Posted on 02/22/2006 6:31:33 AM PST by rattrap
I've tried ... tried hard ... but it's no use. I just can't understand why George Bush is so invested in this idea of turning the operations at six essential U.S. ports, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, over to a foreign government ... and an Islamic foreign government at that.
Security experts are pretty much in agreement that if -- and I think it's a "when" rather than an "if" -- a nuclear device is ever smuggled into this country, the weapon will arrive in a container through one of our ports. Do you think that these containers are screened? Actually, many of them are. But where and how they are screened is critical. Most of the screening actually takes place in a foreign port before the containers are loaded onto a ship for the trip to America. Are any of those containers screened here? Yes. A few. A very few. The primary method of screening is for our security officials to look at the container manifests while those containers are at sea to determine which containers will be opened for further screening. What is being proposed here is to put a foreign government, an Islamic government, in virtual control over just how those manifests are prepared and how they will read ... especially the manifests for containers being shipped from a port operated by an Islamic government TO a port being operated by an Islamic government.
Let this swirl around in your brains for a moment. The wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam is involved in most of the shooting "hot" conflicts around the world. I can't cite the exact numbers right now, but we probably have factions shooting at one another in about 130 or so locations on every continent --- with the possible exception of Antarctica. In about 97% of those conflicts you will find Muslims on one side or another. There is only one major world religion out there that has as one of its basic tenants the goal of world domination. That religion is Islam. There is only one religion out there with a sizable faction that has declared war on our country, and which is dedicated to the goal of killing as many of us as they possibly can. That religion is Islam.
Though far too many people don't realize it, the Western world now finds itself smack in the middle of World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism. (World War III was commonly referred to as the "Cold War." It was a world war nonetheless.) On just what level does it make sense to the President of the United States to turn over the operations of six critical American ports to an Islamic government ... especially an Islamic government with established ties to terrorists who have already struck and killed thousands of Americans?
So this is where George Bush wants to use his first veto? How many budgets has he signed? Six? We've seen non-defense government spending increase throughout his administration at record rates, and never a veto. Never. Not even a hint of a veto. So now Bush has finally found something he wants to veto? He wants to veto any bill that would prevent the turnover of six critical ports to a Muslim government? Pardon me, but what the hell is going on here?
Bush pretends .. and it has to be pretending .. not to see why people are so worked up over this. On the one hand he suggests that this is all about anti-Arab prejudice. Please, Mr. President. Give us a bit more credit than that. Then Bush says: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company."
OK ... where do we start. As you read through this list keep this fact in mind: Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the company selling the American ports operations to Dubai Ports World, is a private company. Peninsular is not owned by the government of Great Britain. Dubai Ports world is a state-owned company, owned by the United Arab Emirates. So, what we have here is a private company selling its rights to operate these six ports in the Untied States to a government ... an Islamic government. (96% Muslim) So, to answer Bush's question as to ...why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." let's start with this correction. It's a Middle Eastern government that's being held to a different standard than a British company. Governments often use deadly force to accomplish their goals. Private companies do not. There, President Bush is your reason No. 1 for a different standard. Now that we've established that rather important difference ... let's move on to compare Great Britain to the UAE.
Great Britain is not an Islamic Nation. The de facto state religion there is Anglican, the Church of England. My extensive research shows that the Anglican Church has never, at least in modern times, committed an act of terror against the United States. Nor has the Church of England demanded that Israel be wiped off the face of the earth. Additionally, the Anglican Church has not announced it's intention to subjugate the entire world under Anglican rule.
The UAE IS an Islamic Nation. Review Item No. 2 above.
The 9/11 hijackers did not use Great Britain as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
The 9/11 hijackers DID use the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Great Britain.
Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates
Great Britain did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban, you may remember, provided the operational base for the operations of Al Qaeda.
The United Arab Emirates DID recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Good move.
Great Britain recognizes the government of Israel.
The UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.
Supporters of this move will tell you that there are already foreign companies already running most of American port operations.
We're not talking about a foreign company here. We're talking about a foreign government. There just must be something here under the surface. Something unseen. Something undisclosed. The Bush White House just can't be this blind to the legitimate concerns of the people and of those in Congress who are concerned about this move.
Five years would include 9/11. It would also include 4.5 years of completely open borders in which 7,000,000-10,000,000 people (illegals, drug dealers, felons, terrorists, who knows) have snuck into the US... Sorry, but I cannot see that Bush has been interested in protecting America. And this port deal just bears that out.
ping
"Rush has a brilliant analysis."
Rush is playing the Bush parrot on this one.
GW is a globalist, he has no interest in protecting borders.
No Neal he's not joking. And he really believes that "Religion of peace" B.S. he keeps spewing.
Would you rather trust Bush, Rice, Cheney or the MSM's view?
| DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION (Dubai Ports World) |
||
| Posted by hedgetrimmer On News/Activism 02/19/2006 2:33:10 PM CST · 147 replies · 1,321+ views Dubai Ports World ^ | 24 January 2006 | Tom Mollo Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member. |
||
|
[Eyes closed tightly] Nope, don't see any cronyism at all. |
||
Dave Sanborn, that doesn't sound very Islamic.. maybe we have a vested interest in this company and it isn't as bound to the Islamic world as we've been led to believe.
"Would you rather trust Bush, Rice, Cheney or the MSM's view?"
I voted for President Bush twice. The first time I voted for him was because he wasn't Algore. The second time I voted for him was because he wasn't John Kerry.
Yep, let's give these folks our port security. They're our FRIENDS......
The US called off a strike against Osama Bin Laden because members of the UAE royal family were visiting him in Afghanistan.
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
They are all run by the CFR, so none of the above.
Posts #78 and #90 are two of the best I have seen on this subject. Bravo!!!
Chinese companies own terminals in California. If the Coast Guard Captain of the Port wants into these terminals, he sends an armed party over to investigate them. If someone tries to interfere with an armed party, they get arrested. That's why this is not a big deal.
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.