not enough of an assurance it would occur.
Ori Lev, a Justice Department attorney, had argued the company already has committed publicly to the review and the court action is not needed.
“It simply ignores reality to claim that is not likely to happen,” he said.
Lev said the request for the documents was a “frivolous claim” and said New Jersey has not identified any legal basis for its contention that Gov. Jon Corzine is entitled to the documents.
Linares said there is no reason for the state to review the documents until a deal is approved. If that happens, the court could appoint a person with appropriate security clearance to review the material and then decide whether to release it to New Jersey officials, the judge said.
Farber said New Jersey needs to see the documents viewed by the federal committee to weigh how Garden State officials would respond to potential risks.
“The people of New Jersey and the governor of the state of New Jersey are in the best position to assess risks,” she said.
Farber said that neither she nor New Jersey’s domestic security chief had the highest level of national security clearance. Applications for those clearances are pending, she said.
The federal government argued in a filing Monday that documents sought by the state are confidential, and urged the court to reject the demand.
In briefs filed Tuesday, lawyers for the state responded that the company’s control at Port Newark could adversely affect national security and safety could be compromised if the state is denied access to documents and information, which would be reviewed by the state’s Office of Counter-Terrorism.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
david, Pure nonsense, tax cuts have never stimulated the economy nor increased government revenue. Quite to the contrary after the 1993 targeted tax increase by Clinton, the economy enjoyed the greatest expansion in our history. The economy recieved no benefits from the bush tax cuts and have not responsed to them. This is an ole conservative myth proven wrong again and again.
By the way, every time the conservatives are in power government and spending always grows, look at reagan and now bush. Another conservative myth—smaller government. When conservatives say “smaller government” they mean take the money from the programs that help people in need and give it to the wealthy who don’t need it.
Wondering where that list of the good things bush has done for all the people of this country is? You didn’t forget it now did you?
March 1st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
PC Davis,
You need to check your facts on the effects of tax rate reductions. Oh, and by the way, I am far from “very rich”, but I got a tax cut from Mr. Bush.
Using Mr. Reagan’s tax cuts as an example (since that information is complete), you will find that Federal Revenues increased by over 26% during his Presidency. That was with three separate tax cuts! Also, we had quite a run in the 1980’s of the economy expanding and growing. Actually, it continued until Bush 41 increased taxes. Interesting, isn’t it?
Oh, and don’t forget that Mr. Clinton’s tax increase of 1993 was to be phased in over a seven year period with the highest increases to take effect during the last two years of the plan, which would explain the economy going south during his last year in office.
Now, as to what good Mr. Bush’s policies have done, what source do you consider credible?
The Bureau of Labor tells us that nearly 4.8 Million Jobs Have Been Created Over 29 Straight Months Of Growth. Is that good?
How about Market Watch: “For The Fifth Year In A Row, Existing Home Sales Hit An Annual Record, Increasing 4.2% In 2005.”
Or the Census Bureau Reports On Residential Vacancies And Homeownership: “The Homeownership Rate Increased From 68.8% In The 3rd Quarter To 69% In The 4th Quarter Of 2005″ and “The Hispanic Homeownership Rate Increased From 49.1% To 50%.” This is an historical high!!!
The Associated Press reported: “Sales Of New Homes Jumped 6.6% In 2005, Hitting Another All-Time High And The Fifth Straight Annual Record.” And, “Construction Spending Increased 8.9% In 2005, Setting A New Record.” And, “Orders For Large Manufactured Goods Increased 8.2% To A Record High In 2005.” And, “The Stock Market Had A Strong Month In January: The Dow Rose Nearly 1.4%, The S&P Climbed Nearly 2.6% While The NASDAQ Gained Nearly 4.6%.”
Then there is the Wall Street Journal, who said, “The Manufacturing Sector Expanded In January For The 32nd Month In Row” on February 2, 2006.
Gee, all of this good stuff that is coming about due to some of Mr. Bush’s policies and all of it effects the people of this country. Imagine that! I could go on, but this post is already long enough and I have proven the point.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:49 pm
PC,
I almost forgot. Who were those “targeted tax increases” of Mr. Clinton targeted towards? Was it the middle class who absorbed over half of the increases through either higher prices, less service, and higher rates for their bracket? Or, perhaps it was the people on Social Security, which saw their tax rates increase by a substantial margin?
Just wondering. Incidentally, before you go shooting your self in the foot, you may want to research those increases. All of the above is accurate. So much for taxing only the “very rich”.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Bush “good things”:
- Avoided significant recession despite 9/11, .com bomb, Alan Greenspan, etc. by implementing tax decrease, taxpayer rebates.
- Liberated Afghanistan
- In process of liberating Iraq
- Appointed many minorities to critical high level cabinet positions
- Appointed conservatives to Supreme Court
- Unlike previous presidents, helpend maintain his party’s majority in congress
- Hasn’t been caught getting a Monica in the Oval Office from an intern younger than his daughters
- Millions of jobs created, economy growing, manufacturing base expanding, prosperity for all who desire to pursue it
- Bravely took on the 3rd rail of politics, Social Security…not a win yet, but at least he stepped up and promoted privatization. If some of GOPers in congress had an ounce of courage, it would be law now….same goes for Fair Tax.
- Famous Bush statement: “Axis of Evil”, famous Clinton statement: “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
- Bush Doctrine; spread freedom and liberty…Clinton Doctrine; spread yourself out on the bed…what blood, put a little ice on it.”
20 years from now history will judge this presidency. If freedom spreads throughout the Middle East replacing century old hostilities, he will go down as one of the greatest. If on the other hand it blows up in his face, then he at least tried unlike most of his predecessors.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:29 pm
David,
You are right about the trend on the economy. This is not a party issue it is an economic policy from both sides
that is a race to the bottom. Thanks jk
March 1st, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Pete Peterson former Republican Treasury Secretary wrote in his book Running On Empty ,a tax cut is not a tax cut unless you cut spending at the same rate. All you are doing is deferring debt with interest.That is why when Congress lifted Pay As You Go things got out of control.Thanks jk
March 1st, 2006 at 11:53 pm
bb—That was good, haven’t laughed that much in a while. You conservatives are more fun than a barrel of monkeys, the only problem is the monkeys are a lot smarter.
No kidding, I was serious when I asked for “all the good things that bush has done for all the people of this country”, I didn’t ask for a rehash of your wildest dreams. Arn’t you a little afraid that things have blown up in his face already?
Your little list is pure nonsense from a little man given to proclaiming nonsense. Why not try a little reality for a change.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 am
david—-You got a big tax cut huh? How do you like your tax cut on dividends ad all that good stuff?
Of course revenues increased during reagan’s tax cutting spree, he raised taxes on the middle and lower middle class working man. There was no run up in the economy during reagans second term, the economy was in the doldrums most of the time. When bush 1 raised taxes things picked up some but also fell back untill Clinton raised taxes and the economy took off and in spite of greenspan raising interest rates to keep from “overheating” that toward the end of Clintons term things had slowed down. When bush took over greenspan dropped interest rates 15 times in the bush early years to try to offset the effects of the tax cuts but ran out of room at the bottom.
29 months of job growth, how about the 31 months of job loss, still haven’t caught up with jobs loss yet.
There is no way to connect the bush policies to the other growth you listed. Have you ever heard the word “cyclical”? That growth might better be described as in spite of bush policies. You conservatives are so desperate for something to defend bush with I expect any day for you to say “the sun came up this morning and was bound to have been bush’s tax that made that possible”. Read bb’s list, it is a good one if ye like comedy.
The country is not back to where it was when bush took over, unemployment is higher, the stock market has treaded water for 5 years, most of the new jobs are low paying service jobs, not as many jobs were created as were lost, we are trapped in a quagmire in Iraq, and on and on.
Clintons tax increase was on the top 3% of the country. It worked great-longest and greatest economic expansion in our history.
Again there is no way to tie any of the things you mentioned to the bush policies so I’m still waiting for some verifible things bush has done for the good of all the people of this country.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:46 am
PC Davis,
You live in a fantasy world. Perhaps you can explain somethings for me. Here is just a short list of questions.
1. If the Bush tax cuts is what caused the economy to sour, how did they effect the economy in early 2000 when the stock market started to decline and growth started to slide?
2. Since Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts were across the board, meaning that if you paid taxes you got a tax cut, how did that raise taxes on the middle class?
3. When Bush 41 raised taxes, a recession, which cost him re-election and gave Clinton the line that it was the worse economy in 50 years, started barely one year later. How is that the economy taking off?
4. If the Bush years have been part of a cyclic occurance, couldn’t the same be said of the Clinton years?
5. If the county is not back to where it was when Bush “took over”, then please explain the 4.7% uneployment rate, the stock market being over 11,000 (or close to it), increases in housing starts (a leading barometer of economic health), etc?
6. If it is impossible to tie any of what I mentioned to Bush policies, why is it that some of the top economists in this country have already done that?
7. Why would those independant news sources from which I quoted rehash my wildest dreams? Don’t say it is because they are conservative, they are anything but that.
8. Clinton had an economic boom with growth of barely 2%, Reagan’s second term saw the economy in the doldrums most of the time with growth over 4%. How is that an accurate representation of the facts?
9. The stock market has returned to the record highs that it was experiencing before the Clinton recession started it sliding and before the attacks of 9/11. The number of jobs created total more than 3.5 million, where as there were just over 2 million reported as lost by the Democrats. If Iraq is a quagmire, how did it get there so fast (isn’t that what you liberals have been claiming since day one (that Iraq was a quagmire)?
Now the final question attached to that last number, with these facts, how can you honestly say “The country is not back to where it was when bush took over”?
The fact is that you are the most partisan person on this site. You refuse to accept history and facts in light of your bias. You have proven yourself to be pathetically lost in social aspects of you life.
I have defended, with facts from several independant sources, every claim you have made against conservatives. You have yet to offer anything other than opinion in defense of what you have claimed. Where are your cooberating facts? The truth is, there are none!
Please, PC, do us all a favor, stop your blind loyalty to the Democrats. I have critisized this administration in this thread a few times, but the principles I stand for have not waivered. You, on the other hand, have shown only a blind, mind numbed existence and adherance to a leftist philosophy that has failed everywhere it has been tried.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:24 am
Key factors to consider is since the passing of NAFTA in the early 90’s the saving rate of American family went from 11% to negative 1. Wages have going backwards for the majority of Americans while healthcare is rising 4 times faster than pay.Also one third of consumer spending is people refinancing their homes and using the money to pay off debt . The truth is this is a trend that has been happening since we started cutting bad trade deals and got into a race to the bottom with countries like communist China.
This real issue as Warren Buffet says is you can be a country that buys more than it sells ie trade deficits. As a Republican , I do think President Bush and Congress made things worse with out of control spending on pork deals. Yet for Democrats to stand up and not realize that trade deals like NAFTA,CAFTA,China WTO…. was a bi-partisan deal that is killing the middle class is not being objective.
You can not fix a problem until you are honest about the issue.We need Smart trade , fiscal responsibility and immigration reform.Thanks jk
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:23 am
Perpetual Cynic, what on the list I posted is fantasy? You are a perfect representation of why the left is out of power — no ideas, no vision, no concept of reality. Enjoy second place, it will be yours to occupy for quite some time.
Bart
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 am
Bart,
No one denies wages are going backwards , while healthcare,childcare,energy cost and college is all growing faster Than wages. Bart, I will make it clear , I have been a Republican for a long time. Being a Republican does not come close to my faith, family,country and neighbors. Bart you have the right to hold the party interest ahead of your country, but that is the difference between us. That is why Bart, people on all sides are supporting me over Tom Price.Thanks jk
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:44 am
David,
What top economists are tying this ‘rebound’ to Bush economic policies?
The unemployment rate is not an accurate gauge of the economy. Most of those laid off have opted for the self-employment route with many still not up to their previous income status. Most of the jobs created are in lower-paying sectors and are in government. That says a lot for a conservative President when most of the jobs he creates are in government. Many of the other jobs are in weaker sectors. Take a look at manufacturing jobs. All tanking. The door has been opened by NAFTA, CAFTA, and other assorted ‘door wide open’ policies that have allowed companies to flood to other nations leaving thousands without jobs. Go to any rural town that thrived on small town manufacturing and you’ll see them all dying now. It is that way all over GA. What is left are the low wage jobs filled by migrant workers.
Bush’s economic policy has caused the loss of the middle class jobs while filling the economy back with fluff jobs working in weaker, lower paying sectors. The government size has increased to record numbers and many of the ‘jobs created’ are done so within government.
How can you honestly look at this economy and the stats and say that things are wonderful or better than they’ve ever been?
How can you say that tax cuts while bloating the government and borrowing heavily from foreign sources to record levels is a good thing? A few positive numbers in your mind doesn’t cut it when it comes down to not only a record setting heavy debt, but a debt based on foreign borrowing. We owe the world in record money. If anything major happened in the world, we’d go under. We’re tied to world events. Bush has this country hanging on by a string. Even Greenspan cautioned Bush on his borrowing and record debt and deficit. Is this wreckless behavior in a world where war is on the brink in nmerous locations a sound fiscal policy?
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:53 am
Craig,
What do you think of the article I posted from Paul Roberts(Feb 28th 2006 10.15AM)? Do you not think after reading this that Democrats hand are dirty as well ? Please comment thanks jk.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:53 am
Konop,
“race to the bottom” — tired cliche.
You are absolutely suffering from a severe case of economic hypochondria. Do you just skip over good news when reported so you can maintain your Chicken Little campaign?
Sorry to rain on your ‘race to second place’ in the 6th district, but here is a quick synopsis of good economic news:
Economic Growth Continues
Unemployment Rate Falls to 4.7 Percent
On February 3, 2006, The Unemployment Rate Fell For The Second Straight Month. The unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent - the lowest monthly rate since July 2001 and lower than the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. In January, the economy created 193,000 jobs and has created over 2 million jobs over the past 12 months, and more than 4.7 million since August 2003.
The Economy Is Strong And Continues To Grow
Consumers Are Confident. The Conference Board index of consumer confidence surpassed expectations and rose to 106.3 in January - the highest level in over three years. According to the Conference Board, the number of consumers saying that jobs are “plentiful” rose to its highest level in over four years. Additionally, the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index reflected strong consumer confidence.
Incomes Increase. Real disposable incomes rose 0.4 percent in December and were up 1.4 percent for 2005. Since January 2001, real after-tax income per person has risen 7.9 percent. Real household net worth is at $51.1 trillion - an all-time high.
Retail Sales Rise. Nominal retail sales rose 0.7 percent in December and are up 6.4 percent from 2004. In December, real consumer spending posted a solid 0.9 percent gain and increased 3.4 percent over the past year.
Manufacturing Continues To Expand. The Institute for Supply Management (ISM), a private research group, reports manufacturing activity grew for the 32nd consecutive month in January. The ISM’s manufacturing index reading of 54.8 indicates continued sector expansion. According to the Federal Reserve, total industrial production increased a solid 0.6 percent in December and manufacturing industrial production is up 3.8 percent over the past 12 months.
Durable Goods Orders Rise In December. New orders for durable goods surpassed expectations and increased 1.3