Posted on 02/23/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by ARCADIA
NEW YORK -- The Port Authority said Thursday it will file suit to block a Dubai-based firm from taking over operations at a Port Newark container terminal, saying the federal government has not given them assurances about security issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Why is this good?
This is true, if it were Hillary, people would be screaming bloody murder...
Also, you probably would have heard...Bush would never in a million years support something like this.
So many question marks still, that is the problem...too many questions, not enough answers...go ahead call me ignorant anyone...however, I have been following this closely, and I still don't know what is going on...IMO that means those who don't follow this closely are going to read the headline "UAE to take contol of Ports" and be outraged. This alone means that the admin PR dropped the ball bigtime on this one.
Incorrect...there is no transfer of title involved regarding the ports.
In all cases (6 ports), what is being transfered are lease agreements and infrastructure developement (cranes, container lifts, dollies, mules...)
In all cases the cargo handling capacity is a fraction of all of the terminals in the port.
.
NEVER FORGET
The New York Port Authority ignored advance warnings about the coming terrorist bombing and air strike attacks on the World Trade Center given them by:
The Man Who Predicted 9/11: RICK RECORLA, ..R.I.P.
http://www.RickRescorla.com
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24361
NEVER FORGET
.
just happened
http://www.maerskline.com/link/?page=news&path=/news/news20060213
Maersk Line launched – the brand for the combined P&O Nedlloyd and Maersk Sealand business
12 February 2006
Effective immediately, the combined Maersk Sealand and P&O Nedlloyd businesses will trade as Maersk Line.
The Maersk Line network offers customers an expanded geographical scope and service range. It has been designed to optimise cargo routing providing customers with greater flexibility, higher frequency and improved transit times.
The majority of P&O Nedlloyd vessels will be phased in during February 2006. The large majority of services will be in place by mid March, and by June 2006 the Maersk Line network will be fully implemented.
Also announced today and effective immediately, the combined P&O Nedlloyd Logistics and Maersk Logistics operations will trade under the Maersk Logistics brand.
It sounds like a pathetically weak lawsuit, that might be thrown out for failing to state a cause of action.
I think the hysteria is with the bushbots. Their whole world seems to come down upon them when some fellow republicans/conservatives point out a Bush mistake. Isn't this how despots come to power, through blind allegiance, no fellow party members daring to point out what they percieve as a big mistake?
I voted for Bush, and I like to think I had some small part in getting a few others to vote for him, but I recognize him as a fallable man, capable of mistakes. What's with all this hysteria when conservatives point out a possible Bush blunder? Are we so insecure that we think the whole ship will sink because our guy makes an occassional error in judgment and we call him on it? Would it be best we just shut up and go stick our heads in the sand? This blind allegiance stuff I see gets scarey sometimes.
"The UAE royals were supporters of Bin Laden and the Taliban"
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/5013.htm
Read it and weep. Then, if you have the balls, admit you are wrong.
It's political grandstanding.
I would assume whatever P&O's contractual obligations will naturally transfer to the new ownership.
no brain at all... 0.0 gray matter.
It was to be expected that it would turn into an "us versus them" game, as in republicans v democrats. It's the oldest political game in the book. They can go on ignoring the obvious dangers of this deal in favor of Bush if they want, I'm not going to do it.
"This sale has nothing to do with national security or republican vs. democrat."
It has nothing to do with party politics for me, which is why I have absolutely no problem disagreeing with the POTUS on this issue.
It has everything to do with security; I'm not naive.
I know Tony did the research, and he supports it. Both hosts have had union people call in. One to Rush was not very nice.
Does "election year" ring a bell?
Deomocrats are the party of opportunism!!
Foreign oil dependence but no drilling in ANWR.
No profiling arabs unless the longshoreman's union makes you jump.
They are never consistant but always change sides to make political points.
It is a sickness.
Why did the UAE support Bin Laden and the Taliban in the first place?
And why did it take them almost 2 weeks after 9/11 to sever their relationship with that terrorist regime?
And why won't they recognize Israel?
"Two weeks after 9/11, the UAE crown prince warned Washington not to strike “innocent” Muslims in Afghanistan, but instead focus on “Israeli terrorism.”
The key word is "were", the statement was "The UAE royals were supporters of Bin Laden and the Taliban," which still could be true.
Your link says that the UAE severed ties with the Taliban dated Dec. 2001...I say...wow...bold move (sarcasm) I think they realized there was going to be no "Taliban" to have ties with.
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.