Bush has Handed Us an Issue That can Create a 2006 Dem. Landslide

[louis c]

President bush has only one strong card left; protecting America from terrorism. We know it's a lie, but how do we convince the masses? This United Arab Emirates company getting the federal contract to protect our Eastern ports is a political gift. Let's exploit it to the hilt. Not only is it wrong, it is easy to explain and understand. Even Bush's staunchest supporters are calling it insane. Mike Savage is mauling Bush over this issue and even Fox News' "Heartland" guy called it insane.

Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE and money for the attack was traced back to that country. Now the Bush administration wants to outsource our port security to them. Hillary and Menendez have filed a bill that no foreign company should have control of our port security, let alone an Arab country with terrorist ties. Bush's response that the Treasury Department studied it and reported that it was OK plays right into our hands. Not Homeland Security, not the FBI or CIA. F*cking Treasury said it was OK.

Boys and Girls, this is our issue. If you want to see Bush in the 20% approval range, we have to break his base. Here is our issue. Hit it hard, hit it often, and don't let go.

What we need here at DU is as much information as possible on this and find a way to disseminate it. I smell blood, and this time it's the Repuke's.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Our 'free trade globalists' will not grab this issue.

They are horn swoggled by their idiot ideology.

[sadiesworld]

59. More like bought off...

but "horn swoggled" is SUCH a great term. Thanks!

[yurbud]

86. this is the real problem--Dems haven't lacked for big targets before

but they chose to "keep their powder dry"--because that's what they have been paid to do.

[mom cat]

94. Bingo!

They have sold out and dance to the piper with the most money.

[opihimoimoi]

2. DUH....what was Bush thinking??? sounds like he is indeed over the TOP

and had his Brain "minimized", as we do in comupters.

[rucky]

54. Who do you think's been laundering the money all this time?

All the ill-gotten gains from looting the treasury.

This is a sloppy wet tongue kiss to the Arab banking industry for their dutiful service. The fact that he's not even trying to hide his shady dealings anymore should be very alarming to us all.

[Brothaman2k]

82. Gotta be honest

I only consider this more proof that 9/11 was, at its core, a sham. It didn't just happen, but was allowed to happen to pave the way for a certain, super rich, class of people around the world (You know... the Bushes...Saudis...them) to profit and solidify power.

I know our president is an idiot, but I think he's a heck of a lot more insidious than we give him credit for... or at least his dad is, in which case W is just riding his coat tails again.

[saltpoint]

3. I'm not getting why BushCo wants interests associated with the UAE in

charge of seaport security. Oil is a word that comes to mind, but with no details of just what that means exactly in the present case, I don't know how firm to be on 'oil' as a sole motivator of such a policy. The intent is puzzling.

So -- (readers here note a discernible rattle of tinfoil...) -- is it a trap? If Dems sqawk and fiercely oppose UAE port security and then there is a "terrorist event" in a given U.S. harbor, won't Dems be blamed for obstructing Dubya's "earnest and valiant" attempts to "keep our country safe" ?

I'm confused about this one. And a little worried, too.

[burythehatchet]

5. You're right to be worried

Every decision in the executive branch goes through Rove. This is not a gift. This could very well be a Trojan Horse. Call me cynical...

[saltpoint]

13. We should all be cynical if that's what you are, burythehatchet. You

invoke the Trojan Horse on this one. Not bad at all.

Either the coffee's strong on this one or BushCo is up to no good, and I think you maybe right on citing KKKarl Rove as the master filter of nefarious crap.

___
edit: spellin'

[burythehatchet]

19. besides, its not like there isn't a laundry list

of other high crimes we should be talking about. On this one I can easily see them crying Dems are racist for opposing a legal deal with Muslims, or some other crap. No lets talk about Abu Ghraib, warrantless spying, whistleblower retaliation, etc etc etc

[saltpoint]

23. I hear you on that -- especially with Abu Ghraib. It is the most

heartbreaking revelation of Bush's presidency so far. Unhappily too many voters allowed themselves to be frightened by Bush's warnings of imminent terrorist attacks, and voted to continue his reign. I doubt if even progressive detractors of Kerry-Edwards would prefer Bolton, Roberts, Rice, and Alito to nominees for the same posts under Kerry-Edwards.

The other issues you list are also key, and I'm one among (I bet) many, many DUers who will endorse your concern over these issues, and endorse it with heart and mind.

[louis c]

29. However

This one hits their base.

First they make their base scared, now they have terrorists protecting our ports.

This is easy.

[EVDebs]

75. Plamegate, the NSA domestic spying are tied together by pre 9-11

'major policy shift' at NSA PRE-9/11

""Despite these tantalizing facts, Abdullah and his operations were A-OK with the FBI chiefs, if not their working agents. Just a dumb SNAFU? Not according to a top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity. After Bush took office, he said, "there was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off-limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations -- at least before 9/11 -- began to die.""

From-- See No Evil: What Bush Didn't (Want To) Know About 9/11
TomPaine.com
Saturday, March 1, 2003


NSA's PRE-9/11 'POLICY SHIFT' away from OBL tow Bush's domestic 'enemies' (read US citizens exercising lawful right to dissent). BTW, the old '73 war plans of Nixon to seize Saudi oilfields were simply shifted and tweaked to 30 years later and moved to Iraq's oilfields

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2466336&mesg_id=2466336

as Greg Palast's source points out.

[louis c]

6. You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Look at all his F*ck-ups. Katrina, Iraq, the Economy. They're not bright. The problem has always been that the explanation is lengthy and the other side can spin it. Take my word for it, this one is a gimmie. Hillary knows and that's why she is first out of the box.

[saltpoint]

8. Sometimes cigars are just cigars, but other times they are designed

to blow up in Castro's face.

I apologize for raising the level of stress on this one, but I'm not at ease on the involvement of the UAE in U.S. port security.

Why would Sen. Clinton know what's going on, just as an aside? (I'm not saying she doesn't know, only asking how she does...)

I'm still jittery on this one, louis c. Jittery.

[louis c]

18. I'll accept the Clintons' political instincts on this one......

with all due respect.

[saltpoint]

24. Ok. Fair enough. I think Senator Clinton is a damned bright soul --

-- don't get me wrong.

But I'm still not sure why, in the era of "imminent danger from terrorists," that Bush would even make himself vulnerable on an issue like this.

That's the part I'm not seeing so far. Even if Bush doesn't know shit from apple butter, his handlers and KKKarl Rove et al wouldn't let this get out there without realizing how dangerous it will sound to "the average voter."

[louis c]

26. Maybe they didn't see it coming

Maybe they are distracted by other events, like Plame and Libby.

Maybe they just F*cked up.

Even a gold-glove shortstop let's one go through his legs once and a while.

When that happens, you have to take advantage of that mistake.

This is a mistake, and now it's time for the Dems to score some runs.

[saltpoint]

30. I will cross my fingers and hope you are right. I want you to be.

I'm not politically paranoid normally. It's just that I don't see Rove missing this one.

We'll see how things play out.

I do think that the initial advantage is to Senators Clinton and Menendez, and then generally to the Democrats' poll numbers -- at Bush's expense.

[FatDave]

47. Maybe they've just gotten used to getting away with everything

I don't think they saw the republican backlash coming. I'm not sure they even thought it would be noticed. And if it was noticed, I think they thought their base would blindly support it like they do everything else.

At the same time, I think a lot of people who support Bush have been quietly becoming uncomfortable with their support for him. They've defended the Iraq war, even when all of the reasons for the invasion turned out to be bunk. They've defended the lack of concern over finding bin Laden. They've defended the use of torture. They've defended warrantless wiretapping. At some point, whether or not they can admit it, even to themselves, they've got to not feel right about that. At some point they've got to feel like they're just making excuses. Now that many of their own have spoken out on this, maybe they feel this is their big chance to wash their hands of him.

I could be dead wrong, but nothing has given me more optimism in a very long time.

[saltpoint]

49. Well, Dave, maybe I am going to have to do some re-thinking on this

and meanwhile, I sure like your interpretation.

I do think you make a compelling case for Republicans finally getting weary of all the lies and crap coming out of the Bush administration.

Fair enough. I'll take some encouragement from what you've said and buck up and see what happens.

thank you.

[FatDave]

57. For the record, that's my optimistic interpretation

Don't rethink too much, I think you're as likely to be right as me.

The pessimist in me says tomorrow the talking points will go out, Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly will spin it positive for Bush, and the good little freepers will fall back in line.

But wouldn't it be great if any of those three turned on him? A guy can dream...

[KnaveRupe]

90. Simple. They don't care.

They don't give a shit. They are going to sell off whatever they can to whomever they can.

They are not Americans. They are global-elitists. America is just a fat, bloated victim for them to suck all the blood out of, leaving behind a dessicated corpse.

Don't try reading too much into this. They are greedy vampires. Period.

[tblue37]

40. You forget that these criminals are all about

cashing in. Someone high up is making lots of money on this deal. Count on it. That's why I also believe it's a real screw up by Bishco.

[saltpoint]

41. Hi, tblue37. I definitely don't discount that it's a screw-up by BushCo,

so that possibility is distinct and plausible. I'm even rooting for it.

But for them to miss this, even for a pile of cash, is remarkable.

[freefall]

83. Agreed.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. How does UAE port security keep us safe?

Supposing there is an attack Bush is going to say we would have been safe if foreigners were running port security? I don't get your logic.

[saltpoint]

15. I didn't say it very well. I meant that if BushCo endorses what they

claim is "air-tight security" whether by UAE interests or anyone else, and the Dems block it on ideological grounds, and there follows a "terrorist event," then Bush is in position to hammer the Democrats -- again -- on national security.

[Caretha]

63. This is their Achilles Heal

The Rapid Right has one big issue with Bushco and that's the leaky border to the South. They normally drink the Koolaide, no questions asked, but they don't like Bush on immigration policy or open borders. They get this one because it ties in with the other one.

What motivates the wackos is the fear of anyone with brown skin from another country entering the US. Brown "Furriners" being in charge of what enters or doesn't enter the US, not only falls right into their "Fear meme", it Tops it with a capital T.

I read on other threads how people feel powerless to stop this Nazi regime. And on other threads I read about Dems with Republican families, friends, associates trying to debunk the BS that is spewed. I agree with louis c - here is our chance to make a difference and it's simple.

This is what we need to be talking about. Forget all the other reasons and hone in on this one. Quake in your boots in front of them, build on their fear....tell them how frightened, scared you are if the UAE controls the ports. They will come to the conclusion that if the Dems are afraid of the UAE controlling the ports, then this really is a big deal.

[louis c]

89. Hey, thanks for the encouragement

[savemefromdumbya]

4. ridicule Bush and Cheney on how inept they are on national security

and have failed miserably to prepare this country for a terrorist attack or national disaster. It was that woman - Katrina who did it.

They've failed to catch the big bogeyman terrorist USL

[Disturbed]

14. Actual Conservatives and Libertarians are agressively..

opposed to this port takeover. This is one issue that is more than partisan. The Neo Fascists have screwed up big time on this one.

[femrap]

106. Seems that the ports that this UAE company will be 'protecting...'

are on the East coast...so does that mean that the next 'terror' incident will be on the West coast?

Or did Rove think no one in the media would cover this UAE company buying a British company?

Or is that they really just don't care anymore....? They'll do whatever they well want to?

[sable302]

7. I think you're right

-nt

[Quakerfriend]

10. I agree but, anyone with half a brain can see that this admin.

is doing NOTHING to keep us safer. I mean resisting air marshals, refusing to ensure the safety of under plane storage compartments, cargo containers etc.

Do you really think that this issue will open their eyes??

[FreedomAngel82]

20. They'll find some other reason

to vote for Bush and republicans. They won't care. They can rant and rave all they want but they'll still vote for them. *sigh* On abortion or gay marriage. :eyes:

[FatDave]

44. It seems to have opened their eyes.

And it seems so big as to be undeniable.

(Edited for clarity)

[blm]

11. It's NOT insane - it's a deliberate part of their goal - global fascism.

A small group have been planning this global takeover for decades. House of Saud and House of Bush with key allies and select Chinese industrialists and international financiers.

[Justice Is Comin]

12. Yes and don't forget

your Alito will make sure he validates your presidents decision. You wanted it. NOW YOU GOT IT !!!

[napi21]

16. I see a problem with the Clinton/Menendez bill.

I haven't seen it or read it, but if it says "no foreign Co. should have control of our ports" how are they going to get around the fact that a UK company controls them now?

If you look at the source story about this UAE control, you'll see that the UK co. that currently has control is being sold TO THE CO. IN THE UAE!

I believe Hillary is smarter than this, and maybe the bill says something a little different. We'll see.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. I think we can use it

more as a safety issue too. How will you feel as people who aren't Americans guarding your ports? Doesn't that worry you? I know it does me and I'm already paranoid enough as it is! So maybe democrats can use this whether on free trade and security. And it makes it even more curious about 9/11 if they were involved with those who supposivley did the hijacking. (If you believe the official story)

[Mr_Spock]

21. Bush is to busy making crystal meth to realize what he's done....

Why did we elect a crystal meth dealer as president anyway?

[jillan]

22. I expect the dems to come out with a strong, united message against this

by the end of next week.

If they don't....
I say -
Strike 3 Reid - you are out.

Strike one - not supporting Kerry's filibuster of Alito.
yes, he voted for it while saying "We don't have the votes"
Strike two- influencing a potential candidate to drop out of the race.
No matter what your personal feelings are about Hackett, Reid and Schumer crossed the line.


This issue is too huge to let the repugs walk all over us.
This is bigger than spying, which the repugs are going to win that one.
We cannot let them get away with outsourcing our ports to the terrorists.

[louis c]

25. By George, I think you've got it

That's exactly my point.

Some times the biggest mistakes you can make in politics is to miss a golden opportunity.

[Jon8503]

39. Right-on, if we have good strong leadership, not the kind we have had

where we have constantly lost race after race. Also, if we have good candidates like we had in Hackett. Even if he isn't a party man, stand by him and work to help him get elected.

Stay on message and don't be afraid to speak out on the issues. Attack them strongly.

The republicans have given us enough ammunition to do this.

[bklyncowgirl]

93. Ooops, Lieberman is already wishy washy on it. Forget the united thing.

After all if Bush did it it has to be OK.

[demosincebirth]

27. that is truly amazing! I heard that a few days ago and I...

couldn't beleive bushco would ever do something like that. I agree it could be the spark that could start a fire under under ther voters asses.

[alfredo]

28. Doesn't he trust Americans to do the job right?

We're not good enough for him.

[Jon8503]

35. Of course not, he thinks all Americans are like him. N/T.

[MaraJade]

31. Strongly agree on this one. . .

:kick:

Imagine a commercial spot with the nuclear blast from "Sum of All Fears" playing. Very appropriate, since Baltimore is one of the ports
"sold" to the UAE.

Imagine then a caption beneath the vision of the blast with "In the MOVIE It Happened in Baltimore" in big BLUE characters.

then "It COULD REALLY happen now that BUSH has sold the port of Baltimore to potential terrorists."

This can be the "Wille Horton" issue we need.

Kick and Kick and Kick!

I hope that the Democratic National Committee is listening to this.

The CHIMP has put this Nation in danger deliberately, and the public needs to know and know BIG.

[Emit]

32. And, so, if we don't get a Dem landslide from this

ya' think the masses and naysayers will start taking election fraud seriously?

[Az_lefty]

33. Why does the bush hate Amerika???

good suggestion, nothing in this that even comes close to protecting our interests. Remember Carter giving away the Panama canal? Well, how is this any different except good ol' George got some cash for the deal.

[The Doctor.]

34. Those 'instincts' are rising up all over...

I sense something good in the super-conscious.

[LibertyorDeath]

36. When someone as insipid as Savage turns on Benito

You know they've fucked up big.

[louis c]

116. kick in the evening

[Swamp Rat]

37. kick and recommended n/t

[ruggerson]

38. Totally agree, it's a great issue

and Hillary and Mendendez and Reid and the rest of them should be talking non stop about how this ties in with how poorly Bush has left us prepared AT OUR OWN BORDERS.

[BenDavid]

42. Said it before and will say it

again, this is a gift. Dems have been handed gifts so many times in 05 but like the pink tutu's they are, just let them slide....I agree this is the one that all Dems should get behind and support the clinton, mendenez bill and holla, holla, loud and clear and force the so called liberal media to cover their outrage, and thus force the repugs to join in...bush, however thinks this bill if passed would be veto proof. Now is the time to force this bill down his throat and show this man that scared the chit out of dems in 02, 04, no more will we be scared...This is it.....You lose this one, might as well turn out the lights, lock the damn doors, cause the party is over......

[rucky]

53. Let's see who starts defending the decision.

you know the WH will have to sometime next week & everybody and their dog will have their soundbites. I'd be interested to see whose turn it is from our side to come forward and pull the rug out from under us on this one..

[Catrina]

77. Well, maybe not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman is trying to defend it ~

I followed a link in another DU thread to FR yesterday and for the first time saw many freepers outright attack Bush and ask the question 'how much more are we supposed to close our eyes to?' together with the picture of Bush holding hands with the Suadi prince with captions like 'get a room you two' ~ I thought I was reading a DU thread from some of the posts there.

Apparently this was all done in secret and the offer from the UAE company came last Fall ~

Approval was given by the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment) and if Freeper research can be relied on, some members of that committee include Condy Rice, Rumsfeld, Hadley, Gonzalez, Chertoff. I tried to verify that but so far, I can't get a link to who is on that Committee.

Here's a link to the FR topic ~ normally I wouldn't recommend going there, but if this is an indication of how the right is reacting to this, Bush is in trouble ~ and Republicans who are up for re-election are hearing from their base.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579951/posts?q=1&&page=251

The post with the names of the CFIUS members is on the last page. Still trying to verify the info, because there was no link there.

I remember the security of ports being a huge issue but Rightwingers would not even consider the fact that Bush was not protecting them whenever I tried to talk to them about it (living near a nuclear plant and Plum Island made us pretty nervous when we heard that no new security measures had been taken after 9/11).

Now, they are rabid ~ probably because it's an 'Arab' company. The indoctrination that all Arabs are out to get us worked so well, it may now backfire.

I wonder if Cheney's secret weekend hunting trip had anything to do with this?

It does show how much disdain they have for the American people, and in particular their blind followers ~ I'm not sure how they can overcome this, but then I've said that many, many times before.

Only Bush can stop this deal, from what I've read ~ so he's really in a corner now ~

[Deja Q]

43. Well, the Dems couldn't sell anything else...

This UAE deal seems waaaaaaaaaaay too easy once you start to think about it.

And the Dems won't use it either.

I want to know what those Dems in office know. I must be missing out on something really good...

[Hekate]

45. Lou Dobbs came out swinging on this issue Friday

Lou said what I've been thinking, and I'm sure he'll have more to say in the near future.

Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone in their right mind would think giving over our ports to a foreign nation would benefit the US. Benefitting corporations I understand -- but it would not benefit the US as a country and a people in any way, shape, or form.

The whole idea is absolutely antithetical to a strategically secure nation. American dockworkers are bound to lose their jobs to cheaper labor shipped in and out. There wouldn't be much incentive to maintain port infrastructure -- such is my exceedingly low opinion of megacorporations by now.

In the end, various corporations and their high-level executives will have made an obscene amount of money, the US will be the poorer for this arrangement in every conceivable sense.

I can only hope that the Clinton-Menendez bill passes in a landslide...

Hekate

[Justice Is Comin]

50. Bush truly doesn't think he has any confines whatsoever.

He's like Lex Luther, he feels it's his world and he'll do what he wants with it. Like some bizarre mythical second coming.

He takes orders from voices, gives the finger to anything constitutional, laughs maniacally at the idiots who he trained to vote for him, profits at the expense of dead bodies and oil.

He's like a crazed mad scientist in his own Bush movie. He doesn't realize he's not going to finish his term, and most likely will eventually be ostracized by almost virtually the entire country. He's already got the lowest world opinion of any president ever.

This ports for profit turnover is only one of several blunders that are going to all meet in a cortex and light him up like the Hindenburg. If only it was a movie and we could get right to the ending.

[barb162]

51. agree and I love Lou Dobbs for reporting this kind of stuff

Our ports are too important to be managed by foreign interests

[mwb970]

92. Has Keith Olbermann covered this yet?

I think he's one of our best "secret weapons". (Less and less secret, apparently. Ratings are up.)

[AntiFascist]

46. I can see someone like Sen. Kennedy spelling this out....

He could say, point blank, what is already being reported by the Associated Press: the UAE has a history of being used as a point of transfer for people like AQ Khan to smuggle nuclear weapon components into North Korea, Iran and Libya (nations which we now or in the past have considered our enemies). The UAE government is connected to banks that have been involved in laundering money used by Osama bin Ladin, and the UAE government is also directly involved with this company. Two of the 9/11 hijackers utilizing these funds also came from the UAE. Put these facts together and it spells out a blatant security risk. We're not talking about prejudice against random Arabs, we're talking about a government with direct links to terrorism and a history of allowing nuclear components to be smuggled to our enemies.

[upi402]

48. the 9/11 panel gave BushCo 5 F's and 12 D's

and 2 Incompletes.
This needs to be drummed into the subconscious of all Americans. Ports, along with chemical and nuclear plants, have been alarmingly vulnerable targets.

[annabanana]

58. even LEIBERMAN should be screaming about this one....

Even HE can't supply cover on this one.. His big thing is Israel...and this. is. Dubai.

[niallmac]

70. Now now. I'm sure Lieberman will support us on this

but at least let him confer with Bush to see if it's ok.

[rucky]

52. Yep! This is the one. Fear of Arabs trumps all w/ the true-believers.

Sure they're opposing the move for entirely the wrong reasons. The Corporate media will try to fuzzy up the connection between UAE bankers and some pretty shady dealings with terror groups, but that's not what's going to sink this ship. It's how the headline reads:

ARABS TO CONTROL US PORTS

I've already seen the outraged Freeps on different forums react to this generality. It may be kneejerk racism, if examined on its surface, but I won't argue that point with them (this time).

[file83]

55. This is THE issue to create the Democrat's tipping point to 2006 victory.

[BuyingThyme]

56. kcik

[sellitman]

60. So..you still think elections matter?

They don't until we fix the machines.

THERE IS NO WAY ANYTHING ELSE MATTER!

This won't have any effect on an election.

When will you people get it?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

61. One issue?

medicare
medicare drug plan
Iraq
Cheney
Afghanistan
Social inSecurity
Dept. of Homeland Scrutiny
Patriot Act
Renditions
Domestic Surveillance without warrants or court supervision
John Bolton
Condi Rice
Mike Brown
Paul Wolfowitz
Plamegate
9/11 - and the Administration failure to deal with pre-9/11 warnings.
export of jobs
immigration failures
no-bid contracts to Haliburton
Billions in fraud in Iraq Reconstruction.
George Deutsch
NOAA interference
FDA interference with Morning After pill approval
Promotion of Creationism in Grand Canyon and US Forest Service
Destruction of science in all aspects of society and fed. government
Religious infiltration of African AIDS relief efforts
erasure of separation of Church and State.


I don't know. Which ONE issue were you mentioning, again? You realize that if any Democratic politician had done even one of these things, the MSM would be calling for heads to roll.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. So, now the Dems are in a Bogeyman contest with the Pugs?

