Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
He is not Tone deaf but Stone deaf
Published on February 27, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics



President Bush has said he will veto any attempt by Congress to stop the proposed sale of six American Ports to Dubai Ports. Mr. Bush has asked what is the difference between a British company who currently owns and operates the ports and a company from the United Arab Emirates? Let’s take a look Mr. Bush:

The current operator is NOT owned and operated by the British Government.

Dubai Ports is OWNED and OPERATED by the UAE.

None of the 9/11 terrorists were English citizens.

Two of the 9/11 terrorists were from UAE.

England recognizes Israel.

UAE does NOT recognize Israel.

Funding for 9/11 did not go through British Banks.

Funding for 9/11 did go through UAE Banks.

England did not warn Osama bin Laden in 1999 of our intent to capture him which enabled his escape but UAE DID WARN HIM and that prevented his capture by the United States.

England does not support Islamic Terrorist organizations.

Several Islamic organizations have been supported by elements in the UAE. The UAE was only one of three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the ruler of Afghanistan.

President Bush tells us that the security at our ports will remain unchanged under this new contract. That means we will continue to inspect about 5% of the containers that come into the United States. That also means Dubai Ports will be responsible to supervise loading ALL these containers and prepare the documentation showing what is in all these containers. This is what Mr. Bush is willing to turn over to the UAE.

Mr. Bush – Congress and the American people DO NOT WHANT THIS CONTRACT APPROVED! Just like Rep. Myrick ® from NC said when she wrote you about allowing this contract to be approved – Not only NO but HELL NO! Mr. Bush - bring on your Veto. Congress - override his veto.

It is time for Congress to insist that George W. Bush begin to meet his responsibilities to FULLY protect our ports and borders. He must request to fully fund the Coast Guard and our military. It is DISGARCEFUL how Mr. Bush has FAILED to fully protect our country. It is time for an American company to own and operate our ports.

Comments (Page 7)
7 PagesFirst 5 6 7 
on Mar 02, 2006
antiboycott law enforcement info here


You're the best kb!

not pretty and smart


Well, my mother would beg to differ with you on that. She think I'm smart AND pretty!

(Sing along with me)
I feel pretty, oh so pretty!
on Mar 02, 2006
#90 by kingbee
Thursday, March 02, 2006


Nice one KB, thanx.

I have to agree that this law does change things a bit. But this is also proof of how Mr Col, over here, is the ignorant one that he began crying about this with any legit reason to cry other than a racist reason. He did not want this to go through because they were arabs and nothing more. So not only is Col ignorant but he is also a racist.

Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.


This is definitely a cause for concern. To allow this to go through, not because of them being muslim or because of fear of less security, but because we would be breaking laws of our own. Something to ponder about without leting Col fill your head with hatred rather than reason.
on Mar 02, 2006
Well, my mother would beg to differ with you on that. She think I'm smart AND pretty!


Well, I only wanted to make sure since I'm not sure if you are a guy or a gal. But does moms opinion really count? It is, after all, a bias opinion.
on Mar 03, 2006
Thanks for the link, kb.

Does anyone know if DPW has such language in its contracts currently? Is it upholding the Arab Boycott Laws or honoring them in the breach? Given how many ports they already operate, it seems unlikely they are enforcing them. Or perhaps the port operator is considered a non-liable passive conduit, since they don't pack, transport, or unpack containers or certify container contents.
on Mar 05, 2006

It seems a little strange that the hardcore right wing Bush administration would have no problem with selling ports to Arabs (who are not famed for their love of America).

The right is split on this, most against but some in favour saying the market should decide whether America is safe or not. Seems to me that if the Democrats supported this Republicans would label them 'terrorists appeasers' and now that they don't some Republicans are using the old "racist" tag on Dems they moan about so much.


Riiiiight.... is "that" why the democrats let the Chinese in to run the Port of Los Angles?
7 PagesFirst 5 6 7