Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Dubai Finesse ("This Contract Should Have Been Stopped at an Earlier Stage...")
Washington Post ^ | 02/24/2006 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

*SNIP*

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.

That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.

*SNIP*

This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allowcontract; charleskrauthammer; dubai; krauthammer; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
To: ohioWfan
"Nasty" is for

... sock puppets.

151 posted on 02/24/2006 6:49:26 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: zook
You Wrote: ...Seeing as Dubai Ports World runs ports all around the world, including in Australia, it is highly likely that they are already familiar with security provisions....

If you don't mind, I'd like to expand your comment by pointing out that a container has a start point and an end point. Charles is only thinking about the DELIVERY side of the container. Security begins at the TRANSMIT side. Dubai port(s) are the major shipping departure zone for the Mid-East and other nearby areas. To secure a container, the security provisions must be known at the departure point. So besides managing many ports in the world, the Dubai consortium must be knowledgeable of security provisions from being a point of departure for containers.

Additionally, the UAE/Dubai are leading the implementation of our Homeland Defense shipping policies. I think the article is thoughtful in its attempt to find a middle ground; but not all the facts are taken into consideration.
152 posted on 02/24/2006 6:52:20 AM PST by PrinceOfCups (Just the facts, Ma'am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"Twittering??" ROFLOL!!! Are we trying to see how far down the silly slope we can go, Kent?

As I said........carry on..........have fun amusing yourself. No one else is impressed.

153 posted on 02/24/2006 6:53:46 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Peach; ohioWfan; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; DollyCali
Late to the party but I am appalled at the vitriol displayed by Kent

If his intent is to be "cute" he has wholly failed, because his vulgar sexist comments are more like an angry frustrated uneducated adolescence male who is begging for attention than a mature conservative man.

I wonder, if he has a wife/girlfriend or daughter, does he treat them in such a disrespectful, demeaning and un-masculine way?

Or perhaps he just received some very terrible news that has caused him to take out his angst against some on this thread?

This type of unnecessary and substandard behavior is a mystery and does nothing for the discourse here but lower it to an inferior tirade

154 posted on 02/24/2006 6:55:24 AM PST by apackof2 (You can stand me up at the gates of hell, I'll stand my ground and I won't back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Gotcha. Sorry about that.

Glad you weren't defending Kent. I RESPECT you, Cboldt........a lot. Defense of crude insults might change that.

(Note........I pinged Kent ;)

155 posted on 02/24/2006 6:55:54 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570
I was pulled down the rabbit hole.

Easy to have happen. Enjoy your coffee! I'm off to breakfast myself.

156 posted on 02/24/2006 6:56:51 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
No one else is impressed.

Oh? You do this sort of thing in order to "impress," then...?

Interesting.

157 posted on 02/24/2006 6:57:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups

Excellent point.


158 posted on 02/24/2006 6:59:35 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
No. YOU do.

Take a break, Kent. Get some fresh air. Kick your dog. Call a therapist.

Enough of this 'cuteness' of yours.........I'm going to experience reverse peristalsis soon. Good bye.

159 posted on 02/24/2006 7:01:03 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Thanks for addressing the questions. Makes me feel a little better knowing that their government's willing to put a few of their guys on the line. I'm sure DP does good work. Was really speaking more about throwing UAE, as a nation, a bone by letting them set up shop here.

They didn't make as much of an effort as a true friend like GB, but they're putting in an effort. They get a B in the 'military-ally' column of the report card.

I still think their government's just playing along to serve their security interests vis-a-vis Iran. I also believe there's plenty of money that was/is/continues to be funneled to Al Qaeda, and serious nasties elsewhere by UAE citizens through Islamic 'charities', and so-forth. Just because the government publicly frowns upon it doesn't mean it's not happening. Economic appeasement in my book. They get a 'D' in the 'friendly-nation' column.

I believe in free-trade as a principle, but not the recipe for societal change in the ME. I think we've been playing that game for way too long. Carrot-and-stick works only if you wait until after the all the work gets done to feed them the carrot.

Admittedly just my opinion, and possibly histrionic in the eyes of some here, but I'm sticking to it.


160 posted on 02/24/2006 7:05:33 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay
Keep in mind the UAE already manages a commercial port contract here and has airline operations at three of our major airports.

There's no need to throw a bone. DP World is tops at what they do. They put in their bid and won the contract on their own merits. We then vetted them through the system designed by Congress.

161 posted on 02/24/2006 7:10:36 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I read articles, before posting on them. I don't willfully mischaracterize the content of same, afterwards.

Actually, you've done exactly that. You've repeatedly implied that Krauthammer knows that there already are Arabs companies managing terminals and shipping operations in this country. And you've attacked people who've pointed out that Arabs run some facilities in places such as Houston and New Jersey. You stamp your foot and rant about how they obviously haven't read Krauthammer's article, etc. Your posts at 9, 14, 24, 34 are examples of your tactic on this issues -- attacking people for not reading the parts of Krauthammers article where he acknowledged that Arabs already operate some port facilities in this country.

The only problem is that Krauthammer's article says nothing of the sort. Thanks to your posts, I've now read that article about 5 times, and have yet to read Krauthammer acknowledging that Arabs already operate some terminals in the United States. So how about excerpting the portion of his article where he recognizes that reality, and addresses it in his argument? Just quote it for all of us to read. If you can find it....

Then when someone inquired as to where he talked about Arabs operating some U.S. port facilities, you come back with "Any particular reason to assume he isn't?". That's at your post 37, in case you've forgotten. Which is a far cry from your earlier claim that it was actually in the article, but whatever.

But yes, there is a "particular reason" to assume he's not talking about arabs operating ports in this country. He mentions expressly that DPW operates ports in "15 countries". Doesn't mention other Arab companies operating some port facilities in this country, which surely has some relevance to the risk of port security info getting out to terrorists. More importantly, in discussing why we perhaps should let the deal go through, he says: "After all, the UAE, which is run by a friendly regime, manages ports in other countries without any such incidents. Other countries?. Another perfect chance for him to either expalin why the UAE is a bigger risk than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, or how this deal is different from others in which some arab companies have certain responsibilities for port operations. But he doesn't even mention. So he's either being disingenuous by ignoring such clearly relevant evidence, or he just didn't know. I'm betting the latter.

As for how such a well-read guy might not know, there are lots of things that even the smartest person doesn't know. And a nice thing about FR is that you've got people from all over the country, many with military experience in that part of the world, who have first hand knowledge of things commentators like Krauthammer may only read about. See, e.g., Buckhead.

As for Krauthammer "straddling", that's exactly what he's doing. If someone opposed the decision to invade Iraq, but says we now need to stay and finish the job because we're already there, would you say he "supports" the war? Or is he someone in the middle? Because that's exactly what Krauthammer has done here. He's said he thinks this deal should have been killed, but that its now to late to back out. That's a straddle, middle ground, "finesse", or whatever you choose to call it.

162 posted on 02/24/2006 7:11:56 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; Peach; Cboldt; johnny7; CWOJackson; All

I have heard CK expound his views on Brit's panel.

He was against the transaction being approved in the first place. He cited security concerns that DPW would learn our security measures that they otherwise would not know if not in this position. He then went on to say that to scuttle it now would do terrible damage to our alliances in the WOT and given that, the transaction and approval should stand.

I respect CK immensely, but I have not thought this was his finest hour. (My excuse for him is that the ENTIRE SITUATION is somewhat of a mess and I would dislike being in his pundit shoes right now.)


163 posted on 02/24/2006 7:12:40 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
As I read the article, I thought the thrust of it was good, even though I disagree with the conclusion.

I think his point was that since we are not Imperialists as the British Empire was, and don't 'control' the world, but have been put in a position as sole superpower, we have a tougher situation.

We are the leaders, but we are not the controllers, and therefore decisions are more dicey.

Charles seems to understand the difficulty of the decision, and the reason for the decision, but is coming down slightly on the other side of it. But, note, that he says it is because of 'risk.' And risk is a perception which varies depending on who is doing the assessing.

Perhaps not Charles' finest hour, but he raises some cogent points.

164 posted on 02/24/2006 7:19:13 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

I thought I'd heard him on Brit's show too, txrangerette, saying he was opposed to the deal. Thanks for confirming that.


165 posted on 02/24/2006 7:27:47 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Charles came around to realize that the good would out-do the bad. However... the administration should have known they'd have to walk some Republican's through it at the very beginning.

Some PR flunky screwed up.

166 posted on 02/24/2006 7:30:44 AM PST by johnny7 (“Iuventus stultorum magister”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: apackof2

Some people can only come up with vulgar, sexist remarks when they have nothing else to say. It says more about them than it does about us, apackof2.


167 posted on 02/24/2006 7:33:31 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

I still don't feel right about it. Especially so, since NY State is suing to stop. Still do appreciate the earlier info.


168 posted on 02/24/2006 7:58:02 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

LOL. New York is placating the unions...it will go nowhere.


169 posted on 02/24/2006 8:01:08 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Peach; apackof2; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; CWOJackson; txrangerette; PeteB570; Cboldt; ...
Kent obviously posted only the above excerpts of the article with the express purpose of trying to get an emotional kneejerk reaction from those supporting the deal.

When he didn't GET that response, but instead got reasoned replies about the article itself, NONE bashing Krauthammer, he started ranting and mocking all others who posted. (A quick scrolling down from the beginning of the thread will back me up on that).

And in doing so, he revealed some very ugly parts of himself, that would be best kept hidden.

I would say that this entire thread is a farce, and opposed to FR standards, because it was posted with the sole purpose of incensing and agitating, and not education and discussion. It is my humble, and sure to be ignored opinion, that this entire thread should be pulled because it is illegitimate at its source.

Kent, you have exposed yourself.......and what is revealed is quite unsightly.

170 posted on 02/24/2006 8:05:52 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
It is my humble, and sure to be ignored opinion, that this entire thread should be pulled because it is illegitimate at its source.

Having read a lot of comments on this thread my humble opinion
would be to concur with you

But then I have no power to pull a thread

171 posted on 02/24/2006 8:09:08 AM PST by apackof2 (You can stand me up at the gates of hell, I'll stand my ground and I won't back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

LOL..


172 posted on 02/24/2006 8:15:52 AM PST by Stellar Dendrite (UAE-- Anti-Israel and funds CAIR, check my homepage for more info)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Peach

You're welcome, Peach. I don't mean to tar a fine man by saying this, but a partial analogy {in reverse} would be to Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it".

Charles was against the original decision by the group that ok'd it, but he thinks now it is better for it to go ahead than to stop it. And he gives his reasons. He is seldom knee-jerk but always supports himself coherently and cogently, even if I occasionally disagree with him. In this instance his last conclusion is his best one, from what I can gather.

This company does port operations around the world including shipping into American ports, and they know what measures we require at the point of origin RIGHT NOW, AND THAT IS MUCH (though not all) OF OUR SECURITY PLAN.


173 posted on 02/24/2006 8:18:20 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

For sure, all of the posts that had nothing at all to do with the issue but were personal insults and defense against same should be removed...just my opinion. Then, the very little (ha ha) that remains might make decent reading. I do agree that the thread appears to be a bait tactic.


174 posted on 02/24/2006 8:26:42 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: apackof2; Admin Moderator
Nor do I, but the mods do. And I would be happy to post this Krauthammer column in a LEGITIMATE thread for the purpose of discussing the article itself, and not baiting Bush supporters.

Or perhaps the deliberate agitation of the poster is not a problem, forum rule-wise. It was clearly not posted for legitimate reasons, but it's not my call..........obviously.

175 posted on 02/24/2006 8:27:57 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
As I said, I am willing to post the article for legitimate discussion if this one is pulled.

There was nothing legitimate in posting only the negative excerpts to try to get (and fail to, I might add) an angry response from those who support the deal.

Baiting is too kind a word for what Kent did here.

176 posted on 02/24/2006 8:30:53 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; Admin Moderator
Or perhaps the deliberate agitation of the poster is not a problem, forum rule-wise.

Can we get a ruling Admin Moderator?

177 posted on 02/24/2006 8:38:02 AM PST by apackof2 (You can stand me up at the gates of hell, I'll stand my ground and I won't back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: apackof2; ohioWfan; Admin Moderator

I second the request for a ruling from the chair. Should this thread be pulled and a thread begun for the purposes of discussion of Krauthammer's entire viewpoint?? Personal insults completely aside??


178 posted on 02/24/2006 8:45:36 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: apackof2; Admin Moderator; KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
A good idea. Perhaps I misunderstand what FR is about.

But I have always thought that a thread based on deliberate agitation of legitimate freepers was opposed to the purpose of the forum. And that clearly is the case here.

I'm not going to press it, but I am curious.

There has been legitimate debate here because of the fundamental decency of the freepers whom Kent derides, and in spite of Kent's goal and behavior, so perhaps the thread should stand.

179 posted on 02/24/2006 8:49:26 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

A new Krauthammer thread is already going. Don't know who posted and don't know if the headline is legit or not. But it appears to have the entire article.

Charles Krauthammer: Why U.S. should okay terrible port deal

Address:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584789/posts


180 posted on 02/24/2006 8:49:51 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Thanks. A legitimate thread. :)


181 posted on 02/24/2006 8:51:44 AM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
Sometimes I think our president isn't too savey. Then he goes out and wins.

Dumb like a fox.

182 posted on 02/24/2006 8:53:01 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

You're welcome.


183 posted on 02/24/2006 8:55:48 AM PST by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

You're out of line on this thread.


184 posted on 02/24/2006 9:15:06 AM PST by prairiebreeze (I support the troops and the mission.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

You got it.


185 posted on 02/24/2006 1:36:00 PM PST by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

They are acting like our port security is TS. Do they really think that our ports are not being watched already, and have been for awhile????


186 posted on 02/24/2006 1:38:03 PM PST by jmpmstr4u2 (CEO; 72 Virgin dating service, (We'll set you up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmpmstr4u2

I have no clue what they really believe. For many of them this is nothing more then the convenient excuse to attack the President, for the rest I have no idea what is driving them.


187 posted on 02/24/2006 1:45:09 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

My sentiments exactly. It is not the company I am worried about, but certain employees who might infiltrate the company and give information to the terrorists.


188 posted on 02/24/2006 1:47:43 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I agree with your point, and what Charles has pointed out, that the most immediate danger is that our problems with security could be passed on to terrorists. However, I don't think that would necessarily require the aid of the company. Terrorist sympathizers can infiltrate a company or employees can be turned by terrorists. Information can be given or sold to them. That is a great danger. It could happen in an American company or any foreign company as well, but not as easily as in an Arab company because the employees are almost totally Arab.
189 posted on 02/24/2006 1:58:47 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred

I agree with that completely, Goodgirlinred.


190 posted on 02/24/2006 2:05:06 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I believe that Peach is simply asking you to treat her with the respect that you would show any poster. You have said some rude things that I have not noted that you have said to any male poster, the worst so far being "stomp your hoof two times....."


191 posted on 02/24/2006 2:07:35 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred
My sentiments exactly. It is not the company I am worried about, but certain employees who might infiltrate the company and give information to the terrorists.

Why are you more concerned over this company than the Kuwaiti Company working in NJ or the UAE company already working in Houston? Or The Chinese company or Singapore?

192 posted on 02/24/2006 3:50:07 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

First of all, I did not know about those other ports until this thread. Secondly, this company will handle many more ports and some of which, as I understand it, have a great deal of military activity.

I did listen to Britt Hume's report on FOX tonight and it appears that the same people who have been working on the docks and in management will still be in these jobs. That is comforting.


193 posted on 02/24/2006 7:33:22 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred
read this here
194 posted on 02/24/2006 7:35:37 PM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred
"...as I understand it, have a great deal of military activity."

They already have had for some years now with sensitive military assets in the WoT. They've outstanding marks from the military.

195 posted on 02/24/2006 7:42:05 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead

Excellent response. You have clarified the issue in words that ANYONE should be able to understand.


196 posted on 02/24/2006 7:45:56 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Thank you for the information. I was unaware that these companies were involved with ports having a great deal of military activity.


197 posted on 02/24/2006 8:07:15 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Goodgirlinred
DP World actually manages the port services in the UAE port that is our primary point for logistical supply to our troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add to that, they maintain port services for a fleet of U.S. Navy ships that is the largest outside of the U.S. itself; this includes vital forward area maintenance. Another messure of our relationship with them...all of our military personnel having time off there feel welcomes and with allies.

Also keep in mind, DP World has been working directly with us for a long time now on improving our port security. They were the first nation to agree to our demands on improving buld cargo traffic into the U.S.

With their assistance we're working on technology that will make it possible for us to inspect 100% of all cargo container traffic coming into this country.

They openly support the practice and public worship of other religions, including Christianity and the Hebrew faith.

198 posted on 02/24/2006 8:14:09 PM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
I did, thank you for the reference. Seems like Senator Feinstein did not know anymore than I did. I have an excuse, I am not a senator from CA! LOL!

Frankly, I would rather see American companies handling security at our ports for security and economic reasons. However, we can not ignore the facts as presented. These other companies have done an excellent job and the military have not had any problem with them. We are in a difficult position as far as the UAE is concerned. We can not offend them publicly. It is too bad that this was not discussed privately before it was ever announced that they would take over the security in the ports. A bid could have gone out to other security companies and an American company would have had an opportunity to secure the position.

My main concern is the ability of terrorists to be able to infiltrate that company and cause untold damage to us through them.
199 posted on 02/24/2006 8:22:06 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Wouldn't it be nice if we would hear this on the news? You have convinced me. I am satisfied that they will pose no more threat than anyone else. After all, some of our own citizens have been found to be terrorists.


200 posted on 02/24/2006 8:24:50 PM PST by Goodgirlinred ( GoodGirlInRed Four More Years!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson