Some Arab Americans See Bigotry In Uproar
It appears there has been some offense taken in this whole port issue.
I would like to make this perfectly plain. I am not saying that this deal should have never even been considered. I am merely pointing out the inconsistent message that the president of this country is sending by making this deal so quickly and without any input.
I am pointing out the flip-flopping.
One minute he's all about national security, next minute he's opening up the ports to what can be percieved as a weakness.
Are these people all terrorists? Certainly not. Is it concievable that terrorists may attempt to infiltrate the company in order to gain access and help other terrorists ship themselves or tools of their trade into the country? By gosh, it is. That the president won't even entertain the thought of viewing this deal from all angles suggests that either he's getting something juicy out of this deal OR he doesn't give a shit about national security, the views of the legislative branch, and the citizens of this country. My guess it it's both.
So, to my fellow citizens, my Arab American neighbors - I do not mean to imply anything other than that our president is a git.
I would like to make this perfectly plain. I am not saying that this deal should have never even been considered. I am merely pointing out the inconsistent message that the president of this country is sending by making this deal so quickly and without any input.
I am pointing out the flip-flopping.
One minute he's all about national security, next minute he's opening up the ports to what can be percieved as a weakness.
Are these people all terrorists? Certainly not. Is it concievable that terrorists may attempt to infiltrate the company in order to gain access and help other terrorists ship themselves or tools of their trade into the country? By gosh, it is. That the president won't even entertain the thought of viewing this deal from all angles suggests that either he's getting something juicy out of this deal OR he doesn't give a shit about national security, the views of the legislative branch, and the citizens of this country. My guess it it's both.
So, to my fellow citizens, my Arab American neighbors - I do not mean to imply anything other than that our president is a git.
by MG at 9:39 PM
18 Comments:
This is a matter of Security.
Call me a racist, bigot.
It's our Nation.
Mid East decent is the hot spot.
Hey, not going to put Michael Jackson in charge of Daycare!
And that would have nothing to do with his race. (What color is he anyway? ; )
I don't know what Bushco is thinking on this one. Whether or not the security criticisms are justified, it's just politically a stupid move. The same people he so carefully deluded into not knowing the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are just on the face of it not going to go for this. I believe Iggy is a good example of just that.
It certainly is bigotry allright, but it's bigotry Bush has subliminally promoted until now. I live in a heavy military area where not a half hours drive can I go in any direction without seeing at least one car or suv with the sticker "I'd travel over 10,000 miles just to smoke a camel" and it has an Arab in crosshairs on it. It's a very popular sticker with enlisted types. I've seen hundreds of them. :(
Funny how the fact that our largest ports on the west coast have been foreign owned and operated for more than a decade doesn't seem to come up in this conversation. China owns the largest port in the US in LA, that alone sees more containers than the next 2 ports combined.
He did everything else, stuff the congress is supposed to control and have the final say over, (his dictatorship duties) with congressional silence; now the congress is finally bitching and moaning. This should of happened along time ago.
But it is all apart of a game, these uproars, where there has been no uproar over the Iraq war, it's doubtful that even regional democrats are not oligarcy shills. Unless a congressional member finally points the finger straight at Israel.
I see two possibilities: either 1) Bush is a business partner with someone in the organization and wanted to reward the person's loyalty, or 2) Bush is paying off a debt. Because while I can see contemplating the deal and maybe even trying to make it, why stick your neck on the line against both parties to fight so hard for the deal? That makes no sense to me.
If the UAE controls our ports, then we could find ourselves aiding terrorists, and then we might invade ourselves and overthrow our government - hey! This might actually work!
The US Coast guard has responsibility for the security of the port, and US Customs has responsibility for the cargo that comes into the ports, as well as vetting crew members before the ship enter port.
A serious question here...Where is the security issue under foreign ownership that doesn't exisit under domestic ownership?
The US Coast guard has responsibility for the security of the port, and US Customs has responsibility for the cargo that comes into the ports, as well as vetting crew members before the ship enter port.
Less than 3% of all cargo entering the US is inspected.
What the hell is going on? Iggy and I in some vague zone of approximate agreement?
While it is sad that none of the other tragic bullshit has woken up congress enough, this incident is absolutely hilarious, really. RoveCorpInc. spend the last 5 years beating the terror drum in an attempt to get everyone afraid of the scary brown people, then they wonder why there's such an uproar when they surrender all control of major US ports to the scary brown people. Durrrr... let me think... durrrr...
Even more humour is injected into the situation, given their boast about being so into national security. Who on earth surrenders control of their major ports to another continent? Especially one that generally contains alot of very upset people who have been bombed all the way back to the big bang by the former.
Something smells deeply of fish regarding this deal. And it ain't just the harbours. If nothing else, this should prove that national security is nothing more than a sales gimmick to this administration.
I think we all need to try to get some perspective and information about this. As I posted earlier, the Bush administration has earned and deserves every bit of skepticism that they’re getting, and getting from nearly all fronts. That’s not an excuse though for not making the effort to find out more about Dubai and the United Arab Emirates. I also posted earlier that I didn't know a lot about this issue and what surrounds it. I still wouldn't say I have an education about it but I have found some very interesting, informative reads that have helped to enlighten me substantially.
What has really intrigued me about what has gone on so far with this episode is that it has shown, with bright colors, just how ignorant yet noisy so many of our representatives and Senators are. I think they should absolutely being looking into this and that they should have been more involved then the administration allowed from the outset. But it would be nice if when they do speak about it they would come off as if they know something of what they speak. That hasn’t much been the case from many of them from all sides.
Then there is Bush with his asinine threat of a veto before any discussion has even begun. He is being his usual asinine, arrogant self. He is showing his dictatorial ‘I am the Emperor’ side in his usual petulant, testy, blustery dry-drunk way. The ugly face of no-leadership-skills comes on to the scene once again.
I found this post (and many of the links within it) by Justin Raimondo to be enlightening. If you can afford yourselves the time to read it you might learn a lot about this issue. One thing about it that I didn’t like, though, was the title Raimondo chose. A bit hyperbolic, I thought.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587
I've kept in the background on this one as there are too many variables to keep track of. I do have some key points that deserve pondering though:
1.) Having the UAE own ports in the US really isn't so much of a bad thing. If anything, having substantial financial investments in these ports pretty much guarantees that they'll go to great lengths to avoid having them destroyed by one means or another.
2.) Key congressional Republicans have surfaced to cry foul alongside Dems in an apparent "bi-partisan opposition" to this. THAT is the part of this situation I trust the least. Republicans, being the masters of political shenanigans that they are, rarely would take issue anything the Preznit decreed as acceptable. To stand arm and arm with the likes of Frist and Hastert is nauseating.
3.) I'm not downright ignoring the rancor over this. Though I don't see this as the national security risk that others obviously do, it is at least getting attention to the very real threat that is posed by not funding DHS port security properly. Whatever works...
Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval
RSS Feeds From ABC 7 Wednesday February 22, 2006
Washington (AP) - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday. Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/304977.html
Oh, I see. Bush didn't even know about this until after his administration approved it but yet, he was Johnny on the spot to tell the congress that he would veto any bill that they put forth. Keep in mind that all that the congress is proposing at this time - aside from a lot of yapping - is to delay the approval until further scrutiny. That further scrutiny was supposed to have been done by law anyway. It was supposed to be officially under consideration (or whatever the official term is) for a period of 45 days. It wasn't.
So Bush, the bubbleboy, instead of admitting that he had been and was clueless, decided to go with the Emperor in Chief lingo and threaten a veto. Does he try to make himself come off like an dork or is he just that unaware? Dumb question...I know.
Nicho, you're positivley BRILLIANT! In your first point you've tumbled onto Bush's cunning secret plan!
If it's better to fight the terrorists there than here, but one day they might make it from there to here, all we have to do is turn "there" into "here"! They can't attack us "here" because "there" is where "here" (not here, mind you) is now. And there won't be any more talk about bringing the troops back since they'll have already come "here" because they never really left "there" (which is "here" now) in the first place.
Plus the ports will be 100% secure because there will be no distinguishing between incoming and outgoing ships anymore.
My God. Bush IS our salvation.
On a more serious note, in all likelyhood Republicans are just posturing. Either they want to look tough and independent for the mid-terms or they're making a little noise so the President will do a little "arm twisting" and throw some candy thier way.
Deep down I fantasize that we're seeing the begnnings a full-scale mutiny and they're getting ready to make Georgie walk the plank for the remainder of his term. As I've previously made a bet here on MoxieGrrrl to that effect, I'll stick to that story.
You know what though, Mox…the whole suggestion that opposition to this port deal is bigoted toward those in the Arab world is mostly coming from Bush supporters. You know, the pioneers of equality and an even playing field as race and culture is concerned.
These are the same people who rushed to Corretta Scott King’s aid when they thought her legacy was trashed by her own family members and those who knew her best – but yet made careers out of putting up road blocks to halt everything she stood for.
This is the same group who couldn’t give a fuck less about the fact that Republicans have almost zero cultural or non-white representation in Congress, yet they were absolutely insane with fury as Hispanic and other Civil Rights groups voiced concern about the Alberto Gonzalez nomination.
This is the same group of people who think having Condi Rice in the Cabinet makes up for Bush’s stance on affirmative action.
Right-wingers, please…spare me your feigned outrage on this.
You know what though, Mox…the whole suggestion that opposition to this port deal is bigoted toward those in the Arab world is mostly coming from Bush supporters. You know, the pioneers of equality and an even playing field as race and culture is concerned.
--Jeremy
Yes, that's an honest read, Jeremy. Today Rush Limbaugh went on a tangent about this port subject. His theme was all about calling "the left" bigoted toward Arabs. His history tells a story of a man who hasn't an inch of ground to slither on. Limbaugh is A numero uno bigot. As far as he is concerned all Arabs piss and shit on themselves on a regular basis.
This is Rush Limbaugh reading from an AP post and then commenting on it:
"One detainee wrapped in an Israeli flag, some were shackled hand and foot in fetal positions for 18 to 24 hours, forcing them to soil themselves." Ugh! I thought they did that anyway over there.
The NY Times reported today that the law governing this sort of deal, when "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government," requires a "mandatory," 45-day investigation. That was never done, and what's more, "Administration officials ... could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."
I dunno if it's all just bigotry. This is a bit worrisome.
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said...
David Sirota adds his take to the question at the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/truth-about-uae-port-secu_b_16133.html
He makes a good point about how pissed our little georgie got.
My belief is that NO part of our infrastructure should be owned by corporations, foreign or otherwise. But if you must privatize, then, goddammit, contract with a company that "lives and works" within the jurisdiction of the privatizing agency: cities would have to hire locally owned and operated companies, for instance. That way, at least the profits stay local. Anything else is ridiculous and a rip-off of the workers of the community.
What is surprising is the the free-marketeering privatizer bush would be so adamant over a state-owned company.
On security issues, I think it only makes sense for Americans to do the work.
Post a Comment
<< Home