Calling George Wendt!!!!!!!!!!

[Dave1983]

You proof of this how? This has to be the most laughable thing I have read on here yet. Blind allegations are so much fun.
Give me a break.

Blind, hardly. Im not one of the many here who are blinded by their love for this country to the point that they belive beyond all doubt anything GW does or says.

Proof, I have no proof. Its just what I think. We are still alowed to think here, or did GW target that as well?

Im sorry, but I just have a very hard time with the idea that somebody that comes accross as such a dope can actually be running things.

[Diane E]

AP Newsbreak: Ex-Clinton official helped lobbyist defend Dubai ports deal

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

February 23, 2006, 4:19 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- A principal in former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's consulting firm went with a lobbyist to Capitol Hill to defend a Dubai company's ports security deal, but was rebuffed by Sen. Charles Schumer, The Associated Press has learned.

Carol Browner, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton, is a principal at The Albright Group LLC.

On Feb. 14, Browner went to Capitol Hill with former Long Island Democratic congressman Tom Downey, a registered lobbyist, on behalf of the Dubai-based company DP World, whose approval to take over port operations at six major U.S. cities has created political havoc.

The Albright Group's role in the effort by DP World to win government approval illustrates the intersection of government, global commerce, and long-standing relationships among powerful people.

Albright's spokeswoman said she was not personally involved in the U.S. ports issue. But the company does work with Downey's lobby firm, Downey McGrath Group Inc., and Albright herself was in China consulting for DP World in recent days.

Both Albright's and Schumer's offices confirmed that Browner was present during the meeting. At the time, the senator was rallying opposition within Congress to the DP World deal.

"After we first criticized the deal, Browner and Downey met with our staff and were unpersuasive," said Schumer spokesman Israel Klein. "Senator Schumer is going to continue to fight this deal."

Downey did not return calls seeking comment.

Calls to Browner were referred to Albright Group spokeswoman Jamie Smith, who confirmed that Browner "definitely made some calls around and even went up and checked in with Sen. Schumer's office."

Smith would not say who Browner called.

Downey's Web site lists Albright as a client.

Smith acknowledged that The Albright Group referred DP World to Downey. But, she stressed: "We do not lobby. We didn't hire them on this."

During the past week, as U.S. criticism was building over the deal, Albright and others at her firm were working for DP World in China on trade issues there.

"Secretary Albright was in China with government officials and people in the private sector to help them better understand DP World's interests in China," said Smith, who declined to elaborate.

DP World is a state-run company based in the United Arab Emirates, which has sparked concern that their operation of U.S. terminals could lead to infiltration by terrorists.

Smith said DP World "is a great company, and we are going to continue to work with them on China," she added.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, said neither Browner nor anyone else at Albright's firm sought to sway the senator on the issue. Clinton, D-N.Y., was one of the first lawmakers to offer legislation blocking the deal.

At a Thursday briefing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton and other lawmakers pressed administration officials to explain their decision to approve the DP World deal.

Clinton called the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several critical U.S. ports would be turned over to a foreign country.

Opponents of the deal are seeking an emergency floor vote in Congress next week to delay approval before a scheduled March 2 takeover of operations in the six U.S. ports.

The chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday the agency would file a lawsuit in New Jersey state court seeking to cancel the 30-year-lease for the marine operations at Port Newark that DP World would own.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

[Jasper 45]

He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.

Here, I brought your post from before, word for word. You do have quite the conspiracy theory going here; however, it is just that, a theory, speculation. What it is not is fact. I love it when people want “facts” for something they disagree with, yet expect others to just accept their opinion as fact, with no proof, period.

Proof, I have no proof. Its just what I think. We are still alowed to think here, or did GW target that as well?

What, now if someone questions your opinion you accuse them of restricting your right to free speech? Give me a break. Think and post what you like, just make sure you’re prepared to defend it. I thought that was the American way, or has the “left” taken that from us now?

[ChicagoFF]

Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
Once again...

Don't worry noz - we'll get some nice white people to run the ports so your side won't feel uncomfortable with with it's naked racism!

[ChicagoFF]

No profiling in the airports but keep those filthy animals out of the ports. Don't you know the democrats only want "white" foreigners to have those jobs? Brits - fine, arabs - No way! The lefts true colors are showing again! Hahahahaha

[ThNozzleman]

Noz, you are really stretching more then normal here .

Eh? Everything I posted is 100% true.

American companies have made far more money providing contracted services to the Saudi's then they have or ever will provide us.

And that has what to do with letting Saudi Arabia (a nation chock full of terrorists and their supporters) control ports here in America?

Don't worry noz - we'll get some nice white people to run the ports so your side won't feel uncomfortable with with it's naked racism!

Ummm...right. What the hell does racism have to do with it? This has nothing to do with protecting the individual rights of people, and everything to do with a nation that supports terrorism (and other vile practices against humanity) setting up shop in our nation's ports.
You are getting more and more desperate in your paranoia.

No profiling in the airports but keep those filthy animals out of the ports. Don't you know the democrats only want "white" foreigners to have those jobs? Brits - fine, arabs - No way! The lefts true colors are showing again! Hahahahaha

No, scratch that; you've lost it completely, kid.

[Jasper 45]

We are not talking about heavily armed military bases on foreign soil; we are talking about multiple ports on OUR soil

I should have explained my position better, and with more detail. This company is not going to be responsible for the security maintained in these ports, which will still be the Coast Guard, as well as Customs. My whole point with pointing out our military bases was simple. It is possible we are reaching out to other nations who have helped in the war on terror, which the UAE has; in fact, they have been very helpful. This is not big business, its politics, if this is the case. I have not decided whether this is a good or bad idea yet; on the surface, it looks bad, but the reason it does is that the UAE is an Arab country. I sure would hate to have that racism tag thrown around. It s odd how the tide has turned though.
If Bush had blocked this from the beginning, I am quite sure that many on the left would have taken the opposite position, and perhaps called him a racist, or a bigot.
I also find it odd how people are screaming now for keeping this control in the US, when in fact it hasn’t been for some time now. If this indeed a true security threat, kick all of these other companies out, prevent any other companies from bidding.

