Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

When I hear Barbara Boxer on Joe Scarborough talking about Bush family ties and no one defending Bush it is remarkable.

But our great friend Joe would never mention to her that the deal consists of 30 terminals in 18 countries and out of the 6.8 billion the u.s part is less than a quater. Nor would Joe ever mention that this process was mandated by congress to take place at the bueracratic level well below the president.

Bush has been called out for committing treason for his family's connections to the uae because of a business deal between two competing companies.

All this because of a long term bidding war between singapore and the uae to acquire 30 terminals in 18 countries.

In the UK no one is saying Blair committed treason.

As part of this deal UAE will get leases of terminals at two ports there with I'm sure far less restrictions. And UK was just hit by terrorists in July.

The prime minister of australia isn't being called a traitor when this company has had terminal leases there for yeras.

1 posted on 02/23/2006 10:07:39 PM PST by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: johnmecainrino

Good points, and to have a worthwhile discussion it's necessary to have the rationals of both sides presented without ripping each other to shreds over it.


2 posted on 02/23/2006 10:23:24 PM PST by xJones (Stå sammen med danskerne !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority

I have been trying for the last two days to point this out to people and they just wont listen...

P&O has a total of 24 berths across the 5 ports in question...the total berth capacity for the 5 ports in question is over 120...Further...that is just the container terminals...ports like Baltimore are considered secondary container ports...Baltimore is more of a bulk transfer port than a container port.

People are acting like UAE is siezing control of the entire port operations in these cities...it is so ridiculous...

Not to mention the Sauds are already operating stevedore services in ports from Newark to Texas...

3 posted on 02/23/2006 10:31:11 PM PST by antaresequity (PUSH 1 FOR ENGLISH, PUSH 2 TO BE DEPORTED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
I'm glad to see the Chinese government is being given a run for the money by the UAE.

A Singapore-China alliance was going to buy P&O, which would have given the alliance 90 % control over British ports.

The Chinese already run terminals in the US.

COSCO - (China Ocean Shipping - owned by the Chinese government) got special treatment from the Clintons -- a 138,000,000 loan to build ships in Alabama, easing of rules, etc.

11 posted on 02/24/2006 12:03:45 AM PST by syriacus (The Chinese already control many US terminals. I'm glad to see UAE is competing with them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
Since 2001, Washington has arranged for customs officials to work in 42 foreign ports with rights to inspect containers before they head for U.S. shores; Dubai was the first in its region

This little, albeit rich, UAE emirate has cooperated fully with USA guidelines for outbound container shipping; there are many multi-million dollar outsourcing projects on the table for Western countries right now to bring up there infrastructure security to the soon-to-be-released Homeland Security container inspection standards. Dubai is out-front on every security compliance matter. And they are putting big bucks on the table for everyone to see.
12 posted on 02/24/2006 2:05:33 AM PST by PrinceOfCups (Just the facts, Ma'am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino

"Bush has been called out for committing treason......."


Just another notch in the belt of the left's IMPEACHMENT JIHAD.


16 posted on 02/24/2006 3:29:41 AM PST by Kimberly GG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino
From a bit deeper down in the article:

Administration officials have asserted in recent days that security at U.S. ports is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the terminal operators responsible for little more than transferring containers from ships to railroad cars and trucks.

That overstates the role government agencies play. "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present," said Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security.

What interests me is the argument that "it just doesn't matter what nation is an operator in our ports." I would assume that the extension of that argument then would be that it is just jim-dandy if North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah suddenly started buying their way into our ports also?

17 posted on 02/24/2006 4:02:32 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: johnmecainrino

How many times will you have to be shouted down before you stop with the facts.

Don't you know everyone is against the President on this one?

Fear will win over Facts everytime. Just ask the Democrats... that's how us Republicans want the Presidency in the first place remember?


20 posted on 02/24/2006 7:21:02 AM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson