Posted on 02/22/2006 4:24:38 PM PST by LibertarianInExile
I've tried...tried hard...but it's no use. I just can't understand why George Bush is so invested in this idea of turning the operations at six essential U.S. ports, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, over to a foreign government...and an Islamic foreign government at that.
Security experts are pretty much in agreement that if--and I think it's a "when" rather than an "if"--a nuclear device is ever smuggled into this country, the weapon will arrive in a container through one of our ports. Do you think that these containers are screened? Actually, many of them are. But where and how they are screened is critical. Most of the screening actually takes place in a foreign port before the containers are loaded onto a ship for the trip to America. Are any of those containers screened here? Yes. A few. A very few. The primary method of screening is for our security officials to look at the container manifests while those containers are at sea to determine which containers will be opened for further screening. What is being proposed here is to put a foreign government, an Islamic government, in virtual control over just how those manifests are prepared and how they will read...especially the manifests for containers being shipped from a port operated by an Islamic government TO a port being operated by an Islamic government.
Let this swirl around in your brains for a moment. The wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam is involved in most of the shooting "hot" conflicts around the world. I can't cite the exact numbers right now, but we probably have factions shooting at one another in about 130 or so locations on every continent--with the possible exception of Antarctica. In about 97% of those conflicts you will find Muslims on one side or another. There is only one major world religion out there that has as one of its basic tenants the goal of world domination. That religion is Islam. There is only one religion out there with a sizable faction that has declared war on our country, and which is dedicated to the goal of killing as many of us as they possibly can. That religion is Islam.
Though far too many people don't realize it, the Western world now finds itself smack in the middle of World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism. (World War III was commonly referred to as the "Cold War." It was a world war nonetheless.) On just what level does it make sense to the President of the United States to turn over the operations of six critical American ports to an Islamic government...especially an Islamic government with established ties to terrorists who have already struck and killed thousands of Americans?
So this is where George Bush wants to use his first veto? How many budgets has he signed? Six? We've seen non-defense government spending increase throughout his administration at record rates, and never a veto. Never. Not even a hint of a veto. So now Bush has finally found something he wants to veto? He wants to veto any bill that would prevent the turnover of six critical ports to a Muslim government? Pardon me, but what the hell is going on here?
Bush pretends...and it has to be pretending...not to see why people are so worked up over this. On the one hand he suggests that this is all about anti-Arab prejudice. Please, Mr. President. Give us a bit more credit than that. Then Bush says: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company."
OK...where do we start. As you read through this list keep this fact in mind: Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the company selling the American ports operations to Dubai Ports World, is a private company. Peninsular is not owned by the government of Great Britain. Dubai Ports world is a state-owned company, owned by the United Arab Emirates. So, what we have here is a private company selling its rights to operate these six ports in the Untied States to a government...an Islamic government. (96% Muslim) So, to answer Bush's question as to...why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." let's start with this correction. It's a Middle Eastern government that's being held to a different standard than a British company. Governments often use deadly force to accomplish their goals. Private companies do not. There, President Bush is your reason No. 1 for a different standard. Now that we've established that rather important difference...let's move on to compare Great Britain to the UAE.
1. Great Britain is not an Islamic Nation. The de facto state religion there is Anglican, the Church of England. My extensive research shows that the Anglican Church has never, at least in modern times, committed an act of terror against the United States. Nor has the Church of England demanded that Israel be wiped off the face of the earth. Additionally, the Anglican Church has not announced its intention to subjugate the entire world under Anglican rule.
2. The UAE IS an Islamic Nation. Review Item No. 2 above.
3. The 9/11 hijackers did not use Great Britain as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
4. The 9/11 hijackers DID use the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
5. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Great Britain.
6. Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates
7. Great Britain did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban, you may remember, provided the operational base for the operations of Al Qaeda.
8. The United Arab Emirates DID recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Good move.
9. Great Britain recognizes the government of Israel.
10. The UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.
11. Supporters of this move will tell you that there are already foreign companies already running most of American port operations.
12. We're not talking about a foreign company here. We're talking about a foreign government.
There just must be something here under the surface. Something unseen. Something undisclosed. The Bush White House just can't be this blind to the legitimate concerns of the people and of those in Congress who are concerned about this move.
The President has threatened to use a VETO on spending bills and the McCain Terrorist amendment. Until he actually uses a VETO Neil's headline point is null and void. It is not unusual for him to make the threat. Only following through would be breaking new ground.
Charles K was on Fox and answered Neil's question as to why the President is insistent on a deal he was unaware of before. While the admin didn't do a good job in preparing the way for the deal, admittedly, given the hysterics we now have a situation where an "ally", note I don't use the term friend, in the WOT is being insulted and shown their alliance in this war will not engender them any difference in treatment than the President of Iran would warrant.
That is bad.
It is bad when you are trying to build democracies in the middle east with Arabs that don't favor terrorism, but don't look at us well either, to react as so many have done. This endangers our national security just as so many fear our ports being endangered. We need allies in the M.E. to win this war.
Had objectors behaved rationally, it might be different. As it is the President is backed into a corner of having to stand in defense of our allies to keep them onboard in this war.
Badly handled all around. Badly communicated to the people by the admin, but as well folks going ballistic has NOT served to give you what you want. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the deal does go through, because once folks on the Capitol realize what a mess they've made of this in their manner of objections, not the objection itself, they will have a certain feeling of obligation to try and salvage relations with the allies they've offended because our national security demands the alliance.
Question, Mr. "InIraq," when did "conservatives" decide to put a price tag on national security? Why "force" an American company to be interested when we could simply raise the bar for admission to bid by increasing the amount we're willing to pay for port operations in order to secure those ports by not hiring cut-rate-security-risks like DPWorld?
You question my conservatism, but the fact is you're saying that as long as the price is low enough, you're fine with Islamists running the ports. I wonder if we could get Al Qaeda to guard our nukes for fifty cents, and if that would be okay with you, too?
Wow, that's convincing. Did you and bert write that together?
I'm still not hearing what the alternative is to this deal. Does the USA have jurisdiction over DPI buying P&O? Sure we can bar them from doing business here, but then what?
.....And your credentials are???....
I am an expert in trade and traded with the GCC for 20 years before my retiremnet. I still deal with international trade on a daily basis especially with containers and traffic.
I have diligently followed the progress of the war since it began in 1991 and see the parts now being played by our GCC allies in assisting our efforts.
I am not a Christian bigot who hates Muslims because of an inability to think.
I have met and conversed with many young American educated Arabs who know the score and are working to make their world a better place. We must not betray them and fearfully hide from the real Alqeada bad guys.
Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583784/posts
Are you still in high school? This kind of stuff is sophomoric.
Actually I was thinking of checking the White House basement for pods.
Your marxist views are not generally seen on a capitalist friendly forum.
How has the objection been irrational, other than the folks on the left who wouldn't profile now are all for it in the case of port operations? I don't think it's irrational at all how the issue has been raised. And I don't understand how a business deal like this is supposed to be offensive--or why we're so supposed to worry about being offensive, when it comes to national security. Dubai doesn't let foreigners run ITS port. Does that offend you?
I will pose to you a question similar to that I posed to MikeinIraq: if the UAE wanted to run Pentagon security contracts, would it be appropriate for us to object to a nearly-done-deal there, or would you worry about being offensive first? If we're in a war on terror, worrying about being 'offensive' should be the last thing on our minds. Here you're worrying chucking a business deal that's not even done will offend the UAE. Iran doesn't do ANY business in the U.S.--in light of its limited support of our MidEast policy, maybe the UAE should be allowed to sell and do business here, but not where national security interests are at stake. Neither should other countries, Britain among them, special relationship be damned.
Last time I checked the UAE isn't the Taliban and they do have a diplomatic mission with Israel so your comment is less than moot, it's irresponsible and insulting to one of our best allies in the ME region.
NEXT!!!!
After you slammed me for not being conservative, I pointed out why this is a wedge issue--it's choosing what you consider conservative philosophy over what I consider more important than mere conservative philosophy, national security.
Now you can't stand seeing that pointed out, and you can't answer the hypo posed to you, so you respond with insult. Sad but all too typical 'convincing' from the globalist GOP. Thanks for playing.
Marxist my ass. You want to allow a government that is not elected by it's people to make profit in our damn country and you call this poster a Marxist?
You're quite the elitist.
I didn't slam you, I asked you....
big difference, but go ahead and have ANOTHER knee-jerk reaction.....
"Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush..."
I have no doubt that the reason this happened initially was ALL legislative sellout. Congress will try to do this kind of thing for its donors again and again. But Bush is standing by it, and that is where he turns himself into the party at fault right now.
I am not a Christian bigot who hates Muslims because of an inability to think.
Yes, stereotyping is just so bad, isn't it?
Of course, you are clearly too intelligent and learned to make that mistake.
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.