Replies

A couple things on this story....

1) The media has aligned on the same title for this story as the Democrats "Port Security" even though it is the "OPERATION" of the ports being sold to Dubai. Whenever the media and the Dems align so quickly, it starts to smell like a PR operation.

2) As I understand it, the ports are currently operated by a BRITISH company, not a US company and yet I have seen it claimed that we are selling off US operations.

3) We elect representatives to sift through tons of information and make decisions for us. We clearly don't have the information to make this decision, just little tidbits. Why should we use tidbits to challenge our representatives on this?

4) Suppose Dubai gives $6.2B for the port operations... can we include some conditions that give the US rights to sift through their books, tap their phones, or any other activities we deem appropriate in advance? If we catch them systematically cheating, we take the ports back and they lose their money.

2) As I understand it, the ports are currently operated by a BRITISH company, not a US company and yet I have seen it claimed that we are selling off US operations.

I believe that Hillary Clinton was among those making this charge. I also saw a comment (but I haven't confirmed it) that her husband was in power when they were sold to England.

These people put party before country time and time again. I am also suspect of their motives. That said, I do believe that US interests should be running our ports. The money should remain in our economy. The control should remain in our country.

Take a look at the thread below.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583307/posts

When you do, pay particular attention to the postings by 'arthurus'. Now, I'm not saying that what he states is true by any means, but it adds another dimension to this entire discussion.

I have been a staunch supporter of President Bush in most things these past 6 years. The one issue I've disagreed with him most on is immigration. This port issue bothers me greatly. However, yesterday, when he came out and flatly issued the warning of a veto should Congress override this agreement it made me pause.

Many here flat out suspect underhanded dealings and stupidity on the part of the White House. Myself, I had to question whether there was something else at play, but I could not believe that it was anything legally underhanded. Now, after reading the above post, I've come to wonder if this indeed is something that is far more involved with the WOT than we can ever imagine.

Bush is NOT a stupid person. He believes in national security, the immigration issue notwithstanding. I, for one, do not accept the simplistic argument that he has 'let us down' on this; at least until it is proved starkly in great detail.

Are we so shallow that at the slightest infraction of our own myopic expectations we'll jump ship on a president who, for the most part has governed admirably? I sincerely hope not!

I see some security problems nonetheless..will the physical dimensions and blueprints of the facilities be available to the concessionaire?
Who hires and fires employees?
Who has the keys and combinations? Who can change either?
This deal probably shouldn't pass on antitrust grounds more than security, because the firm already operates most of the ports we receive from outside of China.
People who say no American company can do this don't know the bid process. More likely, no American company wants these ports.