Instead of griping and whiniing about the buyers of the ports, why don't you complain about the sellers? This wouldn't be an issue if not for the simple fact that damn near everything in America is for sale. And the buyers of today may be our allies of today but tomorrow is another day.

Remember: Iraq, with Hussein at the helm, was once an ally.

(and so what if the buyers are Muslim, or Jewish, or Bahai, or Atheist - so what? There's good and bad people of all faiths and beliefs. Double or halve your meds, dear, but do something.)

I want to know why B. Clinton isn't being investigate for illegaly brokering this deal. I also want to know when Hillary learned about it. How come the MSM is ignoring these crimes?

Well, thanks for the link, which led me here.

As to the question by "Jack"

This is very simple (should you wish to acquire a modicum of information easily attainable in the public domain, say by reading reputable papers like The Financial Times)):

Mr. Clinton did fuck all to "broker" the P&O - DPW deal. The P&O - DPW deal is a UK-UAE deal that was and is about P&O's global assets, not some some poorly managed behind the times American leases. The US, not being the center of the world nor even the center of port industry growth, was incidental.

The public record has Clinton advising DPW-P&O on post-facto deal management.

The media in general appear to have ill-informed types such as yourself all in a lather over quite literaly utterly unfactual things. That and the risibly ill-informed "blogosphere."

Perhaps a carve out to satisfy American-know nothing nativist will in the end serve all well enough. In the meantime in the UK, the High Court blazingly slammed down the ignoramus law suits brought by some Americas (notably Eller & Co, already in some typically ludicrous legal dispute with P&O).

Actually, Mahatma, I wasn't "griping and whining" about the buyers of the ports—nor their (British) sellers. I was griping and whining about the anti-Arab hysteria that would have our ports run badly by Americans, rather than well by some dirty, dirty Arabs.

Right: Iraq was once an ally. So was the U.S.S.R., under Uncle Joey Stalin. And the Brits once burned down the White House. So what? The suggestion that we just retreat into some sort of shell and not deal with the outside world is silly: the outside world will most certainly come to us.

and so what if the buyers are Muslim, or Jewish, or Bahai, or Atheist - so what? There's good and bad people of all faiths and beliefs. Double or halve your meds, dear, but do something.)

I think it's interesting that you have my position here exactly 180 degrees away from what it actually is. Guess my irony was lost on you . . . disappointing. Very disappointing.

There you go, playing the race card again.

Ok, lets give control of our ports to another company owned by a repressive regime; one with a political infrastructure devoid of democratic tendencies and an automatic jail sentence for any criticism of its government, just like in the UAE… A regime that doesn’t condone Christianity either, but at least you don’t go to jail for putting up Christmas decorations, like in the UAE… A country that although technologically behind the times still treats its women a heck of allot better than the UAE does… A country never suspected of funneling money thru its banks to 9/11 terrorists… A country much closer to home with many nationals who are active members in the Republican Party.
Lets give this country 5 years to buddy up to The US, as UAE did after 9-11 and by some miracle become obscenely rich, like the UAE.
Lets give Cuba a chance!

And if for ANY reason, you say NO! I get to call you a racist against Hispanics.

And if the concern was to not look bad among pro-Western factions in the Middle East …
Maybe invading Iraq wasn’t such a good idea…uh? , ‘cause that certainly pissed them off! (All except for Kuwait, which was the ONLY member of the Arab league not against invading Iraq)

So, Yolanda, I assume you've been up in arms about the Chinese involvement in the American shipping business. Right?

Lounsbury;

My comment was meant as sarcasim in that if anyone related to Bush had a part in this deal there would be demands for a special prosecuter. Whereas the MSM has tried to minimize Clintons involement.

Especially since Clinton has received money for his library from the UAE and received large sums for speeches made in Dubai.

Also was Clinton a registered lobyist for a foreign country.

I believe that you have gotten the wrong opinion of me and need to read my other earlier posts on this subject.

Loonsbury

My comment was sarcasim towards the MSM who would have demanded an independent investigator if it would have been Bush.

Clinton was still a lobbyist (unregistered) for the UAE.