| Author | Message | ||
     Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 809 Registered: 10-2004  |
It is unfathomable logic that the administration has approved this transaction. The ports are a known weakness of security and now they are being put into the hands of a foreign power whose government is no true friend of ours. I sincerly hope that the port authority can cancel these contracts and that the Bush adminstration comes to its senses. Sure we will be safer with the UAE guarding our ports. Put the fox in the hen house and whistle in the dark... where is the logic in this? | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 110 Registered: 6-2002 |
I'm trying to be open minded about this, mostly because anything that seems this stupid must have another side. Yet, if I get it right, the arguments for are 1) it is cost effective, 2) the terrorists aren't the ones with the jobs, they're all back in the Middle East anyway and 3) to oppose it is racist. Here is what we know. "From 1999 through early 2001, the United States also pressed the United Arab Emirates, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, these efforts to persuade the UAE achieved little before 9/11. As time passed, the United States also obtained information that the Taliban was trying to extort cash from Saudi Arabia and the UAE with various threats and that these blackmail efforts may have paid off." (from the Tom Kean hearings)UAE was one of only 3 countries that recognized the Taliban govt in Afghanistan. Even if the "good" UAE has the contract, the "bad" UAE seems to crop up every once in a while, and to very bad affect. Hoops, there is no logic. | ||
| Paris Hiltonberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6815 Registered: 10-2001  |
The Republicans in Congress will kill it. Though the UAE is a friend, now is not the time to cut such a deal. Bad decision by the Bush Administration. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 789 Registered: 10-2005 |
I agree with Paris. The deal will be dead even before it hits the ground. Bad idea Dubya... | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 810 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ok so we all agree that this is foolish at best. Then why has it gotten this far along, so far that the state governments feel they have to step in to stop the process? I cant fathom calling the UAE a 'friend'. The most I would say would be business associates. There is no common ground other then $$$ that the US shares with the UAE. The issue goes to the motivation of the administration for this - as corrupt as they are is there a payoff here, one way or the other? | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3055 Registered: 5-2001  |
How can it possibly be legal for any foreign company - even an ally - to control something as critical as security at a U.S. port in the first place?! Well... one good thing that might come out of this is a rare moment of unanimity on MOL! | ||
| kendalbill Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 111 Registered: 6-2002 |
Kumbaya | ||
| Paris Hiltonberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6816 Registered: 10-2001 |
Notehead, You're not familiar with the issue.. The foreign company would "run" the ports. The "security" of all ports remains the responsibility of the U.S Coast Guard. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4070 Registered: 12-2001  |
While were at it, I think we should intern Americans of Middle Eastern descent. There might be good reasons for blocking this deal or there might not be. If the decision is made because it is politically expedient, as appears to be happening, we all lose. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3056 Registered: 5-2001 |
Straw, You're wrong. The USCG's Office of Port Security can enforce the law, inspect cargo, ensure code compliance, etc., but it is up to the organization that is managing the ports to maintain a certain standard. Most of the people actually responsible for security on a day to day basis are employees of the company managing the port (or some subcontracted company). | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3057 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dailykos states that the organization that approved the takeover by DWP, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S. "did not conduct background checks on senior managers of the company, nor did they ask how the company screens its own employees." That's just great. | ||
| Paris Hiltonberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6817 Registered: 10-2001 |
small correction regarding Notehead's google. "The USCG's Office of Port Security ENFORCES the law, inspects cargo, ensures code compliance, etc.," | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3058 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wrong again. I heard about that branch of the USCG on the news. Anyway, my point still stands. Security is in the hands of the organization running the port. The USCG steps in as necessary to make sure things are up to standards. If you think security is strictly the responsibility of the Coast Guard, why do think this deal is a bad decision? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 812 Registered: 10-2004 |
tjohn, I dont think this is an issue of race or national origin. Control of vital US resources should not be outsourced, or worse sold to suspect foreign allies. I am not advocating that the employees of the port be of any race, creed or religion, but I am advocating that the owners and operators be American or at the very least an ally that has been proven over time. In our current situation as invader, occupier of an Arab nation, I think the UAE does not fit the bill. | ||
| Paris Hiltonberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6818 Registered: 10-2001 |
It's a bad decision because Americans don't like it..Good enough for me. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4073 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hoops, It will be perceived as an issue of race or national origin if this deal is blocked. I stand by my contention that it should not be blocked unless there are real as opposed to perceived security issues. It is not clear to me why the port operator would matter if my goal is to smuggle in some sort of WoMD in a cargo container. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5072 Registered: 10-1999  |
