Powered by TypePad

« Kelo In The Times | Main | On The Waterfront »

February 21, 2006



It's enuff to make me urp.


Half a century ago my Daddy told me that when the British had exhausted the Mideast's oilfields, the sheiks would own the London Stock Exchange. It's a variation on the 'No such thing as a free lunch' speech.


One wonders what Joe Wilson, or Michael Moore think of the deal?


Actually I guess I am an "authoritarian cultist" on this one. Those darn Arabs have to do something with their petrodollars...so they buy a company that does port contracts? BFD! Soros destabilizes currencies for a living. At least the Arabs are doing something useful with their money.


Does 'seminal' mean the same thing as 'absolute moral authority'?


"The Arabs are Coming! The Arabs
are Coming!"

It really tickles me that the PC -
Multiculturalists, former Presidents, and a V.P have been spouting:

1)Bushhitler Politics of Fear
i.e. exaggerating terrorism as threat,when really only crimes of the few.

2)We are discriminating against
and mistreating Arabs/muslims,
punishing all for crimes of a few.

3)We just need to understand them
- their "rage" is valid. We should not judge all for the crimes of a few.

4)We should support, the known
State Dept listed, terrorist group
HAMAS with U S Taxpayer $$$ and
credibility and not punish all
Palestinians for the crimes of the few.

We've found the FEW - it is Dubai - a Terrorist State!

Think the Universities will return all those millions from Arabs that
expand "MidEast Studies" departments? Like to see them running around at Harvard screaming
"The Arabs are Coming! The Arabs
are Coming!"


I coulda been the cult goddess..Youse was my brudders....


Dictionaries or logic have long been discarded by the moonbats.


Ah Ha! Karl's fingerprints are over this - he's got the Dems to admit they are afraid of terrorism.

Great set up for NSA HEARINGS.



OT: There's a new website up by the Libby Defense Fund. http://www.scooterlibby.com/


YOU ARE the Cult Goddess.

I have your Goddess accessories
ready to go.


ah ah ah Mr. TM, up to your usual games of suppling actual examples...not playing nice...

Rule #24 - Evidence of conservatives disagreements with Bush Admin on a range of issues for example -- Immigration, the Budget, peripheral National Security- NSA, Homeland Security, Faith Based Initiatives, and a whole bunch more DOES NOT COUNT. These are obvious, documented and boring and DO NOT DISPROVE that conservatives are a cult, are brainwashed to label Bush criticism "liberal" and are controlled by Rove via chip implant ( DO NOT accept this ploy)


Does 'seminal' mean the same thing as 'absolute moral authority'?

YES, and DON"T even try and challenge it...they have the authority to say so!


Clarice; You coudah been a contendah, you couda been somebody...


Michelle Malkin is REALLY going NUTS (unhinged even) on this one...that slant eyed LIBERAL!

cc: Daou/Greenwald


BILL TIERNEY on CSPAN 2 with his
Power Point presentation from Saturday.


'are controlled by Rove via chip implant '

that's 'chimp implant'

Cecil Turner

As discussed here before, waiting for ships to enter the port is too late . . . the screening process must start at the previous port call. And considering the difficulties in handling the heavier stuff we are really worried about, I don't see any obvious major security ramifications in the UAE deal.

However, just because I can't see 'em doesn't mean they don't exist . . . and why chance it? I'm with Ms Malkin on this one. (And I'm kinda fuzzy on this "break with authority cult" thing, but doesn't that make us the liberals?)

Rick Ballard


If the Executive steps in, from whence does the authority derive? I haven't seen the "by statutory authority as enumerated in" part yet. Patriot Act? Extension of Article II to include interference in commerce?

I'm sure I'm missing something, I'm just not sure what it is.


I coulda been the cult goddess..Youse was my brudders...

Meanwhile, back on the waterfront, this deal violates basic principles of bureaucratic CYA.

Look, a Dubai company may be tops at dealing with Middle Eastern security issues, and they may have their finger on the pulse of every threatening group out there.

But if *anything* goes wrong, the folks who hired them will never be able to explain it - "Arabs were protecting us from Arabs?" will be the killer soundbite.

Can't look forlogic on this issue.

Gary Maxwell

Can't look for logic on this issue.

Sadly I am afraid that is true on many issues these days.



I'm afraid that your comments place you in "pissing in pants" Republicans meme that was to be superceded by the "authoritarian cult" meme...but not yet.


TM, thats all wrong...UAE is buying a UK company that already does the work. Security continues to be provided by others...Coast Guard, Homeland Security, etc.

Lou Grunt

I don't care about the ports, however, I do care about Scooter!!!!!

SCOOTERLIBBY.COM: Legal Defense Trust


Of course, this will probably end with capitulation to the fear mongers. You may have noticed the paucity of info about port security...for the obvious reason that we do not want to tip off the terrorists.


I just heard on the radio that Bush will quickly fall in line on this. Christ, that makes him a liberal too! They're everywhere, like static cling!

Paul Zrimsek

I just heard on the radio that Bush will quickly fall in line on this.

Remember what they told Brian of Nazareth: Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.


On what issues is LOGIC being used. Point me please - could think those thoughts at bedtime vs fear for my grandchildren with the loons loose on the land.

-at AEI discussing International
Law - now on applying 14th amend
and applying to the States.
"Not about to tell any state that
First Amendment doesn't apply to the States...... been used so long...

Clarice, further to my CSPAN conspiracy theory - Bill Tierney
on CSPAN 2 and Scalia on CSPAN
same time. Another way of limiting
exposure to conservative thought and anything that could make Bush
look good?

I just heard on the radio that Bush will quickly fall in line on this. Christ, that makes him a liberal too! They're everywhere, like static cling!

Actually, oddly enough, he just threatened to veto any legislation to kill the deal.

But keep in mind that in Bushspeak the word "Veto" literally means "empty threat".


Is 'veto' sort of like 'filibuster' or 'impeach'?


How is pointing out that several Conservatard pundits like Hewitt and Malkin are calling the Bushistas out on this bone-headed port deal make the case that "just cause nobodies calling them "liberals" yet means that the Bush Cult phenomenon is a brain fart?

You head is WAY too far up you-know-where, dude...


Sheesh, people. Talk about knee-jerk.

This port deal doesn't bother me at all.

Neither does it bother my Joe who was in the security business for thirty years. There's an entire discipline in the security field and procedures set up to deal specifically with foreign ownership in contracts such as this.

I don't suppose it bothers you that France now builds our guided missiles and stuff. Or didn't you know that?


portly, what it points out is that the only people who sense infallibility about Bush are leftists.


I think I sense a little too much protesting.


If I were Karl, TV ads with video
captures of Dem leaders spouting
the points I outlined in comment:

"The Arabs are Coming! The Arabs
are Coming!"

Posted by: larwyn | February 21, 2006 at 10:26 AM

would already be in production.

GW would be ready to say, while shaking his head and looking sad,
"Again, I tried to be a "uniter".
My political opponents have continued to accuse my administration of many humiliations
directed against Arab and Muslims.

They want Condi to release funds
to the listed terrorist group

They keep telling you that
my administration is engaging in
the "politics of fear".

And now they are telling you to "be afraid, be very afraid"
of the terrorist country of Dubai!"

Rove will let them keep going
and do what they do - cross the

Inspector Callahan

I just heard on the radio that Bush will quickly fall in line on this. Christ, that makes him a liberal too!

Not so fast!!!


Criminy. What in hell is he thinking?

TV (Harry)


"And considering the difficulties in handling the heavier stuff we are really worried about, I don't see any obvious major security ramifications in the UAE deal."

Me either.

I'm open to someone explaining why it might be a problem but I don't see it on its face.


Perfect. Bush is on the high road and is the only one with a logical position on this. We'll probably be hearing a lot about Rove's grubby fingerprints, too, because Bush won't get credit for being this smart.


Dperl99, Peter didn't sense overly much protesting; he felt ignored.


The leader's charisma is undeniable, though. A veto threat no less!


I gotta say that I don't see any problems that UAE ownership has that British ownership doesn't already have.

AJ Strata also threw out the idea that the UAE company may be cooperating with our intel. They already seem to be cooperating in helping to choke off al Qaeda's access to international financing. So Bush is hissing "Shut the f*** up!!!" to all the outraged rightwingers who are queering the deal.

Some way to run an authoritarian cult... (But I guess that's what TM said, right?)

cathy :-)


For me, the jury is still out, but I am leaning towards Ex's position on this...so...what kind of cultist am I when I think the conservative Bush dissenters are being too conservative?

TM, BTW...this pretty much encapsulates the Portly/Greenwald/Nash/Daou's Game.


p.s. give link above just a few seconds....well worth it, I promise


And don't slam the

Yep, worth it. The Cult Theme Song.


What a screwy deal! Apparently Bush has threatened to veto if congress won't go along. What is up with this? Seems like this is an "iceberg" deal - 90% is hidden.


The point of the deal is that Bush's unwillingness to even anticipate the furor that would break out (on both sides) proves once again what we've known all along: his administration doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously. They use it as an election wedge issue to scare people; that's it.



Thanks for the laugh TSK9. 8^D




Dear Tom:

So I drop in from time to time, mostly to check on your Plame stuff, and now, well, one question comes to mind. When did you get so pissy? Look, slow down, take a breath, and well, I'd suggest punting (or at least understanding that all the slavish backpatting you get in here actually means something), cuz Greenwald is starting to make you look all kinds of stoopid.


I swiped selected sentences from
Tigerhawk and Dan Barlett just said "we are trying to strengten
strategic allies.

The UAE ports management kerfuffle: get a grip
By TigerHawk at 2/21/2006

It may very well be that it is unwise for the United States to hire an Arab company to manage some of its key ports. Or it may be very wise.

The harsh reality is that there is no evidence that the United States is better at detecting jihadi infiltration than the government of the United Arab Emirates, or a company owned by it that happens to be expert in port administration.

I, for one, think that it takes an Arab to catch an Arab. Will it really be easier for jihadis to penetrate the security of an Arab company that has, frankly, protected the Westerners on its watch elsewhere?

Point is, we need to be thoughtful about this decision and others like it. We cannot beat the jihadis without help from Muslims. ............ you are unlikely to find a hotter hotbed of anti-jihadi sentiment than in the luxurious halls of the Emirates.

........there is an ugly side to this debate, too................... Haitham Sabbah, correctly, sees anti-Arab racism in this opposition -- quite surprisingly, actually, coming from Hillary Clinton, whose husband and VEEP-in-law have made a point of sucking up to Arab princes. Don't like Sabbah? Then read John Chilton, who is very worried about blowback.

Please read whole thing and follow the links.
All that hard work that Gore and Billy have been doing
- may be up in smoke over this!



My pleasure, friend.


Glen Greenwald, heavy lifter!

Rick Ballard

Here is the P & O Ports website.

Just so one can have some idea of what they are actually writing about.

It seems a rather expensive (at $7B) method of "breaching security" considering what might be achieved with a small fleet of 50' sport fishing boats. The "conservatives" opposing this might wish to go on a harbor tour sometime in order to gain a perspective as to the porosity of our "defenses".

What a nothingburger.

Roger L. Simon

Jesus, you really are an asshole, aren't you?

Glenn Greenwald

[email protected]

The fake but sorta accurate email thing all the time works everytime.


The thing is, we already let these contracts to foreign companies.

So is the complaint that we shouldn't do that at all? Or is it that there is some reason that a company based in an Arab country is inherently more risky?

I live in a port city but I've never worked in a port. My understanding is that all the company running the port does is essentially load and unload the ships - they take the containers off the ships and put them on trucks. Customs (the US Government) still does the customs work, the port police still do the policing.

The UAE has been helpful to the US in the WoT. Yes, they tried to get along with the Taliban prior to 0/11 - as did the US; 9/11 changed things.

So is the message we want to send that Arabs - Arabs that are trying to be friends of the US - aren't welcome to do business in the US? Because they're Arabs?

Assuming they'd really like to be friends with us, imagine how that sounds to them.

Rick Ballard


It ain't taking over operation of any ports - it's running freight terminals. The distinction isn't minor but the nomenclature used even by P & O is a bit misleading.

You are right on the money with your comment but we are all going to get screwed up if we don't keep "freight terminal operator" separate from "port authority" as this is discussed. Homeland Security, Customs and Immigration personnel are not affected by this whatsoever and neither are local authorities - including port authorities.

The Admin might do themselves a favor by referring to P & O as a freight handling company - or a logistics company - but I'm not sure at all that they will. Until the Dems get their necks a bit deeper in the noose, anyway.


Sure, sure, sure, Harley; it looks like they're all going down with the ship. But Pmain just threw them a life preserver.


On closer inspection that life preserver does look like a noose.

Let's get Michael Moore on the case, old racist that he is.


The point of the deal is that Bush's unwillingness to even anticipate the furor that would break out (on both sides)

UM, you don't will away anticipation. You either anticipate something or you don't, the premise of this statement is false. The mental processes of will and anticipation don't work with or against each other.


It works if Bush is infallible. See?


Just one question,where would you rather Arab countries invest your former money?


Portsmouth, or the orient.


Glenn Greenwald has responded to Tom's challenge.


But see Pmain's comment, quite recently.


It's not Friday...but.....

He could not help but rub his hands with glee as his special
"operatives only" email box filled up with reports that the Arabs
were getting it.
"The Dems are not only not Free Traders, they are racists."

He pulled out pertinant parts and pasted into an email that
thousands would see in a few hours:

Sabbah's Blog - "Hillary Clinton says: Arab are Terrorist!"

......Decpite that the United Arab Emirates said it was a close ally of the US in its war on terrorism, the US senators, Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez opposed a UAE firm’s takeover of a company that operates several American ports over security concerns. The two US Democratic senators have said they will introduce legislation to block Dubai Ports World from buying P&O and gaining control over the management of US ports because of national security concerns. Now a company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of the shipping operations.........

Read it all at:

And from The Emirates Economist
Americans who oppose the acquisition teaching the world? Do you really want to see principles of democracy and free markets spread in the Middle East or not? To quote myself:

"This isn't about homeland security; it's about being open to foreign investment. It's about unfettered markets. It's about the American institutions that make the U.S. the economic dynamo of the world. Americans are not especially smart or virtuous compared to other peoples. It's their institutions that make Americans exceptional. Some Arabs come along and want to invest in the U.S., and you want to change the rules so they can't? Nonsense. You're ditching the very principles you're trying to transfer."

For a similar point of view, see this post by Starling Hunter over at Wizbang.

Maybe Starling and I have similar views because we're Americans teaching business to undergraduates in the Middle East. We're part of the enterprise that Lindsay Graham and Hillary Clinton are committed to undercutting..........


Only question was should he let this climax on MTP?


All top security measures should be taken and probably more cargo should be inspected. 3 guys arrested in Toledo Ohio as terrorists in training. So our homeland security is working one muslim helper went undercover for a year to track the operation. Take that dems who would scorn President Bush. He is on the job and on the case working for your safety even though most days you are terribly ungrateful for his efforts.


No comet. No Kool-aid. No extraterrestrials.

This cult has been over-hyped. I quit.




We get aliens. We dissect them, then try to return them in working order. Virgins preferred but recidivists delight.


You know, it just take all the fun out of the challenge when you have to advertise it so much...make all the advertising feel sorta gospel worshiping.


G is preaching to the converted, but I'm grateful to the Hawg or I'd have missed the sinking.


You know, the world is just a little kooky lately...up is down, cultists are labeling bad Bush talkers "liberals" ...meanwhile a serious bit of activism is afoot. A well deserved boycott of a high profile Conservative CableCON is underway, for spewing his conservative venom and lies! Don't let him get away with his "conservative" statements and Bush ass kissing! ACT NOW!


oh sorry, delicious irony here

Glenn Greenwald's Mommy

Hey wingnuts, head over to my little boy's website to see how he made Mr. Maguire look schtoopid.

Oh, and please, keep that bullying little Jeff Goldstein away from my Glenn.

All his arguments confuse Glenn so.

Lew Clark

The argument is that even though the UAE is not a state supporter of terrorism, they have citizens who do. If you use that rationale, then the British ownership of that company should not be allowed, because they have such citizens too. But then, you should not allow the United States to own the company either, because the United States has pro-terrorist citizens, as just proven in Ohio.
so on this one, I have to be faithful to the cult, support the Administration, and tell the detractors to stop putting symbolism above substance.
And BTW, the UAE has been our strongest alley in the ME on the GWOT next to Israel, and deserve to be rewarded.


Bill Oreilly is a cultist he supports Bush's port decision.


I'll add:

1)We know the Emir's address!

2)Is "racial profiling" now OK'd
by Hillary Clinton?

3)Deal began in November - no wonder the Dems were playing up
ports issue every opportunity.

4)Now that we are all in agreement that we have a lot to fear from Islamic terrorists - who wants to raise their hands to stop the NSA program and limit the Patriot Act?

Some Dems seem to have realized the trap - Hillary Rosen on Hardball soft pedaled.


I think we are missing the big picture. There is a deal in the works that involves Halliburton and in order for us, John Q. Public, not to revolt, Bush has to offer us the least attractive proposal first. That way, when Halliburton steps in, we can't bitch. It's Rovian...at its finest.

Beto Ochoa

So Cub Scouts; what story is being buried while we get nutted over a non story of the century.

Lou Grunt

Micelle Malkin is against the deal because it involves a Middle Eastern business. OK, I think we all agree the Michelle is not the brighest bulb on the tree. Does that make all Asians mentally impaired??

Or maybe she is right and we should intern all here in the U.S. of Middle Eastern descent.


So what do we do when none of the cultists agree with Bush and we have to call them liberals, but real live liberals agree with Bush?
And who brings the Depends to the party?

I don't see the big problem with this one. Dubai is an honorable country with a drive to be a world-class business center. The government of Dubai has a marked interest in doing a good job with this, perhaps even more of an interest than the British government/company has.


What about all the gas stations inhabited by Faoud and Mohammed? Where am I going to get gas if I can't trust an arab?

I think I may be turning into a liberal.

Now where is that bicycle? I wonder if they still make granola?


Notice that most of Republicans are calling for "hearings", which will be so terrific for the Admin
that CSPAN probably won't send cameras. Able Danger Hearing last
week was important to CSPAN either.

This from IrishPennants - Jack Kelly's blog:

But, warns Spook 86, it's not that simple:

Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight--even with political allies.

Let's beging with the basing rights issue. U.S. military forces--particularly Air Force units--have been using airfields in the UAE since the start of Operation Desert Shield back in 1990. Bases in the UAE are viewed as particularly important for potential military operations against Iran, given their proximity to disputed islands the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz. Flying from bases in the UAE, U.S. fighter-bombers would have only a short hop to targets in Iran, allowing them to maintain constant pressue on Tehran's military forces and political leadership. The presence of large numbers of tactical aircraft in the UAE would also make it easier to keep the strait open, and reduce Iran's ability to restrict the flow of oil to the global market. If the White House cancels the port deal, Dubai may end its basing agreement, and greatly complicate our military strategy in the region.

Hmmmmm is this a backdoor way to screw up a threat to Iran by the

Nancy Soderberg's words on the Daily Show, day after the first purple fingers in Iraq "Well, we
still have Iran and North Korea".

Where's Smiley?

richard mcenroe

Look, this is win-win deal for the Dems and the RINO's who don't support Bush because of their own local electoral vulnerability.

They get to bash Arabs, but not, you know the mean ones.

They get to talk like they're tough on security.

If Bush listens to them, he alienates a reliable ally in the Middle East, thereby jeoparding assets necessary for a foreign policy the Dems and RINO's don't hold with anyway.

If he doesn't listen to them, he's selling us out to the hajis.

They get to blame Bush for another Clinton era deal.


Good catch, larwyn

Lew Clark


The same group that say it's not those billion or so Muslims that are our enemies, but a small radical minority and we have to be nice to the nice Muslims, are now screaming "No ports run by those filthy towelheads in my back yard".


You're being playful, right?

richard mcenroe

topsecretk9 — Nah. It's the KISS principle.

Never assume complex consipiracies when simple lefty mendacity and political opportunism cover all the bases.


...putting aside the cynicism and merits here... and um I may be wrong...but I think we've just witnessed the GYnormous of pure Rove brialliance. I think it's laser like and I don't think most, many, all... have realized the fullness of this political coup....BUT WOW. (I'd be happy to detail this but I don't want to derail the masssive-ness of it, but can't ya'll see?)


brialliance...that's Cult code for --brilliance + reliance.


"the masssive-ness of it, but can't ya'll see"

I have been rather giddy all day as this has been developing as you can see from my contributions to this post today:
3:40PM,5:29PM, and 7:07PM.

Get the Arab vote, Zogby is PO'd,
in Detroit - does that turn MI
red? Black Christians are already
uncomfortable with many of the social policies of the Left - will
this get Rep the Black Muslim vote.

As I said - Let's have these hearings and let us have just about every hearing we can hold that allows the Dems to expose themselves.

What a set-up to the NSA hearings and the Patriot Act.

Hard to wipe the smile off my face
- the 5:39 and 7:07 are most important and there will be more to
come tomorrow.

Pleasant dreams tonight.


okay, surfed around a bit and it is BRILLIANCE....I take a big interest in the "branding" and "PR" of politics (and if you knew who I work you'd barf) but this is something to BEHOLD. BECAUSE WE ARE INVADING but having and Arab coun


BECAUSE WE ARE INVADING but having and Arab coun of Huh?


TM - Read the Corner over the last few days, and watch what happens when word comes out this afternoon that Bush is pushing back hard on the port deal. It sure looks like authoritarian cultiness to me. It will be interesting to see who else falls in line now, just as a test of your claims, TM.


The quote "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" seems kind of appropriate.




It sure looks like authoritarian cultiness to me. It will be interesting to see who else falls in line now, just as a test of your claims, TM.

paxil is your friend Jeff. But good "scare" truthiness, BTW YIKES McCain is on board per the corner


I think Jeff is bona fide trying to be dumb? KIM?


Jeff, I think TM's claim is that Bush supporters don't label anyone who disagrees with Bush as a "liberal"; not that Bush supporters who have no independent way of assessing the risk posed by Dubai deal tend to accept the assurances of an administration they trust will protect out national security. So unless Corner posters are accusing Malkin of being a liberal, I don't see how any claims are being tested.


That should be: "...risk posed by Dubai deal don't tend to..." Sometimes my sentences get so wordy even I can't keep track of what I'm trying to say.

The comments to this entry are closed.