Wanna bet, Bill?
This isn't about control of ports, just terminals.
Confused again BTTT .. he's hardly a flamethrower.
there is no way this deal is killed
Copy-and-paste is our friend.
We heard moralizing to the contrary, on this very board, yesterday. We were told essentially that anyone who makes such a distinction must be a racist, Bush-bashing, non-conservative. That conlcusion is brought to us by the same mentality that said opposition to the Harriet Miers nomination must be sexist.
Kinda like the UK, that owns these businesses now?
Actually, I think having the UAE run it will concentrate our efforts to keep things secure, which they aren't now. At the same time, it gives motivation to the UAE to help us shut down terrorism worldwide, lest they lose their business.
In the end, I don't think it matters who writes the paychecks of the longshoremans union. If terrorists want to sneak in stuff, they will, probably over the Canadian border that we aren't watching at all.
But we ask the UAE to trust us with an Aircraft Carrier in their ports?
GB's business in NOW OWNED by DPW and the ONLY other nations capable of doing this kind of work is Singapore, and China?
ping
Bennett is a wind bag and a self promoter. I hope this deal goes down the toilet, it should, but why do we need any foreign country's companies to handle these ports? Are there no American companys who can handle this? Are we all that inept?
Further there are 21 ports involved in this from Portland Maine to Corpus Christy, also a number of ports in Vancouver BC. Haven't heard Bennet mention that. This story was well on line before he or Brit, for that matter, latched onto it. Were they waiting for a signal?
Bush sure doesn't take security that seriously. Open borders and Arab Port "Authorities".
The USA should not gamble away its security.
My question relates to the terminals. If the deal falls through will these terminals shut down? If not who will run them? If so, what will happen to all the workers?
The Debate On The Ports Deal(Risk Factor: British Company Management About The Same As The UAE)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587394/posts
STRATFOR (Subscription) ^ | 02/28/06 17:35:30 | George Friedman
http://www.stratfor.com/
"Some argue it's easier for al Qaeda to enter the US. We find that doubtful. Al Qaeda operatives -the real ones not the wannabes-if out there, could enter by any number of means. If they try to slip a bomb into a container ship, it won't be one sent from a Muslim country -there the scrutiny level is too high. It would be under a flag no one would suspect, like Denmark. Given what it means to "operate a port," the risk to the US from having a British company manage its ports is about the same as from the UAE: Has anyone noticed holding a British passport these days is no guarantee of loyalty to Western ideals?"
And Bill Bennett is right. This port deal should be scrapped. It's a matter of national security.
It's a no-brainer.
Hey Bill, you know Sheik Makhtoum is a great Craps player. Maybe you can join him for a game!
What rankles is the rabid ignorance and shrill arrogance of the Port Deal Critics. They simply REFUSE to listen to the facts. Even THIS piece is full of factual inaccuracies and out right misstatements. It show a complete and utter refusal to actually LEARN the facts.
This has been going on for two weeks now, there is no excuse for this level of factual ignorance of the part of people of Dr Bennet's intellectual caliber.
"The message of the Bush doctrine has been blurred."
He told us the State of the Union address that we are addicted to oil and we are supporting terrorism when buying it. That sounded pretty clear.
The level of fundamental ignorance on display here is inexcusable. There are NO security implications of this deal. Port Ownership and Security remain wholly in the hands of the US Local, State and Federal Agencies. The Company from UAE is buying the company that operates 9, out of 300, terminals in 6 ports. Despite the repeated Lies by the Long Shoreman's Unions bought and paid for talking heads, the Port Terminal Company has NO special access to US Security info.
Security and police groups do NOT share info on means and methods with anyone. The MORE people who know security info, the LESS secure it is. They go to great lengths to keep that info classified. People running the terminals have NO need to know that info. That info is NOT going to be shared with the hundreds of people who operate the 300 Terminals. People who make this statement are knowingly lying. This has been one of the really maddening thing. The people who go out and make statements that they KNOW are not true. This mindset "well I am lying but it is ok because I mean well" is childish.
It is hard to decide which is more appalling in this matter. The arrogant unwillingness to learn fact one about the Deal by the Deal Hysterics or their rabid, aggressiveness in pushing their factual ignorance on everyone around them