Tjohn is right - if there is a real security issue, the deal should be blocked. Some people think that the company's connection to the UAE is enough proof that the deal should be blocked. There's an interesting press release on the Dubai company's website, by the way - Link - http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39 So, one of their executives is already on his way to a post overseeing the Maritime Administration. For those who have decided that the port deal should be blocked, should this guy's nomination be pulled? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5215 Registered: 8-2003 |
Isn't it Customs and the Coast Guard that are responsible for the security of the ports? | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1557 Registered: 8-2004  |
Oh Boy, Brother Jimmy is in favor of deal. ''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.'' The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel =miamiherald_nation | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3059 Registered: 5-2001 |
"odd political lines" indeed. Shouldn't the primary issue simply be whether or not security is being compromised? If the material gathered by dailykos is accurate, then the committee approving this takeover hasn't made enough effort to address this question. | ||
| frannyfree Citizen Username: Frannyfree Post Number: 162 Registered: 1-2004 |
If this goes thru, I am no longer a Republican. You cannot have arabs guarding the henhouse! In 1943, would you have Germans running the ports? | ||
| mrmaplewood Citizen Username: Mrmaplewood Post Number: 297 Registered: 5-2001 |
US Customs will collect taxes and duties. The US Coast Guard will enforce the maritime laws as best it can. So who is going to be responsible for what is in the containers? The country which still recognizes the Taliban as legitimate. A longshoreman quoted in the Newark Star Ledger this morning: "I think Bush has lost his mind." That assumes that he has one to lose. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1579 Registered: 7-2004  |
Has there ever been an administration in U.S. history with less concern for its citizenry than Bush's? He's not even pretending to care about Americans anymore. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4078 Registered: 12-2001 |
Franny, Last I checked, we weren't at war with the Arabs. Did George mislead us on this, too? | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2574 Registered: 12-2001  |
It's possible that this event is George Bush's Bitburg. John Podhoretz | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10766 Registered: 5-2001 |
Senator Frist has asked Bush to reconsider the deal. I think it is going to get reversed. The UAE is an interesting country, although it is more of a confederation of Emirates I think. It is probably the most agressively capitalistic place on earth. If the money if right they are happy to play both ends against the middle. Basically, before oil, they were traders, smugglers and, dare I say, pirates. They have a rather swashbuckling approach to business and diplomacy. Personally, I kind of admire them, but I wouldn't hire those foxes to guard my hen house.  | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4081 Registered: 12-2001 |
Bush is standing firm. Assuming that a proper evaluation of security risks are undertaken, I am inclined to agree with Bush. This is a strange issue. Dogs and cats sleeping together. | ||
| Ond Citizen Username: Ond Post Number: 78 Registered: 3-2004 |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run six major U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/port.security/index.html | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 2576 Registered: 12-2001 |
Was their government cooperative with the 911 commission? (not that ours was.) | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 553 Registered: 8-2003 |
What about Bush flying out the scions of Bin Laden on 9/11? Why are folks getting freaked out about the UAE taking over a British Co.? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1942 Registered: 8-2003  |
I'm with Bush on this one. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8716 Registered: 4-1997  |
At least we know where the WMD will turn up. | ||
| Southorangemom Citizen Username: Southorangemom Post Number: 260 Registered: 6-2003 |
As a life long Democrat, I must admit to being with the Republicans on this one. It is a boneheaded idea! SouthOrangeMom | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 1581 Registered: 7-2004 |
Can anyone believe this is the issue Bush will use his first veto on? He'll go down in history as the president who never vetoed a single spending bill or tax break for the rich, but makes a stand to let the UAE control our ports. Whatever happened to you're either with us or against us? The UAE is against Israel, they don't recognize Israel's right to exist. Isn't THAT against us? And how does Bush not distinguish between a British company and a Arab government running our ports, as if they are interchangeable? Really makes you wonder what is going on. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1558 Registered: 8-2004 |
Looks like the liberals on this board are all in favor of ethnic profiling when it comes to port security. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3036 Registered: 5-2001  |
Some more ties to the administration
| ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8722 Registered: 4-1997 |
If it were only liberals speaking up Guy would have a point. | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1560 Registered: 8-2004 |
Dave , liberals are against ethnic profiling. That is what makes this alittle strange. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5217 Registered: 8-2003 |
Maybe with this issue we'll all learn what processes and responsibilities are involved in port security. To date, we've mostly been treated to politics of it all. What is the most strange is we can't really profile airline passengers, but we can profile employees. One of the things I've heard is that the CEO and other senior officers in the corporation will change, but you won't see thousands of Green Card-laden Arabs flooding into the country to assume the thousands of jobs involved. Unions and the mob won't give up territory easily. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1889 Registered: 6-2003  |
I rarely agree with anything George Bush says or does, but he is absolutely correct in defending this deal. The U.S. operations of P&O are only part of the company's total operations. From what we know so far, DPW followed the process established by the U.S. Government for the approval of the purchase - exactly as a U.S. company would follow the processes established by other countries in the course of making investments there. It will be impossible for foreign companies to invest in the U.S. if, after doing everthing according to U.S. laws and regulations, their plans can be derailed at the last moment by a few grandstanding senators and congressmen. |
