February 22, 2006
The Man Behind the Curtain Port Controversy

I’ve been watching the MSM and it’s SO obvious what is going on. The 2006 elections are coming up. What better diversion than to allow all the Republican Congressmen and women to pretend that the United Arab Emirates port buyout is a major security issue? Does anyone remember that “port security” was a major theme of the Kerry campaign, and Democrats have used it as a rallying cry since then?

Blast the President and get elected. This is ***SO*** Karl Rove. Furthermore, the Abramoff scandal gets pushed to the background, Duke Cunningham is out of the picture, and more importantly, the NSA scandal gets pushed to the background. Forgotten. The Republicans have this scandal figured out. It’s so Rovian. The Man Behind the the Curtain is still pulling levers. The Republicans have pulled the rug on the port security issue from under the Democrats feet.

[Update: I’ve been surveying various “liberal blogs”. I find it hard to understand that none seem to have picked up on this canard. The news fills the airwaves. Is everybody blind? Call me crazy, but this one is so simple minded, that it’s hard to understand why my liberal friends can’t see through the bullshit.]

[I hate to keep piling on, but this news story furthers my theory, assuming you believe that the British Press is in cahoots with our goverment — which isn’t that hard to believe. (Talking Points Memo calls it a ”selective leak” Watch this story over the next several weeks. Selective leaking to the press is the hallmark of this administration.) See how it plays out, but keep this in the back of your mind if you don’t subscribe to my theory yet. Perhaps I’m wrong &mdash many have said so on liberal blogs. But one day we shall all see clearly.]



Posted by Buck Batard at February 22, 2006 06:37 PM
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):


Others have noticed, but not many.

The "idea" is this: The Dubai port deal is a gigantic fake out manufactured by Karl Rove and (one would almost have to assume) the government of the UAE to distract attention from the growing (and are they "growing?") NSA and corruption scandals and at the same time allow Republicans to have an issue on which to run against Bush in 2006, while at the same time allowing Republicans to seize the issue of port security from the Democrats.

And here too.

Ok. Does anyone with a brain really think that this BS about giving the business of securing our ports to a UAE-owned company is anything more than a distraction away from the real, pressing scandals that this government is entangled in. This is clearly a scheme dreamed-up by Rove to take the headlines and give them to a few Republicans (Dr. Fristenstein, etc.) to show that they have the "common sense" to challenge the White House on this "important security issue". Seems transparently cynical to me, but I'm sure the media will run with it, given their need to keep us informed by the second, damn the facts.

However most see it this way.

Where is Karl Rove? Why in the world does Bush want to have a political fight about the United ARAB Emirates winning the contract for port security. WTF man!

The thing that gives your argument the greatest credibility and keeps it out of the tinfoil hat area is the reports coming out that Bush didn't know anything about this. Talk about a perfect example of Rove blindsiding someone. This is exactly how Rove operates. He wants Rove to survive and he will jetison Bush in a heartbeat if he thinks Bush is no longer useful to him.

Posted by: spiiderweb on February 22, 2006 10:00 PM


Why would Bush no longer be useful to Rove? Won't he be needing a Presidential pardon in the future? Has Bush indicated he won't pardon Rove? That factor alone makes this a dangerous game for Rove.

Posted by: spiiderweb on February 22, 2006 10:12 PM

Nice links, although Rove is the whipping boy, and no one can be sure it’s him. Someone else might be pulling the strings, or operating the levers. So I use "Rove" not in a literal sense, but as a whipping boy (and man oh man, would I like to get him behind the woodshed).

So "it" could be any one of the usual suspects.

Posted by: Buck on February 22, 2006 10:21 PM

I've been posting on this subject at various liberal blogs. I think I said it best as below:

Bush is a lame duck. What does he care if it's a Canard? His best interest is to see that the Senate and Congress stay Republican.

So he's willing to be a whipping boy to insure that it happens.

Bush's best interest is to help all Republicans. If it makes him look bad, what does he care? Protection comes at a price.

Posted by: Buck on February 22, 2006 11:11 PM

You DONíT find it hard to believe that the British press is in cahoots with the US government? .. the one thing that they (especially the Guardian) abhor more than anything else in the world?

Pardon me for laughing at such uninformed banality. Perhaps you also think that the fact that the British press is laughing heartily about how small-minded America can get its knickers in such a twist about such a non-issue is them taking orders from God's own mouthpiece, G W Bush.

Posted by: Mark on February 23, 2006 9:25 AM

The Guardian was perhaps a poor choice to use as an example. However, just Google the right words on Google News and you’ll get a host of others.
The story is making it on the left and the right side of the news business in various iterations. So believe what you will; it’s obvious to me. We haven't had such piling on since 9/11.

Posted by: Buck on February 23, 2006 9:43 AM

I haven't said that it isn't getting coverage .. but read that coverage on you will see that they are all lauging their arses off to a sad and skinny state over it.

Much as you may like to think otherwise, coverage does not equal an unholy alliance with Bush and the US government. Sometimes they just happen to think that it is the left (which in their terms is still way to the right of anything in mainstream UK politics) - blinded by their hatred of anything Bush does - that is barking mad .. and dare I say it, racist.

Posted by: Mark on February 23, 2006 10:15 AM

I had this thought as well. BushCo is getting thrown over the side in slow motion. This is a big gamble but Rove et al have the support of the corporate media and so that reduces the risk.

Posted by: eRobin on February 24, 2006 10:38 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?