Calling George Wendt!!!!!!!!!!

[E229Lt]

Could I get your input on this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is facing political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.

Two Republican governors -- George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland --- have indicated they may try to cancel port lease arrangements, according to The Associated Press.

The deal -- which would affect the ports of New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- has triggered security concerns among lawmakers and the public.

The Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security said the deal should not go through without a complete investigation.

"I would urge the president to freeze the contract, hold this contract, until a full and thorough and complete investigation can be conducted," said Rep. Peter King of New York.

The Bush administration contends the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror.

Others point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE. Also, most of the hijackers received money channeled through sources in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission. (Watch what role the UAE plays in the war on terror -- 1:57)

This month, shareholders of the British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by Thunder FZE, a subsidiary of Dubai-based Dubai Ports World.

P&O directs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.

Deal called 'by the book'
Administration officials on Monday sought to downplay the deal, saying it was done properly and that it would not jeopardize port security.

Bush was unaware of the deal until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett said.

"The process was done by the book," Bartlett said. "If you start deciding these issues in a guilt-by-association method, you will have a situation which has deep and harmful ramifications to the economic interests of this country."

Former President Carter, a frequent critic of the administration, said he doesn't think the deal poses "any particular threat" to security. "I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world," Carter told CNN on Monday.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage the ports."

A Dubai Ports World spokesman said that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.

"We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals," the spokesman said.

Industry official alleges 'racism'
A port security expert said that fears the agreement would reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" against Arabs and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.

"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping.

Dubai Ports World must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, Petersen said. The U.S. Coast Guard enforces both sets of security measures.

Ridge cites 'legitimate' concerns
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and Pentagon.

"We look at what the issue of the threat is," Chertoff said. "If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security."

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, pounced on Chertoff, already under fire for his agency's response to Hurricane Katrina.

"You can't just simply tell us, 'Trust us,' " Menendez said. "We trusted the government response to Hurricane Katrina -- and the people of the Gulf were largely left on their own."

Menendez has proposed a law prohibiting the sale of operations at U.S. ports to companies owned by international governments, noting 95 percent of cargo reaching American ports is not inspected.

Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, said that he believes U.S. officials would not jeopardize national security.

Nevertheless, Ridge said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate.

"The bottom line is I think we need a little bit more transparency here."

[lvwrench]

This should get interesting and as the old saying sort of goes "money talks and the rest walks". Well George here's another fine mess.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I wonder why we couldnt find a management company from within the U.S. ? So who's palm is getting greased in this deal?

[E229Lt]

So who's palm is getting greased in this deal?

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

[Dave1983]

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.



Well, isnt that just peachy. Not that Im surprised. What was the name of that company that the Vice-Press worked for or had stock in, the one that got a big contract in Iraq? :rolleyes: :(

[DennisTheMenace]

The situation needs to be looked into, but take a look at all the American companies providing security to governements around the world. Should DynCorp give up all of its overseas contracts? How about Wackenhut? We would be up in arms if they were denied work because of politics.

[nozzelvfd]

The UAE would be security at the ports thus our homeland security would not be securing our ports. Ahhhh the land of opportunity.

[E229Lt]

What was the name of that company that the Vice-Press worked for or had stock in, the one that got a big contract in Iraq?
That would be Halliburton.

[scfire86]

I think its a great idea. I'm taking my lead here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022006/content/institute.guest.html) and supporting it because it makes great economic sense.

I'm sure Norm will as well.

[ChiefReason]

I wonder why we couldnt find a management company from within the U.S. ? So who's palm is getting greased in this deal?
Yeah; this would be right up Halliburton's alley!
Why don't we just hold the door open while they pack the car with explosives?
That is the dumbest idea to date.
Falls in with "Brownie, you're doin' a helluva job". And I'm a Bush fan.
Sheesh.
CR

[EFD840]

Former President Carter, a frequent critic of the administration, said he doesn't think the deal poses "any particular threat" to security.

This quote said it all for me.

Jimmy Carter doesn't see a threat AND agrees with a conservative administration.

Something is very badly wrong!

[KenNFD1219]

If Jimmy Carter does not see anything wrong with this, then it cannot be a good thing.

[tbonetrexler]

I think its a great idea. I'm taking my lead here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022006/content/institute.guest.html) and supporting it because it makes great economic sense.

I'm sure Norm will as well.


economically speaking, yes it is a very good deal, right up until we get hit with some kind of attack. THey are one of the few countries that recognize Al-Queda as a legitamite group.

[kayakking]

It can't be any worse than selling F-16's to Pakistan.

[E229Lt]

Did I mention the two Texas ports that ship 60% of our military supplies to the middle east. They would be included in the deal.

As for Carter's okay on the deal, this is the same guy who stood by 444 days and only got our hostages released by handing the presidency to Regan.

[scfire86]

Does it really matter? DHS only checks about 5% of the containers entering the country. A dirty bomb could be brought in via a backpack.

Let's let Bush's buddies in Dubai keep making more money.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Could I get your input on this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is facing political pressure to block a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports.

Two Republican governors -- George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland --- have indicated they may try to cancel port lease arrangements, according to The Associated Press.

The deal -- which would affect the ports of New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- has triggered security concerns among lawmakers and the public.

The Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security said the deal should not go through without a complete investigation.

"I would urge the president to freeze the contract, hold this contract, until a full and thorough and complete investigation can be conducted," said Rep. Peter King of New York.

The Bush administration contends the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror.

Others point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE. Also, most of the hijackers received money channeled through sources in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 commission. (Watch what role the UAE plays in the war on terror -- 1:57)

This month, shareholders of the British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by Thunder FZE, a subsidiary of Dubai-based Dubai Ports World.

P&O directs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.

Deal called 'by the book'
Administration officials on Monday sought to downplay the deal, saying it was done properly and that it would not jeopardize port security.

Bush was unaware of the deal until he heard reports of the congressional uproar, presidential adviser Dan Bartlett said.

"The process was done by the book," Bartlett said. "If you start deciding these issues in a guilt-by-association method, you will have a situation which has deep and harmful ramifications to the economic interests of this country."

Former President Carter, a frequent critic of the administration, said he doesn't think the deal poses "any particular threat" to security. "I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world," Carter told CNN on Monday.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage the ports."

A Dubai Ports World spokesman said that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.

"We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals," the spokesman said.

Industry official alleges 'racism'
A port security expert said that fears the agreement would reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" against Arabs and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.

"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping.

Dubai Ports World must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, Petersen said. The U.S. Coast Guard enforces both sets of security measures.

Ridge cites 'legitimate' concerns
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and Pentagon.

"We look at what the issue of the threat is," Chertoff said. "If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security."

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, pounced on Chertoff, already under fire for his agency's response to Hurricane Katrina.

"You can't just simply tell us, 'Trust us,' " Menendez said. "We trusted the government response to Hurricane Katrina -- and the people of the Gulf were largely left on their own."

Menendez has proposed a law prohibiting the sale of operations at U.S. ports to companies owned by international governments, noting 95 percent of cargo reaching American ports is not inspected.

Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, said that he believes U.S. officials would not jeopardize national security.

Nevertheless, Ridge said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate.

"The bottom line is I think we need a little bit more transparency here."

Absolutely.

This is the most reprehensible, ill-conceived and dangerous thing that I have ever seen. I am embarassed by the defense of this idiotic plan by the administration. I am desperately hoping that someone sane will step forward and talk some sense to these people.

Probably not what you expected, huh?

[scfire86]

Isn't the UAE our allies? Aren't they part of Coalition of the Willing?

[E229Lt]

Probably not what you expected, huh?

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I expected. An endorsement of this idea would have cost you all credibility.

Today's headline:
Defying Republican allies and Democratic foes, President Bush yesterday vowed to veto any attempt to scuttle a deal that would let an Arab nation run key U.S. ports.
Calling the $6.8 billion deal with Dubai Ports World a "private transaction," Bush noted there were no objections when a British firm ran Manhattan's cruise ship terminal, Newark's containerport and ports in four other major cities.

"I really don't understand why it's okay for a British company to operate our ports, but not a company from the Middle East," he said.

I am truly astonished by all of this.

[ThNozzleman]

I am truly astonished by all of this.
Um, why? Did you expect anything different from your fearless leader? Just like Iraq, it's all about the $$$$$.

[tanker5117]

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS01/602220325/1005


NJ Gov. John Corzine said NJ will sue the Feds to stop deal. Will this make any difference?


Tanker

[scfire86]

I am truly astonished by all of this.
I'm not. Bush ties to the royal families in the mid east are well known.

[DennisTheMenace]

I'm not. Bush ties to the royal families in the mid east are well known.It is about free trade, nothing to do with anything else. He would not waste this sort of political capital to protect a deal for any business friends. This is about the fact that we want our companies to be able to do the same sort of work overseas. The UAE has supported the US just like the Brits, so why was the deal OK when it was a brit company but not when it is a UAE company?

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Maybe because the majority of Americans are not quite comfortable with an Arab country in charge of protecting our ports.

[Dalmatian190]

No, it's not about free trade.

No, it's not about corruption.

No, it's not about being friends with the Sauds.

I'm sure the initial decision was fairly technocratic, without real concern for political ramifications.

GWB is digging in on this to try and keep from becoming a complete lame duck. If he loses his ability to keep the Republicans in Congress whipped behind his agenda, much of the increases in the imperial presidency powers advocated by Cheney & Company of late are in deep danger.

He lost his initial attempt to say "Either we renew Patriot or we don't now!" and had to see Congress pass a temproary extension then negotiate the longer one later. He couldn't veto that one, because vetoing the short extension would have said he didn't really need the powers, which would have made any future re-instatement that much tougher.

He lost outright on the torture ban, and couldn't threaten a veto then because it would have almost certainly been overturned.

The quote I heard today from GWB was very telling --

"Look I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

Last time I looked, the Government consisted of three branches, not just the executive.

It's not a money, corruption, friends, foreign policy, whatever fight. It's a presidential powers fight.

[Lewiston2Capt]

It's not a money, corruption, friends, foreign policy, whatever fight. It's a presidential powers fight.

Well if you are going to get all political about it. ;)

I dont like the idea of the UAE running our ports. I believe the idea was ill conceived from the beginning. If I recall correctly wasnt the USS Cole in port in the UAE when it was hit?

[tanker5117]

Well if you are going to get all political about it. ;)

I dont like the idea of the UAE running our ports. I believe the idea was ill conceived from the beginning. If I recall correctly wasnt the USS Cole in port in the UAE when it was hit?


The USS Cole was in Aden, Yemen when it was attacked.


Tanker

[Lewiston2Capt]

The USS Cole was in Aden, Yemen when it was attacked.


Tanker

I knew if I was wrong someone would correct me. Thanks

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Ok. One of the big selling points in favor of the current administration was that the "grown ups" were back in charge at the White House. No more slackers. Well the President claims he just learned of this deal. Rumsfeld says he just found out about it over the weekend. Are we to do believe this? And if so, why wouldnt these two very important officials know about it? This coupled with the lack of comuunication during the first week of Katrina seems to be adding up to this question. How active is the president in running the show? I believe this merits some honest debate. This issue proves to me once again that Americans agree in general agree on more things then we are lead to believe. WE are not dummies. We can smell B.S. no matter who is diishing it out.

[hfd66truck]

Mikey,

Maybe Dal is right. Maybe this is such a technocratic decision that no big wigs were aware of it earlier. I mean I know he is the President, but I'll bet there are all kinds of decisions made daily that he only finds out about after the fact.

......

Or

......

It's pure crap through and through! :D

No matter which way you look at it, it still sucks!

[E229Lt]

Yeah, he knew nothing about it....but he'll VETO any attempt to stop it?

C'mon!

[FFCLTE32]

Maybe because the majority of Americans are not quite comfortable with an Arab country in charge of protecting our ports.
I for one think that the ports should either be run from a federal level or by the county which they reside. That's like contracting the Saudi's to run our military.

Plus its taking the spotlight off IRAN which needs to be delt with sooner than later......

[Plattsfire2]

Yeah, he knew nothing about it....but he'll VETO any attempt to stop it?

C'mon!


Or is he being told to veto it?

[Dalmatian190]

Yeah, he knew nothing about it....but he'll VETO any attempt to stop it?

He, and especially some top advisors, doesn't like being told what to do.

This really, really sounds to me like the administration shot from the hip on this one -- and not about Dubai, but against anyone telling them how they are to do something.

If this was about getting a business deal sealed, they would have had a plan in place, and it probably would've started off with "I understand the concerns, and my administration will work with the Congress to assure that our security is protected in a world of international commerce."

Threatening a veto on this has nothing to do with selling a terminal company to a Dubai company.

This has to do with the "understandings" that have accompanied 500 bills he's signed (this is how we interpret this law...); it has to do with the bypassing of the FISA Courts for the survelliance; it has to do with torture; it has to do with persistent pattern of saying, "This is legal because we have a couple lawyers who say it is (and obviously, their opinion is more important than other lawyers in the executive branch since we agree with our lawyers)"

[ThNozzleman]

It is about free trade, nothing to do with anything else. He would not waste this sort of political capital to protect a deal for any business friends.
Free trade, my butt. Bush (all of them, actually) has/have an extensive history of spending "political capital" on corporate dealings. Anyone who knows anything about Arbusto/Bush Exploration/Harken will attest to that. This administration is all about corporate power, control, and money; always has been, always will be. Hell, they'll even kill thousands of human beings to push their greedy global agenda. They do not care. America has been duped, people. Time to quit blindly waving the flag and start opening your eyes. These people are no good.

[ThNozzleman]

If this was about getting a business deal sealed, they would have had a plan in place, and it probably would've started off with "I understand the concerns, and my administration will work with the Congress to assure that our security is protected in a world of international commerce."
Sure...like they had a plan in place for Iraq? It was ALL about business, rest assured of that.

[ThNozzleman]

Yeah, he knew nothing about it....but he'll VETO any attempt to stop it?
Exactly. You can't let a little thing like national security get in the way of big business, buddy.

[ThNozzleman]

Trying to post a little image I put together...hope it works. :p

[jasper45]

Exactly. You can't let a little thing like national security get in the way of big business, buddy.



Maybe they are not, in case everyone forgot; Al Dhafra Air Base is located in the UAE. The 763rd Air Refueling Wing, U2 spy planes, Global Hawk, the 10th fighter squadron, as well as KC-10’s are all operating out of there. In addition, there are additional military assets located at Bateen and Al Ain Shar jah international airport.
These installations are in very important locations right now, it is not all about “big business”.

[jasper45]

Maybe because the majority of Americans are not quite comfortable with an Arab country in charge of protecting our ports.


They are not going to be protecting our ports, not that it would matter, were not protecting them now. Have you ever seen or read about how much is not inspected prior to entry into this country? Without checking, I believe it is around 90% of shipping containers. In any event, the Coast Guard, Customs, and other federal agencies will still handle security.
No one ever seemed to mind while the British were doing the same thing, or is it just that no one knew it before now?

[Plattsfire2]

Maybe they are not, in case everyone forgot; Al Dhafra Air Base is located in the UAE. The 763rd Air Refueling Wing, U2 spy planes, Global Hawk, the 10th fighter squadron, as well as KC-10’s are all operating out of there. In addition, there are additional military assets located at Bateen and Al Ain Shar jah international airport.
These installations are in very important locations right now, it is not all about “big business”.


All I know is that the four different times I spent in the Air Bases in and around the U.A.E the locals were nothing but excellent to us all. It is a very westernized nation, and is one of envy of most of the other middle eastern countries. In fact, it was considered a "vacation spot" to those of us who were stuck in the tent cities at the more secret and secure bases.
Not saying any of this is right, but just shedding a different light on the matter.

[scfire86]

Ok. One of the big selling points in favor of the current administration was that the "grown ups" were back in charge at the White House. No more slackers.
When did this happen? What did the previous administration do that warrants a slacker moniker?

[ChiefReason]

Would their presence at our ports ATTRACT terrorists or are we capable of doing that on our own?
We have lots of foreign ownership in this country and I'm not saying that's a good thing, but I would feel a whole lot better if I knew that there was some serious oversight by regulatory agencies...preferably ones with big guns!
A night stick and pair of bolt cutters won't be enough in this case.
IMHO.
CR

[ThNozzleman]

Maybe they are not, in case everyone forgot; Al Dhafra Air Base is located in the UAE. The 763rd Air Refueling Wing, U2 spy planes, Global Hawk, the 10th fighter squadron, as well as KC-10’s are all operating out of there. In addition, there are additional military assets located at Bateen and Al Ain Shar jah international airport.
We are not talking about heavily armed military bases on foreign soil; we are talking about multiple ports on OUR soil.
These installations are in very important locations right now, it is not all about “big business”.
These are military bases; the ports are not. Big difference. Just points to the hypocrisy of the Bushies. Most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (a nation with known terrorist connections). None were from Iraq. Saudi Arabia continues to wheel and deal with western big oil. Iraq had defied them. So we destroy Iraq based on trumped up charges and conquer their resources. The Bushies go on a several-year tirade against everything "terrorist", even doing stupid crap like concocting the terror-o-meter...and we invite the Saudis right in the front door. Literally.
Yeah...makes a lot of sense to me. No money involved, here. Uh-uh...no way. Couldn't possibly be so. :rolleyes:

[ThNozzleman]

U.S. News and World Report: The Saudi Connection (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm)

[DennisTheMenace]

I have yet to hear or read a coherent/factual argument against the port deal. I hate screaming about a problem that doesn't matter or even really exist instead of tackling the real issues.

The fact is that Dubai is a very valuable and friendly ally. I think a reasonable argument could be made that it is a better friend and more valuable ally than France or Canada. It is a hell of a lot better and more reliable friend than is China but we're allowing China all kinds of access to our markets without significant complaint.

Ownership of our port of entry doesn't make a whole lot of difference to security. Hell, the big hole in security is what happens in the other country or countries where the container is loaded and sealed before it ever hits the ship and we're not too good at that yet. So far as I can tell the second biggest hole is that the container can be trans-shipped through a whole other port and security can be thoroughly compromised there as well. By the time the container is in our harbor our security is already compromised unless U.S. government agencies have detected anomalies in manifests and the like and choose to do one of their relatively rare inspections.

The only argument I've heard that begins to hold water is that the company managing the terminal/port will have access to security plans. Well since so far as I can tell those aren't all that secret anyway I don't see a big deal. Also, if the company allows terrorists free rein here in the U.S. they're likely to lose a huge amount of business and possibly lose their shirt.

Strategically, dumping this deal could be nothing short of disastrous. There doesn't seem to be any intellectually defensible reason to dump this deal other than "we don't like Arabs if they're friendly" - and even that one is defensible only in that your likes are your likes and you needn't have a reason for them. In the absence of a good reason and in the spirit of the current increase in alienation from the West based on stupid things like the cartoons this will tend to escalate the situation further.

If we convince Kuwait, Qatar, and Dubai that we'll screw them over on free market deals for the sake of sheer stupidity they're gonna stop carrying some heavy freight for us. Logistics are gonna be a whole lot harder and a helluva lot of us are gonna die in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the like. Alliances with Iran are gonna look more attractive. The net effect could look amazingly similar to that of Smoot-Hawley. And if you don't know about Smoot-Hawley and its horrific effects you really don't know enough to even participate in the discussions and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I mean, look who is lining up against the port deal? Savage is virtually apopleptic (he of the ridiculous "bomb the whole Sunni Triangle" foolishness), Schumer is baying about how it is a slap at our security, the list of people with serious mental compromise is pretty long.

Unfortunately, I've heard that Carter is in favor of the port deal so that's a strike against it, but I may have heard wrong.

When nobody makes an informed and coherent argument against the deal and when it appears to be in our strategic interest I think it's probably a good deal. What I'd really like someone to answer, though, is why U.S. companies aren't eager to "buy" our ports at a competitive price?

[DennisTheMenace]

I for one think that the ports should either be run from a federal level or by the county which they reside. That's like contracting the Saudi's to run our military.

Plus its taking the spotlight off IRAN which needs to be delt with sooner than later......For thirty years the Saudi's essentially contracted US to run their military. For fifty years they contracted us to run their oil fields, their ports, and their infrastructure systems.

All that this contract with the UAE company does is provide operational management. The U.S. Governement currently does, and will in the future continue to, provide the security and screening for our ports, the operators of the port have nothing to do with it other then scheduleing their operations around the screening process.

This is such a non-issue it is increadable. Folks have blown it way out of proportion to get their faces on the news during an off-year election season.

[DennisTheMenace]

Port Security Humbug

Wednesday, February 22, 2006; A14



YOU KNOW THERE'S something suspicious going on when multiple members of Congress -- House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, future presidential candidates of all stripes -- spontaneously unite around an issue that none of them had known existed a week earlier. That appears to be what happened last weekend after politicians awoke to the fairly stale news that the London-based P&O navigation company, which has long managed the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, had been taken over by Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called the deal "tone-deaf politically at this point in our history." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called for the White House to put a hold on the purchase. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) seconded him, implying that Arab owners posed a major security threat -- as did everyone from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) to Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).

At stake -- in theory -- is the question of whether we should "outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about "foreign-based" companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai.

None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal was long in the making, that it had been reported on extensively in the financial press, and that it went through normal security clearance procedures, including approval from a foreign investment committee that contains officials from the departments of Treasury, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, among other agencies. Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We'd like to remind them, as they've apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.

Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.
Best editorial out there on the subject.

[E229Lt]

Best editorial out there on the subject.

This comment screams for an IMHO.

[DennisTheMenace]

This comment screams for an IMHO.It is balanced and filled with FACTS about the subject. ;)

[ChiefReason]

The net effect could look amazingly similar to that of Smoot-Hawley. And if you don't know about Smoot-Hawley and its horrific effects you really don't know enough to even participate in the discussions and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930 raised U.S. tariffs to historically high levels. The original intention behind the legislation was to increase the protection afforded domestic farmers against foreign agricultural imports. Massive expansion in the agricultural production sector outside of Europe during World War I led, with the postwar recovery of European producers, to massive agricultural overproduction during the 1920s. This in turn led to declining farm prices during the second half of the decade. During the 1928 election campaign, Republican Presidential candidate Herbert Hoover pledged to help the beleaguered farmer by, among other things, raising tariff levels on agricultural products. But once the tariff schedule revision process got started, it proved impossible to stop. Calls for increased protection flooded in from industrial sector special interest groups and soon a bill meant to provide relief for farmers became a means to raise tariffs in all sectors of the economy. When the dust had settled, Congress had agreed to tariff levels that exceeded the already high rates established by the 1922 Fordney-McCumber Act and represented among the most protectionist tariffs in U.S. history.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ policies (policies designed to improve one’s own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff represents the high-water mark of U.S. protectionism in the twentieth century. Thereafter, beginning with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, American commercial policy generally emphasized trade liberalization over protectionism. The United States generally assumed the mantle of champion of freer international trade, as evidenced by its support for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

[hwoods]

OK, Here's where I am. NOBODY runs anything in the U.S. except companies or people that are free from influence from foreign sources of any kind. WE NEED TO GET OUT OF CRAP LIKE THIS. AMERICA FOR AMERICANS. PERIOD.

[DennisTheMenace]

OK, Here's where I am. NOBODY runs anything in the U.S. except companies or people that are free from influence from foreign sources of any kind. WE NEED TO GET OUT OF CRAP LIKE THIS. AMERICA FOR AMERICANS. PERIOD.Free trade keeps Americans enjoying a very high quality of life. Quit interacting with the rest of the world and we will suffer.

[ChicagoFF]

It's funny to watch the changes in attitude take place on the left. They start with "You can't search any arabs in the airports, Tha would be PROFILING" And now here they are "Get those shifty ARABS out of our ports!!!" Hypocracy at it's best and most entertaining!

[ThNozzleman]

Hypocracy at it's best and most entertaining!
Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
Once again...

Iraq- no connections to 911/al Qaeda, no cooperation with western corporate big wheels. Invaded by U.S. military under false pretenses and its resources siezed. Mass misinformation and panic spread, as the new Bush anti-terrorist beurocracy machine comes to life. The mere mention of the word "bomb" can get your ass arrested. Standing too long and taking too many photos of a bridge can result in your ass hauled off for questioning. Everyone goes out and buys all the duct tape.

Saudi Arabia- Home to most of the 911 hijackers, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. High level of support for bin Laden and al Qeada within the populace. Many connections to terrorists. High level financial support for terrorists. Plays well with western corporate big wheels. Long history of support by the Bush family, in spite of atrocious way their "kingdom" is operated. Gets invited by the Bushies to control part of a critical infrastructure here on our own soil. Bush claims to have known nothing of the deal until it was over. Threatens to instantly veto any opposition, though. Bullcrap flags thrown by everyone, except the knee-jerk Bush-bots, who just can't admit they were wrong. Millions finally see the neocon Bushies for what they really are, and regret ever voting the fools into power.

[DennisTheMenace]

Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
Once again...

Iraq- no connections to 911/al Qaeda, no cooperation with western corporate big wheels. Invaded by U.S. military under false pretenses and its resources siezed. Mass misinformation and panic spread, as the new Bush anti-terrorist beurocracy machine comes to life. The mere mention of the word "bomb" can get your ass arrested. Standing too long and taking too many photos of a bridge can result in your ass hauled off for questioning. Everyone goes out and buys all the duct tape.

Saudi Arabia- Home to most of the 911 hijackers, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. High level of support for bin Laden and al Qeada within the populace. Many connections to terrorists. High level financial support for terrorists. Plays well with western corporate big wheels. Long history of support by the Bush family, in spite of atrocious way their "kingdom" is operated. Gets invited by the Bushies to control part of a critical infrastructure here on our own soil. Bush claims to have known nothing of the deal until it was over. Threatens to instantly veto any opposition, though. Bullcrap flags thrown by everyone, except the knee-jerk Bush-bots, who just can't admit they were wrong. Millions finally see the neocon Bushies for what they really are, and regret ever voting the fools into power.
American companies have made far more money providing contracted services to the Saudi's then they have or ever will provide us.

Noz, you are really stretching more then normal here .

[Dave1983]

How active is the president in running the show? I believe this merits some honest debate.

He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.

[E229Lt]

Somebody explain these connections to me:

Carlyle Group- CSX Rail- Dubai Ports

[jasper45]

He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.

You proof of this how? This has to be the most laughable thing I have read on here yet. Blind allegations are so much fun.
Give me a break.

[DennisTheMenace]

How to Lose Friends

Friday, February 24, 2006; A14



AMONG MANY other things, the president's job description requires him to keep abreast of economic and political developments around the world; respond to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina; oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; appoint people to run embassies and government departments; come up with solutions to the health care crisis, the education crisis, the energy crisis; and represent the United States at major international conferences. When he does any of these tasks poorly, the American people and their politicians are well within their rights to criticize him, as we often do, too.

On the other hand, the president's job description does not include taking a personal interest in decisions about whether foreign companies based in countries that are America's allies should be allowed to purchase other foreign companies that are based in countries that are America's allies. This is particularly the case when such purchases do not have any discernible impact on American security whatsoever.

In other words, the White House's "admission" that President Bush was unaware that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had purchased Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company based in Britain -- and thereby obtained management control of the business operations of six U.S. ports -- strikes us as completely unnecessary. Why should the president know? Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable.

At a hearing yesterday, senators complained that they had not been notified of the transaction -- though, as Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt noted, the companies involved had issued a press release on the matter in November. Senators complained, in the face of considerable testimony to the contrary, that the government's review had been "casual" or "cursory." And, in attempting to cast aspersions on the reliability of the United Arab Emirates, they reached back to its behavior before Sept. 11, 2001 -- a standard of judging under which neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations would fare all that well.

In fact, as administration officials testified yesterday, since Sept. 11 the United Arab Emirates has been a valuable ally. Last year, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, 56 U.S. warships, 590 U.S. Military Sealift Command ships and 75 allied warships were hosted in the United Arab Emirates -- at a port managed by the very same Dubai Ports World. To our knowledge, none of the objecting members of Congress have expressed alarm at the national security implications of that situation. Yet the six ports now in question will be far less dependent on Dubai's goodwill, because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting. American longshoremen will load and unload cargo, no matter who pays their salaries.

If members of Congress really want to burnish their "tough on terrorism" credentials, they should start by focusing on real presidential lapses, which are sufficient, and forget about the phony ones. As Mr. England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security . . . especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said. And he suggested that it is the terrorists who want the United States to "become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist."

If so, they must be feeling pretty content right now.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company..............

[Dave1983]

You proof of this how? This has to be the most laughable thing I have read on here yet. Blind allegations are so much fun.
Give me a break.


Blind, hardly. Im not one of the many here who are blinded by their love for this country to the point that they belive beyond all doubt anything GW does or says.

Proof, I have no proof. Its just what I think. We are still alowed to think here, or did GW target that as well?

Im sorry, but I just have a very hard time with the idea that somebody that comes accross as such a dope can actually be running things.

[DianeC]

AP Newsbreak: Ex-Clinton official helped lobbyist defend Dubai ports deal

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

February 23, 2006, 4:19 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- A principal in former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's consulting firm went with a lobbyist to Capitol Hill to defend a Dubai company's ports security deal, but was rebuffed by Sen. Charles Schumer, The Associated Press has learned.

Carol Browner, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton, is a principal at The Albright Group LLC.

On Feb. 14, Browner went to Capitol Hill with former Long Island Democratic congressman Tom Downey, a registered lobbyist, on behalf of the Dubai-based company DP World, whose approval to take over port operations at six major U.S. cities has created political havoc.

The Albright Group's role in the effort by DP World to win government approval illustrates the intersection of government, global commerce, and long-standing relationships among powerful people.

Albright's spokeswoman said she was not personally involved in the U.S. ports issue. But the company does work with Downey's lobby firm, Downey McGrath Group Inc., and Albright herself was in China consulting for DP World in recent days.

Both Albright's and Schumer's offices confirmed that Browner was present during the meeting. At the time, the senator was rallying opposition within Congress to the DP World deal.

"After we first criticized the deal, Browner and Downey met with our staff and were unpersuasive," said Schumer spokesman Israel Klein. "Senator Schumer is going to continue to fight this deal."

Downey did not return calls seeking comment.

Calls to Browner were referred to Albright Group spokeswoman Jamie Smith, who confirmed that Browner "definitely made some calls around and even went up and checked in with Sen. Schumer's office."

Smith would not say who Browner called.

Downey's Web site lists Albright as a client.

Smith acknowledged that The Albright Group referred DP World to Downey. But, she stressed: "We do not lobby. We didn't hire them on this."

During the past week, as U.S. criticism was building over the deal, Albright and others at her firm were working for DP World in China on trade issues there.

"Secretary Albright was in China with government officials and people in the private sector to help them better understand DP World's interests in China," said Smith, who declined to elaborate.

DP World is a state-run company based in the United Arab Emirates, which has sparked concern that their operation of U.S. terminals could lead to infiltration by terrorists.

Smith said DP World "is a great company, and we are going to continue to work with them on China," she added.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, said neither Browner nor anyone else at Albright's firm sought to sway the senator on the issue. Clinton, D-N.Y., was one of the first lawmakers to offer legislation blocking the deal.

At a Thursday briefing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton and other lawmakers pressed administration officials to explain their decision to approve the DP World deal.

Clinton called the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several critical U.S. ports would be turned over to a foreign country.

Opponents of the deal are seeking an emergency floor vote in Congress next week to delay approval before a scheduled March 2 takeover of operations in the six U.S. ports.

The chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday the agency would file a lawsuit in New Jersey state court seeking to cancel the 30-year-lease for the marine operations at Port Newark that DP World would own.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

[jasper45]

He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.


Here, I brought your post from before, word for word. You do have quite the conspiracy theory going here; however, it is just that, a theory, speculation. What it is not is fact. I love it when people want “facts” for something they disagree with, yet expect others to just accept their opinion as fact, with no proof, period.

Proof, I have no proof. Its just what I think. We are still alowed to think here, or did GW target that as well?


What, now if someone questions your opinion you accuse them of restricting your right to free speech? Give me a break. Think and post what you like, just make sure you’re prepared to defend it. I thought that was the American way, or has the “left” taken that from us now?

[ChicagoFF]

Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
Once again...

Don't worry noz - we'll get some nice white people to run the ports so your side won't feel uncomfortable with with it's naked racism!

[ChicagoFF]

No profiling in the airports but keep those filthy animals out of the ports. Don't you know the democrats only want "white" foreigners to have those jobs? Brits - fine, arabs - No way! The lefts true colors are showing again! Hahahahaha

[ThNozzleman]

Noz, you are really stretching more then normal here .
Eh? Everything I posted is 100% true.
American companies have made far more money providing contracted services to the Saudi's then they have or ever will provide us.
And that has what to do with letting Saudi Arabia (a nation chock full of terrorists and their supporters) control ports here in America?
Don't worry noz - we'll get some nice white people to run the ports so your side won't feel uncomfortable with with it's naked racism!
Ummm...right. What the hell does racism have to do with it? This has nothing to do with protecting the individual rights of people, and everything to do with a nation that supports terrorism (and other vile practices against humanity) setting up shop in our nation's ports.
You are getting more and more desperate in your paranoia.
No profiling in the airports but keep those filthy animals out of the ports. Don't you know the democrats only want "white" foreigners to have those jobs? Brits - fine, arabs - No way! The lefts true colors are showing again! Hahahahaha
No, scratch that; you've lost it completely, kid.

[jasper45]

We are not talking about heavily armed military bases on foreign soil; we are talking about multiple ports on OUR soil

I should have explained my position better, and with more detail. This company is not going to be responsible for the security maintained in these ports, which will still be the Coast Guard, as well as Customs. My whole point with pointing out our military bases was simple. It is possible we are reaching out to other nations who have helped in the war on terror, which the UAE has; in fact, they have been very helpful. This is not big business, its politics, if this is the case. I have not decided whether this is a good or bad idea yet; on the surface, it looks bad, but the reason it does is that the UAE is an Arab country. I sure would hate to have that racism tag thrown around. It s odd how the tide has turned though.
If Bush had blocked this from the beginning, I am quite sure that many on the left would have taken the opposite position, and perhaps called him a racist, or a bigot.
I also find it odd how people are screaming now for keeping this control in the US, when in fact it hasn’t been for some time now. If this indeed a true security threat, kick all of these other companies out, prevent any other companies from bidding.

[ThNozzleman]

I also find it odd how people are screaming now for keeping this control in the US, when in fact it hasn’t been for some time now.
That's not the point. The point is the glaring hypocrisy of Bush and his neocon imperialists. Thousands upon thousands have died in Bush's stupid war on a nation that had less to do with terrorism than Saudi Arabia...yet, he's still wheeling and dealing with these people (as he has for years) in spite of the terrible human rights violations of its authoritarian Islamic theocracy. To call these bastards our "allies" is ridiculous, at best. It's all about the money, oil, and corporate expansion. It always has been. It's not so much the fact that Saudi Arabia is gaining control of some of our ports, but the complete discrepancy between our treatment of nations, depending on whether or not they wheel and deal the way our government wants them to. Anyone here want to take a shot at explaining just why we destroyed Iraq, yet welcome the Sauds and their nasty oppressive government with open arms?
Get it?

[Dave1983]

Here, I brought your post from before, word for word. You do have quite the conspiracy theory going here; however, it is just that, a theory, speculation. What it is not is fact. I love it when people want “facts” for something they disagree with, yet expect others to just accept their opinion as fact, with no proof, period.




What, now if someone questions your opinion you accuse them of restricting your right to free speech? Give me a break. Think and post what you like, just make sure you’re prepared to defend it. I thought that was the American way, or has the “left” taken that from us now?

Easy friend. I was just giving my opinion, nothing more. We are still permitted opioins, are we not? And since it is an opinion, I have no facts. I never said I did, nor did I suggest this to be the absolute truth. Do you often jump on people for thier opinion?

And just so we understand each other, this isnt about right or left, as Im neither. My view is neutral as far as political parties. Its just for me, after hearing the man speak for the last 6 years, he doesnt come accross as being the sharpest tool in the shed. And for me, that raises questions.Thats all.

[ThNozzleman]

Its just for me, after hearing the man speak for the last 6 years, he doesnt come accross as being the sharpest tool in the shed. And for me, that raises questions.Thats all.
Maybe pulling all those high g's while defending Texas from the Viet Cong addled his brain! :p

[jasper45]

Easy friend. I was just giving my opinion, nothing more. We are still permitted opioins, are we not? And since it is an opinion, I have no facts. I never said I did, nor did I suggest this to be the absolute truth. Do you often jump on people for thier opinion?


Opinions are fine, but you did not refer to your “theory” as being that, it was spoken from a factual point of view. That’s all, no more or less.
In addition, yes, if I disagree with an opinion I will voice it; is there now something wrong with that? I always thought that is what debate was all about. If you don’t like people questioning your opinion, don’t voice it.
It really is not a big deal. I just found it odd that when confronted you make the accusation that I was somehow restricting your freedom of speech.

[LaFireEducator]

Have made the decision that staying clear of the political debates is the wisest course of action.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

I am curious if your opinions on this particular subject are something that the men at the firehouse kitchen table agree with. I know firemen and I know westsiders. I bet your're in the minority on this one. Be honest now

[E229Lt]

Why does this have to be a Left vs Right debate. How about a few people just give their gut feeling, you know, what YOU think. Not how each side is spinning it.

For me, I'm just not comfortable with the idea because that little voice in my head is yelling really loud right now.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Artie I think this is one case where the left and the right both want to take some time to sort through all of this.

[ChicagoFF]

I am curious if your opinions on this particular subject are something that the men at the firehouse kitchen table agree with. I know firemen and I know westsiders. I bet your're in the minority on this one. Be honest now
No one at my house (including me) thinks this is the right thing right now. I don't know many who defend this idea. For the record I never said I did agree with it. I just love watching the left dance around trying to justify their constantly shifting views on security issues. Just having a little fun! :p

[ThNozzleman]

There's left...there's right...and there's $$$$$$$. :rolleyes:

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

Just keepin it real Brother :cool: ... I was worried that the westside was gettin a lil' "soft".. :D

[ChiefReason]

There are many laws that deal with foreign ownership in this country.
There are laws that deal with the oversight of these ownerships.
And still, there are laws that deal with what foreigners and people not born in this country can or can't do.
When you think about it, there have been many businesses owned by foreigners coming to this country to make a life for them and their families.
I don't view Arabs or anyone else coming to this country any differently than the Irish or Chinese or Vietnamese or South Africans who have been coming to this country for centuries. So; though I will not turn and run in the other direction if I see a Muslim coming towards me, I DO look at them with some curiosity. Sorry; but too many of them have been blowing themselves up and taking people like me with them.
If Dubai running the ports is such a good deal, then fine. We put 1000 troops at the ports, charge THEM for the manpower and inspect more than 6% of the containers coming into this country.
If you find this somewhat paranoid, then blame the news media.
CR

[scfire86]

Another interesting perspective from Lou Dobbs (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/ldt.01.html)

An excerpt:

"Bush said he wanted those who are critical and questioning of this port deal to "step up and explain why." Well, Mr. President, to equate any country to your principal partner in the coalition ignores that special relationship this country's enjoyed with the United Kingdom for decades and decades. Dubai Ports World is a UAE government controlled and owned company. The money used to fund the 9/11 attacks, most of it, was sent to the hijackers through the UAE banking system. The UAE stonewalled U.S. efforts to track al Qaeda bank accounts after 9/11. In addition, the Emirates does not recognize Israel. And the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. And if those aren't good enough reasons, I would just suggest I'm at a complete loss to offer what might be considered good reasons."

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Why does this have to be a Left vs Right debate. How about a few people just give their gut feeling, you know, what YOU think. Not how each side is spinning it.

For me, I'm just not comfortable with the idea because that little voice in my head is yelling really loud right now.
There is no one on these forums who is more of a loyal conservative then I am. But there are a couple of things I know for sure:

1. I am tired of being told that, because I do not support this deal, I am a racist. I do not for one minute believe that this company is tied to terrorists. I do not believe for one minute that the U.A.E. is a state sponsor of terrorists. I do not believe for one minute that every Arab is a terrorist. BUT, every single person who crashed a plane on 9/11 was Arab. Every single person who played a part in blowing up the USS Cole was Arab. Every single person who has been placing IED's in Iraq targeting our military personnel is an Arab.

2. Why would you risk opening the hole in port security even further? This company won't run "port security" per se, but they are going to play an integral part in it. They will also be hiring and firing people. This will create the possibility of infiltration at the highest level. I do not believe that there would be complicity, but the risk is too damn high.

3. Where this becomes a left vs. right issue is the scum bag liberals that have now jumped on this bandwagon in a transparent and feeble attempt to make themselves appear tough on homeland security. This attempt will, with no doubt, backfire miserably.

4. I am tired of being told "There is no American company that wants to do this job". Bull****. If there is no US company that wants to do this (interestingly the same argument they use on the other issue I vehemently oppose the Administration-illegal immigration) than give me a little while. As soon as I can secure some SBA funding, I'll do it.

5. My little voice is screaming, too, Lou.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

You liberals are in 100% agreement with Ann Coulter! How does that make you feel?
SO, THREE MUSLIMS WALK INTO A PORT
by Ann Coulter
February 22, 2006


The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to this port story.

But Bush is going to need a better justification for turning over management of our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far — especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies."

Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that "those who are questioning it" need to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

First of all, it's not "all of a sudden." The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is "ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11." The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks — attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

Even four years after 9/11, I note that we don't hear Tony Blair condemning some cartoons in a Danish newspaper as "a cultural extremism," or saying their publication represents a "dreadful clash of civilizations."

That was U.A.E. Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri's recent comment on the great Danish cartoon caper.

So maybe Bush could defend his port deal without insulting our intelligence by asking why anyone might imagine there's any conceivable difference between a British company and a United Arab Emirates company.

President Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports.

Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

The Bush administration defended Muslims rioting over cartoons, saying, "We certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive." Hey, while they're at it, why don't they invite some Muslim leaders with well-known ties to terrorism to the White House for a reception? Oh wait, I forgot ... They did that right after 9/11. Yes, now I see why we must turn over our ports to the United Arab Emirates.

The University of Illinois has suspended editors of the student newspaper, The Daily Illini, for republishing the cartoons — even though the kiss-ass editors ran a column accompanying the cartoons denouncing them as "bigoted and insensitive."

That was still not enough for Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, who wrote a letter to the editor saying that he was "saddened" by the publication of the cartoons. You want sad? The University of Illinois' sports teams are known as the "Fighting Illini." Now they're going to have to change it to the "Surrendering Illini."

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly refuses to show the cartoons on "The O'Reilly Factor," saying he doesn't want to offend anyone's religion. Someone should tell him those endless interviews with prostitutes from the Bunny Ranch and porn stars aren't high on Christians' list of enjoyable viewing either. (How about adding Prophet Muhammad cartoon T-shirts and fleece tops to his vast collection of "Factor gear"? Isn't Father's Day right around the corner? I'd buy those.)

Needless to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America — no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.

Two days after the Times editorial page justified its decision not to reprint the cartoons as "a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words," the Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and cow dung — which I seem to have just described using a handful of common words! Gee, that was easy!

Taking to heart the lesson that violence works, I hereby announce to the world: I am offended by hotel windows that don't open, pilots chattering when the passengers are trying to sleep, and Garfield cartoons. Next time my sleep is disturbed by gibberish about our altitude over Kansas, the National Pilots Emirate embassy is going down. And mark my words: One minute after "Garfield II" goes into pre-production, some heads are gonna roll. Oh — and I'll take the San Diego port, please.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

[scfire86]

Where this becomes a left vs. right issue is the scum bag liberals that have now jumped on this bandwagon in a transparent and feeble attempt to make themselves appear tough on homeland security. This attempt will, with no doubt, backfire miserably.


This was a good post until I read this part. Then you dissolved into your typical knee jerk reaction with a statement that has no basis in any type of fact.

Especially considering how it is this GOP administration and Congress who have been in charge for most of the last ten years and Homeland Security isn't any better now than it was then.

[ThNozzleman]

I don't care what anyone thinks about the details...the same president that led us to invade a nation that had nothing to do with any terrorist attack on America, based on lies, half-truths, and flimsy "intel", is now selling off our ports to a nation that has a running history of supporting terrorism. All major Saudi companies are under heavy influence by their government, which is a monarchy with a miserable human rights record, and doesn't even begin to resemble a democracy (one of Bush's much ballyhooed talking points when dealing with the Middle East). Half the nation openly supports terrorism against the U.S. and other western nations. The only difference is that the Saudi government and the rich shieks that control it are still wheeling and dealing Bush's way. And this goes on while the anti-American sentiment continues to grow in the rest of the nation.
Bush is a liar and anyone who still supports him is either grossly uninformed, or simply clinging to the party line because they just can't bring themselves to admit they've been duped. Freedom, democracy, and stopping "terrorism" are not what Bush and his corporate imperialists care about. It's the power and control of resources. We've propped up tinpan despots throughout history regardless of their atrocious behavior, so long as they play the game our way...and the game is all about power and money; not freedom and human rights.

[ThNozzleman]

This was a good post until I read this part. Then you dissolved into your typical knee jerk reaction with a statement that has no basis in any type of fact.
It's all he has left, SC...it's all he has left. Pitiful, if you think about it. :(

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

It's all he has left, SC...it's all he has left. Pitiful, if you think about it. :(
How you making out with that war for oil evidence, there, skippy?

[scfire86]

How you making out with that war for oil evidence, there, skippy?

Just as well as the, "we are doing this to liberate the Iraqi peoples, and it won't cost the US taxpayer a dime" argument. Which is true. It is costing a lot more than a dime.

[kayakking]

How you making out with that war for oil evidence, there, skippy?

In debate class they do a fun exercise where you have to make the argument for the case you don't believe in...

You obviously don't think this war is about oil, but I'd love to see you make the case for it being so...what do you say?

Or...at the very least, tell me again why we are really fighting this war.

[Dalmatian190]

You obviously don't think this war is about oil,

Well, to even begin such an exercise, we'd need to know what "about oil" means.

Is it "about oil" in that stability in that region is globally important idea?

Is it "about oil" in that oil was a source of income for Saddam's regime?

Is it "about oil" in that U.N. Sanctions against it's sale was making the west look like a bunch of cruel child starvers?

Is it "about oil" on the thought that some other corporation wanted to control the profits from it?

Is it "about oil" in that there was global geo-politics involved for long term control of the resource? Which geo-political set? With the French & Russians? With the Indians & Chinese?

Is it "about oil" in that revenues from oil could have been used to rebuild Iraq?

Is it "about oil" in that we wanted to make Iraq our primary source of oil, replacing if my memory serves me right in order the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Venezula as our primary sources of oil?

Is it "about oil" in that relatively little mideastern oil comes to the U.S. so we wanted to control the stream being sold to other industrialized nations?

Is it "about oil" in that stable supplies and low prices (but most of all, predictability over price) is important to guide business investments?

The "about oil" charge can be taken in any number of ways. Very few, if any, of which make any sense.

While I'd be glad to debate from the other point of view, I have to say it's so counter intuitive and illogical to me I don't even know where you start on most of the scenarios I posted above. I honestly don't know which one people mean by "about oil" to even chose one to try and pick to debate because I don't know what they mean by "about oil" -- there where ways on their face of it cheaper and more stable to achieve most of those objectives.

[hwoods]

I've grown to dislike these threads. My second and last comment on this one is: We're Americans, and we need to put ourselves first. As far as I'm concerned we're the best, biggest, baddest, whatever you want to use here. I have no problem with a war over oil. I don't think that's why we went over there in the first place, but since we're there, let's make the best of it. I'm fed up with the continuing B.S. over politics in the middle east, so turn it into a barren sand dune and call it a day.

[ChiefReason]

I've grown to dislike these threads. My second and last comment on this one is: We're Americans, and we need to put ourselves first. As far as I'm concerned we're the best, biggest, baddest, whatever you want to use here. I have no problem with a war over oil. I don't think that's why we went over there in the first place, but since we're there, let's make the best of it. I'm fed up with the continuing B.S. over politics in the middle east, so turn it into a barren sand dune and call it a day.
I'll echo those sentiments, Harv!
Graybeards Unite!
CR

[E229Lt]

Unfortunately, it appears Iraq is headed into a civil war. But as history will show, most democracies went through at least one.

Soon, it will be time for us to get out of the way and let the Iraqis decide their future.

[ThNozzleman]

Unfortunately, it appears Iraq is headed into a civil war. But as history will show, most democracies went through at least one.
So did a lot of nations that aren't democracies, too.
Soon, it will be time for us to get out of the way and let the Iraqis decide their future.
We should never have gotten in their way in the first place.
Or...at the very least, tell me again why we are really fighting this war.
Now you're talking. Poor ol' delusional George. I can tell you one thing...there are still massive amounts of oil in Iraq, but there are ZERO WMD's. But, hey; Bush knew exactly where they were. I mean, they KNEW he absolutely had them, right? Heh, heh! What joke. I can show you nearly a hundred years of western nations meddling in that area of the world, too...and the reasons why they've always been there are sure as hell not to help anyone but themselves to the oil. I'm still waiting on hero Bush to use our entire military to invade Cuba and "liberate" them, too. I mean, they're closer to us than Hawaii! Why don't we help them? Oh, that's right; no oil. You know, one reason Ol' George is on my ignore list is because my ribs just couldn't handle the abuse of laughing so hard. :p

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Now you're talking. Poor ol' delusional George. I can tell you one thing...there are still massive amounts of oil in Iraq, but there are ZERO WMD's. But, hey; Bush knew exactly where they were. I mean, they KNEW he absolutely had them, right? Heh, heh! What joke. I can show you nearly a hundred years of western nations meddling in that area of the world, too...and the reasons why they've always been there are sure as hell not to help anyone but themselves to the oil. I'm still waiting on hero Bush to use our entire military to invade Cuba and "liberate" them, too. I mean, they're closer to us than Hawaii! Why don't we help them? Oh, that's right; no oil. You know, one reason Ol' George is on my ignore list is because my ribs just couldn't handle the abuse of laughing so hard.
You are pathetic. You are one of those who tries to answer any issue with your utter hatred of George Bush. This is why the liberals will make no inroads in this election year and the next Presidential election. They have no plan other than "George Bush lied"! The US people have told the libs for a long time that they do not care for the negative view of a very succesful country.

It is also notable that you are unable to formulate an argument that is not rife with insults and personal attacks. The recent thread on Christian fire fighters was a good example. Then you act like you are somehow intellectually superior to people on here because you sit on the opposite side of the issue. Again, that is counter to the fact that you are unable to sustain logical, fact-included, debate.

You have been provided with facts before that showed that US "intellectual elites" were against getting involved in the war against Nazi Germany, too. History has shown that it was the most noble of fights. I am confident that, when all the information is in, history will show the same thing about this war in Iraq.

But keep going with your hate for this country, this government and this President. It is evident, you also hate yourself. As I said before, it must suck going through life so filled with anger and hate.

[Laxin2123]

Isn't the UAE our allies? Aren't they part of Coalition of the Willing?

Lets remember one thing here, that our illustrious leaders have whitewashed for the sake of the almighty dollar. These guys are MUSLIMS and ARABS, and no matter what they tell you, ANYONE who is not one of them is an INFIDEL. Don't think for a second that if the situation presented itself that they wouldn't turn on our FRIENDSHIP in the blink of an eye.

[ThNozzleman]

Isn't the UAE our allies? Aren't they part of Coalition of the Willing?
Yeah...maybe the top .0001% that rules the nation with an iron fist; so long as we're putting their oil in our SUV's. The rest I'm not so sure about. All that money the terrorist orgainzations thrive on has to come from somewhere.

[Bones42]

1. Bush is not selling the port. He doesn't own it, blame the people that own it now and are selling it.

2. MAYBE, with the U.A.E. owning the ports, the U.S. might actually put some real security at the ports finally instead of the FARCE that people believe exists now.

3. Side question, is there anyone out there that really believes airport security is for real? Having just travelled in and out of the country, my personal experience is that it is still a joke. I was amazed how easy it was to get on a plane and get back into this country without ever passing through a working metal detector or any kind of search. :(

[Dalmatian190]

Bush to use our entire military to invade Cuba and "liberate" them, too. I mean, they're closer to us than Hawaii! Why don't we help them? Oh, that's right; no oil.

Um, no.

Well, most likely, no.

As you typed that, Venezula is spending hundreds of millions rebuilding refineries in Cuba.

Spanish, Chinese, Indian, and Norwegian companies all have exploration programs underway.

Hmmm, What part of the U.S. is our largest oil producer? Would it be the Gulf of Mexico.

Hmmm, What part of the gulf is legally prohibited from drilling? Would it be those parts near Florida.

Hmmm, where is Cuba?

Sarcasm aside, industry guesstimates is by 2015 Cuba will be producing 700,000 barrels a day, about 4x their domestic needs.

Not a huge amount -- about 1/5 what Iraq produced PRE 1990, about 1/2 of what it does today. About 1/8 what the U.S. produces. (Yes boys and girls, your math is right...the U.S. pumps more oil today domestically than Iraq did at the height of it's production....)

It's development has been held back partly by the long term embargo keeping the drillers most familiar with the area (the Americans) out of it. Oh wait, it's oil, let's drop that silly embargo and help my business buddies...

And partly because the deeper water development costs, unknown risks of quality & quantity of the wells till the first ones start producing, and business risks in a nation that might nationalize private industry again means it hasn't been as attractive for foreign investment till now.

[EFD840]

If Castro would get with the program and die off, Cuba would explode with development. I truly think that the US will lift most or all sanctions once he's gone, there are simply too many resources to be tapped and other countries are getting first crack at them...

[scfire86]

If Castro would get with the program and die off, Cuba would explode with development. I truly think that the US will lift most or all sanctions once he's gone, there are simply too many resources to be tapped and other countries are getting first crack at them...

More American schizophrenia when it comes to foreign policy. Why are we waiting for Castro to die? We didn't wait for Mao Zedong to die before we started trading with China. And as commies go, the PRC was far worse than Castro.

[DennisTheMenace]

If Castro would get with the program and die off, Cuba would explode with development. I truly think that the US will lift most or all sanctions once he's gone, there are simply too many resources to be tapped and other countries are getting first crack at them...Cuba will become nothing more than a US tourist destination, might have a side business of medical treatments not available for good reasons in the States, that is about it. It will be like PortaRico.

[scfire86]

1. Bush is not selling the port. He doesn't own it, blame the people that own it now and are selling it.


Well. Let's take that logic a little further. Since you are making a claim that private property trumps national security concerns why aren't US weapons manufacturers allowed to sell nukes to anyone willing to buy them?

The President shouldn't have any problems since he isn't selling them, it is the people who own them.

[ThNozzleman]

Not a huge amount -- about 1/5 what Iraq produced PRE 1990, about 1/2 of what it does today. About 1/8 what the U.S. produces. (Yes boys and girls, your math is right...the U.S. pumps more oil today domestically than Iraq did at the height of it's production....)
More smoke and mirrors. Iraq has a proven reserve of 112 billion barrels of oil. This is not including the large unexplored areas of the nation. Iraq currently has only about 2000 oil wells, compared to over a million in Texas, alone. So it's not a lack of oil, but rather production capability and access that are the problems. If the technology used in domestic oil production were applied to Iraq, there would be a tremendous amount of oil available. The output would likely be close to Saudi Arabia's estimated 9.5 million barrels a day.

[ThNozzleman]

More American schizophrenia when it comes to foreign policy. Why are we waiting for Castro to die? We didn't wait for Mao Zedong to die before we started trading with China. And as commies go, the PRC was far worse than Castro.
Yeah. I wonder why they just didn't let Saddam "die off?"

[ThNozzleman]

Oh, wait...that's right! He was an "imminant threat" with tons of WMD's and nuclear weapons all over the place.

[Bones42]

national security concerns and again, exactly what security is there now at the ports? Right, almost none. And what security would there be after this sale? Right, almost none.

The current owners obviously don't give a rats ass about how unsecure the ports are, maybe with new owners, more security can be forced on them. Is there anyone out there that truly believes the ports are secure at all now? :eek:

Who cares who owns them, lets just secure them....regardless of the owner.

[ThNozzleman]

Iraq currently has only about 2000 oil wells, compared to over a million in Texas, alone.
After further investigation, many other sources place the number of active wells in Texas around 350-400 thousand. My point remains the same, though.

[Dalmatian190]

More smoke and mirrors.

Um, hard cold facts. Verifiable.

The size of proven reserves is a valid point. However, it's also likely the vast majority of oil used in America will continue to come from the Americas and other non-Arab resources for the next 10-20 years if not longer. Oh wait, if we start to talk about long term strategic importance then the arguement "about the oil" can't be about money grubbing, inept business deals to benefit companies owned by people who will be dead of old age by the time the resource is scarce enough to matter. And it would fly in the face that it really doesn't matter who controls it, if everyone pays the same, we just keep buying our share.

Let's add some more numbers for perspective on Iraq's 112 Billion Barrel proven reserves:

Saudi Arabia proven: 262 Billion Barrels
Canada proven: 178 Billion Barrels (Hey, it's about the oil, where is the gang from South Park?)
Mexico proven: 45 Billion Barrels

Is my math off, or do the countries that adjoin us to the north and south have collectively twice as much oil as Iraq? 80% of what Saudi's have?

Hey, um, wait, why are they strategically important again to control the Iraqi oil? Oh wait, it's not, well it must be business, but, um, it's not like anyone is making money from Iraqi oil right not, hey, what exactly is this arguement "about the oil" all about anyway?

U.S. Proven Natural Gas & Recoverable Coal reserves, converted in equivelant barrels of oil: About a 100 Billion (did the math quick).

But god damnit, we're going to fight a pre-emptive war to strategically control oil when are own home continent is one of the most energy rich regions of the world...oh wait, that's not making a lot of sense...

And the U.S. has at least three significant areas we have prohibited exploration in for the most part that are likely large reserves -- Eastern Gulf of Mexico, George's Bank (New England), and California. If one took a Scientific Wild Ass Guess and said for the sake of arguement each was a North Sea size field, that's another 130 Billion Barrels. Hell, cut it in half and it's still 65 Billion barrels. And while I don't mind keeping them off limits as long as practical to continue and improve drilling technology, they will eventually be exploited.

But yeah, we're fighting over oil since we only have about 60 years supply or so located in North America.

Sure, put in place Fleet Efficiency Standards.
Sure, develop additional Hydro & Wind Power.
Sure, develop pebble bed nuclear technologies.

But please don't buy this crap that somehow we're dependent on middle eastern oil. Yes, because of fungibility supply disruptions there can cause painful price spikes here. Yes, because of relatively low cost from additional production there, domestic alternatives aren't as financially attractive.

But strategically, don't need 'em so I don't buy the strategic war arguement, and from a business standpoint war is an insane strategy when you can buy what you want, so I don't buy the oil-as-a-business deal angle.

Oil was a factor, but it was not the primary motivator.

[jasper45]

Surely, you must realize by now that data never make sense when one side has so much hatred pent up.

[ThNozzleman]

Oil was a factor, but it was not the primary motivator.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The fact that Iraq has this much oil is EXACTLY why we're there. And it's not only Iraq, but the close proximity of the other oil producing nations in the area and our ability to influence them.
But please don't buy this crap that somehow we're dependent on middle eastern oil. Yes, because of fungibility supply disruptions there can cause painful price spikes here. Yes, because of relatively low cost from additional production there, domestic alternatives aren't as financially attractive.
We certainly are dependant on oil from that region...and control of that area's resources are at the center of the Bush administration's endeavor. The fact that much of the rest of the world gets its oil from the region is just as important.
But strategically, don't need 'em so I don't buy the strategic war arguement, and from a business standpoint war is an insane strategy when you can buy what you want, so I don't buy the oil-as-a-business deal angle.
The ease of recovering the oil in Iraq is as important as how much there is in the area...and it's hard to buy it when they won't sell it to you. And why buy when you can just take it?
Surely, you must realize by now that data never make sense when one side has so much hatred pent up.
Right. Haven't heard that line, before. Got anything useful to add? Or just more potshots? You can twist data to any end; but the fact is that the "reasons" Bush and his cronies gave were all lies, half-truths, and scare-tactics. The powers behind Bush have been wanting to seize that area for years. I can't believe that anyone would believe after all this time that control of oil is not the primary reason we do anything in that area of the world.
It must be nice living there in la-la world.

[jasper45]

Right. Haven't heard that line, before. Got anything useful to add? Or just more potshots? You can twist data to any end; but the fact is that the "reasons" Bush and his cronies gave were all lies, half-truths, and scare-tactics.


At this point, there is really no need to add anything more, nobody is going to change their mind anyway. You are also correct; you can twist data in any direction you wish. You have done it to suit your beliefs; I do it for mine.
I am glad you are such a foreign policy expert, and were privy to so much intelligence that no one in the rest of the world was. I forget; how much time have you spent in the intelligence community? How much access to classified material have you had?



It must be nice living there in la-la world.


I am not quite sure what you meant by this statement.

[ChicagoFF]

Thnozzleman....

............the same vision always pops into my head.......a run down apartment, peeling wall paper, filthy, a weeks worth of dishes in the sink but otherwise barely furnished, a urine stained matress in the corner, a desk set up with a computer, stacks of anti-government and anti-church literature stacked everywhere. At this desk, under a bare lightbulb hanging from the ceiling, sits an unshaven, wild eyed loner wearing a tin foil hat, frantically typing away, trying to prove his worth and place in a system that otherwise splits it's time between ignoring him and belittling him....... as the bottle of Wild Turkey disappears he frantically types away, furious at the world, and the black helicopters that always hover over his building, furious that no one takes him seriously, furious that his arguments are not really arguments, just the rantings of the maginalized nutbag he has become. As daylight fades, less and less lucid, he hears the helicopters again and goes to hide in his copper mesh cage so they can't read his thoughts...................... ......

[SSTONER]

Well. Since you are making a claim that private property trumps national security concerns why aren't US weapons manufacturers allowed to sell nukes to anyone willing to buy them?


The answer to that flawed analogy can be found by researching who can obtain the materials needed for nukes and who provides it.

You do not see Ratheon here in Tucson making Nukes......

[SSTONER]

I hate screaming about a problem that doesn't matter or even really exist instead of tackling the real issues.



You know Dennis, I agree. Infact its funny, Sen. McCain said the same thing the other day. I dont remember which News program he was on, however, even he seems to think we have bigger fish to fry than the port issue also.

[DennisTheMenace]

Well. Since you are making a claim that private property trumps national security concerns why aren't US weapons manufacturers allowed to sell nukes to anyone willing to buy them?This one is real easy. Our "weapons manufacturers" don't build the nuclear warheads. The United States Department of Energy does.

[scfire86]

This one is real easy. Our "weapons manufacturers" don't build the nuclear warheads. The United States Department of Energy does.

Well then. Since you are going to be pedantic about it. Why aren't the 'weapons manufacturers' allowed to sell the components that would be involved in making nukes?

[ThNozzleman]

I am glad you are such a foreign policy expert, and were privy to so much intelligence that no one in the rest of the world was. I forget; how much time have you spent in the intelligence community? How much access to classified material have you had?
Well, I apparantly called the WMD/terrorist thing better than the so-called intelligence community. You prove my point; this war was a scam from the get-go. Of course, the rabid Bush-bots will never accept that their fearless leader marched thousands to their death to fulfill a PNAC fantasy. Either that, or they know and just don't care that the reasons for invading Iraq were shaky, at best. Do some research on PNAC and the neocons. Their long-term agenda for spreading "democracy" is well known, as are their crusade for "resources."
I am not quite sure what you meant by this statement.
La-la world is a place where those who refuse to accept realilty stay. But, hey; at least some of you are admitting that control of oil was part of the reason we invaded Iraq and turned it into the unstable mess that it is, today.
the same vision always pops into my head.......a run down apartment, peeling wall paper, filthy, a weeks worth of dishes in the sink but otherwise barely furnished, a urine stained matress in the corner, a desk set up with a computer, stacks of anti-government and anti-church literature stacked everywhere. At this desk, under a bare lightbulb hanging from the ceiling, sits an unshaven, wild eyed loner wearing a tin foil hat, frantically typing away, trying to prove his worth and place in a system that otherwise splits it's time between ignoring him and belittling him....... as the bottle of Wild Turkey disappears he frantically types away, furious at the world, and the black helicopters that always hover over his building, furious that no one takes him seriously, furious that his arguments are not really arguments, just the rantings of the maginalized nutbag he has become. As daylight fades, less and less lucid, he hears the helicopters again and goes to hide in his copper mesh cage so they can't read his thoughts...................... ......
Time to run along, now kid...the adults are talking. :rolleyes:

[DennisTheMenace]

Well then. Since you are going to be pedantic about it. Why aren't the 'weapons manufacturers' allowed to sell the components that would be involved in making nukes?Well to get back to before your original post here, the Ports are not even being sold to any foreigners, they will still be "owned" by the local municipalities. Only the operational management contract is being awarded to a foreign owned company. A company that already had the old contracts but now happens to have new friendly owners.

As for the weapon components, they are controled and screened, just like the port deal was screened.

Really the whole arguement is over nothing. Security is currently controled and run by the federal government, and will continue to be with who ever runs the port when the contracts are finally awarded.

[Bones42]

On my way on an errand this am, I went past a small airport. It had a big sign in front stating "Proudly owned by a US citizen". I stopped in, as it's an airport I frequently used to have lunch at to watch the many takeoffs/landings (they run 3 or 4 schools there). The security gate was unmanned (they fired the guards to save money a few years ago). There is a 4 foot chicken wire fence around 2/3 of the airport, the rest is open woods. I walked over to about 10 of the over 100 small airplanes. Now I'm sure the Cessna 182's and such have super secure locks that would prevent anyone from "hotwiring" it. :rolleyes: Spent a good half hour wandering around this airport without a single person ever questioning anything.

Funny, owned by a US citizen, protected/secured by No One.

Are small airports, with multiple single engine planes, along with charterable Leer jets holding up to 30? not worth anyone's protection?

Sorry, but in my opinion, this country's "security" is still a joke. :(

[DennisTheMenace]

On my way on an errand this am, I went past a small airport. It had a big sign in front stating "Proudly owned by a US citizen". I stopped in, as it's an airport I frequently used to have lunch at to watch the many takeoffs/landings (they run 3 or 4 schools there). The security gate was unmanned (they fired the guards to save money a few years ago). There is a 4 foot chicken wire fence around 2/3 of the airport, the rest is open woods. I walked over to about 10 of the over 100 small airplanes. Now I'm sure the Cessna 182's and such have super secure locks that would prevent anyone from "hotwiring" it. :rolleyes: Spent a good half hour wandering around this airport without a single person ever questioning anything.

Funny, owned by a US citizen, protected/secured by No One.

Are small airports, with multiple single engine planes, along with charterable Leer jets holding up to 30? not worth anyone's protection?

Sorry, but in my opinion, this country's "security" is still a joke. :(Which leer jet will hold 30 people?

[Bones42]

May not be "Leer" brand wth the 30 or so seats, but they are small jets. There are 3 or 4 that are there along with some Leer's. Not really sure that the brand of jet really matters though. :rolleyes:

[CaptainGonzo]

On my way on an errand this am, I went past a small airport. It had a big sign in front stating "Proudly owned by a US citizen". I stopped in, as it's an airport I frequently used to have lunch at to watch the many takeoffs/landings (they run 3 or 4 schools there). The security gate was unmanned (they fired the guards to save money a few years ago). There is a 4 foot chicken wire fence around 2/3 of the airport, the rest is open woods. I walked over to about 10 of the over 100 small airplanes. Now I'm sure the Cessna 182's and such have super secure locks that would prevent anyone from "hotwiring" it. :rolleyes: Spent a good half hour wandering around this airport without a single person ever questioning anything.

Funny, owned by a US citizen, protected/secured by No One.

Are small airports, with multiple single engine planes, along with charterable Leer jets holding up to 30? not worth anyone's protection?

Sorry, but in my opinion, this country's "security" is still a joke. :(

You wouldn't do that at 9B1.... the airport manager has a license to carry and wears a Glock....

[DennisTheMenace]

May not be "Leer" brand wth the 30 or so seats, but they are small jets. There are 3 or 4 that are there along with some Leer's. Not really sure that the brand of jet really matters though. :rolleyes:
My only point is that those planes do not carry as much as they might appear to. While I agree that they could be used in some sort of a sinister plot, they are luckly just too small to pull off attacks like on 9/11.

[pfd3501]

When did this happen? What did the previous administration do that warrants a slacker moniker?

what didn't the clinton administration do that warrants the slacker moniker?

[scfire86]

what didn't the clinton administration do that warrants the slacker moniker?

Peace. Prosperity. 23M jobs created WITH a balanced budget. A dictator toppled with minimal loss of American lives. Who knew the day would come when conservatives (or anyone else for that matter) would consider all those to be negatives.

[IronsMan53]

Peace. Prosperity. 23M jobs created WITH a balanced budget. A dictator toppled with minimal loss of American lives. Who knew the day would come when conservatives (or anyone else for that matter) would consider all those t