rideside.net

home | archive | comics | about

i ride sideways

archive / 2006 / 02 / 21

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-21 20:34:50 +0000

Three Arabs Sail Into Port

Schumer and Frist are making me a bit queasy. I'm wondering how much is a legitimate concern about a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm">foreign country</a> running out ports, and how much is straight up xenophobia.

Bush vetoing any legislation in order to preserve this deal might be eyebrow raising considering the holding company in UAE has close connections with the Bush Dynasty, er, the Bush family. Although, it's probably hard to find any global oil corporation that does not have business dealings with some member of the Bush family these days.

I guess I'd like opposition to this deal to be based on facts, not on generalized fear of "the other". Which is not how it seems to be panning out, alas.
Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-02-22 13:41:56 +0000
It makes for a pretty good distracting news item. If the Democrats are trying to make it look like this issue will make them seem tough with security, I think they're mistaken. With Frist and other Republicans making noise about it, they're capitalizing on it even more by appearing to not be the Administration's yes-men. I would be surprised if this UAE deal does not go through, and if this does not end up being largely unnecessary political theater like we witnessed with Roberts and Alito making their way to SCOTUS.
Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-22 14:47:07 +0000
"unnecessary political theater"

I love it! My new favorite phrase!
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-22 15:40:26 +0000
This one is a toss up for me. I think Bush's argument is valid: were these ports safer under British control?
I don't care what "message it sends," but doe sit make sense overall? Carter is for it, so it has to be a viable international move.
Posted by G lib on 2006-02-22 19:42:10 +0000
Re-capping the arguments:

1. Is this "unnecessary political theater" to divert attention from other issues?
2. Is it another way of Bush trying to re-focus the public's fear of another US attack, in order to gain support of the "war on terror"?
3. Is it Bush's way of saying "I'm not a bad guy!" to Arabs?
4. Is Dubai's owning the ports good for the Bush Oil Cartel?

IMHO:

3 is the main reason for this, with the added bonus of 1, 2, and 4 (along with a million other things I haven't thought of)

And speaking of energy, What about 'corn cars'? Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone noticed the number of commericals that came out the day after Bush's State of The union Address?

Corn, treated and processed with petrochemicals (bread directly into Bush's pockets) IS NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND!!!
Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-02-22 19:55:17 +0000
<a href = "http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008275.php">Kevin Drum</a> has an excellent take on the situation. I think the whole brouhaha has taken the White House offguard. It's probably a sound business decision that happened to get caught up in international politics. It was fairly dumb of the Administration to ignore the mandatory 45-day investigation, to at least make it look like they were on the ball with this.
Posted by tgl on 2006-02-23 14:31:08 +0000
I don't even need to read this article to know it reaffirms my fervant and undying love of <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/opinion/23brooks.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26hp&OP=349f63d3Q2FxQ23Q20Q2FxLuzccLxQ2700Q7Dx0Q27xQ278xcgAQ3DAcQ3DxQ278Q2FzccQ51uQ5EnL)C">Dave Brooks</a>.
Posted by tgl on 2006-02-23 14:36:53 +0000
K.D. says it: "As liberals, we're either serious about engaging with the Muslim world in a sensible, non-hysterical way or we're not. "
Find me on github.