.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

Thursday, February 23, 2006

This is starting to look like a set-up

If this means what I think it means, Karl Rove just made a lot of his- and Bush's- enemies look really really bad. Arab votes for Hillary next election, anyone?


At 2/23/2006 02:12:00 AM, Blogger doxRaven said...

Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

if it's true it certainly would be explosive.

but in any case let me ask you, why would a necon President support the takeover of US ports by a foreign state owned company? Seems a little odd as well.

At 2/23/2006 02:16:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please excuse the off topic - I couldn't see how to start a new thread.

I have a very 'simple' question I'm hoping you can clear up for me:

Why don't 'moderate' muslims replace 'radical' clerics? I can sort of understand the quran and sharia law, being 'given from god' as being beyond questioning. But surely the clerics themselves are merely mortals? Why don't the 'parishoners' simply hire a new cleric or request one from the 'bishop' (do islamic clerics have a hiearchy?)

For example, the catholic church has had to replace several clergy in highly publicized cases regarding sexually abusing children. If an islamic cleric sexually abused kids, won't he be replaced ?? If so, why isn't he replaced for preaching violence, intolerance, etc. Even to my ignorant eyes, these things don't seem to be condoned by muslims any more then they are by christians? Again, if this is possible, is it likely to happen now that 'moderate muslims' are actually organizing and trying to make their presence known ?

In summary - I guess what I'm asking, is don't the clerics have any cupablitly to their 'congregations' ?

BTW - I'll be invoicing you for all the time lost to wikipedia looking up stuff you bring up I don't understand :-P (I lost a lot of time on that van gough murder reference you had a while back - I'd never heard of it before.)


At 2/23/2006 04:08:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

reality check?
1. it's CONTRACTS to run the six US ports - security stays with US port authorities and other US departments. It doesn't affect ownership of ports either.

2. P&O is indeed a $6bn company but the US ports account for just 6 per cent of group profits*.

3. A Singapore state owned ports company was the rival bidder for P&O. The biggest ports operator in the world is Chinese ... so the alternatives..

(*which may be why the deal didn't make the US headlines/ a huge amount of US scrutiny. This row irrevelant to the takeover happening and whoever handles the US port contracts, a lot of containers landing at US ports are and will continue to arrive from DPW ports, including English ones!)


At 2/23/2006 04:28:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ps - for the conspiracy theorists out there, (Im feeling evil)
DPW links to Bush include (source: San Jose Mercury) John Snow - yep on committee that Okayed the deal - was "chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations ** to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration."

** Hong Kong and Latin America ops

then again (source: FT) Madelaine Albright is now working for DPW

pps. what do you think this means SM? Karl Rove involved where? Sorry, am from London, walk me through this one please.. (promise this is the last post I'll send on this - half rotfl, half totally flaggergasted over the US reax)

oh, and for yanks reading this, please don't cancel your holidays with P&O cruises because of this ; )


At 2/23/2006 04:32:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm in agreement- I think there was a definite setup here. I just hope it is the one you are seeing and not something Much worse, which is what the Dems are always seeing (when they can't get a piece of it for themselves)


At 2/23/2006 07:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

*slap* that is defiantely going to leave a mark LOL The "evil" Rove tricks the left again. It must be true, give a fool a little rope and he will hang himself.

At 2/23/2006 12:40:00 PM, Blogger Jeff said...

Hi Liz,

If I can take a stab at your question, as an American, regarding Rove . Rove, after all, has proved himself to be a master of the "rope-a-dope" which is to lure your political enemies into an area of policy that they are unfamiliar within which they ultimately say or do things that goes against the grain of thier ideology and constituency. The best example of this is when during the 2004 presidential campaign democrat candidate John Kerry said "I voted FOR the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it". He was forced to try and take both sides of the issue which ultimately doomed his chances of being elected.
Another important fact to remember is that, in my opinion, Bush loves the fact that his political enemies truley believe he is some sort of brainless twit. His "awe shucks" demeaner and his stammering during press conferences keeps them believing it while he runs rings around them intellectually and politically.
Hope this helps as this is just one man's opinion...

At 2/23/2006 02:44:00 PM, Blogger Papa Ray said...

There is no security issue.

The security will be just as bad under the management of this company as it was under the Brits.

The security is determined by the amount of money given to the Port Authoritys and to the Border Patrol and to the U.S. Coast Guard.

That money is controlled by the US Congress.

The UAE is a critical part of US Military operations in the ME.

Bush and Co want UAE good will and cooperation.

Bush and Co don't care what the democrats or even what the repubs want or think. They have nothing to lose by this and will gain substantially in areas that are not shared by the administration even with congress.

Besides very few know Bush and Co. is three steps ahead of the rest of us while giving the impression he is an idiotbushhitlerhaliburtondumbasscowboy, who is ultra religious.

Papa Ray
West Texas

At 2/23/2006 05:21:00 PM, Blogger Scorekeeper said...


I don't know if this was a set up by Rove but it certainly is working out for Bush as a phenomenal diversion and potential baiting of the Democrats here.

Leaving aside some of the Political Grandstanding I personally have a problem with a UAE company running the ports in this country. I know they're an "ally". Kuwait was an "ally" too and most Kuwaitis still hate the US and have very similar sentiments as the Saudi populace do about 9-11 and the West.

I know there is the "general populace" and then there is the "gov't" and businessmen. But I still do not like it.

O'reilly (not that he's not a prof politician himself) came out last night criticizing the Senators for bashing the UAE and the deal. A Republican Senator on said at the least they should hold off the deal to do a 45 day full Senate investigation of it since it is a vital security issue - which Oreilly agreed would be fair. But Oreilly was against looking like wey're "smiting an ally" in public especially how the "Arab world takes public face"..... etc...

They should pass a law that only domestic companies can handle anything dealing with ports and security.

I don't know if that's "Arab phobia" or what but it just seems like common sense that Arab Muslim terrorists blew up the Towers and now wey're going to turn some key ports over to a "moderate" conservative Muslim country with ties (loose or not) to the Ben Ladens and Wahabists?

- Mike

At 2/23/2006 05:54:00 PM, Blogger Scorekeeper said...

1) Port Security sucks regardless. Papa Ray's post was pretty much right on. And this is buying some sort of payback to the UAE which is supposedly "moderate". I suppose Switzerland was moderate too in WWII when they did all the Nazis banking with their stolen billions.

2) Anonymous said why would a "neo-con" president.. as if a "neo-con" thinks differently lol!!! Hillary came out against it.

3) As to other Anonymous's question of "moderates" taking over from the radicals (is Quadawari 'moderate' or 'radical' - who are you asking?) I just read a great post on this.

Sandman please read too and tell me what you think.
She links to these in her post too -


At 2/23/2006 06:43:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

1. it's CONTRACTS to run the six US ports - security stays with US port authorities and other US departments. It doesn't affect ownership of ports either.

Which is no security at all. It the people overseeing the loading and unloading of the ships that have the ability to smuggle contraband. Why is this even a discussion? Us ports should be run by the US government. Period. Might fix some of our drug smuggling problem along the way, and human trafficking as well.

2. P&O is indeed a $6bn company but the US ports account for just 6 per cent of group profits*.

Good! Then they won't miss the business much!

This isn't going to happen. If Bush vetoes, the veto will be over-riden. Either way, Bush comes out looking like a chump for supporting this foolishness in the first place. Why didn't he federalize the ports when he fedralized the airports 4 years ago? I want to see him explaining this, because I don't think most Americans had any clue how wide open out ports were until the issue started the conversation.

At 2/23/2006 06:45:00 PM, Blogger programmer craig said...

Papa Ray, I voted for Bush twice, but if this plan goes through, I want him impeached.

This is insanity.

At 2/23/2006 07:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This will go through and it won't make a bit of difference. They have been running most of the ports our stuff comes in from for a very long time. What is the difference that they manage the ports on the recieving end too? There are no domestic companies that do this sort of work.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home