Posted on 02/21/2006 4:23:44 PM PST by bnelson44
Statement by Senator John McCain on the debate over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates manage U.S. sea ports.
“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Conversely, why the hell should I tolerate intolerance?
Gert Wiilders is absolutely correct on this point.
We grant freedoms to people who will subsequently use them to enslave us; does that make any sense to you?
The UAE-like almost every other Arab-Muslim nation-is in an undeclared state of war with Israel.
They were one of three countries in the entire world to recognize the Taliban.
If you're gay, or Christian, or are a political dissident, they lock you in jail without any of those legal niceties like due process.
That's if you're lucky.
Why the hell shouldn't we discriminate against these geitenneukers, who would be living in the same parlous, benighted state of misery that they were a millennium ago, were it not for the ingenuity and industriousness of WESTERN inventors and capitalists?
Here's something worse. Those of us who don't like the idea are standing with Hillary...
BS Repellant
MULLINGS.com An American Cyber-Column
Port Insecurity http://www.mullings.com/index.html
Rich Galen
Wednesday February 22, 2006
This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light.
Let's try that again.
The Administration has no demonstrated capacity to brief allies on its activities so, when a public announcement is made, they have friends ready to explain to the public, either through or in spite of, the news media, what is really going on.
When the National Security Agency's intercept program became public, it was immediately called "domestic eavesdropping" or "domestic spying."
That went on for two weeks before the White House finally had the President refer to it as "terrorist surveillance."
As H.R. Haldeman was reported to have written atop memos he thought lacking: T-L-Squared.
Too little. Too late.
I have been watching this port thing develop over the past 72 hours and a common theme among Members of Congress is: We can't have foreign companies operate US ports.
Robert Menendez (D-NJ), according to the Liberal website Democratic Underground said, "We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either."
This is the key to the problem. None of these goofballs knew that the ports of New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans were ALREADY run by a foreign-owned company.
The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a British outfit, has the contract to operate these ports. P & O (as it is known to those of us well-schooled in the port-operations game) is being sold to another company - Dubai Ports World (DP World) which will take over P & O's existing contracts.
All right, so this deal, which has been known to the financial community since November, gets approved by one of those alphabet commissions which happens to involve SIX Cabinet Departments including Treasury, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, and Justice; which they did.
But the Administration didn't think it was necessary to lay the groundwork for the announcement the other day that the sale of one foreign company to another foreign company had been approved.
So, the cable news programming geniuses have been talking about the US outsourcing "port security" to Dubai.
This is like saying the company which operates your local airport - which is to say it decides how much you pay for parking and where in the terminal the Starbucks will be located - is responsible for airline security.
It isn't.
Nor will DP World be responsible for port security. That remains with Customs and the Coast Guard.
The reason the President bristled about this today is because he doesn't think he deserves to be doubted on his commitment to the national security.
It is one thing for Chuck Schumer or Hillary Clinton to complain. It is something else again for Dennis Hastert or Bill Frist to doubt whether the President is strong enough on terrorism.
The Left has been wailing about George W. Bush being, if anything, TOO aggressive on his anti-terrorism efforts using the NSA intercepts as their example. Now those same people are complaining the President is not being tough enough.
Want to know what's really behind all this?
It's an even numbered year and we are 253 days from election day.
It's not about port security; It's about incumbent security.
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today:
A link to the Fox News summary of the issue written largely by Major Garrett; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
A link to a history of P & O (which is pretty interesting); http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,212168&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
A link to a history of DP World (which is less interesting, but includes a listing of all the countries in which they do this kind of work); http://www.dpiterminals.com/subpages.asp?PSID=1&PageID=21
a Mullfoto showing how I was showered with affection during my trip to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; and a Catchy Caption of the Day. http://www.mullings.com/dr_02-22-06.htm
I'm sorry but this is a criminal act, I can only hope they overule it.
Just what we need! A loose phaser in the mix..
This is the key to the problem. None of these goofballs knew that the ports of New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans were ALREADY run by a foreign-owned company.
what companies?
That is a fact.
I got some junk from McCain's 'campaign' last Saturday and threw it right in the garbage -- unopened. And since I live in IL and have never given that wacko creep a nickel he could have only got my info from Dubya's mailing list.
What did he say, exactly? There's nothing in this article about what he said, so I don't know what everyone's talking about.
Define "control of our ports" in this context. From what limited info that is out there by our pathetic media (and poor job by the administration BTW) I'm not seeing that any functions will change because of this ownership change. There will be Americans and Brits managing and running the ports. I think we need to understand exactly what functions this new company will perform as a result of the ownership change. What actions could an owner of this British management company take that could concern us? What will the contract state in this regard? We just need more details. Your analogy seems oversimplistic based on what I'm seeing so far.
You're on the same team as McCain and Carter! How nice for you. ;-)
Oh my God, first Jimmy Carter and now super-renagade McCain! LOL!... what next?
McCain and Carter??? Bwaaahhhaaaha. Go for it, Bushbots.
I think it's stretching credibility a bit to argue that this was an elaborate plot to get the Democrats on record as admitting that the War on Terror exists.
While I've heard plenty of arguments from the left as to why we shouldn't be in this conflict and could have avoided it, I don't think many mainstream Democrats would argue that the WOT isn't real. Kerry mentioned the WOT all the time during his campaign, after all.
Better on the same side as a conservative (abortion, judge, WOT) with whom I disagree on other issues, and a going-nowhere former pres, than helping lend an air of hawkishness to the potential 2008 democrat nominee. ;)
99% of terrorists are arabs/muslims. I don't consider that racism, just a simple fact- so stop defending that stupidity.
I'd like to have some FACTS about this, not the shrill "the sky is falling" kind of stuff. What are the facts?
Why didn't a US company bid on this contract?
Why is Great Britain owning our ports in the first place?
Why are we hearing about this NOW, instead of five months ago when, as I heard, this deal had taken place?
Frankly, the President may have goofed big time on this, as far as keeping the public informed on what the facts were but I'll NEVER trust the likes of Senators Hillary or Schummer. These two were NEVER concerned about our security before and I don't believe THAT is the reason for their contribution to this uproar now.
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.