Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OK, I'm going to get some flak by going deeper into the UAE Ports deal...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 01:49 PM
Original message
OK, I'm going to get some flak by going deeper into the UAE Ports deal...
I spent the past two days researching this. First of all, let me say that in researching Dubai, which is the owner of Dubai Ports World - much of what they're doing is very admirable. Dubai is a very strong and open business environment, and I have no argument with that whatsoever. In fact, for any non-security related business, I'd be more than happy to have Dubai involved.

Here's some links to show you there are some seriously good things going on in Dubai:

http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/english/biography/crown.asp
http://www.oecd.org/document/44/0,2340,en_2649_33717_2028908_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://travelpuppy.com/uae/dubai/business.htm
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/dubai.html

So there's some good stuff going on in Dubai, including stuff most Americans would approve of wholeheartedly.

However, when we start to talk about national security, some issues come into play that fall into the realm of perception. With regard to the purchase of US Ports, here are some of the things that I think are fueling the opposition:

1. Bush's penchant for secrecy and cronyism. This isn't aided by the fact that the UAE has prior Bush ties of a questionable nature, including ties to the BCCI debacle. Nor is the association with Snow's former company, CSX, which was purchased for an inflated price.
2. UAE prior lack of security oversight, which has led to terrorists operating out of the UAE while planning attacks against Americans, terrorist financing being funneled through UAE prior to attacks, nuclear parts proliferation through UAE, etc.
3. Timing. American sensitivities post-9/11, which makes security far more important to most Americans, and protection of that security far more necessary
4. The proposed acquisition of ports by the UAE, which is a perceived area of continuing security weakness in the US. Targeting our vulnerabilities, you might say.
5. Dubai's ties to Iran - http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/02/07/17/57981.html
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/?NewsCode=25024&NewsKind=Current+Affairs
6. Dubai's ties to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan -
Link
http://cba.fiu.edu/mgmt/batesc/WSJ1.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-02-terror-dubai_x.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/18667/

Some important background:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html
Larry Johnson Interview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
Link
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0111-01.htm

When it comes to public trust, perception is everything. There are a number of issues related to the ports deal that seriously undermine the perception of openess and contribute to a lack of trust. For me personally, the deal looks more and more like a shady CIA deal cooked up by Bush and his cronies for purposes that we don't yet know. But given Bush's track record, I doubt it complies fully with the law or respects the checks and balances within the US Government. And it does raise questions regarding how secure the ports can be when those running them have engaged so extensively in questionable activities, both sanctioned by the CIA and not.

IMO, the call for further inspection of this deal is justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jumpoffdaplanet Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Don't forget the hypocrisy about Israel
Bush says he won't recognize Hamas because they don't recognize Israel. Yet the UAE also refuses to recognize Isreal, so why does Bush recognize them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Coz the bush regime has at least 2 ties to Dubai.
As always with the bush regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are the only countries in the world...
...that recognized the Taliban. Coincidentally, those countries were involved in the BCCI scandal and the Emir of Abu Dhabi got sued for it. Bastards, all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well done.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. I agree - The pb is that you did the job our Democratic Senators and
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 02:00 PM by Mass
Congresspeople could not be bothered to do. If they had put out a factsheet with most of these issues, they would not look as if they were targetting Arabs when they are really targetting *'s poor work.

They also could have made clear what responsibility this company would have compared to NY Port Authority and Customs and Border Patrol.

I know informing properly is not considered proper, but may be it would be a good way to differentiate us for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Keep in mind FR, "Republicans" don't generally understand nuance
especially, in today's political climate. Bush has done so much to make the war a black/white issue, NOW he expects Americans who supported his "racist - muddy the waters war" to understand the ins/outs of a complex port deal?

When it comes to public trust, perception is everything. Indeed, and Bush has made sure his "followers" have a very narrow perception of the muslim world. He's reaping what he spent years sowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. you said
"For me personally, the deal looks more and more like a shady CIA deal cooked up by Bush and his cronies for purposes that we don't yet know."

Take a wild guess.

It has to do with the next International House of Pancakes.
The one in Memphis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. free market cannot co-exist with national security priorities.
something has to give.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Free market can't exist if national security issues aren't addressed...
...either. Catch 22. Without security, most businesses (except for things like armaments and criminal activity) are not able to function. The more secure the environment, the more diverse businesses will flourish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. FREE MARKET DOES NOT EXIST, PERIOD
Not in today's GLOBAL MARKET. Anyone who thinks there is any such myth has bought into the RW Propaganda machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Exactly, Bush Crony Inc. hates the free market more than any liberal
It irks me whenever some DUer points to some obviously corrupt Bush deal as a failure of the "free market". Bush and his buddies would not survive in a free market. Cronyism, industry-written legislation, corporate welfare subsidies, and no-bid contracts are NOT what Adam Smith had in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Wow I guess you can polish a turd.
Yeah...they are great...i think all of America should be own by foreign govenrments. Let's sell the ICBM missles to the Chinese.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Schwarzenegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Hey, there's some good stuff going on in China!
Just in case...
OP: "So there's some good stuff going on in Dubai..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. and hey, granddaddy Prescott thought there was some good stuff
going on in Nazi Germany. Money money money money! Money!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscarguy Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Along with his father in law George Walker, the namesake of Pres....
Bush. Hitler was helped a great deal by these 2 American traitors beginning in the early 1920`s on through well after our entry into the war against Nazi Germany. This family has a long and unbroken record of treasonous activity. Impeach Bush and Cheney now. The articles of impeachment must include both of them, we surely do not want a President Cheney.Link to full story about Bush/Walker families and Adolph Hitler at < http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm > . There is no annoying sign in or any of that crap. ...Oscar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. "Polish a turd"? did you read the entire opening post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raffi Ella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. ...
The problem I have above and beyond the security/trust issue is that our Ports or the Management of them is being Outsourced-It should not be happening.Period.
Some have said there is no American equivalent to the Dubai Co.If there isn't why isn't there?

The outsourcing of our Port Management is a shocking thing to me along with all our other BIG corportations that are being bought off by foreign Corporations/Governments.

Whatever happened to'Buy American'?supporting our own?Forget Free Trade we are talking about our Ports/Our Big Bussiness' that are being sold off...WHO exactly OWNS America?

This is a BIG DEAL not only because Dubai/UAE is in the Middle East and doesn't acknowledge Israel/DID acknowledge the Taliban,does bussines with countries whom WE consider to be non Allies etc...this is about SUPPORTING America by Americans.

This entire Ports deal has opened up a whole new can of worms for me and I hope many others.We as a nation need to be informed of just the what,why and WHO it benefits when it comes to the selling off of OUR America.
I think China is a perfect example of just what Free Trade has done for OUR country.This issue needs to be adressed in full.Not just the Dubai Ports deal but the entire matter.

I do not support the UAE buying our Ports.I never will.There is nothing good about it in my opinion.There has to be another solution to the management/ownership of our ports than to sell them off to a country in the Middle East.It is JUST LUDICROUS that we are even discussing the idea much less have already made a deal that is in the final days of going through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A-Schwarzenegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
17. DUBAI SHOPPING FESTIVAL.
From the OP's first link:

"‘Destination Dubai’ was the tourism brief so long championed by Sheikh Mohammed. Late in 1995, he announced the creation of the DUBAI SHOPPING FESTIVAL (DSF), one of his first initiatives on assuming the mantle of Crown Prince. DSF is an annual festival aimed at bringing together all aspects of the emirate's economy as part of a promotion that would extend around the world.

The centrepiece of the Dubai Shopping Festival had to be memorable, and Sheikh Mohammed had a plan for this too. Never one to take small steps when giant strides would do, he announced that the following March, at the height of the new Dubai Shopping Festival, the inaugural Dubai World Cup would be staged. It was to be the world's richest horse race, boasting a purse of $4 million, $2.4 of which would go to the winner.

‘Destination Dubai’ was evolving rapidly. On April 1 1998, the Sheikh Rashid Terminal was opened, representing the completion of the first phase of the Government of Dubai's $540 million expansion plan for the airport.

Elsewhere in Dubai, an artificial island was appearing some 100 meters offshore. This was to be the base for one of Sheikh Mohammed's boldest projects, a hotel that, when it was finished, would be only 60 meters shorter than the Empire State Building in New York, Burj Al Arab, the Tower of the Arabs.

Early in 2001, Sheikh Mohammed announced by far the most extraordinary ‘Destination Dubai’ project, Palm Island. A giant resort spread over two palm tree-shaped islands, each of which will be divided into 17 huge fronds and a trunk, and surrounded by a crescent shaped barrier reef."

So all you UAE-bashers, just pipe down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
18. Not to nit pick, but you sourced a "good story" about UAE from their
own website. That's like saying, "I will help back up that George W. Bush is a good guy - check out this story from WhiteHouse.gov" Yes, you had other sources for other aspects, but that particular source kind of discredits your argument, especially since it's the first one listed.

Otherwise, your conclusion is agreeable. But I still don't agree with your premise that these "good activiites" show that they are good people.

These people have so much money (a LOT) that "doing good things" for reasons of "perception" is not a very difficult financial thing for them to do. In fact, it's pretty much required in this day and age. If you have a lot of money, you better "do good" with some of it or else if any of your other "shady" activities comes under the microscope, you won't have anything to counteract with.

Rich people like these guys consider these "philanthropy" activities as an investment - but not in the people they are helping - it's an investment of the sort that will protect their reputations in case they are questioned about their activities with bad people (ie, Osama Bin Laden). When that happens, their Public Relations people can say, "Yes, but look at his charitable work, Exhibit A, B, C, etc.... He's not really a bad man!"

Get my point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. thanks for the post
:kick: for all the thought...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
20. good post, here's a question i wonder if it came up in your research..
Edited on Wed Feb-22-06 03:45 PM by radio4progressives
I just want to know when did the United States FIRST began the practice of negotiating control of our ports to multi-national's or international companies, businesses that are privately owned or state sponsored (either/or)...

in other words, did it begin with NAFTA/GATT and the creation of the WTO? did it begin a century ago or longer? pre or post WWII?

and did you get the name of the committee that decides and brokers these deals?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. I can answer that
Ports are not under federal control, they are under the management of a local Port Authority (like the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, the same people who run the Port Authority Bus Station, runs the PATH trains, bridges and tunnels, JFK, La Guardia and Newark Airports and built the World Trade Center) The only federalized part of ports is security (Coast Guard) and Immigration (Border Patrol/INS) Port Authorities are usually quasi-public agencies with governing boards appointed by local municipalities and the state in question (in the case of New York/New Jersey, there is a 12 member board, 6 appointed by New York State and 6 by New Jersey) In almost every case, the Port Authority hires corporations to run the logistics by contract for much of their operations, they don't own construction companies, for instance, they bid out and hire construction companies (When we say NY/NJ PA built the GW Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel, they didn't actually "build' them themselves, they hired firms to manage the construction, including subcontractors, within a financial framework (you get X dollars to build it, you must meet these expectations/specifications, using the following labour agreements,etc)

In the case of actual Ports, shipping is an extremely competitive business, Ports are self sustaining financially because they collect fees from shippers (you pay to dock, you pay to unload and reload, for instance) and these fees are huge, so the port that can handle the largest ships, and load/unload cargo the most efficiency will get the most ships through, and collect the largest number of fees. In the Port of New York/New Jersey, the biggest element is the Port Newark/Elizabeth Marine Terminal (which was the first containerized port, and as recently as 1995 the largest in volume in the world, last year, EMT moved over 100 billion worth of goods.) There are five private companies operating in PNEMT, including the late P & O Ports, which came late to the game and redeveloped the Port of Newark Container Terminal, a seperate teminal in Newark. P&O paid for the redevelopment of the terminal, which from being non-functional 10 years ago is now capable of transhipping one million containers a year. this terminal will now be operated by Dubai World Ports, it appears.

There have always been private contractors running port operations, who built all the wharehouses and wharfs? not the city (although they may have financed them) but individuals (or now corporations) who think they can run their wharf (now terminal) more efficiently than the next guy, taking business away from him or attracting entire new shipments.

If you are leaving from say, Rotterdam, it doesn't really matter whether you go to Boston, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia or Baltimore cost wise, what you want to know is which port will get your cargo off the ship fastest and get your ship back on the water in the shortest period of time. So cities are competing with eachother, and inside ports, terminals are competing with each other for business as well, In Baltimore, there are 14 different terminals (with 7 different operators) competing for business. Some specialize in bulk goods, others in cars, others in containers. P&O operates the Seadirk, Dundalt and Port Locust terminals. Basically, for a fee, they do the loading and offloading of about 35% of the cargo, that travels through Baltimore. They don't own it, they have a renewable 6 year contract to operate it. they pay a fee to the Port of Baltimore and collect fees from shipping companies. If fact, the entire capacity of these terminals is tied up to several companies already, only three companies have exclusive access to Seadirk.

As for the labour question, the Port of Baltimore requires that all Stevedores at the port be certified by the ILA. So they couldn't hire non-union employees even if they wanted to, it's in their contract.

as to security, that is provided by the Coast Guard and Homeland Security and the Port itself, although the contractor usually hires private security for their operations as well. the Contractor doesn't inspect containers and ships, the Coast Guard does.

Now, we can discuss whether this is a good thing or not, but it has been standard practice around the world for a century or more, and in the US since basically the inception of ports.

Hope that clears things up for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. The security issues, IMO, would lie in access to the manifests...
...potential for infiltration, and knowledge of specific security weaknesses. Just about any entity operating at the ports would have security issues, but some would have traditional political, cultural, and familial ties that might increase security concern. IMO, that's at the root of the Dubai Ports issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. perhaps
and that could be a concern, but then we should argue that no foreign company should have access to our ports, which would shut down shipping right quick. England has a Terrorist problem as well, after all. If we are actually concerned about that, we need to tighten federal security at ports, inspecting more containers, more vessels and tightening the manifest controls in the first place. Smuggling is obscenely easy for anyone at this point, judging by the amount of goods and the number of people that enter the United States without permission every day. Are we really prepared to federalize all port operations? do we really think the feds can do a better job? Or are you suggesting that vessels flagged in the UAE also shouldn't enter US ports? they'll get most of the same knowledge simply from loading and offloading at the Port of Baltimore.

So yes, inspect more containers, tighten border control and immigration procedures, bulk up Port Police units, that's where the security gains can, and need to, be made.

remember, the guys filling out the forms and handling the cargo are from Baltimore, not Dubai.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. Call me crazy. I think the problem is more than just PERCEPTION
I just think a history of problems amounts to more than "perception."

Maybe you shoulda been doing some of your research right here at DU:

Dubai/UAE US port operations sale ***THREAD COMPILATION*** Please add!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=485968&mesg_id=485968

Dubai has been a naughty state
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=490005&mesg_id=490005
Link: http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/dubai/transshipment-milestones.html

CIA: UAE is a DRUG transhipment point (& money laundering) / PORT SALE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x478454
Link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

The UAE - Halliburton connection/"Trading With The Enemy"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x489315
Link: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0412/086_2.html

By law Dubya had to know about the port deal, Exon-Florio statute says so
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2475129
Link: http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

KRT Wire: Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2121775&mesg_id=2121775
Link: http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13922695.htm
also see Post #77 and this link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022206Z.shtml

Who the hell cares what YOU think?
(good compilation with links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x474465

The Dubai Ports World Deal - Through a Coast Guard Veteran's Eyes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x481615

the connection to it all - Carlyle Group involved in port security deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2471320#2471323
also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x473813
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x474295
Link: http://www.bridgedeck.org/mmp_news_archive/2002/mmp_news021219.html
and: http://www.nsnet.com/archive-1-2005-02.html
and: http://www.informare.it/news/review/2003/b030303.asp

When you follow the money, the ports sale makes sense.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x467895
Link: http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/13901834.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation

911 Bankers to Run SIX Major U.S. Ports—Dubai(UAE). IMPEACH NOW!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2454971&mesg_id=2454971
(many links)

Our Ports are a Tradeoff!! All about $$$ and Oil
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x471124
Link: http://www.oilandgasnewsonline.com/bkArticlesF.asp?Article=14878&Section=1947&IssueID=336 (also other links in OP)

UAE and BCCI
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x490176
Link: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=%22abu+dhabi%22&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

Is Bush's strong support for the UAE take-over of American ports related... (to BCCI)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x483656
Link: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/14abudhabi.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
22. So, you admire their system of government. That's just wonderful.
Nothing like a government owning an "open business environment."

Yep. Makes sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerRepublican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. No, I don't. But UAE is one of the few ME gov'ts that actually allows...
...100% foreign company ownership.

Unlike Faux News, I actually AM trying to be fair and balanced here. But I still think it's a really BAD idea to give UAE control over our ports. K?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-22-06 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
23. You may not want to use wikipedia as a source.
It's been pretty questionable on the facts, especially since white house staffers have been going in and flooding it with changes that make the bush white house look better...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC