Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

American Left Goes Nuts over Port Deal

by asdf Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 08:56:15 AM EST

As has been reported in both the American and European press, Bush has proposed that the operation several East Coast shipping ports should be allowed to be controlled by a company that is based in the United Arab Emirates. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm

This has set off a political firestorm--but the players are all confused about which side of the argument they should be on.


Bush says that it's ok for the ports to be controlled by an Arabian country, because the port security (such as it is--only about a tenth of incoming containers are inspected anyway) would still be under American supervision. And the port workers would be unionized Americans. And the UAE is a strong American partner in the Middle East--where such partners are not that easy to come by.

Some Democrats, notably Hillary Clinton, who is trying to position herself as a moderate by taking not-very-liberal positions on a number of issues, have come out against the deal because it would reduce the Security of the U.S.A. Another argument is that the ports should be run by the U.S. government, which sounds suitably socialist--but has not been proposed previously and would be a considerable disruption to the shipping industry as it now stands.

Other Democrats, notably the usually-sensible Jimmy Carter, support the deal because they see opposition to it as racist xenophobia. Since practically all American ports are managed by overseas-based companies anyway, selecting out this particular company because it's based in Arabia seems pretty wierd.

The Republican leadership opposes the move, because they don't want the A-rabs to run stuff. This is understandable. Perhaps also they see an opportunity for a big American contractor (hint: names starts with "H") to come in a run the ports.

Prominent blogger Markos Zuniga at DailyKos has come out against the proposal, standing alongside the other xenophobes. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/21/155744/260
This is not particularly shocking given his previous history, but it does open the question of whether the left really has a coherent position on this issue. Aren't leftists supposed to be the ones who FIGHT racism? It's confusing...

As a comparison point, who runs the ports in Europe?

Display:
I find the whole discussion circling around the wrong arguments, and not just because the clamour reduced the next exposure of Abu Ghraib inhumanity into a mere whisper.

I'm not so keen on selling out the port workers in the first place, but if this is policy, then not wanting the ports to get sold out to an Arab nation because it is an Arab nation is plain ridiculous. Distrust has grown a long way.

As a comparison point, who runs the ports in Europe?

If I recall correctly, this was big contention point in the Bolkenstein directive, which got heavily ammended (I know that's not a word...) last week in the European Parliament. But whether the port workers are now protected from contractors outside the EU, I've no single clue. Thoroughly confused. This is one of these things you always want to find out, but never have the time for. Someone else?

by Nomad on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:00:08 AM EST
It would be the same dockworkers.
by asdf on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:09:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There were a lot of people from the Rotterdam harbour up in arms who had visions of their work getting replaced by cheapers workers such as the Chinese who would come together with the cargo on the same ship.

But again, I'm poorly informed...

by Nomad on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 04:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must say this one is sort of funny. On one hand, in the picture of the world that Bush and his friends have been pushing "Fear the a-rabs, fight them over there" this deal sounds like total insanity. On the other, there's no special reason that these owners would be any worse than any other. It is sort of funny to watch Bush being beaten up by the stick he created. Using his veto for the first time to ensure that this deal goes through would be hysterical to watch.

I guess the left - in US terms - could coherently argue that security sensitive installations should be managed by US based corporations.

I'll point out that the article you link to has nothing to do with racism. If you're going to attack Kos do it over on dKos, not here.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:24:51 AM EST
Yeah, it has more to do with a lot of Americans wanting to maintain national control over their infrastructure. Can't blame them.

It's called sovereignty, something I thought the Right loved above all.

asdf, good try but miss. The USian Left has its own periodic bouts of madness but that's not one of them.
by Francois in Paris on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 11:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that this is about security.  While the British are unquestioned allies of the US, the UAE is a scary place.  Consider these facts:

  • The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

  • According to George Tenet, the former Director of the CIA, members of the UAE royal family visited Osama Bin Laden in February 1999 (before 9/11), and their presence deterred an American attack on Bin Laden's compound.

  • Two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE.

  • 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.

  • The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

  • According to the CIA, the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries.

Why would anyone what them to be running part of the national infrastructure?

by corncam on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What we are seeing is a knee-jerk reaction from America's left. It is okay to be racist or xenophobic if you can give Bush the finger at the same time. The American left needs to look at its priorities, and to listen to Jimmy Carter once in a while. asdf is perfectly right to use Kos as an example; he is an opinion maker and not infallible.

Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
Czeslaw Milosz
by Chris Kulczycki on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 11:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just want to make clear that you are saying that the American left thinks it's ok to be racist if it means opposting Bush.

Because that seems like a very "knee-jerk" reaction to the American left itself...  If we are going to allow that there might be some nuance in Bush's decisionmaking, I hope we can allow the same for the "American left."

I still don't see why "race" has to be a factor in opposing the selling of our ports to a firm in country that used to support the Taliban, which we are supposedly in need of protection from.  We are talking about the privatizing of security and questioning political alliances.

If the hijackers had been British, do you think we'd have be fine with the British running our ports?  9I was shocked to learn any foreign entity was running them, btw!) After Katrina, do we trust the Administration to run entrust our security to the most qualified people or to those whom they owe favors?  There are a lot of factors.  Race is only one of them.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still don't see why "race" has to be a factor in opposing the selling of our ports to a firm in country that used to support the Taliban, which we are supposedly in need of protection from.

Well, why? Exactly because it takes UAE as a monolythic unit. Check soj's post at dKos, he takes the claims apart. (To list the errors in the above: the ports aren't sold only their management, the firm and country aren't the same, that country supported the Taleban before 9/11 but was a Bush ally afterwards, and the Dubai sheikh was replaced since.)

We are talking about the privatizing of security

It is part of the problem that Kossacks are talking about privatizing security, while in this case security (and port ownership) remains in US federal hands.

If the hijackers had been British

Now THAT's a racist approach.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 02:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No it isn't!!

I'm "American" but that's not my race!!!!

Unless all you folks who dislike -America- are racists!

Are you?!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 03:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is seriously pissing me off.

Taking an ET break for a while.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 03:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please don't! I'd rather say sorry and shut up than drive you away.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 04:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, OK, then let's call it semi-racist or just collectivist. Would the participaton of a US mercenary in a coup attempt turn American companies a security risk for that African state?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 04:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I happened to see a CNN news report on this whole deal yesterday...with Wolf Blitzer all breathless and excited that this deal is being heavily opposed by many Republicans, and that there is bi-partisan support in Congress to block it. Another CNN person (forgetting his name) was slamming Bush for giving the keys to US doorways to a government that has secretly supported Al-Quida (I don't know much about this, but have read this same thing in numerous places...that there is a UAE--Al-Quida link). So on the face of it, it seems insane, and will be a losing deal for Bush.

But I read another perspective that has caused me to stop and wonder: that really, this is a Republican ploy/plan to 1. show the US citizens that the Republicans are not under Bush's thumb, but are 2. independent, and are pro-Homeland security, and that 3. because Bush is so disliked by everyone now, that this provides cover to the Republicans who are running for re-election.

Could they be that smart and cunning? I don't know...but I wouldn't put it past them to try...

And if it isn't the above scenario, then it is Bush just pushing another failed scheme...it won't pass...and one would wonder why he would do this?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 11:34:10 AM EST
I think the Left's position has more to do with smelling a Bush defeat than anything else. They like this issue because it fits a nice meme that Bushco is more concerned about contracts than national security. The issue is less important than the fact that it can be used to divide the Republican party, which it is clearly doing. This issue really does have to hurt if one is a conservative Republican.

(Bush is now reported to not have seen the deal until after it was a done deal. How conveeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnient.)

by gradinski chai on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 11:38:01 AM EST
It's not racism or xenophobia.  Markos was raised in El Salvador (though apparently born in Chicago).  I hardly think he's the sort of person who would be guilty of xenophobia or racism, since both have probably been directed at him at one point or another.  The Left, with the exception of some among the socially-conservative manufacturing base in the Mid-West, is not very xenophobic in America.  As far as racism is concerned, I think the modern Dems' actions speak for themselves, from the late-1950s to the present.

What's happening is that the Dems are taking an opportunity to attack Bush on national security, because they see that area as their weakness.  The Republican congressional leaders are trying to avoid getting slammed by this and have come out against the proposal.

I'm not sure where I stand, honestly.  I haven't heard a lot of good news about the UAE, but I'm hesitant to believe anything I hear or read from the press, unless it's printed in a trustworthy newspaper or spoken by one of the two or three trustworthy anchors on television.  (And, even then, I prefer it to be backed up by foreign newspapers, too.)  I have heard that there were some fairly deep connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the UAE, along with other more-superficial terrorism ties.  But that's the extent of my "knowledge".

I don't see anything wrong with reviewing the proposal.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 12:07:17 PM EST
I hardly think he's the sort of person who would be guilty of xenophobia or racism, since both have probably been directed at him at one point or another.
That is an interesting argument.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 12:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't like the wording of it.  It didn't really make the point I was trying to make, as I reread it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 12:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that racial situation is different for Hispanics than for other people of color.  Hispanic isn't a racial designation so much as a cultural one in the United States.  So even you our KCurie might be counted as a hispanic in the US, if you were from Argentina you would definitely be counted as hispanic.

With the increasing acculturation of Hispanics in the US, and the near universal English proficiency in the 2nd or 3rd generation,I suspect that Hispanics will do far better than Americans of African descent.

African Americans are easily identified by their skin color.

Does this man look Hispanic to you?

He should he's John Aguilera the only Hispanic elected offical at the state wide level in Indiana (with a name like that the pale whiteness of my state is all the more ironic.)

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 03:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh eh, good catch. Have a 4.

But still, Markos Moulitsas Z˙niga doesn't look Scandinavian.



by Francois in Paris on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 03:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are 2 stories here and one's getting media coverage and one is not and the more I think about it I come to the conclusion that that is NO accident.

Story 1.  Media Angle: Arabs are running our ports and that puts us in danger of being attacked by terrorists.  Variations: Arabs can't be trusted, it's not that all Arabs can't be trusted, but the UAE can't be trusted, The UAE is in bed with the Taliban, 2 9-11 hijackers were from the UAE.  Both parties getting on the horse and riding the "tough on security" theme.  Also, local politicians and Congress getting fed up with not be consulted about these things.

Story 2.  Leftish Bloggers' Angle:  WTF is the government doing here?  We put corporate friendships over national security.  DHS is incompetent.  The government is hipocritical.  Privatizing security is dangerous.  There is no transparency.  We can't solve all our problems by outsourcing or handing them over to the private sector.  We really are also worried about security and depending on nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and the UAE for our welfare is stupid.  Not because all Arabs are terrorists, but because of the lack of democratic safegaurds in these countries and palpable anti-American sentiment coupled with the fact that they've already illustrated their willingness to used violence against us.  I don't advocate bombing them, but neither to I advocate placing our security in their hands.  

Very few issues raised in #2 are addressed in the American media, which is convenient for Bush Co.  They cannot respond to those concerns, whereas they can respond to the first set of accusations just by saying, hey, we're not the racists here.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 12:47:42 PM EST
The issue that the Dems are stressing is not the "we can't let A-rabs run our ports," but rather "everything is for sale in Washington right now." The Dems are basically stressing that the White House is putting economic interests (there are some reports about connections between port authorities and John Snow, for example) above security and safety issues. The port management is going to the company that makes most sense economically because of cronyism, so say the Dems. This bodes well for their "culture of corruption" meme they have been pushing. I do think there is some pandering (of course as with everything else in this country), and the Democrats are probably taking some cheap shots. But the GOP is basing their entire 2006 election cycle on security and terrorism once again, and the Dems are trying (desperately) to break that cycle.

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 01:23:28 PM EST
Unfortunately, Joe Biden was on TV today doing the
"we can't let A-rabs run our ports," thing.

I suppose it is up for debate wether he's actually a Democrat or not...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 02:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, what's up for debate is whether the Democratic party is what liberals (especially liberal bloggers) make it out to be.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 02:08:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, I was taken to task a few days ago for outright dismissing someone's comment.  And rightly so.  

I think may both right, making two separate points (Biden can be a wolf in sheep's clothing and the Democratic party can have altered its mission such that it no longer champions what "liberal bloggers" consider democratic values.)

I know I can have a dissmissive tone at times and I'm trying to be aware of that.  Can I ask the same of you?

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 03:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 04:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The issue for Democrats here is how to reconcile being "tough on security" in Americans' eyes with  standing true to their party's principles. Some people are able to be consistent, others like Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman fail miserably. They are still infinitely better than the GOP majority, because you can at least count on them half the time. At the same time though, in a country where political debate is limited to who makes the best soundbyte, how can any productive discourse take place without turning off potential voters? Just think back to 2004 when Kerry said we need to be "smart and sensitive" when it comes to using force to fight the war on terrorism. He was basically portrayed as a complete weakling by the opposition!

Mikhail from SF
by Tsarrio (dj_tsar@yahoo.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 08:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's like trying to appear tough on crime while arguing against the death penalty. By the time you're done explaining your position your right-wind opponent has already gone through their entire platform.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 08:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
btw the wingnuts appear to have shot self in foot -- their passionate campaign to criminalise physicians over assisted suicide has borne strange fruit:  in California doctors are refusing to officiate at the execution of a condemned murderer on grounds that it violates the Hippocratic Oath and professional ethics...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 08:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's fantastic.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 08:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All they need to do is give up the lethal injection and go back to the electric chair, or hanging, or firing squad, or garrote, or guillotine, or drawing and quartering, or...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 08:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm in favor of execution on the breaking wheel with live broadcast on all channels, over the air and cable, and compulsory attendance of the populace. Death penalty itself would be marched to the wheel pretty quickly :>
by Francois in Paris on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 03:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but rather "everything is for sale in Washington right now." The Dems are basically stressing that the White House is putting economic interests (there are some reports about connections between port authorities and John Snow, for example) above security and safety issues
Wait, go over the facts again.

A British company has been operating these ports, administratively, for years.  They, because of their own business reasons, decided to sell, and they sold to an Arabian company.  Neither Bush nor any other American had anything to do with that sale, or proposed sale--I'm not sure that's it's done yet.  But, our government (just like any other government buying a service from an outside company in a sensitive area) gets to review, and approve whether or not they will accept the service from basically the same workers,,,who will now work for this new Arab company.

There is nothing for sale,,,it's just as before.  There is no cronyism.  There is a right to review the new owner.

by wchurchill on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:28:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you'd here the same outcry. It's not a racial distinction butone based on the fact that some of these companies are inimical to the US interests. As such it makes no sense to give a contract for the ports to them.
by Upstate NY on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 12:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It does seem that there may be some quid pro quo between UAE and us oil interests that are leading up to this sale, no real solid info yet, but that is to be expected with the Bush regime.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 02:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
no real solid info yet, but that is to be expected with the Bush regime.
Perhaps you could share the unsolid info, and its source?
by wchurchill on Fri Feb 24th, 2006 at 01:01:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pacifica Radio had a gentleman on Wed. that said he was an investigative reporter and that the story he was working on involved US oil companies trying to buy larger stakes in UAE companies than was currently permitted (49 percent maximum at this point).  He was investigating this and believed that the ties between the oil companies and the administration were being used to allow the sale of port authority to Government controlledDPW in exchange for greater access to that countries large oil and gas resources.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Fri Feb 24th, 2006 at 10:32:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, asdf, and what about the right? The right supports the deal whole heartedly. Right?
by Quentin on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 01:44:45 PM EST
Uh, no, the right wing is completely out of it. But that's to be expected. On the other hand, I keep hoping that the Democrats will show some sense, but as we near the start of the campaign cycle it seems unlikely...
by asdf on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's an evil brew of bigotry and stupidity, and Bush is drowning in it.

My take on it is the same as Drew's - he's been beating the war drum against the Ay-rabs, and now he's trying to sell them supposedly secure infrastructure?

