Posted on 02/23/2006 9:32:22 PM PST by mal
This has raised the obvious question of whether we want our ports, through which a nuclear bomb could come, handled by a country two of whose nationals flew into the South Tower on Sept. 11 and which has a history of laundering money and nuclear secrets from bad guys to worse guys.
Congress is up in arms. The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry, gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of national security.
Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical. If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Charles has got this right. Too many people on the conservative side knee-jerked their way into a "no A-rabs are gonna run our ports" position without knowing many facts. Now, after being so vocal about it, they've painted themselves into a corner and won't admit they were wrong in the first place.
I expect that kind of nonsense from an idiot like Sean Hannity who only has a handful of talking points to rely on in the first place but people with smarts should know better. The fact tht Dems like Hillary, Schumer and Boxer were against this from the get-go should have sent up a red flag immediately.
This is no different than when the Democrats held up the airport inspectors legislation because they wanted those jobs to be unionized. This situation is all about the Longshoreman's Union and nothing about port security. As for conservatives against this, Rush Limbaugh put it best: "The 9/11 hijackers didn't need to spend billions of dollars to attack us."
What does he mean by "handle" ports? Ports in America are "handled" by Americans. DPW doesn't intend to "handle" our ports. The British Company did not "handle" our ports.
Kraut can't "handle" the truth.
A reasonable position by Kraut.
This is not the equivalent of handling our national security to Osama, as some have made. Perhaps it is not ideal either, but neither are the Chinese. In the end this isn't a perfect world and we have less than perfect options. At this point I lean in favor of the deal, with especial attention to the fact withdrawing the sale would be harmful to our intent to forge alliances with nations that do not take Iran's path. Some folks dismiss these alliances as insignificant or unwelcome, they show their ignorance in doing so.
Folks that make the case this means we care not at all about national security because someone supports the sale and raises this point are not sensible. I've made it very clear the WOT & Judges are my primary issues. If I really believed this was a terror waiting to unfold, I would be of different mind. As would many. But I don't. caution is warranted. Hysteria decidely not.
I believe that he meant "manage". Does that enlighten you? Seems rather synonymous to me. I do believe that the British Company did in fact "handle" those six ports.
Krauthammer isn't saying that they were wrong in the first place, or at all. As he says, "This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage. ..."
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, conservatives have taken a page from libeal democrat tactics and begin calling whomoever they disagree with 'bigots' and 'racists'. President Bush lead the way on Tuesday when he challenged the Senate to "show why a middle eastern country doesn't have the same rights as any other country". Of course nobody dared answer, "because, Mr. President, nobody else flies commercial airlines into our highrise buildings". That kind of honesty is too dangerous today.
It's a curious thing, watching penguins fall over the cliff, one-by-one, because they have blind trust in the fellow leading them. It's perhaps even more curious to watch conservatives begin acting like the hated liberals by suddenly trumpeting the virtues of 'moderate islam', and liberals acting like conservatives by distrusting even 'moderate' muslims to run some of our shipping ports.
But all's well that ends well. Inspite of these comical role-reversals going on, islam is being kept away from a Trojan Horse invasion of our ports, at least for awhile anyway.
Do you really believe that the British Company handled (managed) the Ports of New Orleans, Philadelphia, Newark .... ? And is now selling that so cheaply?
Ignorance is like a dog with a bone. Again:
No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.
I don't see the word "handle" in there.
Until recently (the last year or so) foreigners weren't allowed to own property in the UAE. And it you wanted to rent, all twelve months were usually paid in advance. Even the smallest apartments have rooms for live in maids (third world people - and the UAE tells you how to treat them - and how often you have to send them back to their families etc). This is a society where they understand restricting those who aren't natives. So please, let's not act like they're primitives who will be sooooooo offended if we have reservations about the deal. They're grown-ups and can handle a little conflict.
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was speaking of the usual suspects i.e. Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, etc.
I think this is where many are getting confused. Most people aren't in a position (myself included) to fully understand the difference between "terminal" and "port" and how they work.
Hmmm...I didn't hear the words bigot or racist anywhere in the president's statements. I'm sure you mean he implied such but I would beg to differ. Regardless, I agree with his statement.
Of course nobody dared answer, "because, Mr. President, nobody else flies commercial airlines into our highrise buildings". That kind of honesty is too dangerous today.
Not only dangerous but, with all due respect, stupid. Two of the hijackers were from the UAE. Some Christian pro-life individuals have blown up abortion clinics and murdered doctors that have performed them. I'm a Christian. Am I as guilty as them? Are you? I'm not "trumpeting the virtues of moderate Islam" but let's not be ridiculous here. Communist China doesn't sanction any religion and we deal with them. Oh and BTW, they have nukes.
It's a curious thing, watching penguins fall over the cliff, inborn, because they have blind trust in the fellow leading them. It's perhaps even more curious to watch conservatives begin acting like the hated liberals by suddenly trumpeting the virtues of 'moderate islam', and liberals acting like conservatives by distrusting even 'moderate' muslims to run some of our shipping ports.
Wow...where to begin. How 'bout this? It's not blind trust in the fellow leading me us. It's a belief that he and his advises have more information and are more qualified to make a decision based on that information than simply nixing the whole thing because of their religion which, like it or not, is bigotry. And frankly the liberal Democrats that have come out against this have not done so because of port security. They're done so because the AFL-CIO and the longshoreman's union want them to. And that's why they're willing to chance showing their hypocrisy.
But all's well that ends well. Inspite of these comical role-reversals going on, islam is being kept away from a Trojan Horse invasion of our ports, at least for awhile anyway.
Cute analogy. But silly. Why would the UAE--or, in your mind, radical Islamists since they apparently are one in the same--need to manage some of our ports to the tune of billions in order to attack us? Seems kind of a waste of money. After all, the nineteen hijackers didn't need to take over an airport to facilitate their attack.
As much as you, Pat Buchanan and the rest of your ilk hate the idea, the US will never go back to being the isolationist country it once was. And telling the United Arab Emirates that the only purpose they serve is oil production--even if it's true--is counter-productive. One of the virtues of conservatism is common sense and frankly I don't see much being demonstrated on your side. What I do see is hysteria and demogoguery, both (using your term) "hated liberal" traits. Perhaps it's you acting like them, not me.
Terminals are in effect subassemblies of ports. That is terminals make up ports. While many are trying to blur the issue by implying the UAE company wants to manage six ports in the U.S. (New Orleans, Baltimore, etc.) the fact is it's only a handful of terminals in each port. The majority of terminals in those ports would not be managed by the UAE company at all. But explaining that isn't helpful to those against this deal because it lessens the hysteria value that comes from the belief that the entire port would be under the control of an Arab country.
Honestly we don't know how much was spent over the years in planning and dry runs through our airports, sure it wasn't billions, but they were financed by someone while living in America.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...and Japan is one of the most racist countries in the world and we deal with them. So what? They ain't us and we ain't them. I know that and I'm not interested in telling them how to run their society. And I don't think they're telling us how to run ours.
I know they're grown-ups but the UAE is of major strategic military importance to the United States right now and we need to keep that in mind when deciding yea or nay on this port deal. If they tell us to clear out we lose a major air base and one of the safest sea ports for our naval ships in the region. Then where do we go?
There's a much bigger issue here than the simplistic notion that we shouldn't let an Arab country do business in our ports because it might be a security risk. The fact is they could say the same thing about our planes and ships in their country and we need to not lose sight of the bigger picture here. Reactionary conservatives won't understand that. Clearer minded conservatives will.
You're right and they came into our country via student visas and when those visas expired they never left. But their main expenses were room and board and flight lessons. And that's about it. Not really millions of dollars in costs. But this to me is a trivial argument.
Using the logic those against this deal use, we shouldn't even allow a plane that's taken off from a UAE airport to land here. After all, it could have a nuke on board. And so could every single tanker that comes from the middle east, with or without the UAE managing some of our terminals. But they don't. Why? Because after 9/11 everything changed. And we realized we were vulnerable. And we took steps to secure ourselves. And we continue to do so. This is a business deal. Sometimes there really isn't a conspiracy involved.
As I said before, there is more to this than simply who's gonna run some terminals at some of our ports. It is important that we treat the UAE with some respect as much as that may be hard for some people to grasp. And if more poeple would do some homework rather than parrot what Ann Coulter has to say about it we'd all be better off.
I haven't heard Ann's point of view on this.
(Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked) "need to step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," said President Bush to reporters.
Bush contemptuously pulled out the "prejudice/bigotted" stick from the liberal rat repertoire and swung it at some of his own party members, Congressmen and Governors, insinuating they want to block the deal because they harbor some cultural bias against the middle east, and not because of genuine security concerns.
Of course when liberals pull this garbage they are excoriated on FR, and rightfully so. The President needs to learn that sometimes "bias" is forced on people, as we saw with the "bias" President Roosevelt held against the Japanese after they attacked us. President Bush seemed to forget about his own "bias" against Iraq.
The bushbots are circling the wagons on this thing and are mindlessly defending what they customarily renounce, both the notion of a "moderate", friendly islam, and base personal attacks and insinuations against political opponents. The more this garbage gets defended, the more it will come back and haunt the Republican party. What's next in line, "hate speech" assigning to anyone who thinks this port deal is bad national security policy?
Overnight, conservatives have become liberals and liberals are taking traditionally conservative stands against islam. Weird stuff.
There's a much bigger issue here than the simplistic notion that we shouldn't let an Arab country do business in our ports because it might be a security risk. The fact is they could say the same thing about our planes and ships in their country and we need to not lose sight of the bigger picture here. Reactionary conservatives won't understand that. Clearer minded conservatives will.
If they don't want our ships there because we won't do a business deal with them, it's better to find out now than later. Under no circumstances should be do business with people who use strong arm tactics. Our ships are there as part of a deal that benefits both sides. If it's "do it my way or I'll take my ball home" let them take the ball home.
You are wrong about this business transaction. It's not one-sided. We need them and they need us. The UAE isn't a charitable organization that's giving us the right to dock there for free. We pay them. But that's not why were important to them. We're important because if we weren't there the Iranians would swoop over and take their oil fields. And if we said "dock our ships for free or we're pulling out, they would dock our ships for free. Now, the relationship is equal. When the war is over, it will be unequal in our favor.
My suggestion to you? Quit acting so desperate. It's not attractive.
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.