News-Record.com

Ms. Williams,

Were you paying attention 10 years ago when Bill Clinton tried to turn Long Beach port over to the Communist Chinese without even national security review? I didn't think so.

Ms. Williams,

Does it bother you that Bill Clinton is a paid consultant of the UAE, and thus should be registered as an agent of a foreign country, while his wife rants in congress against the very same froeign country and this port deal, which her hansband may have advised them on? And, what are you going to do about it?

Carol,
Since it is obvious that you are an expert on port authority and have access to more information on this subject than the president of the US, perhaps you can tell us who is in charge of security at these ports? Is it the UAE navy? Is it a member of al qaeda, or perhaps Bin Laden himself? To listen to the lamestream media pump up the foes of the president into a frenzy in this latest bid at convincing the public to impeach him, one would think so.

Oh,and btw, isn't protesting the UAE over this deal "racial profiling"? Hmmmm? I thought we were not supposed to judge an entire group of people on a few "bad apples". Where oh where is the 'tolerance' from these people when it involves a republican president? Where oh where were they when we learned that slick willie is acting as a spokesperson for this group? Where oh where was the lamestream media when the democratic president approved a similar deal down in fl. some time back that involved the chi-coms?

Another one who didn't bother to do any research on the subject.

Sorry ORR, can't use that one any more since Hillary's spokesman has said that former President Clinton wasn't actually working for UAE or actually doing anything of value for them other than telling them that not to worry it will all blow over in the 45 day cooling off period. That must have been before Hillary had been informed of her husbands association with the UAE and before she stuck her foot in her mouth again trying to be a centerist.
The spokesman went on to explain that it is normal for the ex-president to get hundreds of phone calls a week from small countries asking him for advise on business and government.

Frankly if the statement is true that he said all will be well after the 45 day cooling off period then former President Clinton is probably right and knows that this is nothing more than re-election babble. He does need to let his wife know this however.

I seriously doubt the explanation of the Bush administration's motives in the original LTE. However, those arguing for the administration's position are doing so as if this is purely a partisan debate. In fact, many, many Republicans have opposed this port deal also. Since, by simple deduction, you are implying that they are way off-base on this issue, I assume you're saying it is fair to hold this against them in the upcoming midterm elections.

ORR, and Mr. Produce,
My concern is with our Senator, whose husband WAS actively involved in getting the ports deal through.
Clinton and Kennedy always make Oak Ridge, Dan, Hugh, Bubba and neoCON good fodder, but Bob Dole has been actively working for UAE while
his wife----carpet bagger from D.C., doesn't make a peep.

True again, DD. Was just getting ready to point that Bob Dole and his law firm are handling the deal for Dubai, or so they said on NPR. Also that Elizabeth was going to look into it, but saw no problems of conflict of interest.

As an aside: My Bush loving friend who hates Hillary was beside himself that she ran in New York, but had no problem with Elizabeth. Hard to talk to people with that lack of logic.

I'm afraid as has been said, it is a done deal. Reps and Dems just want to make us think they have our best interests at heart...again.

Wanted to share an opinion from a Moore County (conservative, Republican, Bush carried by a landslide county) lawyer. You may not agree with all he says, but he makes some good points.

Michael Moore was right.

Oh, not about everything, mind you. But if you saw Moore’s controversial movie “Fahrenheit 9/11,” you know that one of the themes of the movie is how George Dubbya Bush’s ties to his big-money oil buddies in the Arab world caused him to be less than vigilant and to turn a blind eye to the support of Arab governments for terrorists.

Lo and behold, just last week, we saw Dubbya threaten to dust off his veto pen for the first time. He vowed to stop any effort to block a pending deal to let a company owned by the oil-rich United Arab Emirates (UAE) take over management of some of our major ports.

Of course, after a few opening skirmishes, the Bushistas leapt to the defense of their Dear Leader and the deal he supported, even as he admitted he hadn’t known anything about it till the controversy arose. Some of the arguments they’ve used are the lamest ones since — well, since the last time Bush came under fire.

First, there’s the classic accusation of bigotry: “Opposing this deal just because it’s an Arab company is racism! It’s profiling!”

There are so many things wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start. For one thing, the concerns being expressed are not just because the DPW is “an Arab company.” It’s a state-run company, run by the government of Dubai in the loosely governed UAE. This is a concern because of the UAE’s ties to terrorism, and specifically to Osama bin Laden.

According to the report of the 9/11 Commission, a missile strike being contemplated against Osama in 1999 was nixed because he was hanging out on a hunting trip with members of UAE royalty. Money for the 9/11 strike was funneled through the UAE, and when the Treasury Department tried to trace the money after 9/11, the UAE complained about it to the White House.

In addition, the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. They refuse to recognize the state of Israel. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

And let’s not even get started on their abysmal human rights record. It wasn’t until 2005 that they agreed to start cracking down on child slavery.

The ones equating opposition to this deal with “racial profiling” of individual Arabs apparently can’t see the difference between holding a state-run corporation accountable for the actions of that state and harassing and detaining individuals based on ethnicity. Of course this makes perfect sense to Bushistas, who believe as an article of faith that corporations should have more rights than human beings.

But oh, they say, the UAE is now an “ally” in Bush’s War on Terra. Let’s see what our Department of Justice has to say about that.

A recent report from the Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training says: “The Government of the UAE has formally stated that it will no longer provide judicial assistance in criminal matters, absent both extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties. Since March, the UAE has released seven U.S. fugitives. The UAE has not responded to a request for documentary evidence since 2003.” Some ally.

Then there’s the “What’s the big deal?” argument. “They’re just managing the port! Homeland Security will still be responsible for port security!”

Oh, really? The people who brought us the botched Hurricane Katrina response? Boy, that makes me feel much better.

And if you don’t think that the employees of the port management company could use their access to get anybody they want to through the port and into the U.S., you are hopelessly naïve.

Of course, if the Bushistas can’t answer an argument, they go right to attacking the motives behind it. Thus: “You’re just against this because you liberals hate George W. Bush! Haters! Haters!”

Yeah, this is a purely partisan issue, so much so that liberal Bush haters like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott have come out against it. Conservative Congresswoman Sue Myrick of North Carolina sent a letter to Bush with one sentence: “Not just no, but HELL NO!” One of the people lining up in favor? Jimmy Carter, the only man who could persuade me to vote for Ronald Reagan.

The people defending this deal and, by extension, George Dubbya, are the perfect examples of the Cult of Bush. Commentator Glenn Greenwald put it this way: “Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.”

It’s become clear from this that Bushistas really believe in nothing but power as embodied in the person of their Dear Leader, who can do no wrong, even if he’s selling our security to the highest bidder.

It seems, however, that the cult is dwindling in numbers and “liberals,” as defined above, are now greatly in the majority.

A recent CBS News poll showed the Dear Leader with an abysmal 34 percent approval rating. I guess 66 percent of the American people now hate America. I’d like to be the first to welcome all you newly minted “liberals” into our ranks.

Now let’s get our country back.

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. His second novel, “Good Day in Hell,” will be released this month.

Once again, we are presented with undeniable proof that we should never underestimate the influence of Bush Derangement Syndrome among the Usual Subjects.

DD both Dole and Clinton are in the same boat. It just seems that Hillary's spokesperson and Mr. Clinton's are trying to put a spin on it as if he really wasn't involved. Both are wrong and both need to fess up.
Otherwise it's still just the same barnyard bovine excrement, or much ado about nothing. Re-election time unfortunately or it wouldn't have made a blip on the media radar.

Come on, Bubba...did you even read all the article. Don't you find most of it to be true? Now Dusty does not love and admire GWB, and he is not afraid to say it, but read the article. It makes a lot of sense.

Seriously folks, is this deal any worse than the deals that Clinton made with the Communist Chinese when he was president? I don't recall a massive outcry when he was dealing with the chi coms. No, the only hting different is that it is Bush and not Clinton, who the MSM madly loved and could do no wrong. If Bush is delinquent now, then Clinton was then. The Chi Coms are no more our friends than the Arabs.

And, really, to use Michael Moore has a reference is laughable. His 911 was so full of falsehoods it was worthless to anyone with half of a mind.

Carol,
Thanks for the article. It is very worth the read.
Pay no attention to poor old "Bubba" as he has already denounced William F. Buckley on another post-----For all one can tell, Bubba thinks Bill Buckley does the news on FOX-8!!
Mr. P,
I know, as always, you will support Dole over Clinton, but this time, it is apples and oranges. Dole is carrying the bag for UAE, while Clinton takes a donation to his library. Old Bob is actually 'working' for his money!

Oak Ridge,
Take a look at the article AGAIN. The substance is not about Michael Moore or Farenheit 911, it is about the irony of its premise becoming manifest.
Back away from your emotional responses to Michael Moore and read what the author said. Please don't get like Bubba, spouting out drivel without reading.

ORR, did you see the movie? Did you finish the article after you saw the first sentence. Did you read where Dusty said Michale was not right about everything?

That the Bush family has strong ties with the oil rich Arabs is not a point you can legitimatately argue. Remember the Bin Ladens were at their home in Texas, near the Bush home, during 911 and they were allowed to fly back to Saudi Arabia while the rest of the USA was grounded.

I am not happy that the USA is run by so many foreign countries. As pointed out, A Chinese company runs the Cal port, the government of Dubai runs the company now in question. Big difference to me.

BTW, I have a sound and open mind and I learned a lot from the movie. Researched to find out what to believe. You should do the same.

"Pay no attention to poor old "Bubba" as he has already denounced William F. Buckley on another post"

Ah, the Big Lie Technique....Dr. Goebbels would be proud, DD......

I said Mr. Buckley is WRONG in his opinion. Tell us how I "denounced" him.

Do you not understand the definition of "denounce"?

Your words have consequences, DD. Are you ready to pay the price for your loose use of them?

bubba, the question that is asked of DD should be answered for one's own self before asking it of another.

Shalom

DD guess you must have run out the crystal ball again on the Dole/ Clinton thing, but as usually you go jumping off the cliff without knowning anything.
So basically unless you have followed me into a voting booth you don't know diddle.
I had my issues with Clinton just as I have my issues with Mrs. Dole. I didn't vote for either of them. So put up your malfunctioning crystal ball and call psychic hot line at Air America to see what kind of wonders you can come up with next.
Every time you have attempted to put me in a box you have only succeeded in making yourself look foolish.

"bubba, the question that is asked of DD should be answered for one's own self before asking it of another."

Darryl, do YOU not understand the definition of the word "denounce" either? Do YOU not understand WHY I am holding DD accountable for that useage?

Bubba,
Don't you have race or a cockfight to go to?

Most people are overreacting to this issue. Port Management has been handled by other countries for years, as many have pointed out Clinton did it (not that that makes it ok....2 wrongs dont make a right). I personally have a problem with our ports being managed by so many countries, but in the scheme of things, this deal is not unlike any other port deal and we are no more or less safe because the UAE is the country in question. People are reacting emotionally and with fear because the UAE has Arab ties. While I do not fault the administration for making this deal, I do say that they have no one to blame but themselves for the reaction they are receiving. In the days since 9/11 this adminstration (especially during the election) ran on the platform that they and they alone could keep us safe and that there were still many things to fear from terrorists. Every speech, every day had references to the war on terror and how important is was for us to protect ourselves. Fear mongering was a daily occurence...We all remember Tom Ridge telling us to buy duct tape.(now before people jump on me, fear mongering is not limited to the republican party, the democratic party dishes it out too, especially with social and environmental issues......and both are wrong to do it)The only problem is, in this instance the fear mongering has backlashed. All those people who bought into the fear are confused as to why our government would make a port deal with the UAE, a country that had ties to 9/11 after years of being told that we should be wary of anyone with ties to terrorism (apparantly everyone turns a blind eye to the Saudis). It doesnt matter to them that this port deal is nothing new, and that it really isnt dangerous, what matters is that we have been conditioned to fear and people are reacting to it. MRP--I personally think this is why so many people are reacting without knowing that this deal is rather harmless. I know I am gonna catch hell for saying that this administration fear mongered, but I hope those who disagree will realize that I do not think fear mongering is something only this administration does...I think politicians in both parties use it constantly! We are smarter than that however, and we just need to call them out on it. For instance, I believe that terrorism is a legitamate concern, but my life is not taken over with fear (despite the fact that some of the speeches given since 9/11 could make any sane person want to hide in their living room with canned food, duct tape and a flashlight) I also believe that global warming is real, but I do not believe the sky is falling or that the world will end tommorow(like some dems may want us to believe) There are so many examples from both sides of the aisle its not even funny....in fact its quite sad.