Sunday, February 26, 2006


President Dennis Hastert



The lying liars.

UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

Read all about it.

White House 'Discovers’ 250 Emails Related to Plame

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 24 February 2006

The White House turned over last week 250 pages of
emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.
Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003
related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie
Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.

The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove
that Cheney played an active role in the effort to
discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador
Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush
administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources
close to the investigation said.

Sources close to the probe said the White House
“discovered” the emails two weeks ago and turned them
over to Fitzgerald last week. The sources added that
the emails could prove that Cheney lied to FBI
investigators when he was interviewed about the leak
in early 2004. Cheney said that he was unaware of any
effort to discredit Wilson or unmask his wife’s
undercover status to reporters.

Read more about it from The AP

In the immortal words of Howard Dean, "Aiiiirrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!!!"


Impeach Bush here, too.

Impeach Bush Coalition blog

Impeach Cheney and Bush book list

President Dennis Hastert

(Hat tip to Drlobojo)


The bid to take over 21 ports in the United States is by a corporation. So it is OK right?
The corporation is a wholey owned subsidiary of the Government of the United Arab Emirates.
The United Arab Emirates is a constitutional federation of seven emirates; Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaimah and Fujairah. Each Emirate is governed by an Emir who inherited his position from his daddy.
An Emir is an "individual" , generally in the Middle-East, that controls and governs a country or territory. An "individual" that controls and governs a country or territory in the West is called a dictator. The corporation that may control 21 ports in the US and several US Military ports as well belongs, completely, lock, stock, and barrel, to seven little dictators who answer to NO-ONE, NOBODY!
Why is this a hard concept for our greedy wallstreet types to understand.
I find it amusing that the Liberals that had been insisting on impeaching Bush for protecting this country are now asking for impeachment for NOT protecting the country.

Oh, well, I guess it's the old "throw enough shit against the wall, and some of it's bound to stick" strategy. Didn't the Republicans try that with Clinton? It didn't work for them then, and it isn't going to work for the Democrats now. Give it up already. The Republicans have the majority, He won't be impeached. It's not like the Democrats don't know how to give up. They want us to give up the war.

Why don't you just wait till his term is up and see if the Democrats insane ravings will convince enough Americans that they can be trusted to run the country? I'm sure their "cut and run" strategy for winning the GWOT will win them the elections in '06.

By the way...Your words, ER: "Uh, there is a distinct difference in my saying Bush is guilty of "lying through his teeth," especially in the SOTU address, which I did say, and saying "Bush is a liar," which is overly broad and is name-calling, which I did not say."

Now you've said it, and it still is without proof.
Mark, you're damn right I said it. I have gone kicking and screaming to the conclusion that the man is a buffoon, his appointees charlatans and the administration a menace to the country.

And since you stupidly chose to make this post personal, I will respond in like manner.

You are blinded by your own pride -- hard to admit you've supported a fool.

You are crippled by your own arrogance -- hard to admit you really don't know anything you haven't heard somebody tell you on the radio, or blog about.

And you are wrong -- it's Congress, and the Republican Party, that's finally getting a belly full, everyday Americans who finally are seeing the naked truth:

We've. Been. Robbed.

Just go back to your sandbox, amigo.

Now, this will stay as personal as you want to make it, Mark.
I was/am uncomfortable as anyone else with the thought of the DP World taking over some US ports, so with great difficulty I tried to set aside my anti-Arab sentiments and separate myself from the political rhetoric to see what the facts were. Here's the best and most informative article I've read so far on the DP World acquisitons. It's worth taking the time to read.,8599,1161466,00.html?cnn=yes
"And since you stupidly chose to make this post personal, I will respond in like manner."

Exactly which part of my comment was personal? Cause I don't see it.
Crystal, I, myself, don't have an anti-Arab bias. I have an anti nonA,ericasn bias whenb it comes to security.

Mark, you addressed the topic, and not me, right up to the end, where you chose to try, and fail, to use my own words against me.

I've come to the conclusion that he IS a damned liar. I've changed my mind and come to that conclusion. You should try changing your mind sometime: It's called learning. :-)
Well, okay...but did you read the article?
Yes. It didn't say much.

Red States 51
Blue States 49
Nothing has changed in 5 years.
You lost your vote.
Get used to it.
You're going to lose again.
Keep looking through the rear view mirror.
The Republican Party thanks you.
This is somewhat off the subject, but until just a few seconds ago I actually thought the title of this post referred to Dennis Haysbert , the actor who played the president on the Fox TV show "24." As potically minded as I am, I guess that just proves I'll always be more of an entertainment whore than anything else.
Well, first of all, I found it informative because I didn't know squat about how ports were run in the US and never even thought about it until this whole thing about selling the management of them came up. I found it interesting and a more of cool analysis than some of the rabid news reports out there, which was refreshing. Oh, and trust me, my own gut reaction was one of disbelief and dismay when I first heard about the sale and the media furor surroundig this business deal did nothing to calm me down. This article was a little bit reassuring --for me.

It made me feel a little better to know, for instance that the dockside personnel -- unionized American workers -- wouldn't change. They're the ones who will actually be unloading and loading the cargo and inspecting it.

And really, with respect to drlobojo, this deal IS a deal -- corporations make them all the time -- it just happens to be between a company based in Dubai who wants to purchase a company based in Britain, that just happens to have contracts with local port authorities to MANAGE the LOADING of ships at those ports by AMERICAN UNION WORKERS. The UAE, depending on who you talk to, of course, is an ally and has a solid record in safety.

It is also one of the most liberal Arab states and is working hard towards becoming a bastion of liberal markets and increasing individual rights. If this deal helps them, is that really a bad thing? Shouldn't we try to keep good relations with this country? A country where Arab moderation and modernization can be held up as an example to the whole of the Middle East? (sigh) Or am I being too naive?

And if Sen. Clinton and Menedez get their wish and get legislation banning the sale of the management of our ports to foreign countries, they're going to have look long and hard to find an American company willing to buy everyone else out. There aren't that many companies in the world that even do this kind of business. It's not just the UAE or the United Kingdom that own our ports -- but China and several other countries. We've been selling the management of these ports for quite some time.

Which brings us to the question the article raised..the only one I believe to be the most relevant to this situation and one that needs to be answered immediately. It's not really about who owns the port, but what security measurements we have in place to prevent a port from becoming a hostile point of entry?

According to Clark Kent Ervin, a CNN analyst, only 6 percent of the cargo coming through our ports now is inspected. I find that alarming. We're in charge of precious little that's being loaded on ships in other countries and being sent over here, and we're only checking 6 percent? Our Coast Guard is the one in charge of this and obviously needs more manpower, higher standards and more diligence. To me, this should be the focus of our concern.
I hate that ANY corporation has the duty of protecting ports. If we're "at war," then we have privatized the defense of our coasts.

And calling the UAE a "state" is only technically correct. It's more like a limited liability company -- or a coalition of seven kings.
In fact:

"Emirates can also be constitutive parts of a state, notably the seven United Arab Emirates, which belong to a federal monarchy, and are the electors of its presidency and prime minister."

A federal monarchy. It's just LIKE the Holy Roman Empire -- only Muslim, not Christian.
Besides that, Mark, re:

"Didn't the Republicans try that with Clinton? It didn't work for them then, and it isn't going to work for the Democrats now."

The bastards IMPEACHED Clinton. Or did you forget?
That's what I said. They tried impeachment with Clinton but they were unsuccessful at removing him.
Don't look now, but impeachment wasn't a damn cake walk.

We owe you one.
Children, children, in 1974 the UAE (same old men) and all of the U.S.A.s other close allies in OPEC SHUT DOWN AMERICA with an OIL EMBARGO. The key to all of this is Israel.
I am not anti-Arab, I am anti putting our selves under the thumbs of anyone small group of men that the Emir "Arabs" now represent.
Now if you think business is business, and that Arabs, including the UAE, would not shut us down again(oil,ports, whatever they could) if we sided with Israel in an all out war like we did back before the OPEC EMBARGO then you are a dupe. They didn't honor "contracts" then and if their fundamentalist ire is up they will not honor them again. Don't put America in the position of being Blackmailed again like were were in the 1970's.
We are about to "Politically Correct" ouselves into deep dodo.
I am absolutely astounded that the far right is advocating a "New World Order" position of unfettered international free trade at the expense of security. Some of us in America so hate Democrats that we would sacrific even the Republican Party just to see the Deomocrats fail.
If you don't remember the OPEC embargo because you are too young or too ignorant, then look it up. It was the largest single cause for massive inflation in the U.S. during the Ford and Carter adminstrations. And for you DFs that were worried this year about the Liberals stealing Xmas be advise that in Christmas 1973 and 1974 and 1975 that there were NO XMAS lights. The OPEC embargo did that. Cutting off imports at Christmas would be an excellent way to get our attention again. Do you enjoy doing something like driving at an enforce, and I do mean ENFORCED, 55 mph everywhere, even in the wilds of a Montana inter-state, like we did during the Embargo and for years afterwards, then don't believe that this is a problem.
Control of the ports means that they could not only cut off goods and food, but EVERYBODY elses oil from coming into the US as well. Paranoia, they did it once, shall we let them do it twice. As Bush once said, "Fool me once, ...and you've fooled me." is definately apropos for him, but not for America.
You just continue to follow along after the naked little drwaft, would be Emir, from Middland, Texas.
Seven the dwaft.........
Kiss their ass today and see what you have to kiss tomarrow.
Check out the history of the OPEC embargo from the perspective of a stock investment advisor.
Let me explain my "passion" about this with a personal note. In 1972 when I move to California, I filled up my truck with gasoline at 21 cent per gallon. In 1974 when I made the reverse move, i paid $1.41 for the first ten gallons of gas I put in my truck. I could only buy 10 gallons at one time. Between LA and the California border I stopped five times for gas. Each time I could buy only ten gallons, twice I had to slip the station attendent $5 to give gas because my gas gauge read more than half full and in California you couldn't get your ten gallons if you had more than a half tank of gas.
I drove across the desert at 55 mph without my airconditioning on to save gas. By 8 pm each night I was parked at a rest stop with hundreds of other cars and trucks because the gas stations along the Interstates and elsewhere didn't stay open passed 6 or 7 pm in order to stretch out their gas supplies and keep down cost.
To me this is not ancient history, and I do not believe that the world is any wiser today than it was then.
Whaddayas mean I lost my vote, Anon? I most certainly did not. The election didn't go the way I wanted. But that's not a "lost" vote. ???

That's what they want, though, y'all. The righty-rights really DO want to disenfranchise those who vote against them. They want us to think all is lost, starting with our votes.

Two words: Whore Spuckey.
You’re trying way to hard to over-think this port deal. Just running a portion of the ports isn’t going to make any difference. The old argument for security is better than worrying about the price of gas and whether or not you can buy Christmas presents from China. In the end all they own is the contract. So if need be the US can say goodbye, and the American labor doing the work will never miss a beat.
What *galls* me as much as anything is how tone deaf this admninistration is, how it never occurred to anyone at the level just below the Cabinet that this just MIGHT make Joe and Susie American a little queasy.

It's the Beltway mentality, and it's arrogant. They whip us around for five years running with red alerts and yellow alerts and crap, they cynically foster fear in this country, and maliciously paint political opponents as the enemy -- all of which is morally reprehensible.

Trust us, they say. Damn them, I say. Damn them all.
If the UAE will not "control" the ports, pray tell why are they spending 15+ Billion dollars to buy them, for a piece of paper called a contract. You are telling me they will have no say in how or when or why the ports are open and operational? Whats the 15 billion for padre? People who have so much money that they can never spend it all, need to make more money? They are buying them for prestige? They are buying them for "control". No other reason. I'm sorry but after you have all of the money you can ever use, and all the women you can ever use, and cars and planes, then comes power and power demands control. They are buying them to control them. Control them for what? It is you life, food, welfare, energy, that flows through these ports. Do you trust capitalism enough to believe it can overcome fundalmentalism. Make your bets, but keep your pantry full and your gas tank full, just in case.
The UAE are really just oil-rich pater familias Abu Dhabi, bright little brother Dubai, and five dependent dwarfs.

If it matters, the government of UAE has been reliably pro-American for over half a century, its disagreement with the US over Israel notwithstanding. Pulling the port deal will cool this relationship but not substantially damage it. Of course the UAE needs fewer favors from the US than vice-versa.

If the US wants the world to continue to accept its dollars at par, then it must give access to dollar-denominated capital assets for purchase. Nobody is going to pick up - for example - General Motors until it goes bankrupt, invalidating union contracts and dumping its legacy pension and especially health care obligations. I imagine Dubai wants to run the posts because it actually knows how to do it, not because it's a nifty way to smuggle Saddam's nuclear aresenal into the country.

Citizens of a country like the US that relies on economic and military pressure to influence other coutries' foreign policies - including titular allies - can hardly act as if they were personally wronged when the tables are turned.
Hey, what does disenfranchise mean anyway. I've heard it a lot the last couple of years.
They’re not tone deaf, they just don’t owe you a minute of their time. You’re against anything they do, so screw you, you don’t matter. People that buy companies just like what they do. It’s like what you do only on a bigger scale.
Man, if I was as worried about the world as a few of you people I would never sleep again. Hell, I don’t care either way. Most of you just like to argue about any and everything so I just try and give you a purpose in life. Some of your opinions are worth stating, some not. You should pay me to stir the pot once in a while.
drlobojo, I am neither a dupe, too ignorant or too young. I wish I was "too young", but, sadly, I am not. When I first heard about this sale, I too, had a knee-jerk reaction. I still have doubts about it, but the more I look at facts from cooler heads the less paranoid I feel. That was the point of my post.

For instance, I found out that there's no way DP World can just shut down a port. In Baltimore, for example, they don't have control of all the terminals, just one or two. So if they shut down their terminal, goods and supplies could still get in from the other terminals. They can't shut down a whole port -- unless you have some hard facts I don't know about regarding how ports work. And even if they somehow could shut down the whole Baltimore port, we have other ports not owned by them. It would be a pain and prices might go up, but we would get our "stuff", and it wouldn't take that long to get control back of whatever port they were trying to close. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense.

The logistics of moving ships around has been run by corporations for quite some time, ER, and not by just American companies. Although there are only 4 international companies who manage port operations, there are smaller ones, too. We've had foreigners in the ports since, oh, even during Clinton's reign. This corporate takeover of the coast hardly started during this administration. However, since we're "at war" now how would you suggest we take them back without disrupting the economy and how would that even make sense?

I agree that the Administration dropped the ball when they made this sale just a routine investigation of security issues, just because they didn't realize how the public might react. It could have been handled so much better. You can't say on one hand we need security monitors everywhere, possibly in your home, and wiretaps at will and then turn around and approve a sale like this to UAE without more discussion. That galls me, too.

Again, I think the real issue is being buried in all they hype and paranoia, and that issue is that our ports aren't secure enough NOW. And the responsibility of that does not belong to the company moving ships around, but it is, has been, and will be the responsibility of the Coast Guard. Only 6 percent of the cargo is being inspected? To me, that's outrageous.
Hey Anon, "Hell, I don’t care either way." Then shut TF up.
You still didn't explain disenfranchise to me. Help me out.
It seems no one really knows. It's just a word democrats dreamed up to confuse every issue that comes up.
I thought as much. It's a word someone used and everyone thought it sounded neat. So now anytime someone doesn't know what they're talking about they splash it around for good measure. Kind of lke slight of hand. Focus on the big word, lose track of what is really going on.
Sorry I am slow in responding, my access to a computer is limited right now.

TS said: "If it matters, the government of UAE has been reliably pro-American for over half a century, its disagreement with the US over Israel notwithstanding."

TS it is all about Israel. The Oil embargo was all about Israel. When the next trigger is pulled it will be about Israel then too.

CD said: "So if they shut down their terminal, goods and supplies could still get in from the other terminals. They can't shut down a whole port -- unless you have some hard facts I don't know about regarding how ports work."

So they shut down 21 major terminals, the other teminals can take up the slack? Are you sure?
The manufacturing industry, and food supply in America within the last two decades has evolved into "just-in-time" delivery of parts, supplies, and goods and produce in order to function. They no longer keep large inventories in warehouses some place in America, the tax laws passed in the 1980s make that too expensive. "Just-in-time" has cut the cost and subsequent price of many durable goods and consumer goods in America. Walmart for example exist on it. But it has also made our whole system more precarious. Interupt the flow, and the ripple effects will go on for a very long time.
In addition the "other" terminals cannot handle the entire flow. If they could then we wouldn't need the 21 that UAE is acquiring. How much coagulation would there be at the ports and the on the rail and truck transfer systems(which can not easily be shifted). As for us taking over the ports that they control if they embargo, well we could make it right, sooner or later. After how long? How long would it take "FEMA" or the over extended National Gaurd to get them back up to the efficiency that they were at? How long to reduce the backlog?

I look at the Gulf Coast and I see what our government can't do these days. I look at Iraq and I see what our government can't finish these days. Could we handle a partial port shut down if Isael decided to nuke Iran? If Iran decided to nuke Israel? If Israel did something terribly stupid and the Arab Nations responded in kind, or vis-versa?

So you are not young, how did the Oil Emargo in 1973 affect you? As for dupe and ignorant, those terms should have not been targeted towards you, my apologies. The arguments here should not be personalized, I'm sorry (except for when I get on ER's case):). Likewise I don't consider my concern a "knee-jerk reaction" either.

Then there is that extrodinarily American "wild card" the Longshoremen. They make the real decision anyway.
I'm tired of hearing about the Gulf Coast. The Insurance companies are the hold up. We (the whole country) should all refuse to pay another preimum until they pay up.
It is not just the houses etc. my friend, 25% of the off shore and on shore oil production is still NOT on line there. You will be hearing about the Gulf Coast for years to come. The GAO estimated it will take $300+ billion to bring things back to where they were, which isn't good enough. Only $27.5 billion of theat is represented by insurance claims.
And Nature is not through with it either.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?