Bush to sell ports to supporters of terrorism

This is just further proof that Bush’s “tough on terrorism” stance is just posturing. From Think Progress:

The Bush administration has outsourced the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a country with troubling ties to international terrorism. The $6.8 billion sale would mean that the state-controlled Dubai Ports World would control ‚”the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
Some facts about the UAE:
—The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
—The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
—According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
—After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

And just months ago, Bush was supportive of China’s attempt to buy Unocal, America’s ninth-largest oil company, even though the country had just threatened us with nuclear attack. We’re a fan of free markets to some extent, but holy Christ, selling our ports and resources to people who may want to attack us is not good policy. What’s next? Will we sell our military to Saudi Arabia? Or hand over the lease to the White House to North Korea?

Comments

  1. i think it’s about a lot more than just this country selling that country x-industry when that country might attack us. that’s very black & white thinking.
    for greyscale you might want to investigate who Thomas Barnett is, what his connection is to the Pentagon and the current Administration, and what his stance is on these issues, who he is influencing, etc.
    i’m not saying i agree with his approach, but i think it sheds a LOT of light on what they’re thinking behind the scenes, and it will more or less squash the black & white approach you laid out above.
    “Will we sell our military to Saudi Arabia?” cmon that’s just stupid speak. but we will sell them “security”.

  2. Now, I’m not the most outspoken politico, but the only way I’d want to see the White House leased to N. Korea is if Bush still lived in it.
    Har har.

  3. Get your facts straight. This article is very midleading.
    The Bush admnistration has not “outsourced” the ports; they were not owned by the US in the first place! The ports in question had been owned and operated by UK-based P&O for years. P&O was bought after a bidding war between Dubai-ports and Singapore investment firm Temasek Holdings. The Bush adminstration, as bad as it is, had absolutely no role in this sale. And US ports still fall under the juristiction of the US government. No control has been ceded.
    Finally, I highly doubt the UAE would be pyschotic enough to assist in a terrorist attack on the United States. If it were ever discovered that they played a role, Bush and Co. would have every excuse they need to spend millions more defense dollars on expensive military retribution on another Middle Eastern country.
    This article is quite frankly bullshit.

  4. Here’s a better article concerning security risks.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5631855,00.html

  5. THOMAS BARNETT – “geopolitcal and visionary thinking”
    connectivity. gap. leviathan. global status of women. lotta words.
    he proposes, for the U.S., a “department of global security” rather than a “department of homeland security”.
    free markets = democracies = efficient and pluralistic governments. economics lead that process.
    “autocrats build nations, democracies run ’em”
    the future of iran will determine the future of peace and security. the reason nixon chose them to be the regional security pillar; a lot of those reasons still hold. it is the most dominant military power. it is persian as opposed to arab. it is the de facto leader of the shiite world. it is impossible to imagine a stable middle east 10 years from now if we haven’t co-opted iran.
    yes, he’s right, about so many, many things. he’s also efficient in his approach to the point of being BATSHIT INSANE.
    his nutty ideas, listened to by the current adminstration, are founded in paranoia and cynicism.
    he wants to fix china and taiwan; india and pakistan; iran and israel; anything he can think of. he’s playing god; he wants to ally china and the U.S. to keep the rest of the “gap” in ‘his’ control, once again, the man is BATSHIT INSANE.
    “grand strategists”. he can’t let go of historical determinism, he MOURNS the end of the cold war, he has no idea WHATSOEVER that capitalism, in and of itself, can be the catalyst that brings the world together. HE WANTS TO FUCKING FIGHT. WITH EVERYBODY. he thinks that leviathan MUST prevail.
    enough, already. this guy wants to save the world as he contributes to its destruction. he sees danger everywhere. he knows so much, but he’s off his nut.
    his books:
    THE PENTAGON’S NEW MAP
    BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION

  6. oh for god’s sake, barnett is right now PLOTTING THE THIRD WORLD WAR. he WANTS it. he LIKES it. he’s scared of everything and tonight i just LOVE saying BATSHIT INSANE.
    right about a lot of things, but looking at it from the most WRONG perspective possible. i think he WISHES (not hopes) that things could be better, but he’s so frightened that he’s paranoid.

  7. What happened to Sergio?

  8. Suzy, you are batshit insane!

  9. Bush has endangered the US and its allies by his reckless adventure in Iraq. He should have focussed on al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
    But on this issue, he’s right. Anyone who opposes this purchase is a protectionist xenophobe – it’s not a security issue.

Speak Your Mind

*

So We Know You\'re Not Spam *