Has Rush Limbaugh Changed Your Mind About UAE Running Our Ports

[chobie]

Tired?

Yes, thanks for asking. Way too tired to do a master cutting 'n pasting job like you and quote the many times in other posts that TCPluto condemns any contrary opinion to his own as hateful without addressing the substance of the contrary opinion.

Want to help me out?

 

[eclectics]

Yes, thanks for asking. Way too tired to do a master cutting 'n pasting job like you and quote the many times in other posts that TCPluto condemns any contrary opinion to his own as hateful without addressing the substance of the contrary opinion.

Want to help me out?

It's a lost cause. We can both say the same sentence. When we say it, it's hateful, when they say it, it's thoughtful. Bring on the dead horse!

 

[lyeag]

Most people here know I am a proud Republican. I listen to Rush, Hannity, Medved, and even Savage. Rush is really trying to convince people about the port deal. Is he right? Maybe, maybe not, but in this day and age we can't afford to be wrong about this one. I will say that Hannity is against it and Savage is screaming his head off against it. He even had Schumer on his show and was good to him. That is a major miracle.


Personally, I still love Rush, but I think he has it wrong with this one.

 

[eclectics]

He even had Schumer on his show and was good to him. That is a major miracle.

I find that a very telling statement. Why should it have to be a "miracle" for someone of an opposite opinion to be treated with respect on these conservative shows? Why do you think this is appropriate behavior? And I say this about any show, not just conservatives. I dislike James Carville because I find him rude and obnoxious sometimes. Larry King or Bill Maher always treats their guests with respect and let's them finish a thought. I find someone, like Bill O'Reilly who cuts off phoners who disagree with him, extremely rude and imature, yet, somehow this is quite acceptable behavior to most conservatives who listen to them. So, if anyone wonders why I, for one, don't give a hoot what Limbaugh or any of them say, it's because I have no respect for anything they say. You can be biased without being a ******* about it.

 

[lyeag]

I find that a very telling statement. Why should it have to be a "miracle" for someone of an opposite opinion to be treated with respect on these conservative shows? Why do you think this is appropriate behavior? And I say this about any show, not just conservatives. I dislike James Carville because I find him rude and obnoxious sometimes. Larry King or Bill Maher always treats their guests with respect and let's them finish a thought. I find someone, like Bill O'Reilly who cuts off phoners who disagree with him, extremely rude and imature, yet, somehow this is quite acceptable behavior to most conservatives who listen to them. So, if anyone wonders why I, for one, don't give a hoot what Limbaugh or any of them say, it's because I have no respect for anything they say. You can be biased without being a ******* about it.

I don't think it is telling about anything other than the fact that Savage found common ground with someone he disagrees with and had very little respect for. He took a lot of you know what from some of his listeners and Savage stood his ground for having Schumer on. I find that refreshing. I get quite tired of hearing the Republicans are all a bunch of yes men and Bushbots. This port deal is a great example. While I still listen to Rush, I don't agree with his view. I still enjoy listening to him even when he is talking about the port deal. I listen to his views and consider the points given. I just don't see it the same way.

By the way, I have listened to plenty of rude people on both sides, I don't think one side has a monopoly.

 

[Puffy2]

I find it ironic that so many people who argue against racial profiling are furious over this decision

Because it's not "racial profiling" - I don't want (and I don't think it's in our national security's best interest) ANY other nation managing our ports, airports, rail operations, pipelines, water ways or other vital industries to our national security. This includes the UAE and the British or the Canadians as well - any country outside the United States. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

And, if we currently have other nations controlling these industries in this country then we should change our business practices so that they are no longer doing so.

 

[Puffy2]

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm

QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T

February 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port deal, who fear the Dubai-based firm could be used by terrorists to sneak money and personnel into the United States.

Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.

"You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned," the message said.

"Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.

"Your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them."



The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured by U.S. forces in the war on terror.

They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point.

"If it's real, the document shows that the UAE really is trying to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, because they were being threatened by al Qaeda," said terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino.

"But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait."

 

[dcentity2000]

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/64126.htm

QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T

February 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port deal, who fear the Dubai-based firm could be used by terrorists to sneak money and personnel into the United States.

Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.

"You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned," the message said.

"Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.

"Your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them."



The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured by U.S. forces in the war on terror.

They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point.

"If it's real, the document shows that the UAE really is trying to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, because they were being threatened by al Qaeda," said terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino.

"But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait."

Aww, sausages - that's not so cool



Rich::

 

[momof2inPA]

Most people here know I am a proud Republican. I listen to Rush, Hannity, Medved, and even Savage. Rush is really trying to convince people about the port deal. Is he right? Maybe, maybe not, but in this day and age we can't afford to be wrong about this one. I will say that Hannity is against it and Savage is screaming his head off against it. He even had Schumer on his show and was good to him. That is a major miracle.


Personally, I still love Rush, but I think he has it wrong with this one.

Thank-you! It takes a big person to admit that.

I just hope that you and others listening to his arguments look into them further from a few other sources. As I've pointed out with the Coast Guard information, he doesn't present the whole picture, just what he wants you to see.

 

[Mr. Silly]

1) They are NOT handling security.

Yes they are.

"the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading." - from an article I am not allowed to link to.


Many of those who are trying to justify this takeover of our ports by a foreign government are intentionally overstating the role government agencies play. Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security, said, "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present." Blustein and Pincus also noted that "private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities." in an article I am not allowed to link to.

2) The 45 days was NOT legally mandated in this case.

That is false. Enacted in 1988, the Exon-Florio provision established the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets. As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." Since DPW is a state owned company, we are transferring our port authority to a foreign government, so the 45 day law applies.

The law is easy to find - I had to remove the link, as I am not allowed to add URLs yet.

3) And exactly WHICH security experts are horrified? The ones in the House or the senate???

Most independent security experts I have read have nothing positive to say about the deal. Seriously, if you are not aware of this, you are not following the story. Schneier's analysis is helpful, look up Bruce Schneier, and read his late. Feb articles on this.

Sorry about the lack of links, I had to strip them out, as I'm not allowed to post URLs yet... Once I am allowed, I can properly cite...

 

[siouxi31]

I can see why the whole situation would be confusing. Especially when senators from landlocked states are questioning witnesses who approved the deal (attorney general, the secretaries of Treasury, State, Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, etc.). Those from landlocked states have less of an idea as to what goes on in a port.
However, the senator from California had some interesting perspective on the situation as well and she was NOT for the deal going through.
I believe that by this issue not being taken through the CFIUS process caused hysteria in that many assumed that DPW would increase the vulnerability of our ports to terrorism. This should have been put through the CFIUS process for thorough review to prevent the uproar that has occurred.

My company is Singapore owned and runs the terminal in San Pedro, CA. We were an American company until we merged with NOL which transferred our ownership to Singapore. I think many people are just unaware that this type of business is happening.
When this topic first came up, I held my stance until hearing more about the deal, approval process, DPW, and concerns of others. After watching the CSPAN hearings last week, I have no problem with DPW managing the ports in question.
My concern now is with globalization and what will happen if the deal doesn't go through?
Quoted from James Glassman who is a fellow at American Enterprise Institute : "In trying to stop the deal between P&O and DP World, Congress is threatening to disrupt flows of capital here in a significant way. If that happens, capital will simply go where it’s wanted. The result will be higher interest rates, lower stock prices, lower employment and a lower standard of living. Should we risk a poor economy in order to stay safe? I think so. Without security, we won’t have a thriving economy. But in this case, we’ll have better security if we allow the deal to go through. To reject the transaction would not only hurt the U.S. economy, it would be a slap in the face to a nation that has been a strong supporter of the United States. Why back us, if we turn on you? "
So what happens now if we back out of the decision?

Some of the senators statements during the hearing showed their ignorance and many brought up good points. One very good point was that the UAE has a department whose sole purpose is to uphold the boycott on Israel. Israel is one of the US' greatest allies. If DPW's actions are at all affected by UAE's position on Israel, then this is truly a problem. I was surprised to find out that none of the panel who approved the deal were aware of this. In fact, the guy who runs DPW (an American by the way) also had no idea this special department existed. It's good to get that out in the open and find out how DPW would be affected.

Just to give you some background on me, I'm not well-versed in political jargon. This topic is close to my career so it caught my attention. I've tried to correctly summarize the knowledge that I have gained. If I have not done so correctly, please be so kind as to let me know if I got something wrong. I don't want to provide any mis-information here. I'm more well informed about what happens at foreign ports instead of at our own ports so this has been a learning experience for me as well.

My final feeling is that this is nothing but xenophobic hysteria. OK, I've said it now.

 

[momof2inPA]

I happened to catch a little Rush Limbaugh today and noticed he's changed tactics in his quest to convince his listeners to support the United Arab Emirates port deal. Now, he's framing it as a Congress vs President argument, instead of the majority of the population of the U.S. vs the President. Apparently, Rush thinks if he can convince the kiddo-heads that people are just picking on President Bush, they might change their minds and want an Arab nation to control our ports. Is this argument working on anyone?

Rush did concede that he thought the administration had gone about pressing for the deal in the wrong manner, but I'm pretty sure he was just trying to convince his listeners that he agreed with them a little, in hopes that they might agree with him. Why does he want this port deal so much? Why is it so important to him? He is starting to remind me of state run radio in the Soviet Union.