Comments on: Disinformation campaign on the UAE port deal?

By: » The New Bush Defenders: the LA Times? » Leaning Straight Up » Blog Archive »

Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:10:34 +0000

[...] piece from Nick Kristoff also in favor of it (paid reg req). Strange times indeed… | RSS | Inlinks| [...]

By: Earnest Thompson

Earnest Thompson — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:31:23 +0000

The UAE funds Palestine / Hamas? and builds its assets with U.S. money via shady deals, while “The People in U.S.” lose jobs, health care, pensions, etc. Doesn’t sound like good news. Think the U.S. should use the money from any resource to help it’s own people. Regards.

By: CavalierX

CavalierX — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:20:06 +0000

>Until the UAE recognizes Israel’s right
>to exist America should not do business
>with them.

Say, that’s a novel way to defeat the image Muslims have of a US controlled by Israel. Is that how we base business decisions now?

By: Leaning Straight Up

Leaning Straight Up — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:43:07 +0000

The New Bush Defenders: the LA Times?

I mean just the thought of it is incredible enough. The LA Times has earned it’s reputation as one of the more liberalal slanting newspapers, but in a recent series of editorials, it has nicely skewered the left’s criticism of the Dubai Ports

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:36:21 +0000

Here is a link from al-CNN (The Official Station of the Democratic National Committee) Jimmy Carter: Give Hamas a chance To think this man once had his finger on the nuclear button!

By: sanity

sanity — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:26:35 +0000

Democrats support Israel? Really?
That is laughable.

If anything this whole debacle has shed light on port security, something that has been over looked for a long time.

Just one of many things we need to look carefully at.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:25:27 +0000

Until the UAE recognizes Israel’s right to exist America should not do business with them. Don’t the Republicans support Israel’s right to exist? Democrats do, which is why they oppose this deal.

Say, isn’t Jimmy Carter trying to prop up the Hamas government in Palestine? You know, the same Hamas that wants to push Israel into the sea? The same Hamas that is butchering Jews? The same Hamas that straps bombs to its own children and blows them up? Or is there another Hamas operating in Palestine that I am not aware of?

By: steve

steve — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:46:46 +0000

The bottom line: Until the UAE recognizes Israel’s right to exist America should not do business with them. Don’t the Republicans support Israel’s right to exist? Democrats do, which is why they oppose this deal. Peace

By: omapian

omapian — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:08:47 +0000

We must be careful when we let our prejudices rule our conduct. Port Security? -The only way to completely protect the ports would be to seal them up and not allow any shipping to enter the country.
It does little good to examine a shipment AFTER IT ENTERS THE PORT. The containers, and any threatening material, will come from outside the US and should be intercepted BEFORE entering the harbor.
Is there reason to believe operators from France, Germany, or Russia, (knowing their participation in the UN oil for food program)would do things better and/or safer?
Would we be safer if we used the security forces in place at airports and randomly searched cargo?
Or perhaps we could ask the swing vote of the Supreme court to prepare a warrant to search items addressed to citizens or residents in the United States.
Like it or not, the ports are big business. People invest in that business and have turned profits for years. They know how to run the ports and stand to loose big time in any terrorist attack. Politicians may be clueless about running a port, but that doesn’t keep them from running their mouths.
The best way to protect our ports is to collect, analyze, and share information concerning cargo. When, where, who, and what created the shipment is more important than how the shipment is processed.
We need more latitude in gathering intelligence and the port issue is just another diversion.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:44:59 +0000

Just to let you know ST, I’ve changed my mind on the issue. But it wasn’t anything you wrote, it was an interview between Hugh Hewitt and Robert Kaplan.

In which the following exchange took place:

HH: When you get back, expect a phone call from the administration asking you to appear, because you just did in seven minutes a lot more than they have in seven days.

RK: Yeah, I know.

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:35:39 +0000

I’m shocked – shocked – to hear that the Democrats and the MSM have lied on this issue. Who would have thunk it?

By: David Foster

David Foster — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:45:19 +0000

There has certainly been much irresponsible ranting on the part of port deal opponents; however, there has also been too much glibness on the part of port deal supporters. It’s repeated, over and over again like a mantra, that “the port operator isn’t responsible for security.” However, in real life the port operator has physical custody of the containers. It seems unlikely that the entity which actually unloads and moves the boxes has *no imaginable way* of bypassing security.

I’d like to hear less political posturing and more substantive information from people who actually know something about shipping and port operations.

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:02 +0000

“However, what I don’t respect is what seems to be a deliberate, ongoing misinformation campaign on this issue, with most of the (deliberate) misleading coming from liberals like Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Its shocking that people are using inaccurate generalizations to beat up on their opponents in a security issue. Just shocking!