I’m not really saying the Democrats are more responsible than the Republicans. I’m just more disappointed in the Democrats. I expect the GOP to play the xenophobe card. I don’t expect it from the Dems.
Maybe I should do you the courtesy of restating ‘my’ premises here.
Depends on which of the zillions of meanings of ‘threat’ you have in mind. Can they hut us if they try? Do they mean us harm? Depends on your meaning.
In this case, let’s ask: can they do things that would enable a disaster on the scale of 9/11 - upwards of a thousand lives lost - and would some people in that government like to see that happen?
My answer would be: fuck if I know. And you don’t either. (I keep coming back to the need to rely on experts.)
This one’s almost silly, really. No, if DPW was really Duluth Ports World, and was owned for no apparent reason by the secretive but presumably mostly harmless Mars family of candy-bar fame, I’d want the Mars family checked out a bit more thoroughly than they ever have allowed themselves to be checked out before. Why? Because ports have more bearing on national security than candy bars do, and owners can, you know, make decisions for the things they own.
This wouldn’t suggest anyone thinks Duluth Ports World is more dangerous on account of being owned by the Mars family; but it simply means that if a company’s ownership is concentrated rather than diffuse, that ownership needs to be considered as part of the deal from a security standpoint. So if the company itself needs to be checked out for security reasons, so does any ownership group large enough to affect company policy.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
- That the Port Terminal Operators play a significant role in port securty, They don’t.
75% of all containers enter the country thru terminals with foreign-owned operations. The US has been getting out of this business for decades. If you insist on domestic ownership of these terminals you will bring our country’s economy to a standstill.
[/QUOTE]
Nevermind those last two paragraphs, from ‘3.’ on down. Forgot to clean up my quotes. :slap:
Can’t be bothered to re-cite everything from the last thread, but:
I guess ‘maintaining security’ isn’t ‘playing a significant role in security.’ :rolleyes:
I will confess I didn’t know this.
Gotta admit that, until provided (just now) with reason to believe otherwise, I would have assumed port operators, well, operated ports.
True, but I coulda sworn numbers had been bandied about in the other thread about those six handling something like 35-40% of the cargo entering the country. I may have misremembered, but it’s moot. Since if P&O only operates about 3% of the terminals at those ports, I’ll cheerfully concede that isn’t exactly a ‘hefty chunk’ of the U.S. port traffic, and won’t be much of a test case for anything.
One other thing. I’m going to insist, Dio, that you allow at least a little Bush-bashing in this thread. Yeah, the Dems and Pubs look like a bunch of xenophobic idiots, but Bush should’ve known this was going to be a political hot potato, and been proactive about handling it properly. Just another example of him being asleep at the switch. Can anyone imagine a deal this big, with so much political gunpowder attached to it, slipping by Clinton while he was president?
Bush likes to claim he’s not a detail guy (not a fact checker), but this is what happens to guys who aren’t. He is in complete ractionary mode, and has no one to blame but himself. Let’s see Rove save Bush’s ass this time. Funny… he’s had much bigger fuck-ups than this, but it’s this one that turned his own party against him almost to a man.
To me, this is like being disappointed in a three-day-old blob of jello on the floor for not being a three-course meal. Since when have the Democrats done anything but melt? Lest we start calling you Diogenes Who Forgot He Was A Cynic.
But I’ll echo others in saying good for you for being non-partisan. I’m not as strong-minded as you are, I’m afraid. While I agree with your OP, I have to admit, the fact that Bush agrees with it makes me second-guess my own opinion. Beyond that, I simply relish too much watching Bush getting arse-fucked by his own party because they’re too scared of their own xenophobic base. It’s just fun. Jolly good fun. I think Lou Dobbs was funnier than the Daily Show yesterday.
Well, I certainly won’t deny that the attitudes in question date back at least to the embassy hostage-taking in Iran, if not earlier. However, I think you’re in a sense falling for a bit of dishonesty on the part of the Bush administration. I think that they have quite intentionally spoken about terrorism using language that insinuates the entire MENA region is a threat, while simultaneously saying that the fight isn’t against Islam as a whole or against most Arabs. The overt statements say one thing, the subtext says another. And yes, they certainly are that canny. Look back at a lot of the speeches in the leadup to the Iraq war. Count how often Saddam and 9/11 are mentioned in the same breath. No, the Bush Administration never said outright that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, but they very intentionally created such a strong association between the two that a ridiculously large number of Americans think that he did. That was absolutely intentional. It’s a basic, tried-and-true marketing strategy. Marketing isn’t as much about the explicit things you say about your product, it’s creating the association in consumers mind between your product and some positive image. Beer ads might talk about crisp taste, etc., but that’s not what they’re about - they’re about making you think about good times partying when you think about beer, and vice versa.
If you are a canny and not entirely honest politician, you can use marketing tricks to create mental associations between things in the public consciousness, even though you explicitly disavow those associations whenever you’re asked about them. That’s what Bush & Co have done (though as you rightly point out, the attitudes in question weren’t all that uncommon to begin with and no doubt would have grown even absent any prodding given the 9/11 attack), and now they’re stuck trying to deal with them. I don’t have much (any) sympathy for him in that regard.
Just wait until they announce that the terminal operating leases will be bought by Halliburton.
Exxxxxxccccceelllent!! By the time November rolls around, a Republican won’t be able to be elected dogcatcher!
Good Heavens, what are you smoking? Am I being whooshed here?
I would say you are, if you think fattening the bloated wallet of Halliburton will play well with the voters. If it turns out they are the only qualified American company, I would say the Pubs are pretty much screwed no matter what they do.
Why not? The wallet is fattening by the minute in my backyard. Thousands and thousands of our laid-off folks are flocking to work for them. Do you think the name “Halliburton” is some kind of Albatross?
Yes, I do. You must have a very, very small backyard; time to get out more.
I was only half joking about Halliburton. I don’t know for certain that they would be interested in or capable of taking over those operations, but I did hear someone on PBS’s News Hour yesterday say they might. The guy was supposedly a “business analyst” who had some expertise in this industry. Take that for what it’s worth.
Yes, it’s hard to have any sympathy for Bush on this.
We’re talking about stuff that’s impossible to prove one way or another, so I guess we’re all going to believe what we want to believe in the end. I’d certainly agree that Bush overplayed and shamelessly politicized the terror threat-- especially, but not limited to, how it pertains to Iraq. And that in doing so he set the stage for this fiasco, even if he didn’t hire the actors or direct them in this particular performance.
Wait. My actual back yard is about 10 acres. Are we still speaking figuratively?
Because if we are, ironically, it’s you with the tiny worldview. My little community is one of four in the local area that makes up a big-ass megapod of wells. Same as all across America, where “Halliburton” is a savior once the high-tech firms flee to some other place/country. In our biggest little city, you might as well kick off the cross and plant a fucking Giant H on every church. Junction is under Big Biz’s thumb. That’s a mighty big chunk of Colorado.
Just been mostly lurking this thread but THIS is hilarious. The Left™ has a giant bug up its collective butt about Halliburton and engages in a constant circle jerk over its supposed evils and the pervasiveness of the universal hate aimed towards it…and you accuse someone ELSE of a narrow viewpoint? That giant explosion was my irony meter exploding yet again…it seems to do that quite regularly on this board. 
-XT
Am I being whooshed here? Because I’m a daily reader of a number of lefty blogs (Kos, Eschaton, Firedoglake, AmericaBlog, etc.) and while Halliburton’s name comes up occasionally, I don’t see a lot of obsessing about it these days.
Of course, lately, the NSA wiretapping, civil war in Iraq, Cheney’s-got-a-gun, the Abramoff/Dukestir/DeLay legal problems, etc. have taken up enough space that people can hardly remember about Plame/Libby/Rove anymore, let alone Halliburton.
You know, I’m having the same thought as you…am I being whooshed? Because most of the lefties in my own life (including a rather large percentage of my own family, especially my sister and her husband) constantly obsess about Halliburton. Oh, perhaps they obsess about OTHER things too occationally, but Halliburton is a recurring theme that never seems to loose its luster with our left wing bretheren.
-XT