Me either. It is another one of these moments for GW Bush.
China runs ports in California and they have nukes, maybe you should have those ports shut down?
My gasoline contains Middle Eastern oil, should my car be concerned?
The GOP lapdogs will have every possible explanation for why it's patriotic to see the country off.
Me either. It is another one of these moments for GW Bush.
Time to give those NWO "rumors" a second thought. We'll have to replace ALL of our "Representatives" soon or lose our sovereignty.
My guess is that the authorities in Dubai have been, um, helpful in our pursuit of terrorists. One thing you can say about George Bush is that he believes in rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies.
We need to look a little more closely at who is really behind this deal. We know Michael Jackson surfaced in Dubai not that long ago. Connect the dots, folks.
The worst thing about this whole fiasco is that President George W. Bush has just thrown FIVE years of his tough on terror reputation down the toilet.
And in doing so, GWB probably handed the mantle of "tough on terror" to the wimpy AlJazeera-luvin Democrats.
All I can think is that GWB must be losing brain cells from all the pressure of the Presidency.
I haven't been this depressed since he nominated Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court.
Guess what Neil ,a STATE owned Chinese company, China Ocean Shipping Company, already operates the Port of Long Beach container facility in a joint venture with an American firm, SSA.
http://www.fmc.gov/reading/ChinaOceanShippingCompany.asp
China Ocean Shipping Company ("Cosco") is a state -owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China ("China"). It was established in 1961 utilizing four ships with a combined tonnage of 30,000 deadweight tons. The company operates a worldwide network service with five operating branches: Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Company, Shanghai Ocean Shipping Company, Tianjin Shipping Company, Quindao and Dalin Shipping Companies. Cosco, now one of the world's largest shipping companies, was reorganized in 1993 through a merger of four companies, China Ocean Shipping Company, China Ocean Shipping Agency (Penavico), China Marine Bulker Supply Company, and China Road Transportation Company. The reorganized company was named China Ocean Shipping Companies Group and is known both as "Cosco" and "Cosco Group" (hereinafter "Cosco").
http://www.ssamarine.com/company/history.html
2001 SSA Terminals (Long Beach), LLC was formed as a Limited Liability Company jointly owned by SSAT and Terminals Investment Limited, an affiliate of the Mediterranean Shipping Company, to operate the 170-acre Long Beach container terminal facility at Pier A. Operations commenced in December 2002.
SSA formed the joint venture Pacific Maritime Services, LLC ("PMS") with China Ocean Shipping Company, to operate a major container facility in the Port of Long Beach. SSA manages the facility day to day, and operations commenced July 1, 2001.
Perhaps the most succinct , accurate and incisive comment I have read recently was this ...
"... it demonstrates a sort of continuing tone deafness..."
Immigration
Deficit spending
Religion of peace crap
Political impotence...
The Coast Guard will still run security and the Longshoreman will be the employees. Only 5% of the
cargo currently coming in to this country are inspected now.
(This post is by Joe Contrarian from the RX posting forum)
1) No matter who gets the contract - the Brits, a UAE company, whoever - exactly the same people - Americans - will be working at the ports. Those people have been investigated thoroughly and have security clearances following about a 2-year procedure.
2) The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not object.
3) U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year and only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival as it is. Does this deal further increase the threat of an attack? Probably not.
4) Some in Congress have expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations. Three of the 9/11 terrorists came from the UAE. All fair points.
As far as I've heard, this UAE company (Dubai Ports World) has not had any problems, and is in fact a major, respectable, and successful international company. They would not be in the position they are; that is, to buy up another international corporation with such widespread business, if they were not well-run and thoroughly competent. The problem is, the government of UAE owns Dubai Ports World. They will be privy to many security procedures at these six ports. Sure, they are friendly at this point in time, but then the same was once said about Saddam Hussein. And Japan and Germany were once our enemies, etc. etc.
On the other hand, all this uproar is a kind of double standard: America expects the Middle East to "get civilized," and improve their countries and economies to America's standard of international capitalism, but then rejects the efforts of Middle Eastern nations to do business. One one hand, many of us talk how the Saudis and the Pakistanis need to be more responsible in their governance (of which the UAE is a shining example, which you've heard me discuss), then tell the UAE they can't operate US ports because they might kind-of maybe harbor terrorists.
I've heard rumors some Arabs threatened Bush with sour diplomatic relations if this does not go through. Other rumors say some threatened Bush with turning off the oil spigot. Hopefully, this kind of stuff is more hysteria over the uproar at the thought of "Arabs guarding our ports." Much of the hysteria I’m hearing, reminds me of a sound byte I watched a few years back on tv, in England, when a German car company threatened to buy off Jaguar: "We didn't let the Nazis win in WW II, we're not going to allow them to win now," an old lady scoffed.
Globalization is a reality. 'Arabs' own allot of entities in the US as do Japanese, Chinese ad-nauseum (even electronic parts in the military). It's part of what makes America work. As far as “national security” is concerned, that line was crossed long ago. Indeed, many have made the case, global capitalism is an excellent deterrence to large scale war.
That all said, whatever you think of the deal on substance, this is terrible politically. It's hard to understand what benefit the President might believe he will gain personally through his support of U.A.E. supervision over American Port Authorities. Perhaps he expects some benefit in the way of "political capital" he can use to strengthen US presence in the middle east? That was my sense when the administration, of all govts, came to the defence of Muslims over the cartoon uproar. The “bigger picture” and indeed a significant piece of the Bush doctrine, seems to be a focused effort bringing the Arab/Muslim community into our global economy.
Politically, we're dealing with a lame duck president and a red hot potato in an election year. If Bush tries to push extremely unpopular legislation or oppose extremely popular legislation, he doesn't stand a chance. None in Congress is going to bother listening to his rhetoric when they actually have races to win or lose.
I predict this deal won't go through, followed by more finger-pointing from Arabs/Muslims, at home and abroad, with cries of racism and double standards. They have a point.
Pre 9-11, many things like this were not issues at all.... now, you would think people would get it.
And another thing, BELIEVE ME when I tell you this, many republicans, including myself, are still mystified by the president's inaction on securing the border and Immigration in general (The big elephant in the room). His inaction on the border, in light of the fact we are having people dying in Iraq every day, in the name of ** SECURITY **... is baffling to me... how can one square this INCONSISTENCY... how?.... AND THEN, just to add for fuel to the fire... he decides to be the faithful friend to our loving, trusting friends the Saudis by letting them roam around our ports, etc, etc, etc.
So, anyone who thinks this JUST about the PORTS... think again.
Our side has joined the irrational emotional side on this issue.
Neal is wrong. Not to mention violating his Libertarian principles on this one. This is a business deal, not a political deal. And it would be great if the Arab world invested a lot of money in US-based assets and facilities? Why? Because then they would have a stake in our survival and prosperity. Lots of people are wrong on this one, and I expect my share of flak, but this is the truth.
I can't believe that this may be his first veto. How much harder is this going to make it for our ports to be secure? We have busted over backwards making muslims feel welcome, and now we are going to give them our ports? China having a pacific port is bad enough, but the hijackers didn't come from that country. Does China want to destroy Israel? No, but the Islamic militants do. Where did Wahabism come from? Saudi Arabia. This is amazing.