That's not going to play well in Kansas. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have been built on xenophobia and rhetoric, so it's not surprising to find same turning around and biting him on the ass.

And yes, it's a shameless opportunistic chance for the Left to kick Bush while he's down and pin cronyism, corruption and inconsistency on him. Considering, I don't see that as a bad thing. I doubt the Reps are trying to distance themselves, because this kind of mud has a habit of sticking fast.

As for whether or not the US Left believes that UAE bosses really are in cahoots (isn't that a good phrase...?) with Al Qaeda, I have no idea. You can probably guage the measure of real racism involved over here by asking whether Europeans would be happy to sell Rotterdam or London to them.

Meanwhile Bush seems to think the ports are already managed by a UK corporation, so the original sale happened some time ago.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 02:11:12 PM EST
here in a different diary at dKos that may be relevant.

I think it's more likely here the 'racist' tag is being hoisted as a Winger talking point.

I suppose it's possible all of this is ancient history, that post 9/11 everyone had a big falling out, and no one is talking to each other any more.

But is that really the smart bet here?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 04:35:55 PM EST
the whole port thing strongly reminded me of teh proposed Mittel take over and the politicians reaction.
by observer393 on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:03:07 PM EST
How so?

The French reaction has been: we've spent billions and billions to restructure our steel industry properly, trying to make sure that the workers were not totally abandoned as they were put out of work, and keeping a smaller but competitive company, and now the result gets bought over for peanuts by someone who will care only about profits and not about the 30,000 workers that remain in France?

The counter reaction are:

  • fine, you restructured it, so why is it worth so little? (a fair question, and a very complex one, which goes deep into issues of who runs capitalism in France and how privatisation was run);

  • the existing company is just as ruthless with workers as the new buyer is likely to be, so what are you complaining about? (interestingly, the French media has played that angle a lot, interviewing unions reps from Mittal's existing plants in France, which were saying rather nice things about their employer) Plus Arcelor is no longer French already;

Agaisnt that, there's are the followign arguments:

  • that Mittal will remain under the absolute control of a family, which is not really conducive to shareholders having any influence on the new company;

  • that Mittal has made its money in low-grade steels and in the restructuring of steel mills in the developing world, taking them over at very low prices and improving their performance via massive layoffs and some investment - these competences are not required here.

The debate, apart from a few stupid comments by a politician or two (which have been of course played massively), has been of a quite high standard, and touching upon very relevant questions. Mittal has himself played the racism card quite extensively, from what I can understand. Is that appropriate?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 04:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Politicians in both countries shall we say racist comments.
by observer393 on Fri Feb 24th, 2006 at 12:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
asdf, even after reading the substantial criticisms in the comments, I tend to agree with you. I think soj's post at dKos is helpful in clearing up all the conspiracy theories and hot rhetoric going around.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 09:19:06 AM EST
two questions:

Is it all a rovian plot and reaction to the tanking Bush aproval figures, somewhere were the Republicans can profile themselves against Bush?

If the whole thing is a take over of a British company that is already running the harbours, what is it really the US Government could do about it? Or am I to naive in international business, and am not aware of governments having to agree to private business deals exceeding a certain amount? (to prevent Monopolies or something)

Could someone please explain this?

by PeWi on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 11:35:57 AM EST
OK, as a gift to everyone because I freaked out and got pissed off (it's been implied for the last 2 days that I am a racist, can't imagine why I'd get upset, go figure ...) here is a peace offering.

It's funny, it's funny and true. hahaha...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/23.html#a7271

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 05:09:47 PM EST
This is also worth checking out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/23/14935/2494

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 06:10:59 PM EST
Looks like the same company operates a port on the Rhine...

DP World Germersheim is a multimodal transportation company operating terminal, barges and trains between Rotterdam, Antwerp and Germersheim. It is the only multimodal inland terminal on the upper Rhine River and offers point-to-point transport and full trucking and reefer capabilities as well as the operational flexibility provided by four rail tracks under the gantry cranes.

http://www.dpiterminals.com/subproducts.asp?SProdID=26&ProdID=27&SubCatID=2&CatID=1

by asdf on Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 at 10:44:36 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]