[ThNozzleman]

I also find it odd how people are screaming now for keeping this control in the US, when in fact it hasn’t been for some time now.

That's not the point. The point is the glaring hypocrisy of Bush and his neocon imperialists. Thousands upon thousands have died in Bush's stupid war on a nation that had less to do with terrorism than Saudi Arabia...yet, he's still wheeling and dealing with these people (as he has for years) in spite of the terrible human rights violations of its authoritarian Islamic theocracy. To call these bastards our "allies" is ridiculous, at best. It's all about the money, oil, and corporate expansion. It always has been. It's not so much the fact that Saudi Arabia is gaining control of some of our ports, but the complete discrepancy between our treatment of nations, depending on whether or not they wheel and deal the way our government wants them to. Anyone here want to take a shot at explaining just why we destroyed Iraq, yet welcome the Sauds and their nasty oppressive government with open arms?
Get it?

[Dave1983]

Here, I brought your post from before, word for word. You do have quite the conspiracy theory going here; however, it is just that, a theory, speculation. What it is not is fact. I love it when people want “facts” for something they disagree with, yet expect others to just accept their opinion as fact, with no proof, period.




What, now if someone questions your opinion you accuse them of restricting your right to free speech? Give me a break. Think and post what you like, just make sure you’re prepared to defend it. I thought that was the American way, or has the “left” taken that from us now?

Easy friend. I was just giving my opinion, nothing more. We are still permitted opioins, are we not? And since it is an opinion, I have no facts. I never said I did, nor did I suggest this to be the absolute truth. Do you often jump on people for thier opinion?

And just so we understand each other, this isnt about right or left, as Im neither. My view is neutral as far as political parties. Its just for me, after hearing the man speak for the last 6 years, he doesnt come accross as being the sharpest tool in the shed. And for me, that raises questions.Thats all.

[ThNozzleman]

Its just for me, after hearing the man speak for the last 6 years, he doesnt come accross as being the sharpest tool in the shed. And for me, that raises questions.Thats all.

Maybe pulling all those high g's while defending Texas from the Viet Cong addled his brain!

[Jasper 45]

Easy friend. I was just giving my opinion, nothing more. We are still permitted opioins, are we not? And since it is an opinion, I have no facts. I never said I did, nor did I suggest this to be the absolute truth. Do you often jump on people for thier opinion?

Opinions are fine, but you did not refer to your “theory” as being that, it was spoken from a factual point of view. That’s all, no more or less.
In addition, yes, if I disagree with an opinion I will voice it; is there now something wrong with that? I always thought that is what debate was all about. If you don’t like people questioning your opinion, don’t voice it.
It really is not a big deal. I just found it odd that when confronted you make the accusation that I was somehow restricting your freedom of speech.

[LaFireEducator]

Have made the decision that staying clear of the political debates is the wisest course of action.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I am curious if your opinions on this particular subject are something that the men at the firehouse kitchen table agree with. I know firemen and I know westsiders. I bet your're in the minority on this one. Be honest now

[E229Lt]

Why does this have to be a Left vs Right debate. How about a few people just give their gut feeling, you know, what YOU think. Not how each side is spinning it.

For me, I'm just not comfortable with the idea because that little voice in my head is yelling really loud right now.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Artie I think this is one case where the left and the right both want to take some time to sort through all of this.

[ChicagoFF]

I am curious if your opinions on this particular subject are something that the men at the firehouse kitchen table agree with. I know firemen and I know westsiders. I bet your're in the minority on this one. Be honest now

No one at my house (including me) thinks this is the right thing right now. I don't know many who defend this idea. For the record I never said I did agree with it. I just love watching the left dance around trying to justify their constantly shifting views on security issues. Just having a little fun!

[ThNozzleman]

There's left...there's right...and there's $$$$$$$.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Just keepin it real Brother ... I was worried that the westside was gettin a lil' "soft"..

[ChiefReason]

There are many laws that deal with foreign ownership in this country.
There are laws that deal with the oversight of these ownerships.
And still, there are laws that deal with what foreigners and people not born in this country can or can't do.
When you think about it, there have been many businesses owned by foreigners coming to this country to make a life for them and their families.
I don't view Arabs or anyone else coming to this country any differently than the Irish or Chinese or Vietnamese or South Africans who have been coming to this country for centuries. So; though I will not turn and run in the other direction if I see a Muslim coming towards me, I DO look at them with some curiosity. Sorry; but too many of them have been blowing themselves up and taking people like me with them.
If Dubai running the ports is such a good deal, then fine. We put 1000 troops at the ports, charge THEM for the manpower and inspect more than 6% of the containers coming into this country.
If you find this somewhat paranoid, then blame the news media.
CR

[scfire86]

Another interesting perspective from Lou Dobbs

An excerpt:

"Bush said he wanted those who are critical and questioning of this port deal to "step up and explain why." Well, Mr. President, to equate any country to your principal partner in the coalition ignores that special relationship this country's enjoyed with the United Kingdom for decades and decades. Dubai Ports World is a UAE government controlled and owned company. The money used to fund the 9/11 attacks, most of it, was sent to the hijackers through the UAE banking system. The UAE stonewalled U.S. efforts to track al Qaeda bank accounts after 9/11. In addition, the Emirates does not recognize Israel. And the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. And if those aren't good enough reasons, I would just suggest I'm at a complete loss to offer what might be considered good reasons."