Posted on 02/17/2006 4:04:06 AM PST by strange1
There are scads of ways. Issuing contract prerequisites. And it wouldn't hurt to offer some appropriate money
Ok, a British company ran the facilites before, how came there was no "outrage" before.
BTW, the Dubai company will be running one cargo container port of many in NJ in conjunction with a Danish company.
P & O Ports operates the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal and owns a 50 percent interest in the Port Newark Container Terminal, which is the third-largest cargo terminal on the Port Authority's property. The other half-interest is owned by a subsidiary of Maersk Line, which is based in Denmark.
So the talking point that Dubai is taking over the ports is false. And also if an American company such as Halliburton had won the contract, IMO, chuckie schumer would be screaming a 100 times louder than he would be now.
Oh I see... bribe companies with under the table payoffs so pelosi, reid, kennedy, schumer, clinton et al can attack this administration and call for investigations leading to impeachment.
Pullllleeeeezzzzze indeed!
LLS
Along with their Danish partner(see reply #41). If anything, IMO, the UAE company will be watched like a hawk.
My point was that a company domiciled in the UAE is no less dangerous than one domiciled in Great Britain in this regard.
For that matter, the company domiciled in the U.S. might be the most dangerous of all. When it comes to dealing with terrorism I wouldn't necessarily trust a U.S. stevedore or a U.S. Homeland Security official any more than I would trust a Pakistani national working on a British ship, or an Arab executive working in Dubai.
But yeah, we should not be relying on ANY foreigners to police our own ports.
What a pile of steaming B.S. by you.
I'm talking the open contracts!
Do you believe in free enterprise or don't you? Does your acquiesence to foreign dependancy trump your belief in a AMERICAN-PREREQUISITE free market? Whatever happened to all those 'free trade' admissions that national security legitimately trumped their free trade religion? Looks like you guys are constantly back-pedalling...never, ever seeing national security as a problem.
H'mmm....Just like the democRATs.
Just look at all of the characters right here in the U.S. who made 9/11 possible -- from the U.S. flight schools to the U.S. intelligence failures to the U.S. legal impediments in place at the time. Most of all, just look at that bunch of flaming @ssholes called "the 9/11 Commission" whose primary role was covering up the U.S. government's own contributions to 9/11.
Anyone who trusts any of these f#%&ers to do the right thing is hopelessly naive.
There were not 5. Actually he was told only 2 were "considering " the contract.
We can blame dims for another instance of HARMING National Security through their political attacks on those trying to defend and maintain our security!
LLS
Never said they were, and we are not talking about crews per se, we are talking about the people who move the containers through the ports. I trust Britian a hell of a lot more then the UAE. To give a hostile government control over these people is sheer idiocy.
"It's kind of odd how none of this contrived outrage was heard during all those years when British-owned ships operated by sailors from all over the globe were making port calls in the U.S. on a daily basis."
Good to know you think the anger American's who love their country and don't want the enemy on our doorstep, feel is contrived. British owned not UAE owned company, big difference. Also one other word comes to mind here, "9-11", most of us haven't forgotten nor are we willing to forgive.
Obviously false, since it has already got to this point. They are a UAE government entity...a government which does not recognize Israel, a government which still recognizes the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan!...and which backs Iran's rights to its nuclear adventures...and they are being let in anyways by the Administration.
If anything, the pressure would be to see no evil, and not further embarass the executive branch. The fix will be in to "Sweep it under the rug..."
And that is not just my opinion...but that of almost every conservative congressman who has looked at the issue.
BUMP!
You truly nailed this down. The guy can't squirm any longer.
He is distinctly shedding whiffs of malodorous anti-american malice.
"What a pile of steaming B.S. by you."
Paul, cool it... I am NOT the enemy!
"I'm talking the open contracts!"
"Do you believe in free enterprise or don't you?"
Yes, and this was an OPEN bidding process. Americans (for reasons I have stated elsewhere in this thread) did NOT want to participate.
"Does your acquiesence to foreign dependancy trump your belief in a AMERICAN-PREREQUISITE free market? Whatever happened to all those 'free trade' admissions that national security legitimately trumped their free trade religion? Looks like you guys are constantly back-pedalling...never, ever seeing national security as a problem."
You misread quite a bit into my position on this. I DO NOT want this company to win this bid... I want an AMERICAN company to run our ports. I can't make them do it, and neither can the President! Companies are free to engage in business contracts as they see fit. Change the rules if necessary, but I am ONLY commenting on the facts leading up to this unfortunate and threatening development.
"H'mmm....Just like the democRATs."
Are you calling ME a RAT?? Spend about 5 minutes reviewing my past posts. I am ALWAYS in favor of doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to ensure our security.
Why do you attack a fellow Conservative when you are at fault in misjudging my intent? I will not respond in kind. Please reconsider my actual stance.
For the good of our country, we Conservatives MUST remain united in the face of both domestic and international enemies.
LLS
C'mon, it boils down to, "show me the money."
I am sorry that you are pissed today. You are directing it to the wrong person.
LLS
Okay, maybe a little short-fused. But the point stands, this is just unacceptable whatever excuses can be made for the lack of bidding by American companies. And the Buck Stops at the Top.
Or Danish companies.
Or British companies.
Or companies from the UAE.
Never said they were, and we are not talking about crews per se, we are talking about the people who move the containers through the ports.
You've got to be kidding me. U.S. port operations have been organized crime rackets for decades. You have people in the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department who spend their entire careers dealing with corruption, racketeering, etc. at these ports.
Yeah it's Bush's fault because no American company made a bid.(eyes rolling)
This snafu is the making of the Executive Branch. The current administration. Hence, despite your rolling eyes, it is as You said it.
This went up to CFIUS. His Secretary of Commerce and Treasury Secretary sit on that. The White House is never out of the loop on these high-level determinations.
I repeat my conclusion from before...this administration seems to have a suicide complex.
This story has been confusing in the way it is written. It makes it look like we are giving control of our ports to this company which is not true.
The very fact that Chuckie Schumer is complaining gives me enough reason to look closely at his motives. Schumer IMHO is an anti-America, hateful lib who has only one thing in his sites - his own political welfare.
I think those who are ready to string up GWB on this should calm down and start researching the facts. That's what I intend to do.
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.