You gotta be kidding me
70 RepliesJump to last post
WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.
That's no surprise to me...somebody underneath him made a judgement call that the sale was no big deal and failed to brief him on it. Remember all the stuff that President Reagan "did not recall"? This stuff happens all the time...in both Democrat and Republican administrations and usually someone's head ends up rolling as a result.
The idea of a company from an Arabic state, even UAE, running US ports concerns me, but I haven't seen the security plan yet, so I'm not quite ready to make a judgement call on this one...even though everyone has already been tried and convicted in the media...
Another stake in the heart of the blood suckers. The only issue I have with this is Bush threatening to veto any effort to set up a review process. I think a little extra caution is a good idea. It seems like Bush is a master at looking like an a*s. Doesn’t he recognize that the general public will probably agree that a little extra oversight on this deal is a good thing? Oh well, I’m glad he’s looking like an arse.
WOW... These companies actually are in charge of container inspections? So what happened to Coast Guard and Homeland Security inspections? Since we now check about 5% of the boxes would this really change anything?
I wonder if this company is going to have a corporate board of everything but AMERICANS? Then I am sure the long shoreman will just pack up and be replaced by people from Saudi, NOT!
This is a political move... FEAR THE ARABS... REMEMBER JULY 4th? I think I saw a few of them with sparklers..... FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!! A bottle of PEE in NYC required a shutdown of the subway and 200 agents to contain and remove.. FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!
as a survivor on 9/11 and with enough relatives oversees under daily threat of being killed because of who they are and where they live, yes, fear the arabs.
[quote=7GOD63]
WOW... These companies actually are in charge of container inspections? So what happened to Coast Guard and Homeland Security inspections? Since we now check about 5% of the boxes would this really change anything?
I wonder if this company is going to have a corporate board of everything but AMERICANS? Then I am sure the long shoreman will just pack up and be replaced by people from Saudi, NOT!
This is a political move... FEAR THE ARABS... REMEMBER JULY 4th? I think I saw a few of them with sparklers..... FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!! A bottle of PEE in NYC required a shutdown of the subway and 200 agents to contain and remove.. FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!
[/quote]
Nah, not fear the Arabs.......fear rubber stamping on issues of homeland security, that's all. Not that preventing foriegn (Arab) companies from doing business is is a good idea, let's just use a little extra caution when contracting them to do our port security.
Man this sites getting political.
7G - I hate to continue going back and forth but you need to look into this some more. You basically answered the security concern with your comments. Only about 5% of sea port containers are inspected as it is so what changes when UAE runs the port and the coast guard continues security? Nothing basically, except now the UAE employees see where the weak spots are in the security plan, have access to the plan, routines, what is and isn't typically inspected, where the lapses are etc. All it takes is one employee to help facilitate bad junk from getting in. With easier access now as a result of this deal, it makes it just that more likely to occur.
This proves how Bush talks out of both sides as well. He preaches about the need to data mine on all citizens and "suspected" terrorists, the need we had to remove Saddam so that the mushroom cloud doesn't hit our soil and he's determined to see these ports handed over to a country who's ties to terror are suspect at best, a country that doesn't recognize Israel, that believes the Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan....Uh!!!!!!!!!! Are we or aren't we fighting a war on terror? Line up locksteppers, another example of hypocritical ideology at play!
For crying out loud....they aren't "buying" the ports, they won't be in charge of security, it has nothing to do with the number of containers were do or don’t inspect, any risk of some "furiner" telling the terrorists where to hit us at the port is ALREADY in place as this is a sale of a foreign port management company to ANOTHER foreign port management company.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You want to make the argument that post 9/11 we should have only US management companies at US ports, fine, find one. If your only point is you didn’t mind that group of foreigners managing part of the ports, but you object to this group of foreigners (all the employees are probably US citizens anyway) managing the ports, by all mean, feel free to flaunt your racism.
Michael Chertoff said Homeland Security checked this deal out and all is OK. That’s good enough for me. I feel safer already.
[quote=csmelnix]Simple minds for simple folks - so by all means just make it easier.[/quote]
"Simple" is right, all this demagoguery.
And it's "easier" how? Because all possible UAE company employees can't be trusted but all possible <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK employees can? Say, remind me again where Richard Reid was from? To hear the critics talk UAE citizens would be inspecting loads and pulling security duty at every US port.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Look, if we could find a way to seal off port management companies to a handful of US firms or maybe even governmental bodies like Port Authorities, I'd be willing to consider it. The fact is we can't, and we can't say, in essence, "You can work with us on the GWOT but we don’t want anything else to do with you Arab types…”
Oh, and that big, nifty country in Asia, the one we do all the trade with, but has nukes pointed at us. I don’t recall this outrage when they took over the port in Long Beach….
[quote=tjc45]Michael Chertoff said Homeland Security checked this deal out and all is OK. That's good enough for me. I feel safer already.[/quote]
OTOH, a Marine four star General approved of it too.....
You don’t recall the outrage cuz this post wasn’t open.
Easier because of what I said already on my earlier post. Does it really take a rocket science to figure out that one employee with ties to “terr” as your boy says, who can simply observe how things are done and where the lapses are and aren’t turns to relay the info and plan to get some “junk” in through the ports is not good. Granted, nothing is in place now to prevent that one employee and I am not happy with ports being owned by any outside firm; but given UAEs ties, history, position on terror and terrorist sponsors, I will take the Chinese and British firms over UAE any day.
Like I said earlier - toe the line ideology hypocrisy coming through...
toe the line soldier!
[quote=mikebutler222]
For crying out loud....they aren't "buying" the ports, they won't be in charge of security, it has nothing to do with the number of containers were do or don’t inspect, any risk of some "furiner" telling the terrorists where to hit us at the port is ALREADY in place as this is a sale of a foreign port management company to ANOTHER foreign port management company.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
You want to make the argument that post 9/11 we should have only US management companies at US ports, fine, find one. If your only point is you didn’t mind that group of foreigners managing part of the ports, but you object to this group of foreigners (all the employees are probably US citizens anyway) managing the ports, by all mean, feel free to flaunt your racism.
[/quote]
Looks like we got a Bush drone on our hands. MikeB it certainly sounds like you march to the beat of your leader, for better or worse. Sorry it had to be George W. Bush. Man what a bummer.
[quote=csmelnix]
Like I said earlier - toe the line ideology hypocrisy coming through...
toe the line soldier!
[/quote]
Spoting hypocracy where there is none. Continue the mindless assault...
Spell out the hypocrisy:
1. Neocons and GW are all for going into Iraq on outdated, cherry picked, questionable intelligence. Ok with invading a country with minimal ties to "terr", zero involvement in 9/11, no ties to AL Qada.
2. Iraq reasons behind the invasion become evidently false, yet they all continue to brag about the need to remove the menance and bring democracy to the mideast.
3. Here's the hypocrisy: You can be ok with invading a foreign nation on the info listed above BUT shrug shoulders when it hits your own border. UAE at a minimum has similiar circumstances in supporting state sponsor terror regimes/countries as Iraq pre invasion. They actually provided 2 9/11 terrorists (granted not state sponsored), they believe the Taliban is the legit gov't of Afghanistan, refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, facilitate the funding or transfer there of to AL Qada. Facilitate the transfer of Nuke technology to terrorist nations. Have put up many bars to help us fight terror in the area.
You are OK with this nation running port operations in our homeland? Would you be ok with Iran or Syria running them or how about Iraq under Hussein? After all, they're only Arab nations too and we don't want to be rascists here.