We're supposed to be afraid of Mighty Dubai because Dem politicians are doing the posturing and announcing threats?

[louis c]

64. This strikes at two issues

Security, which is obvious. America should never outsource homeland security to any foreign country. anyone that can't see that. regardless of party, is insane.

Second, jobs. This company should be American. It's bad enough to outsource private sector jobs to another country, but public sector jobs really takes the cake.

In summary, the Repukes have set the table for fear in this country. We now have a chance to "hoist them on their own petard" and we should.

[AntiFascist]

76. Mere bogeyman?

If the Federal government can be responsible for MIHOP, LIHOP or just sheer incompetence with respect to 9/11, it could just as easily happen through one, or several, of our ports in the case of another event.

[ecstatic]

65. a unified message requires a unified party

And every other day I see Dems contradicting and stepping on each others toes. Hopefully Dean can pull everyone together and get all on a unified, coherent message.

[Joanne98]

66. If we can get Lou Dobbs on it we'll destroy them.......

[Obamarama]

67. Already started exploiting to the hilt as you suggest. Sent this LTTE:

Tried to get people to think of the dire consequences in terms of their own city/neighborhoods. If any DU wishes to copy and customize for their own city, be my guest:

Imagine, if you will, that the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety discovered an extremely high number of arson suspects and convicted arsonists living within a specific city neighborhood.

Next, imagine that a company wishes to build a station to supply free gasoline and books of matches smack dab in the middle of this very neighborhood. Before they can do so, they must get city government approval.

Finally, imagine that the city manager, mayor, and full city commission understood the potential dangers of such an idiotic plan. Then, without so much as batting an eyelash, they approve the company’s plans to offer free gas and matches in a neighborhood populated by known arsonists.

Pretty scary stuff, huh? As a matter of fact, it sounds so outlandish that such a situation could never actually transpire, right?

Unfortunately, it’s not such an outlandish idea in George Bush’s America. The same administration that lied to justify attacking Iraq, appointed Mike “heck-of-a-job-Brownie” Brown to run FEMA, and thinks it can illegally spy on American citizens has allowed a deal for the security detail at six major US ports -- New York , New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami – to be coordinated by a company based in Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.

In case you didn’t know, Dubai is recognized as a logistics center for al-Qaeda operatives. Money for the 9/11 attacks were wired through Dubai’s banking system. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Dubai, and more than half of the hijackers flew to the U.S. directly from Dubai to prepare the final plans for the attacks. Yet, in light of these facts, George Bush hasn’t lifted a finger to prevent U.S. port security from being controlled from Dubai.

Thankfully, Democratic senators are drafting a bill that would block this neglectful recipe for disaster.

Boy, the people who voted to keep Bush in the White House because they though he was “tough on terror” must feel pretty duped right about now.

Oh well, at least you still have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, gays can’t marry, and your children may soon learn in public schools that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old. Mercifully, the Democrats still have their eye on the legitimate priorities facing our country.

Meanwhile, let’s pray that the so-called leader of the free world doesn't allow our neighborhoods to be torched by arsonists before the Democrats can wrestle control of our country's affairs back into the hands of those with whom that control can be trusted.

[louis c]

68. Very good

I like it.

[Canuckistanian]

69. Sound like they didn't run this one by a focus group

Just shows how out of touch they are with.... anyone, really.

[progressoid]

71. Yer damn skippy - It's a winner for Democrats

But what they've done with the UAE us scaaaary!

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Generator]

72. Between this and nuclear power plants

Did you hear that folks, Bush wants new nuclear power plants built in the US! Between this and that-it sounds like Bush wants us to be attacked by terrorists. Sure,you are never going to be taken seriously saying that-but what does it sound like to you? Do you want foreign Arab nations with ties to 9/11 securing our ports and more nuclear plants? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Bring it on. Bush is a "rebel." Fred Barnes told me so.

[ooglymoogly]

73. k&nom

[EVDebs]

74. As far as the entire 9-11 issue, check out Greg Palast's stuff on NSA

[Maraya1969]

78. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.

[Hokie]

79. Bush will back down on this

Before it is over the repukes will be claiming that they put a stop to the selling of the ports. Just you watch. It will become a non-issue. They will probably even find a way to blame the dems by election day and MSM will support them.

[louis c]

113. That's why we need to get out in front

[Zinfandel]

80. Say old DU story "And Cheney going down this time" The media dictates

public perception the media is owned by republicans who give more than 80% of the American people what the White House spin demands!!!

TV stations are only as liberal as their CEOs and owners....Both corporations, ABC (Disney) and CNN & CNN Headline (Time-Warner), are in the top ten republican list of top donors to the republican party General Electric owns NBC, CNBC & MSNBC, GE is in the top three of corporations receiving weapons contracts from the Pentagon, its not to GE advantage to tell the American people the truth. Viacom's CEO pledged his support publicly to Bush and the republicans before the 2004 elections, Viacom wouldn't even allow a progressive ad to be shown on their stations before the election, Viacom corporation is as right-wing a corporation as there is in communications...Fox "news" is not news at all, just the right-wing feeding us their propaganda, Fox is owned by right-wing prick, Rupert Murdoch...And finally the 20 million or so Christian viewers who watch CBN owned by ultra conservative Pat Robertson.

Talk radio, everyone knows the neocons conglomerates control almost 96% of talk radio...right-wing talk 24/7 border to border, coast to coast.

These TV & radio stations is where over 80% of the country gets its information.

[Clarkie1]

81. Absolutely...we need to rip them to shreds with this. n/t

[Seen the light]

84. My right-wing family is ENRAGED over this

I think I might finally have a chance to convince my father that Bush isn't such a great guy after all. So I agree that this is a winning issue.

[x-g.o.p.er]

85. Agreed!!

This has pissed off everybody, even my Dad, who is a big Bush supporter. If you knew my Dad, you would be as floored as I was, lol.

[Ksec]

87. As long as the election doesnt get framed by them

If we allow them to frame this election, we will lose again.

My worst fears will be realized if this becomes another election where we get labeled by them and our message gets blurred.

[crispini]

88. I agree. Can we do an "Activist Alert?"

I'll PM Skinner and suggest it -- and anyone else who agrees, please do the same.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. DLC Will Never Allow Party to Grab Any Issue that unites the working class

white folks with the Democratic party activist base.

They want to transform the Democrats into the secular Republican Party, circa 1900.

To do that they must establish that Transnational Big Business will
never act against its own interests, and what is good for Transnational
Big Business is good for America, and that Big Business upper class values are by definition progressive values, since they are the most highly educated people on the planet; and we will suck it up and like it.

That is Fareed Zakaria's message, for instance.

[Wordie]

95. My fear is this will lead to, or is a part of, more anti-Muslim bigotry.

My first instinct too, when I heard about this contract was to feel uncomfortable with such a critical infrastructure function being handled by a foreign country. It seems only logical that we should reserve those sorts of functions for American companies.

But then I had to hesitate, because of all the Islamophoic statements I've been seeing lately. I don't want to participate in, or encourage the Democratic party to participate in any thing that is bigoted. I'm concerned there may be an element of that in some of the concern over the UAE contract for the ports. And I'm further concerned that even if that isn't behind the concern over the contract, that a huge protest against the contract would encourage more Islamophobia in this country, and that a such a protest would be painted as Islamophobic in the foreign press, and seen that way by even moderate Muslims, who we ought to be trying to reach out to.

We've all been hearing stories about terrorists coming from the UAE and money-laundering, etc., but I really haven't seen sources for most of that info, nor any really detailed info, nor do I feel I truly understand the situation. I suspect it's much more complicated than I have heard so far. We need to consider that some of this info may be spin, and investigate thoroughly all the ramifications before making any move. How do we know that this info about the UAE isn't coming from the neocons, for instance?

At the minimum, it seems to me that if we are going to encourage the disallowing of the port contract for the UAE, then we should be consistent, and make sure at the same time that any critical infrastructure function is handled only by American companies, and disallow any other foreign companies in other situations that could be considered critical infrastructure, rather than to single out only the UAE. That would be a more even-handed approach, and more in keeping with Democratic priciples.

I for one would like to build bridges with moderate arab regimes. I don't want to do anything to set things back any further than they already have been recently.

[louis c]

97. Can We Please, Please

set aside our overwhelming idealism for just once, and try to win an election.

You can't do shit if you ain't in. Can we for once use the other side's actions against them?

Just once.

Can we please try to win one in my lifetime?

[Wordie]

102. Sorry, I don't want to use bigotry to win elections. (read disclaimer)

I'm not saying, let me make it completely clear, that you yourself are bigoted, louis c. I just think there are negative repercussions possible from this approach that you maybe haven't thought through completely.

And don't forget that Bush's polling is really bad, so the conditions to win may be more in our favor than you are thinking right now anyway.

What do you think of the idea to eliminate ALL foreign countries from holding contracts on critical infrastructure programs? That would be a better approach that would achieve the same end as you wish, it seems to me, without some of the minuses.

Edit: Believe me, I feel very strange to be arguing against anything that could help to take down Bush, but I'm just not certain this is the way to go. Has anyone really looked into where the negative reports about the UAE are coming from??? How much do you really know about them? (I know relatively little, myself.) There are too many questions unanswered. After all, the internment of the Japanese in WWII came about because there was so much fear-mongering about them. This is different situation insofar as this is a foreign country we're talking about, but the fearmongering element may be very similar. So let's keep cool heads until we are sure we really know what's going on, and not inflame ugly passions, even if it would help us win an election. What is the point of winning, if we sacrifice our Democratic values in order to do so?

I'm pretty sure that FAUX news already is raising a ruckus about this, so that ought to give you pause.

[louis c]

104. That's what hillary's bill says

all foreign companies.

However, the UAE DOES have ties to 9/11. Repeat, Does have ties to 9/11. Two of the hijackers are from there, the money was traced to there, the staging area for 10 of the hijackers was there.

The Bush supporters can't argue that fact. Bush has made this country scared of terrorists. the UAE can't or won't stop the terrorists from using there soil against us. That's not bigotry, that's a fact.

I'm not saying to invade them, however, do you think it's a good idea to hand our port security over to them in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami and Philadelphia?

You can't possibly agree to that, and neither can the Bush zealots.

that's why this is our issue and we should eat them alive with it.

[Wordie]

105. I haven't read the bill...

so I would have to reserve judgement until then. There's a lot I like about Hillary, but I also think she has a tendency to pander at times. (Did you see the clips of her a while ago, praising the Israeli apartheid wall? Not pretty.)

And as for ties of the UAE to 9/11, are you sure about that?

One could say, for instance, that the US was also a staging area for the terrorists, as many of them lived here for quite some time, but that in itself doesn't imply that anyone in our government was involved. And because their banking system was used by the 9/11 terrorists doesn't necessarily say much either. The UAE tends to be a bit more libreral than many of the surrounding arab countries, and is somewhere a foreigner could stay without attracting too much attention, so that might be an alternative explanation as to why several of the terrorists spent time there. And we as a nation have our native Timothy McVeighs and Unibombers, but that doesn't necessarily, once again, say anything about our government or the majority of people in our culture.

You said, ...the UAE can't or won't stop the terrorists from using there soil against us. That's not bigotry, that's a fact. So far, I haven't seen or read anything that establishes that as a fact. Again, what is the ultimate source of this information? Could it be spin?

I am not really intending to defend the UAE here - as I said, I just don't know enough - but I just don't want to get everyone so riled up that we jump off a cliff that we could have avoided.

[louis c]

107. Here you go....

Link:
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=23403

[Wordie]

110. Ok...I checked them out with SourceWatch, who said they were pretty

unbiased...so that is a convincing argument. Thanks. But I want to hunt around a little more and find out what's going on.

It also does occur to me that the RINOs may have been weighing in on this as well, as they are fairly isolationist. I want to check a lot out, but I've got to run for a while. I will get back on this though.

[louis c]

109. This is better, another DUer did all the work

link://

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x465919



When you're done reading the link to the link, I'll be waiting for your reply.

[Pacifist Patriot]

111. Bigotry need not be an issue.

Control of U.S. ports should be in U.S. hands. I think there should be an uproar that a British company is involved. To me it's a matter of foreign involvement not just Arab / Muslim. To me the 9/11 connections simply prove the point.

[Wordie]

114. I would feel more comfortable with that sort of approach. Thanks.

Although I'm still checking out the claims about 9/11 links...

[pinto]

96. Good points louis c. As reported so far, this is a real visceral issue for

lots of folks across the political spectrum. Whether Bush backs off under criticism - which may well happen - or not, this deal casts a big cloud of doubt over Bushco's priorities and their capabilities. Doubt on any security related issue is anathema to this Administration.

[louis c]

98. Thanks, but it's louis c

Please don't change my gender.

[pinto]

99. Sorry. I knew that. My best friend is a "Lois", must be a typing habit.

[louis c]

101. That's OK

I can't believe the response to this thread.

I really think we're on to something.

[Sparkly]

100. I agree -- AND distribute pics of Chimpy holding hands with "Bandar Bush."

Too many have missed the BushCo connection with the Saudis and the BushCo interests in oil profits -- AND, ports have been our easiest target for terrorism after 9/11 and they've been reminded of that continually by Democrats (including Kerry, many times and very pointedly in the 2004 campaign).

[rodriguez94]

103. IT IS SO VERY VERY CLEAR.....

THIS IS A PAYBACK MY FRIENDS..that's right..a payback.

BuShCo is paying back the UAE who are supposedly helping us lead the fight on terror.

They are going to claim the UAE can be trusted...so the we need to get the ammo ready on that one...any already available should post to this thread so we can all come back for info as we may need it..

this is it guys..this can bring them down...

how dare them turn over our ports to a middle eastern company...have they lost their freaking minds? fuck the global economy..what about the local economy..how are you doing right now? Forget that job at the port, huh?

[fearnobush]

108. Hello Fox GOP News: It's one More reason to Impeach our Saudi President.

<>

[pinto]

112. kick.

[louis c]

115. kick in the evening