Why Am I Not Surprised?

-->
Bush Administration, corruption, National Security

The Dubai firm chosen to run six major U.S. ports has business ties to two high-ranking Bush Administration officials, reports the New York Daily News. Of course.

I’ve been too wrapped up in the “patrotism v. nationalism” series to give this issue the time it deserves. Fortunately other bloggers are all over it. See especially ReddHedd and jesselee.

Update: Digby blogs it, too.

If I were Dems, I’d be mentioning to congresspersons (and senators up for re-election this year) that we’re not going to support this thing, but if it goes through we’re, ah-HEM, sure it’ll make a great election issue when the campaigning heats up. (Smile, pat Repug on shoulder, walk away.)

Share Button
21 Comments

20 Comments

  1. Heidi Carman  •  Feb 21, 2006 @2:40 pm

    The Dubie Ports World will have a 30 year lease on our ports! Are we this niave as a country to alow this to happen. This will all be finalized by March 2, 2006 without a national debate. Once again this deal was made behind closed doors. I want a gaurantee from the major players that our port security will not be at risk for the next 30 years with a foreing country in charge. Why must we out source all of America to the rest of the world! What about the citizens of this great land that need jobs. The Arab world needs some positive PR, they are not getting it with all the nonsence about the cartoons in our free presses. There is no love lost between them and the free world. The Arabs do not trust us that is a fact, rarely do you hear any one of them prostesting the treatment they give to the people they take hostage in Iraq. I am hoping beyond hope this will not go through.

  2. Swami  •  Feb 21, 2006 @4:25 pm

    Whats great about this whole affair is that the Governors never saw it coming…They were left scratching their heads trying to reconcile the deal with the rhetoric of the war on terror.

  3. sb  •  Feb 21, 2006 @4:35 pm

    I don’t know if it is right or wrong, but it is a bit curious that the same bunch that has been trying to keep fear alive against arab terrorists now has to justify this deal. I would feel better about it all however the off guy that is in charge of the homeland security/katrina disaster wasn’t the same guy that was on tv yesterday saying he couldn’t go into details but it had been checked out, and if there wasn’t a money trail to fill some more cronies’ pockets.
    If this is such a good idea… why can’t he give details?

  4. ken melvin  •  Feb 21, 2006 @4:39 pm

    Tell them to clean up their act at home before coming around here, i.e., demand they take a hand at this fighting terrorism and when that’s over we’ll talk bidness.

  5. samiam  •  Feb 21, 2006 @6:36 pm

    I didn’t see this post until just now. I had just posted the following on your previous subject, but I think if belongs here!
    (Lou Dobbs is on about his on CNN right now.)

    Sayyy…. Re: the UAE/port issue-
    You don’t think this is a “no negotiation with terrorists” deal, shades of Reagan’s Iran-contra, do you?
    Something very fishy is going on. The media is beside themselves with bafflement.
    Is this why we haven’t had any terrorist attacks in all this time?
    Buying our protection, perhaps?
    Just wondering. Scary thought.
    Comment by samiam — February 21, 2006 @ 6:17 pm

  6. Rounds77  •  Feb 21, 2006 @7:03 pm

    Thank you Maha for shedding some light on this dubious transaction. I just hit myself on the forehead and said, “Of course, cronyism!” At least Bush is consistent.

  7. BarryBarry  •  Feb 21, 2006 @7:18 pm

    Follow the money! I would bet that the head Republican honchos in DC are getting kickbacks for all the deals they are making as they are without question the most corrupt Administration in American history.

  8. frank  •  Feb 21, 2006 @7:27 pm

    Interesting, this one may be enough for our prayed impeachment. Why? When Sean Hannity and Bill Frist oppose Bush on this one, we are making progress. Bush’s hypnotic trance is coming to an end. Edgar Cayce, the “sleeping prophet” would be happy about this psychic reading coming to an end. To make matters worse, Bush “the Arabian” clearly is an Arab at heart. UAE owns his dumb ass. This is the wholesale giving away of this country. Bush must be analyzed as a psychotic. He threatens to veto any legislation blocking the sale. This would be his first veto during his administration. Rummie didn’t know about this deal until this weekend and he’s on the deal approval board. Talk about detached. My God this is crazy. Impeach Now.

    Frankh99 of Miami contributed to this report.

  9. Lynne  •  Feb 21, 2006 @7:32 pm

    An article on MSN tonight (I’m sorry, didn’t check the source) is already reporting this as a partisan topic.

  10. spearNmagicHelmet  •  Feb 21, 2006 @8:21 pm

    i’m against it for one simple reason.

    bush wants it.

  11. samiam  •  Feb 21, 2006 @8:38 pm

    (I hope it’s just the money. I went through the Vietnam era and Iran Contra, so I tend towards paranoia perhaps.)
    If the Republicans have done whatever GW wanted without question, why should they be surprised that he thinks he’s a king (or Putin) by now?
    Rummy did look surprised, didn’t he?

  12. Steve from Canukistan  •  Feb 21, 2006 @8:44 pm

    Looks like Michael Moore was right again!

  13. Sub Vet  •  Feb 21, 2006 @9:32 pm

    I smell a rat in this whole thing, Kreeping Krud Karl has said that he plans to make Homeland Security an issue in this election. The stinking Republicans are going to make a big show on Faux News and the other networks about how bad this looks for security. Bush will see the light and give in to the Republicans. The little pricks up for election will then look like hero’s demanding port security. I just have a feeling this is all according to plan folks. It’s all just a little to convienent. What does Bush have to lose???

  14. maha  •  Feb 21, 2006 @9:53 pm

    Keith Olbermann suggested this issue could turn out like the Harriet Miers nomination.

  15. that colored fella  •  Feb 21, 2006 @11:18 pm

    A show of hands those who agree with TCF that it’s only a matter of time before a dubious connection will be made tying some principle of the Dubai firm with a questionable Islamic extremist group?

  16. k  •  Feb 21, 2006 @11:30 pm

    If Bush wants it, there has to be something stink about it. Who owns stock in this company? Why is bush willing to veto to get it? that makes it stinker and curiouser.

  17. Toni Johnson  •  Feb 22, 2006 @8:21 am

    I think the reason the republicans are now standing up against the taking over of the ports is because their time for election is so close. They are asking for a reveiw of this sell to Arabs and I think the reveiw will be stalled until next November and if by chance they get elected again they will turn around and back the Prez again.

  18. samiam  •  Feb 22, 2006 @12:45 pm

    C-SPAN just received a call from a woman who claimed that Costco is owned by China and they could be taking over our shipping and that it was all Clinton’s fault. A quick search found this interesting site:
    http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/costco.asp

    You seasoned bloggers are probably familiar with snopes.com, but it was new to me.

    Too bad the woman didn’t look it up before she sent 18 pages of “documents” to C-SPAN.

  19. Britwit  •  Feb 22, 2006 @1:28 pm

    Steve – your comment #12

    I was thinking the same thing about Michael Moore! I love all his films. The first one, “Where’s Roger?” was hilarous. The Bush admin. gave him hell over his latest film.

    His next film is supposed to be about the drug companies.

  20. Britwit  •  Feb 23, 2006 @8:14 pm

    samiam – your comment no. 18 – Did the woman sound like Barbara Bush? (aka Uncle Ben)

1 Trackback



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile