See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:44 pm, mcconnell said:

   Whoo..first one here. Ok. Any chinks in the armor is what we don’t need around here. I don’t care if hurt the UAE’s feelings. They shut down Michelle’s site, didn’t they?

   At least there is a way around it for those stuck in UAE and want to read Michelle’s blogs.
   http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-get-around-banned-website-in.html

2. #2
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:46 pm, Chuck Waters said:

   I’m just about as pro-Bush as they come, but how on earth can they make this insane decision? It just doesn’t make any sense what-so-ever. I’m finding it more and more difficult supporting our president when his administration rolls out these plans that don’t seem to be very well thought out.

   I sure hope that Mr. Bush’s administration will explain this. Frankly, it makes no sense, even if it costs less. We need to secure our borders. From our ports, to the Mexican border to the wide open Canadian border.

   God help us.

3. #3
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:47 pm, Dave G. said:

   Wow! Comments on MichelleMalkin.com. This should be the biggest news story of the year and the only ones following it are Malkin and http://www.bareknucklepolitics.com. The morons over at the MSM are still stuck on stupid with the Cheney story. Go figure.

4. #4
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:48 pm, Whippet said:

   Michelle,

   I was surprised to hear over the weekend that a British Company had been running these ports for several years. Even though they have been a long time ally to the U.S. I don’t like the idea of any foreign company having any involvement in an area that can be so important to our National Security. I can’t remember where I read it, but I also understood that when the British Company was sold the new “deal” was approved by not just the Administration but some congressional committee members with oversight over these issues.

   I find it disingenuous for the Democrats to once again be blaming the Bush Administration alone when some of them are also culpable. I wish I remembered where I read about it. Please correct me if I am wrong. That being said, aren’t there any American Companies who would love to have this contract or not?

5. #5
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:50 pm, Chuck Waters said:

   One more thing. I don’t care if we appear to be Xenophobic. Most of the world (even our former friends in Europe) don’t seem to like us anymore.

   Let’s not forget Teddy Roosevelt’s quote, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. I feel that lately, we’re speaking loudly (hoping everyone will listen because they have in the past) and we’ve been carrying a twig.

6. #6
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:50 pm, Bill Faith said:

   Any truth to the rumor we’re also going to put Guest Workers in charge of our border security?

7. #7
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:51 pm, Tom said:

   We need to be careful here. I think we are putting racist stereotypes before calling the kettle black here. There seems to be a completely legal transaction going on here.

8. #8
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:53 pm, Liz said:

   nice, comments! i just am befuddled about this issue. i guess from an economic standpoint it makes sense, somehow. but frankly when it comes down to our security, and ports have always been mentioned as possible targets or entrypoints for terrorists, i don’t give a lick about economics. this should not happen. period. everyone that wants this changed needs to write a letter or an e-mail. i mean come on, the list of states and cities that this takeover encompasses is a terrorist wet dream.

9. #9
   On February 20th, 2006 at 8:53 pm, DeltaFox said:

   What a slap in the face to every American, US Troop and those that lost their lives 0n 9/11 by allowing this.

   How can Chertoff defend this position?

   Have we no dignity…no common sense?

10. #10
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:54 pm, neal said:

    I think Cal Thomas has it about right. Last week I wrote my Georgia Senators (Chambliss and Isakson) urging them to join Senator Coburn in taking a second look at this stupifying decision, but I haven’t heard back from them. Thank you, Governors Ehrlich and Pataki!

11. #11
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:55 pm, Ed said:

    We’ve heard from Bush officials regarding this potential transaction, but have we heard from President Bush, yet? I hope he speaks out against this soon.

12. #12
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:55 pm, Hashman said:

    God Bless You!
    You are smokin’

13. #13
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:56 pm, IndependentConservative said:

    Well you know the ports issue is a BIG DEAL when Mrs. Malkin opens the comments section .

    This sale is really a bad idea. The Bush Administration defending it is an even worse idea. Seeing Liberal Democrats exploit it and me having to agree with them just salts the wound more.

    Mr. President, stand with the American people!

14. #14
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:56 pm, Darrell said:

    Michelle, . . . You are doing a great job. Kepp up the good, hard work!

15. #15
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:59 pm, Dan-Gerous said:

    This is another example of Bush’s fantasy and ignorance about Third World Countries. He got his GATT, and NAFTA was already here.
    When some Muslim’s stand up and denounce terror, it may signal a POSSIBLE acceptable way to do business with the Muslims. But, until they say Israel is a State, and renounce terror, this deal is B.S!

16. #16
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:59 pm, Ed said:

    Thanks for opening up the comments section! Thanks for helping spread the word about this absurd sellout of national security.

17. #17
    On February 20th, 2006 at 8:59 pm, JohnK said:

    What is Bush thinking? Perhaps this is another ‘Miers Supreme Court Nomination’ moment? My God, if this goes through, he loses all my respect….

18. #18
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:00 pm, John said:

    Michelle,

    I would like to say that this is an absolute outrage. For the Bush Administration to approve this leads me to seriously question their overall commitment to national security. While they have stood tall on other issues regarding the war on terror, this is screw up that surpasses that of nominating Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS.

    In fact, I would have to say that the threat to national security that this deal would pose comes very close to the danger Bill Clinton put us in when he sold nuclear secrets to China. President Bush has made some small mistakes over the last five years as all human being due. But if this goes through, it will be a major scandal as far as I am concerned. To allow an Arab nation to control six major US ports only five years after 9/11 is an abomination.

    PS: I would be tremendously appreciative if you would consider autographing my caricature drawing of you. You can view it on my blog at “http://www.wisgrove.com/gallery.html”. Please email me if you are interested. I would gladly cover shipping and an autograph fee if you have one.

    Once again, thank you and God bless!

19. #19
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:00 pm, CraigC said:

    One one hand, I think it’s cool that you’re opening comments back up. But be prepared for the usual barrage of hateful, sexist, racist crap from the libtards.

20. #20
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:00 pm, Whitehall said:

    Another brilliant Rovian play!

    Seriously.

    How better to bring to the fore a substantial issue for public debate and discussion than to allow the MSM to offer it up as a stick against the Bush Administration.

    Of course, as part of the long term strategy to reduce the MSM in importance, the alternative media (bloggers) were allowed to “discover” the issue.

    By learning from a concrete example, people can teach themselves the issues better than any lecturing. Even Schumer is learned something!

21. #21
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:00 pm, Eli Stoltzfus said:

    This is a good start. Profile this company because they are owned by the UAE Gov. Now, let’s keep the ball rolling and continue to profile people who are obvious suspects from the ‘religion of peace’

22. #22
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:01 pm, P Ingemi said:

    My gut says this isn’t as big a deal as it seams since multi nationals board of directors usually don’t control hiring down to the lowest levels of a company.

    That being said we in my opinion have to assume that our foes will take advantage of a situation as it comes up. One of the huge mistakes made in this war is our failure to realize that the failures we have had in the past are not just due to our mistakes but due to the other side and their allies trying to win. If a hole exists here (or in any situation) we must figure our foes will try to jump in.

    This will be a lose lose no matter what so if we have to err we should err on the side of caution.

23. #23
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:03 pm, Tim said:

    I am disappointed that you have oppened up the comments section on this website. I expect to see many racist and ignorant comments. This is usually what happens in comment section.

24. #24
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:05 pm, Renee said:

    America’s greed knows no ends…

    I am still trying to figure why even a BRITISH owned company was running our ports… ally or not…

    do American’s own anything in America anymore (besides debt)???

25. #25
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:06 pm, Frank McNulty said:

    Shouldn’t we be engaging in this type of racial profiling at arports as well as in commercial transactions?

26. #26
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:10 pm, Tatterdemalion said:

    I work at the Baltimore Port. Seems like a poor idea. They have been upgrading security for the past year, but they still have a ways to go.

27. #27
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:14 pm, demohypocrates said:

    did some quick internet searches and came up with a couple of curious information. It seems like as part of the deal to run the ports in the United States, they had to acquire U.K. container ports operator, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. To finance the acquisition they had to issue a bond known as a Sukuk, which apparently is a, ho-hum, Sha’ria compliant bond which stands as the largest Sukuk ever issued. The initial bond issue was slated for $2.5 billion but due to strong demand was increased to $3.5 billion with Dubai Islamic Bank and Carclays Capital as the lead issuers. Apparently the Muslim world is excited about getting a piece of the company that will run some U.S. ports. See here for more information about the bond offering.

    A little more research led me to this little tidbit of information. A search of Dubai Islamic Bank led me to this article in Business Week:

    For regulators tracking bin Laden’s funding, the task is hugely complex. For starters, the money originates from abroad. Take those wealthy merchants, construction magnates, or bankers who donate directly to the Islamic militant groups. Security specialists believe they wire funds to bank accounts in places like London, Hong Kong, or Dubai that are held by Islamic charities, businesses, or individuals who front for the militant Islamic groups. In 1999, U.S. intelligence agents reported that Dubai Islamic Bank in the United Arab Emirates was a conduit for bin Laden funds. The bank declined to comment. On Sept. 19, Barclays Bank froze a suspicious account, although the bank says the account was long inactive. Thousands of such accounts could exist.

    What does any of this prove? Nothing. But, in the least, it shows that the questions so many have been raising by this deal have some merit and the administration needs more extensive disclosure about how this deal won’t affect the security of our nation.

28. #28
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:14 pm, Keith said:

    I wonder if all these congress-critters would have their knickers in such a knot if Halliburton got the nod to run the ports?

29. #29
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:15 pm, Louis said:

    From what I remember, it was John Kerry and the Democrats last year that were talking about our port security, and how there are very few containers checked when they enter through the ports.

    Leave it to Bush to make our ports even more unsafe.

30. #30
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:16 pm, John H. Schneider II said:

    hi Michelle!!

    A good idea would be to have a moderator to edit the comments section, not to remove actual discourse, but to remove the hate speech that you will get from the left.
    On the other hand, could it be that you are working on a sequel to your book “Unhinged”?

    As far as the ports issue, I am hoping that this is just a boneheaded bureaucratic move, and one that will be corrected shortly. Of course, I am waiting for the liberals to overplay their hand and once again have their collective heads handed to them.

31. #31
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:19 pm, Fish-Man said:

    YAY COMMENTS! YAY! YAY! YAY!.

    You should delete troll-like entries, I think, but otherwise, leave this open! How many times I have wanted to leave you a note of respect, or a comment, or share a related source. YAY!

    F-M

32. #32
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:21 pm, Francis said:

    Ownership of the ports by foreign companies has been successful for years. Suddenly, an Arab country will have control and there’s an uproar!

    My view is that they will be extremely vigilant about their investment, as much or more so than the Brits.

33. #33
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:23 pm, Rovin said:

    Renee,

    America’s greed has been the worlds prosperity for more than a generation.

    “do American’s own anything in America anymore (besides debt)???”

    More Americans own their own homes that at any other time in our history.

    Is it a sin to be prosperous in your eyes? (bye the bye, we give more in charity to the world than the rest of the world combined)

    Thank you so much for the comment section Michelle……..I hope our opponents can try to maintain a civil debate here.

    Rov

34. #34
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:23 pm, Glinda Fox said:

    Michelle, I first became aware of this sale on your website and shared your outrage. At your suggestion, I have emailed my US Senator and the White House to let them be aware of my feelings. I expressed general support for the President in both emails, but added my disappointment at this latest development.

    How can this be good for our country??

    Thanks for keeping on top of things. I love your website!

35. #35
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:24 pm, Bruce said:

    This is one of those issues where I’d really like to see as many details as possible. It may be somewhat different than it appears on the surface. But I have to admit that it sure seems extremely foolish on the surface.

    Also, I’ve followed your site for some time and I’ve been extremely impressed with all the work you’ve done. Definitely Pulitzer prize level work (back when that prize actually meant something).

36. #36
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:25 pm, Jess said:

    I am very conservative, therefor I believe that securtity is very important, especially homeland security. However, I do think we need to hear the other side of the story, which, for some reason, is not available. There has to be a reason why top officials would approve of the UAE company taking over some major ports. I want to know these reasons. We all should before the crucifixion.

37. #37
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:26 pm, Whippet said:

    Francis,
    On what, may I ask, do you base your view that this particular foreign company “will be extremely vigilant about their investment, as much or more so than the brits”?

38. #38
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:28 pm, steve said:

    another great idea from the bush administration.

    any republicans here having buyer’s remorse? haha.

39. #39
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:29 pm, rw in san diego said:

    I have written to the White House asking if The US government would have hired a German firm to guard the Brooklyn Navy Yard during WWII. This move on the part of the Bush Administration is equally boneheaded.

40. #40
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:31 pm, John Bull said:

    Here in Chicago, a foreign company called Macquarie (Australian-Spanish, I believe) owns one of our major toll roads and is planning on buying another in Indiana. I found out they own several all around the country! I imagine lots of US interests are owned by foreign companies. The problem is: do we want a country that will kill over cartoons in charge of some of our main ports of entry. The answer: A resounding NO! Thank goodness some politicians haven’t been scared into submission over this one.

41. #41
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:32 pm, John said:

    Michelle,

    I’ve been a Bush-backer since he was governor of Texas, but I was appalled at the prospect of turning over the security of our ports to any foreign government, much less the UAE. I emailed the White House to express my dismay.

    You’re one of my primary sources of unbiased information, and I can’t thank you enough for your efforts.

    John

42. #42
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:34 pm, Mark said:

    To be both fair and balanced with more conservative data…I encourage everyone including Michelle to read Rush Limbaugh’s latest comments on the ports and UAE. Rush is not lock step with Bush and this is one instance where he offers up some interesting information and it supports the decision made by the U.S.

    There are many times when other entities have a better grasp of an task then “in-house” groups. My travels in Europe convinced me that I was much safer there then travelling in my own country-soldiers were armed with automatic weapons and patrolled openly throughout the airport. There haven’t been any instances of hi-jackings or airplanes used as guided missles from those countries.

    Is it possible that the UAE has a better grasp on security then we do because of their proximity to hostile nations and peoples? Could it be that they have a vested interest in showing their concern for our safety and security through the management of our ports because those ports bring goods and tourists to their countries? Could it be that we could develop another ally in the war on terror through the developemnt of stronger relations through UAE? And last but not least, do you think that the UK would risk exposing us to another threat through the sale of this company to another hostile nation/peoples? I don’t think they would do it just to earn a quick buck.

    What we have here is a few opportunistic grandstanders in the House and Senate looking for camera time and not thoroughly looking at and analysing a situation through to its final conclusion BEFORE opening their mouths….but why should life from Capital Hill be any different?

43. #43
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:34 pm, John said:

    Correction to my prior post… “foreign corporation” rather than “foreign government”, although the distinction is likely subtle.

44. #44
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:35 pm, Whippet said:

    Steve,

    While with the information I have read I totally disagree with this decision, there’s no buyer’s remorse here.

45. #45
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:35 pm, Matt said:

    This is not totally like during WWII, hiring the Japanese to guard Los Alamos. I mean, the president is usually so grounded…did he stumble across some leftover Clinton stash in the oval office or something?

    The port sellout to the Jihadists is the mother of all bad ideas.

46. #46
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:36 pm, Steph said:

    I remember conservatives questioning a similar decision in the 90′s under Clinton’s watch when the big port in L.A. (can’t remember the name, now) was being sold to a Chinese company to run. I believe Clinton still signed off on it, though. I don’t recall if the Dem’s complained then, though I believe they were wrong not to. We must all VISUALIZE that Pres. Bush will not allow this sale to go forward.

47. #47
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:37 pm, Rovin said:

    Chuck Schumer said today on Fox (with John Gibson) that he would prefer Haliburton over UAE if it was his choice. 2:20 PM 02/20/06

    I think the folks at Haliburton should send Chuck a belated Valentine.

48. #48
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:38 pm, Lady Heather said:

    This is insanity!

    This will only feed the conspiracy theorists re: Bush and Mideast/Arab oil ties.

    I’m sure DU and the KosKidz are having a field day with this.

49. #49
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:39 pm, Lady Heather said:

    By the way, Michelle…YOU ROCK!

50. #50
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:41 pm, DaleH said:

    Michelle: Your blog is on top of my most visited destinations. I can’t see a colonial foothold in the US by the UAE being tolerated. Who is running these ports now? Thanks for keeping us in touch with reality.

51. #51
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:42 pm, Dean said:

    Like me, many of you probably go to Michelle’s blog first.

    As is true with the story on the sale of Port Security assets and responsibilities to Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons, to how the Liberals and most Democrats are becoming unhinged, to solidly focusing on issues at core conservative belief, to immigration, to support of our troops and the war on terror and to much, much more.

    Since June 2004 Michele has been as hard working of any blogger out there. Michele finds issues and stories that need exposure and bites on to the proverbial “pant leg” on won’t let go until she educates us about what’s happening.

    Michele, if you read this THANKS!

52. #52
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:42 pm, Randy Newman said:

    No one likes us, don’t know why,
    we may not be perfect but heaven knows we try.

    And all around, even our old friends put us down,
    let’s drop the big one, see what happens.

    Asia’s too crowded, Europe’s too old,
    Africa is far too hot, and Canada’s too cold.

    South America stole our name,
    let’s drop the big one, there’ll be no one left to blame us…

    r newman

53. #53
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:43 pm, Jerry Bolton said:

    Not much to say. There are times when President George Bush completely baffles me. What in the world was/is the man thinking? Boggles the mind. Everyone else was more coherent than I, but I had to chime in. Jeez!

54. #54
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:43 pm, TexasRainmaker said:

    I know it’s a big deal when I find myself on the same side as Hillary on the issue!

55. #55
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:44 pm, RW-(the original) said:

    Is this really as huge a problem as it’s being made out to be? The UAE company is buying out a British company, so it’s not like we really had control to begin with. It’s entirely possible that we would be less vulnerable because we would be more vigilant and at the same time we would send the message to Muslim countries that we do view them as part of the normal World.

    Granted it is a huge political issue now, but so far I think the outrage is hurting us more than the transaction.

    Like Jess earlier, I can’t seem to find the other side of this story.

56. #56
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:45 pm, mgd said:

    Not opening the comment section for fear of a few racist/ignorant posts is shameful defeatism and would hopefully be considered apostasy to someone like Ms. Malkin. I can laugh and gloss over the stupid posts, but I can’t get the unique perspectives from the good ones that aren’t posted
    for fear of the idiotic ones.

    Questioning the sale of our ports to a predominantly Muslim country isn’t racial profiling imo. You’re not pointing to an individual or group of individuals and saying “he’s probably a terrorist.” A corporation is an abstraction and an open portal to the hosting country. Ownership can change. You only need one person in the whole company to be sympathetic to AQ’s goals for it to be a dumb idea. Not to mention that purchasing a port, a known target of terrorists, is not the equivalent of random bag inspections on the subway.

    I really hope Bush doesn’t fk this one up. I support a lot of what he’s done so far but if he allows this to go through I’ll be very suspicious.
    The block on buying foreign pharmaceuticals makes me suspicious enough but the port sale will put me over the edge. We should make a Graft Slush Fund to double the payoff of whoever green lighted this project.

57. #57
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:47 pm, Vizzini the Sicilian said:

    UAE running the US ports?

    INCONCEIVABLE!

58. #58
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:48 pm, Drewmx said:

    Can anyone say bribery. How else would this be approved?

59. #59
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:48 pm, Jaibones said:

    Harriet Miers, anyone?

    Illegal immigration, anyone?

    FEMA, anyone?

    The people who came up with this clever UAE idea are the same ninnies who gave us the terrific policy decisions in the above nightmares.

    When you think about it, it blows your mind to know that the DemoRats would actually be WORSE than this at running a country!

    Clearly, the Republicans owe their every deep breath to the imbeciles who thought that putting Howard Dean in front of cameras with a DNC cap on was a good idea…

60. #60
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:51 pm, PTG said:

    The whole business smells bad. It makes me wish I knew more about our shipping facilities and how they are run.

61. #61
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:52 pm, Ian said:

    The funny thing about this, is the liberals are behind this. Usually when policies are put in place to keep Muslims from attacking us, the left calls it “racism against the brown people”.

62. #62
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:52 pm, S. John said:

    Isn’t it ironic that Ms. Malkin is so against Google, but still uses their Email service (gmail). Can you say hypocrite!

    And what is the big deal about this Port thing. We have already known that the Bush family has a lot of ties to the Arab businesses. So is this really a surprise> Its not surprising to me that Bushie and Drunky Cheney care more about wealth and helping their buddies out than the safety of the American people.

63. #63
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:52 pm, Rovin said:

    mgd,

    99% of your post was spot on.

    But you have no idea of the BS Michelle finally gave up on by providing a comment section.

64. #64
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:53 pm, Flip said:

    I hope President neutralizes this issue immediately, not only on its own merits, but so posturing hypocrites like Schumer and Clinton can’t continue using it to wax hawkish on national security.

65. #65
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:54 pm, tele64 said:

    Firstly, thanks to Michelle for opening up her comments section…

    Secondly, and most importantly I thank Michelle for opening the blog because I know that congress and utilmately the pres will read these comments…

    DO NOT LET ARABS OF ANYTYPE RUN ANYTHING IN AMERICA. ARE YOU STUPID?
    STOP THIS NOW. DUMB ARSES…

66. #66
    On February 20th, 2006 at 9:56 pm, Inigo Montoya said:

    Vizzini,

    I do not think this word means what you think it means…

67. #67
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:02 pm, Sam S. said:

    I can’t believe that we’re even talking about this. This insanity scares me more than anything that’s happened since 9-11. Why is it that we find it so difficult to understand that the Arab countries are NOT to be trusted when it comes to having any kind of presence in this country?

    I’m a long-time Republican, but this whole fiasco makes me sick. This should have NEVER become an issue. The whole concept is absurd and should have been laughed at when first brought to the attention of the White House…and then someone should have been fired for letting the idea get even that far.

    Political correctness, be damned. Don’t trust these people. PLEASE!

68. #68
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:02 pm, Marty said:

    Michelle Malkin has got it right again, and the MSM is lost in thier PC world. This UAE deal reminds me of the Panama turn-over, which then led to China controlling both sides of the extremely important canal. It is a total mistake for the US to let the this deal go through. Of course the MSM won’t say anything, until there’s a big attack and then say “why did we do it”? Everyone keep the pressure up, we don’t want another 9/11!

69. #69
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:05 pm, Trout fishing in America said:

    Don’t go gettin’ your knickers in a knot. President Bush did not have sex with any women…well, maybe his wife. So, we’ll be just fine. No worries here in God’s Country.

70. #70
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:06 pm, douglas said:

    How exactly are liberals behind this Ian?

71. #71
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:08 pm, hank said:

    Thank you for your attention to this issue. It’s going to explode. And in a non-partisan way, hopefully.

72. #72
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:12 pm, Vizzini the Sicilian said:

    S.John says: Isn’t it ironic that Ms. Malkin is so against Google, but still uses their Email service (gmail). Can you say hypocrite!

    Isn’t it ironic your comment has nothing to do with the topic? Can you say Ad Hominem?

    …S.John goes on to say : And what is the big deal about this Port thing. We have already known that the Bush family has a lot of ties to the Arab businesses.

    Ahh yes, the “we already know/everyone knows” method of presenting evidence…

    …and finishes with : So is this really a surprise> Its not surprising to me that Bushie and Drunky Cheney care more about wealth and helping their buddies out than the safety of the American people.

    Ted Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

73. #73
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:12 pm, Rob said:

    Congressman Peter King reports that no American company has bid for control of the ports.
    Since this seems to be one of those tasks
    that Americans aren’t willing to do perhaps we should turn the ports over to our illegal aliens.

74. #74
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:12 pm, Illidan said:

    I concur with most of the comments here – this is definately a bonehead idea from the Bush administration.

    S. John

    I see that you’ve been watching Fareinheit 9/11 too many times…proof of these Arab “business” deals, please? And I’d rather hunt with Dick Cheney than take a drive with Ted Kennedy.

75. #75
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:15 pm, Jess said:

    Again, where is the other side? I do agree it sounds like a bad idea, but where is the other side? There has to be a reason why some endorse this agreement between the UAE and our ports.

76. #76
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:16 pm, Dan Thornton said:

    Michelle,

    We should not and cannot allow an Arab country with ties to terrorism to be an operator of any of our American ports let alone allow the sale of them to any foreign country be it friend or foe. I think president Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists in the world and is definately doing the job but he is wrong on this one.

    We must close our borders at once and continue the fight on our terms in Iraq and Afghanistan not in our own back yard. At the least, look at the potential propaganda victory to arab terrorism with another attack in America and most likely through Mexico or our ports.
    Just say NO!!!.

77. #77
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:17 pm, Gary Tanner said:

    More troubling than the thought of the UAE having control over the ports in question is the additional remarks made by Frank Gaffney regarding the military usage of the Texas ports.

    Should this operation be allowed to continue, they would have the means and methods of restricting our provisioning our fighting men and women all over the world. That is quite unacceptable.

    What is even more unacceptable is that this is all a moot point to begin with. Never in our history have we been more vulnerable and open to attack.

    Western countries have clearly defined borders, laws and procedures for making and enforcing their respective laws. Our enemy respects no borders. Elected officials are surrogates of the Sharia Councils which actually run the middle east.

    We will never be safe until we get rid of the UN from our shores. Every Islamic country has representatives at the UN and each country has the full rights and priveledges diplomatic designation carries.

    Diplomatic pouches can be anything they designate them to be. They can be an envelope or a container. Those diplomats can bring into this country whatever they desire and we can not look at it, inspect it or even come near it.

    Until that changes, we will never be safe.

78. #78
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm, Fadingcapn said:

    Wow! Comments on MichelleMalkin.com. This should be the biggest news story of the year

    Agreed! I never thought I’d see Michelle open herself up to criticism in this way. You’ve got guts, girl, considering some of the wacky, unhinged stuff you regularly post.

79. #79
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm, S. John said:

    I’m sorry, I thought the saying went:

    I’d rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Laura Bush.

80. #80
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:22 pm, Zetty Twine said:

    I’m honnored to be able to write a comment on Michelle’s blog! Wooohooo!.

    Anyway…it seems to be against COMMON SENSE that this port deal is going through. Hellooooo? Why in God’s name is an Isdlamic nation, with past terror ties, being given control of AMERICAN PORTS?
    I’m agreeing with Hillary and Chuck…OMGWT*….That in itself is earth-shaking to me. What in the world is Pres. Bush thinking??
    This deal must be stopped, and I hope Peter King can stop it.
    Having said that…WHY is the Bush administration so behind this? It certainly has not been explained to my satisfaction.

    This only gives ammo to the Unhinged like Babs Boxer and Ted “Car Wash” Kennedy.

81. #81
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:22 pm, lawhawk said:

    My concerns always were, and continue to be, the fact that the feds claimed they did a thorough review of security concerns, and yet we’ve learned that Maryland wasn’t contact, and neither was the PANY/NJ. When you’re getting the jurisdictions involved in local port security operations saying that they weren’t contacted or involved in security queestions or concerns, you have to wonder just how thorough the review was.

82. #82
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:24 pm, Bill Rowan said:

    As I understand it, this rigorous background check has to do with the PROCEDURES used in the management of the ports.

    Can there be any doubt that we’ve been sold down the river?

    Chertoff’s just one more bureaucrat that has to go.

    What ever happened to Mr Smith goes to Washington?

83. #83
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:28 pm, David W said:

    I am just shocked that this would even be considered. Especially since they have been linked to funding some of the “Militant” Islamic Groups. I see absolutely no reason this should happen. This is without a doubt the worst move.

84. #84
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:29 pm, Jim Sumner said:

    Michelle, thank you for highlighting the Islamofascist hypocrisy and the unhinged Left. You are doing a great service to the nation.
    Opposition to this port deal seems to be common sense. Our ports are vulnerable enough as it is. Giving control to an Islamic Nation with past terror ties is plain stupid. It’s axiomatic.
    Also, if the deal offends even ONE “9-11 Family” then it should be null and void on principal.

85. #85
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:29 pm, Jim Sumner said:

    and what the heck…they shut down your site!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

86. #86
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:32 pm, stroll said:

    I can’t believe this ever even came up as an option. I’m glad the left and right are largely united against this idiotic idea. There is absolutely no justification for this.

87. #87
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:33 pm, Steve (Scipio) said:

    In general, I would never trust Chuck Schumer for being at the forefront of national security when he continuously panders to those who hate President Bush, I believe, in this case, he is acting like what he is supposed to be; a representative of the state of New York. Considering the bipartisan support in both Houses, I don’t believe the White House can do anything but stop the deal and let Congress and the states get a good look at this.

    The President has done a decent job at continuing to lead the country and avoid the status of being a “lame duck”. However, if he doesn’t get Congress involved here, he may find himself that way for the next three years. His handling of the border has been bad enough; this will take the cake.

    It also doesn’t mean instant support for the Dems, either. They have an extremely poor track record on national security going back to the Vietnam era. What they say and do will need to be scrutinized just as much as ever. This is one issue they’ve seemed to have gotten right, and Congressional Republicans getting involved just cements this. Democrats will have to keep getting it right before I can trust them on national security matters. And we already know that President Bush isn’t perfect.

88. #88
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:33 pm, John Boyle said:

    Did anyone else see the report that Treasury Sec Snow’s former company just completed a $billions deal with this same Dubai outfit? Snow is the main man at this secret interagency conference that approved this after three weeks of vetting. Can it be all the noise about corruption in the administration is true? This is a make or break issue for me – a die hard Bush supporter; but die my support may. Time for Dubya to wake up and take the reins back.

89. #89
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:34 pm, tblubrd said:

    S. John,
    You negated anything you had to say that may have been worthy by criminalizing Bush/Cheny and insulting Michelle. Either try again or go away.

    Michelle, thanks for the heads up. Thanks to your news tip, I have written my congressmen, all Republicans, to stop this insanity.
    I agree with most of what MGD said. With this cartoon issue showing us how “rational” large elements of Islam are worldwide, it is not an insignificant assessment that this is a very bad idea. One screw up in a company employing many thousands could be disastrous. I don’t know if the British company had security problems. I suspect every port into the US has some security issues. But I see huge security problems with UAE in charge. And heading to America’s midwest to get out of the line of fire won’t help. Containers are merely hooked up to trucks and rails lines and away they go. Whose safe on this?

    And who will we have as oversight in this? Hamas?

90. #90
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:37 pm, P. Ingemi said:

    This gives some of the people on the left a chance to flank the administration on the right in terms of a security issue. This is the reason why Halliburton will trump the UAE in some people’s minds.

    Although I don’t have a huge amount of trust for Sen Schumer, I tend assume that when it is the security of NY he will act out of conviction.

    In my opinion the right or wrongly the media will push on this because it is a chance to hit the administration in a way that the public will relate to.

    It will be interesting if any on the left object due to “Racism”. I suspect not but it will be fun to find out.

91. #91
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:40 pm, Jess said:

    MRS. MALKIN;
    WHERE IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY? O’REILLY IS WILLING TO GIVE THE UAE A CHANCE; WHY NOT YOU? WHY NOT ANY OF YOU? I’M NOT AGREEING WITH IT, BUT I REALLY WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY.

92. #92
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:40 pm, tblubrd said:

    By the way, I don’t think this is a partisan issue. Irrational maybe, but not not partisan. Especially when Schumer thinks Halliburton would do a better job. I’m Conservative but that doesn’t make me blind. Liberals are saying the same thing as Michelle. I suspect many Dems will try to get leverage but that’s OK with me. They’ve lost so much ground they need something to pick themselves up with.

    And need I say that this is light years ahead of Cheney’s hunting incident in importance. And we almost missed it – except for Michelle. Thanks

93. #93
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:42 pm, Magua said:

    I’m sure that has been calypso singer belafonte supports this deal, as well as Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, not to mention the New Black Jackass, oops I mean Panther Party(who further promote the Religion of Peace by calling for killing of “Jew babies and old lasies” etc. Aren’t they sweet and peaceful and not at all unhinged and hypocritical?)

94. #94
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:43 pm, Dan said:

    Just put union labor in charge at the ports.

    They’re start losing money so fast because of undeserved raises and poor work ethics and in no time the Arabs will have no choice but to sell.

95. #95
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:46 pm, Gen.JC Christian, patriot said:

    Mrs. Malkin, wouldn’t it be nice if we could build a concentration camp big enough to hold all of the brown people? Then, we wouldn’t be scared anymore.

96. #96
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:48 pm, Jim P said:

    Sorry, but for once in my life I am going to have to disagree with Michelle on this one. From what I can tell, the UAE bought out an English company here. The people who would ultimately be running the ports are going to pretty much be the same people. Also from what I understand, the UAE has some of the most high tech equipment on the planet. Democrats have always complained that republicans need to take a more nuanced stand regarding arab countries, well here is one. The UAE is a big friend of the United States. They bought out the company fair and square. If it wasn’t them running it, it would be the brits. There are plenty of Al Qaeda sympathizers in England as well. I think that denying them what we would have given England is basically hurting relations with one of the few good friends we have in the Arab worls. We would only be doing it because it is a MUSLIM country, nothing else. The US would still be providing the Visa’s and most things wouldn’t change, just the ownership of the company. I think conservatives are in an uproar without looking at the realities.

97. #97
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:48 pm, GK said:

    Info here on how to expose anti-Americanism during casual debate :

    http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/an_easy_way_to_.html

98. #98
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:51 pm, RW-(the original) said:

    Jess-I think you and I are lone voices in this. It sounds bad on the surface, but usually sane conservatives are acting like moonbats with this pack mentality.

    I did a post about it and I welcome anyone to please drop by and give me REAL REASONS why this is wrong. It sounds like it is wrong, but I want to know why.

99. #99
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:52 pm, Gen.JC Christian, patriot said:

    Mr. O’Reilly hates the French more than the brown people. I’m not sure if that makes him more or less patriotic than me.

100. #100
     On February 20th, 2006 at 10:57 pm, Ray said:

     What, have you all caught a case of Bush Derangment Syndrome? Is this michaelmoore.com or michellemalkin.com? Now that the MSM (mainstream MOONBATS haha!) is running stories on this I know it’s just another hatchetjob, oversimplifying a complex issue just to besmirch the people who are trying to protect us! The Bush Team knows what they’re doing! Do you honestly not trust them with safeguarding our OWN ports when they’ve done such an amazing job in protecting us from Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Your questioning of this decision simply provides succor to our enemies! I mean if right wing conservative patriots won’t back the administration, what message does that send to them and our troops?