Posted on 03/03/2006 6:00:17 PM PST by EternalVigilance
The premise of your question is incorrect.
The Dems are not "to the right of the GOP on national security".
the UAE risks nothing. Egypt Air had a pilot of theirs ditching a plane load of US passengers into the atlantic ocean a few years back, did the US bomb Egypt over that? of course not.
if something were to happen, DPW would simply say "oops, they slipped through our security".
Give me a break....you have every right to make your points.
Not all of us will agree, but for me, I read them and take them in. You have made some sound comments on this subject, but many of us happen to disagree.
We can't live in a closed world. Our port terminals are being run by all sorts of foreign entities.
Maybe we should slowly unwind this and get American companies in charge.
The UAE is allready securing tons of cargo that comes into US ports.
Our port terminals are being run by all sorts of foreign entities.
Your two above points will be ignored by some here.
And the fact that we run our ports!
Have you all read this post?
BREAKING! (video)-CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI: Dick Morris
O'Reilly Factor | 3.03.06 | Mia T
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1589753/posts
You got this port deal correct. Let me describe the deal by using the airline industry. For example, British Airlines flys into Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas and docks at their terminal. The airport owns the terminal and British Airlines is leasing the terminal. Bye the way, all security is performed by Americans. Along comes UAE and buys out British Airlines. Nothing changes because British Airlines stills flys into Bush Airport except the ownership of British Airlines is now UAE. This is the same for the port deal.
Thanks for that post. It will help to clear this up. Unfortunately, the facts get in the way of some people.
http://www.marinetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1574343.php
In response to questions from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Schwartz said his command’s “primary focus is the efficient and effective throughput through ports, and we were asked if this company had demonstrated that … they’re a worldwide organization that does this in ports throughout the world and has demonstrated their confidence in the movement of supplies.”
But Hunter suggested to Schwartz that over the next several weeks — during a 45-day review of the deal — “you take a look at it … I would recommend you look at this whole deal, not simply how fast can they move [cargo] out, but the policy of the host government, which is the principal in this transaction.”
The government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates, is the principal owner of Dubai Ports World.
Hunter, in remarks he later repeated during a separate news conference, portrayed Dubai as a port of preference for shadowy and terrorist elements moving nuclear components to Iran and other countries.
“The essence of Dubai is that it is the bazaar of weapons of mass destruction components for the world’s rogue regimes,” he said.
In response to Schwartz’ assertion that the company moves goods quickly, Hunter said “You’re right, they move stuff very expeditiously — but in total deniability, which is what these firms [transporting WMD components] look for.”
That's what I've been saying since I first heard about it from Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, Feb 19th edition.
As for the attack-dog antics of some FReepers. No reason to engage in hardcore personal attacks. Btw, I don't remember you overreacting to this issue. My remarks were aimed at those who've taken this way too personal.
You are right, I haven't over reacted to this issue....just trying to get the facts. I am as concerned as you are.
Wonder how Clinton, as an agent for the UAE will play into things.
Interesting, I'm sure we will learn more in the next few weeks.
Personally, I wished this would just go away but that isn't in the cards.
Didn't BC get Joe Lockhart a job with Dubai?
Don't know about Joe Lockart. He goes back a few years.
On Thursday, Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters, "I intend to do everything I can do to kill the deal."President Bush has threatened to veto any congressional attempt to block the deal, warning that it would risk alienating a key U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf.
Either our representatives trust the Commander in Chief or they don't.
If not then the WOT is over and we had better gather ourselves in and make amends with those we have offended. This isn't an argument about how much more the feds will pick our pockets it's about our war time foreign policy. It concerns the heart of the region where the war emanated from to boot. A command falls apart when every decision is questioned and war cannot be successfully waged under this kind of disarray.
Worse than Alan Keyes advocating reparations?
Well if you want to go there what about Bush giving Ol' Kennedy the keys to the Education Mobile? : )
Exactly. This "deal" is not the end of the world.
You would see it that way. But hey, what's a few billion more here and there?
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.