[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[MNJohnnie]

Umm nope. Sorry Brit but maybe you should do some research instead of just reading the Democrat Senate Committees Press release. Whole problem is the Junk Journalists have not even bothered to find out one actual fact. All they have done is taken Chucky Schumer's Press release and reported it as fact. Maybe some REAL journalists should be saying "Hmm, Chucky says this, the Admin says this, they both cannot be correct" I guess considering how frequently and easy the Democrats lie these days, a real journalist would be HIGHLY suspicious of a story the Democrat Senate Election committee is pushing.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Kerik of New York says its safe. Condi Rice says it's safe. And quite possibly it will be. But appearances mean a lot and frankly it just does not LOOK safe to have UAE controlling an area where we have been told we are weak. A bomb or something transported through a shipping container.Mr President. Somebody else needs this contract, not a UAE company.

[dc-zoo]

I agree with Brit and Lindsey. This port deal must be stopped.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Dubai deal, telling a Mideast news outlet: "There was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely."

Even so, why take the political hit -- an obvious loser -- and the potential security hit, which could lead to a HUGE political loss?

Does Halliburton lack the expertise to run ports?

[Mike Darancette]

I bet not, but this a grand opportunity for the RATS to shoot each other in the foot.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Plenty of Peoples Liberation Army front companies have just the experience needed - and the political hit will be a lot smaller. ;)

[FreeReign]

Brit Hume:It doesn't sound good to let some Arab shieks to be in charge of our ports - that's what it comes down to.

There you have it. Brit says that it doesn't "sound" good.

[fallujah-nuker]

Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed the ports decision, saying, "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the U.A.E., who avows to destroy Israel."

This is true, I was in Dubai in 1999 when my company was setting up a new repair shop. As it turned out I did not have much to do and became bored. One day I was looking over the map of the world posted on the wall, and I noticed that the legend "Israel" had been crossed out with a black magic marker. I asked the guy who ran the shop (UK ex-pat) what the deal was and learned that any map imported into the UAE had to go through a government censor who removed any reference to Israel.

[Enterprise]

" "It doesn't sound good to let some Arab shieks to be in charge of our ports"

Really. The only thing worse than having Arabs in charge of our ports would be having Democrats in charge of them.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, I for one don't see how a free trading globalist can raise one word of objection to this. Either you believe in free trading globalism or you don't. Which is it folks?

The UAE came up with the bucks. Money talks. It's ruled for the last fifteen years when it comes to globalism and free trade. What's different about this deal?

When Loral Corporation gave MIRV, Gyro and other technologies to the Communist Chinese facilitating them implementing multiple warhead ICBMs with accuracy to fifty feet, all you heard were hoots of laughter when some of us said this is precisely why we shouldn't be dealing with China.

So lets hear it. What's worse than nuclear weapons targeted on our cities? Open ports? Hell, COSCO vists our ports hourly. What's to stop ten of their ships from melting down in our harbors?

Yep, lets hear it globalists. There's really no problem with the UAE running our ports is there?

[DoNotDivide]

While we're at it, let's give the Panama Canal over to the Communist Chinese along with the Long Beach, CA Ports. /sarc

[rolling_stone]

Hum just more of the Bush doctrine, like having Mexico in charge of our borders...

[luvbach1]

How long? Condi the good soldier.

In connection with this, a prediction: Condi will not be a candidate for president.

[oxcart]

Wow, you started a fire with this one. ;)

[Tribune7]

ping

[roofgoat]

the parallelism between this hot topic and our border problem is fascinating.

Want to expose the hypocritical left? The Port issue is perfect. Nail down their reasons why we should fear a UAE company winning the contract bid. Point out that only a small fraction of the muslim/arab world are radical and/or dangerous, and sit back and laugh at the "intolerance".

Once you get enough of their thoughts and beliefs out in the open, pivot to the US - Mexico border issues (potential for terrorist crossings/assistance, explosion of gang crime due to influx), and see where they stand.

You will find many decent Hispanics and uncountable false-outraged Dems who are very vocal about how we are being sold out by Bush or setting ourselves up for disaster with this Port Transfer, but will immediately brand you a racist/nationalist etc if the Strong Secure Border issue is brought forth.

Like I said, the parallel between these 2 topics is fascinating.

[oceanview]

the companies are going to back out of it themselves this week - that is my prediction.

but if not, prepare for some inquiries into who the UAE lobbyists are, and who they lobbied.

[YOUGOTIT]

. "It doesn't sound good to let some Arab shieks to be in charge of our ports - that's what it comes down to."

But we allow anti-American democrats, French Companies, German Companies, Canadians to own and run businesses that supply our defense weapons and equipment, so what is the difference?

[KenmcG414]

One man's opinion....sometimes I wonder what the administration is thinking, ie. immigration, spending, Harriet Miers, security of US ports,Katrina, etc.