A question about the ports.

[yellowdogmi]

I think that in the Port Control controversy if we join in a bipartisan effort to end the deal the GOP will use this to prove they are not an obstacle to progress. I believe the GOP will use this to try and paint Dems in November as generally obstructionists that have to be lead and the GOP leading advocates for bipartisan cooperation. Is this just a Rove ploy? I think the only way we can win on this is to be the loudest chorus in saying this stinks. We need to be out front screaming at the top of our lungs. Then the GOP will be seen as following along. (Like Sheep.) Just my strategy observation, please feel free to discuss and point out the things I am missing.

[Bluesplayer]

1. just a thought....

the UAE has the only ports in the Gulf that are deep enough to berth an aircraft carrier.

[yellowdogmi]

2. With their record for protecting

our ships while in port I don't think I would park one of our Carriers there. Plus this make no sense. Why would we allow a country that helped funnel money to the participants of 911 access to ports in this country that handle thousands of shipping containers. Kerry pointed out how we barely screen those containers. It seems like a huge security risk. I am thinking this is a ruse. The GOP reaches across the aisle to stop something that is puzzling all americans. Makes them look cooperative. They paint that against our objections to Alito, NSA Spying, the patriot act, etc etc. (Don't misunderstand me, I wish they would have fought all of these with better results) We look like we are obstructing the work of congress. They look like they take the highroad and probably will use it to make it look like they are protecting america. (stealing an issue from Kerry) Just my humble analysis.

[mdmc]

3. I need more info on this port deal

:kick:
thank you for your post.

[yellowdogmi]

4. Well after you find it come back and

Let me know what you think. Thanks

[mdmc]

5. i was looking at a lbn thread

the info I need is - why would this be a better way to do business? I still haven't found what I'm looking for.

(remember when bush barred non-coalition country based companies from bidding on iraq rebuilding? <- that threatened our success against terrorism.) I'm not against arabian companies controlling our ports, if it can be deemed to be in our best interest. This looks to be in the direct opposite of our direct interest.

[yellowdogmi]

6. That is why I think it is a ruse.

It is a bone for lower level repukes to use in races for November. They get to look like they are protecting america by preventing the deal while democrats scratch their heads and go oh ok. If we are not out in front screaming at the top of our lungs they paint us as weak on defending america. They may also get the advantage of looking coopertive and painting us as obstructionist. I don't really see any business benefits either. I really think it is a contrived issue.

[mdmc]

7. in my example, a turkish company did a better job

delivering gas to the front line. Halliburton received the contract, but had a hard time delivering gas without shooting people. Halliburton hired the turkish company, and was criticized for not using "coalition" labor. The use of the turkish company was a smart move.

I would like to see what the argument for allowing this UAE company to run our ports.

[mdmc]

8. kick

[NativeTexan]

9. No, the congressional Repubs have given the Village Idiot so much.....

....of is own way, that they are now finding that they have let him get WAY out of control. He doesn't ever have to run again. THEY DO. They are running SCARED....as well they should.

[Neil Lisst]

10. This is a BUSH deal, and there's no telling how much money ...

... finds its way back to Bush affiliated interests. You can bet there were going to be a bunch of contracts coming back to US companies that help the Bush fundraising efforts.

I think it shows how Bush thinks he can do whatever he feels like, unless someone can stop him. The chickenhawks that run the House and the Senate are not up to the task of limiting Bush.