Has Rush Limbaugh Changed Your Mind About UAE Running Our Ports

[Tigger_Magic]

I will admit my mind was changed, but not from listening to Rush. Initially I was opposed to this primarily because of the distorted reporting in the media. After several days I managed to read and hear more information and began rethinking my initial (admittedly knee-jerk) reaction.

That's the problem we face today. It's getting harder and harder to know what news source to trust anymore because it seems everyone is distorting everything. It's like they think no one can handle the truth anymore.

 

[Independent]

The quote is EXACTLY why this issue has become so misunderstood. It has nothing to do with security. It would be like the UAE taking over the daily operations of the kitchen/waitstaff/houskeeping of the White House and the Secret Service would not be affected. They would still monitor the activites of the others and protect the President and his family.

So that is why the Coast Guard voiced concern about their ability to protect the ports if the deal went through? I would like to think that the the Coast Guard must know something more about the security of the ports than we all do.

Again, I will reserve judgement until the final report.

 

[eclectics]

So that is why the Coast Guard voiced concern about their ability to protect the ports if the deal went through? I would like to think that the the Coast Guard must know something more about the security of the ports than we all do.

Again, I will reserve judgement until the final report.

As we all should, I think. I'm not totally convinced this is a good thing, but I am certainly open to changing my mind.

 

[Geoff_M]

But you have no problem adding your own condescension soaked comments.

I think the average reader can discern between a prediction based on previous observations of watching politicians plying their "art form" and asking "Do you still physically abuse your children?" questions aimed at fellow board members that one politically disagrees with. However, if your jab was because of my comment related to radio commentators, then I apoligize to any radio commentators, and national political figures (for that matter), present on the DIS.

 

[jimmiej]

Despite what the libs like to portray, dittoheads don't always agree with Rush. I'm a big fan of Rush. I've read his books, subscribe to his newsletter, and listen often. However, I disagree with him on this issue.

 

[Geoff_M]

So that is why the Coast Guard voiced concern about their ability to protect the ports if the deal went through?

I think that's a mischaraterization of what the CG said. IIRC, they said that "intelligence gaps" existed in their examination of the deal that they couldn't answer. Frankly, I don't know exactly how large an intel gathering function exists within the CG. It may also be the case that other governmental agencies envolved in the review were able to answer the "gaps" mentioned by the CG when all of the various governmental bodies' reports were pooled by the committee.


Also, here's a bit of irony with regard to the deal.... Guess which ex-President revered here by many, whose US Senator wife is leading the efforts to sink the deal, is advising the UAE on how to deal with the political rough waters and bring the deal into a safe harbor?: Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal

 

[momof2inPA]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread, but anyone who thinks that a company in charge of Operations at a port will have no effect on its security seriously mis-understands "Operations." Even if they were just shuffling papers, duplicating paperwork could mess with security. Anyone with a working knowledge of logistics would tell you, if operations and security aren't working hand in hand at our ports, they are technologically 25 years behind the times. With the advent of computers and electronics inspection, these should be done simultaneously-- and by a U.S. company or the U.S. government. As I've pointed out in the past, a U.S. company can't bid on UAE government contracts, they should not be allowed to bid on ours. It isn't just a serious security issue, it is a fair trade issue.

 

[momof2inPA]

I will admit my mind was changed, but not from listening to Rush. Initially I was opposed to this primarily because of the distorted reporting in the media. After several days I managed to read and hear more information and began rethinking my initial (admittedly knee-jerk) reaction.

That's the problem we face today. It's getting harder and harder to know what news source to trust anymore because it seems everyone is distorting everything. It's like they think no one can handle the truth anymore.

Are you trying to say that Rush had no effect on your thinking? What were your alternate news sources that effected your change of mind? Who else supports this deal besides Rush and Bill O'Reilly?

You might also want to ask yourself why their reporting is so one sided. By listening to Rush, you would think the UAE had no terrorist history or was our best friend. Has he discussed the large investment Exxon has in the UAE, a recent venture with a UAE company, where of course, Exxon has only a 30% interest? If they had more than a 50% ownership in a the UAE business, that would be against the law.

At least the main stream media tries to present both sides to some extent.

 

[jimmiej]

At least the main stream media tries to present both sides to some extent.

 

[gate_pourri]

Working in a political office, I have fielded more phone calls and emails about this exact topic then I care to think about in the past few weeks.

I feel that there needs to be only ONE way to look at things. Either we profile ALL Arabs in America: That means we stop strip searching young children and grandmas at airports and concentrate on twenty-something Arab men… or we continue with the notion that we do not discriminate, or racially profile… With that, we search 6 month olds and 90 year old at airports and allow the UAE to work at our ports.

 

[jennobrn01]

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

Exahhhctly!

 

[Chicago Girl]

As someone who isn’t swayed by the opinion of radio personalities, celebrities or politicians no I haven't changed my mind. I still remain adamantly opposed to this deal. Why, because I’m sick and tired of the outsourcing of America. I’m sure there are a few American based companies that could do this job.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Are you trying to say that Rush had no effect on your thinking? What were your alternate news sources that effected your change of mind? Who else supports this deal besides Rush and Bill O'Reilly?

You might also want to ask yourself why their reporting is so one sided. By listening to Rush, you would think the UAE had no terrorist history or was our best friend. Has he discussed the large investment Exxon has in the UAE, a recent venture with a UAE company, where of course, Exxon has only a 30% interest? If they had more than a 50% ownership in a the UAE business, that would be against the law.

At least the main stream media tries to present both sides to some extent.

Maybe you missed the line in my previous post -- I do NOT listen to Rush Limbaugh at all. As for O'Reilly, I don't listen to his radio show and I occasionally catch his TV show if nothing else catches my attention.

I came to my decision from reading and listening to a lot of different material. Mostly from discovering that the UAE would not "own" the ports, they wouldn't be running the security on the ports, they wouldn't be controlling the ports. Also they wouldn't be first, only or last foreign country to be involved in our ports.

The MSM doesn't try to present both sides -- they present the side they prefer and in this case it was slanted against the administration -- as usual.

 

[Mr. Silly]

I don't listen to Rush, since he is very dishonest, and always comes off as an intellectual cripple. Still I am opposed to the deal. I do not approve of the UAE holding a critical security role on our country due to the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, due to the fact that the UAE does not recognize Israel as a nation, due to the fact that the UAE is run by an unelected hereditary oligarchy, due to the fact that this is not an 'Arab owned company', but this is a company owned and controlled by the hereditary oligarchy of the UAE, many of whom, apparently, were Bin Laden's pals not too long ago, due to the fact that the UAE has an abysmal human rights record, the UAE has a very spotty history of cooperation in counter-terrorism, the UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, due to the fact that the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia, due to the fact that the terms of the agreement protect the company more than the US, due to the fact that according to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system, due to the fact that after 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts, due to the fact that Bush administration didn't bother with legally mandated 45 day investigation, and most importantly, because many real security experts are horrified.

 

[Micca]

To your original question, "No". Thanks for asking.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread, but anyone who thinks that a company in charge of Operations at a port will have no effect on its security seriously mis-understands "Operations." Even if they were just shuffling papers, duplicating paperwork could mess with security. Anyone with a working knowledge of logistics would tell you, if operations and security aren't working hand in hand at our ports, they are technologically 25 years behind the times. With the advent of computers and electronics inspection, these should be done simultaneously-- and by a U.S. company or the U.S. government. As I've pointed out in the past, a U.S. company can't bid on UAE government contracts, they should not be allowed to bid on ours. It isn't just a serious security issue, it is a fair trade issue.

So who is telling you how to think?
So we believe in free trade they don't. Look at all that made in China stuff you own and you will see that we cannot own stuff there, but they own US Treasury bonds here and you still buy from China. Sorry but China is a bigger threat to the US than is UAE. For all of you who know everything aoubt the US and what the US does, the US companies (with consent of the US Government) selling military air craft to the UAE. And yes this was going on during the Clinton years too.

 

[momof2inPA]

So who is telling you how to think?
So we believe in free trade they don't. Look at all that made in China stuff you own and you will see that we cannot own stuff there, but they own US Treasury bonds here and you still buy from China. Sorry but China is a bigger threat to the US than is UAE. For all of you who know everything aoubt the US and what the US does, the US companies (with consent of the US Government) selling military air craft to the UAE. And yes this was going on during the Clinton years too.

That's just it, no one is telling me how to think. I use my own personal discretion when forming political viewpoints. No one is my mentor, and I'm no one's dingo-head.

I actually try to buy American whenever possible (novel idea), and I would encourage anyone pro-life and anti-Communist to stand up for your beliefs and put your money where your mouth is-- don't buy from China. I'm also a big believer in Fair Trade, it is just good business. FYI, Clinton is not president, anymore. He hasn't been for a lo-o-o-ong time.

 

[momof2inPA]

I feel that there needs to be only ONE way to look at things. Either we profile ALL Arabs in America: That means we stop strip searching young children and grandmas at airports and concentrate on twenty-something Arab men… or we continue with the notion that we do not discriminate, or racially profile… With that, we search 6 month olds and 90 year old at airports and allow the UAE to work at our ports.

That would only make sense, wouldn't it? Anyone who has ever travelled to Europe knows that the people from Arab countries are scrutinized much more than U.S. citizens or Canadians.

Rush Limbaugh has been hitting the "xenophobia" angle very hard to push his "heads" into supporting the port deal. I think he's trying to counter the argument of, "Why were the Arabs dangerous up until now, but they want to take over our ports and they are suddenly our friends?" Maybe the xenophobia angle is working. From the responses, it seems to be having some effect. If it doesn't, he'll try some new tactic.

 

[chobie]

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

Generalize much?

 

[lw49033]

Despite the high disapproval ratings of this deal, Rush Limbaugh is preaching to his fans daily about why it's a good deal for America. Apparently, he'll keeping preaching until his ditsy heads change their minds.

If Rush Limbaugh is for something, it's pretty much guaranteed that I'll be against it. Just imagine if Kerry had proposed this, what Fatso would be saying.