Go to sarooster on politics
- Add a comment
- Go to What if we wouldn’t have signed the deal for the ports with the UAE?
Sarooster - At the very least I want the country to see this deal for what
... it is, rather than just a 25 day review by a secret committee. We need greater transparancy in our government. - - Also, you threw a curveball in one of your comments. You stated, "A few people will make out like bandits or might I say like Bill and Hillary did when the left the White House!!" I'm curious. To what do you refer when you indicate the Clinton's made out like bandits?
posted by
blogflogger
on February 26, 2006 at 5:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Sarooster,
As you know, I have neither flipped nor flopped on this issue,
, for the simple reason that I have known all along it is a
dangerous deal; and I am glad that others are coming around to that view, as Prof. Peabody did; the good thing is that it is also not as yet a
done deal, and I certainly hope, and have some reason to expect, that in the end it will be
no deal.
posted by
Nautikos
on February 24, 2006 at 4:51 AM
| link to this | reply
My flip-flop
I have changed my position, too...in the other direction!!! Here's what I have learned:
- This "deal" was approved in 25 days. I can't get a building permit in 25 days, much less do background checks on foreign companies
- This is not an "Arab owned" company; it is owned by the state of UAE. State run companies have different priorities than private companies.
- UAE is the home of at least 2 of the 9/11 terrorist. Not in itself damning, but funding was laundered through UAE banks. (They also stonewalled the 9/11 Commission)
- UAE forwarded nuclear material to Iran & N. Korea.
- UAE recognizes the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan
- UAE doesn't recognize the existence of Israel.
I know, I know, the UAE company won't be running the port, or providing security, or even own it. But they will have privileged, inside information (refer to the recent UK BANK ROBBERY). While UAE's control of the shipping may not hurt US security, it certainly won't help it!
It's not "Bush bashing", by the way. I have heard more republican voices upset than democrat. (Even that shrew Anne Coulter is against it).
This is a bad idea, even if for only symbolic reasons.
posted by
Professor_Peabody
on February 23, 2006 at 11:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Scoop,
I was not educated enough to make a judgment on the deal and I think now I understand more and more about the whole deal. So I have changed my position for the most part. It still looks bad though.
posted by
sarooster
on February 23, 2006 at 6:34 PM
| link to this | reply
OK
posted by
scoop
on February 23, 2006 at 6:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Yes, and I have said on several occasions that I have changed that
tune. After learning more and more about the port situation I stand corrected on the issue. I had never taken the time to learn about the ports and such and that was something I should not have done. I should have withheld my comments until I had all the facts. I am sure it's all about money and helping some friends in the Bush circle. I can deal with that. Everyone else has done that and I can accept that fact. We can protect our own ports and handle the security and things will be fine. A few people will make out like bandits or might I say like Bill and Hillary did when the left the White House!!
posted by
sarooster
on February 23, 2006 at 6:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Sarooster talk about flip flop, this is what you said Monday
"Bush and his bunch must be crazy; Arabs running the ports!"
posted by
scoop
on February 23, 2006 at 6:02 PM
| link to this | reply