nmainguy Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates has purchased London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. which runs the major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. While the Dept. of Homeland securitry maintains laughable "security control" of US ports, Dubai Ports World will control all loading and off-loading of cargo at these 6 ports.The UAE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Today the White House said opposition was "politicly motivated."Really?"Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said later he wasn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 It is my HOPE beyond HOPE that Congress will shut this "more than scary" transaction down. Can't we rally Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to fork over the 6 billion to counteract this thing. Screw it, make it a Government job, which it should be in the first place, and let's gain control of our ports back. Use six billion from the Iraq effort and put to use for more protection from the "War on Terror". WTH were we thinking selling the ports to the bloody Limeys in the first place, how in the world did THAT happen ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 It is indeed an encouraging sight to see nmainguy, TJones and RedScare come together against a policy so lame-brained that only the most partisan could find fault with us. I enjoy butting heads with my HAIF buddies but I get so much more satisfaction when we come to an agreement on what is most important to our country. It is patriotism at it's best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 It is indeed an encouraging sight to see nmainguy, TJones and RedScare come together against a policy so lame-brained that only the most partisan could find fault with us. I enjoy butting heads with my HAIF buddies but I get so much more satisfaction when we come to an agreement on what is most important to our country. It is patriotism at it's best. I hate to admit this, because I truly think this guy is an IDIOT, but I finally agreeded with Michael Savage, about something, this issue. This thing CROSSES partisan lines, it is about our nations security and nothing else. You don't give the keys to the asylum to the loonies. They will run amuck ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I hate to admit this, because I truly think this guy is an IDIOT, but I finally agreeded with Michael Savage, about something, this issue. This thing CROSSES partisan lines, it is about our nations security and nothing else. You don't give the keys to the asylum to the loonies. They will run amuck !Wow! I'm agreeing with Michael Savage? This IS bi-partisan opposition!You know, watching Bush talk about 4 year old non-attacks on LA last week, while approving UAE companies to run our ports this week, makes me wonder if the terror threat that he keeps trying to scare us with is all that real. Either the threat is minimal and he knows it, but won't tell us, or his efforts to help his rich cronies are boundless....or, he is just plain stupid. But, it's got to be one of them. Hopefully, Congress grows some hair and slaps this bad idea down. Doesn't the Middle East control enough of our economy already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Lately when I hear Cheney and Bush deride any dissent by saying they have pre-9.11 mentalities...I have to wonder if they are really talking about themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 It is indeed an encouraging sight to see nmainguy, TJones and RedScare come together against a policy so lame-brained that only the most partisan could find fault with us. I enjoy butting heads with my HAIF buddies but I get so much more satisfaction when we come to an agreement on what is most important to our country. It is patriotism at it's best.Hell, better throw me in the mix. I've been uneasy about this just as much as you all have. Welcome to our new "global economy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The Republican Governors of New York and Maryland, home states to the Ports of NY-NJ and Baltimore, don't sound too impressed."New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running the U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11188272/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talbot Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Wow, just when I thought this administration couldn't get anymore stupid and unresponsible, they sure do show me that I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Here's another my way or the highway justification from Bush on Air Force One today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11474440/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 "Earlier, on Air Force One, Bush told reporters: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The scary thing is that Bush seems to be losing touch. What is scarier than a strong Bush presidency? One that is totally rudderless. He threatens a veto knowing full well it will probably be overturned leaving him even weaker. What is he thinking? Does he not get any good advice from his subordinates? Does he listen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 The scary thing is that Bush seems to be losing touch. What is scarier than a strong Bush presidency? One that is totally rudderless. He threatens a veto knowing full well it will probably be overturned leaving him even weaker. What is he thinking? Does he not get any good advice from his subordinates? Does he listen? The even scarier thing would be One Shot Cheney taking over. [is Bush drinking again?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Two words come to mind here, "slippery slope". I heard President Bush on the 6:00 p.m. newscast saying basically that we (meaning the Bush administration) do not want to offend the Arabs by not going through with this deal. Is that really what this comes down to? We do things we know in our heart to be stupid so as not to offend someone else? Is this "political correctness" taken to the nth degree? Very scary, indeed! Right after that story came another scary one. Elyse Lanier, Bob Lanier's wife, was just "chosen" as Port Commissioner for the Port of Houston Authority, to replace Cheryl Thompson-Draper, who resigned recently over another case of "political correctness" run amok. Seriously, Elyse Lanier? Besides selling expensive but tacky jewelry and being Lanier's arm candy, what experience does she have to qualify her for this new position? At least Thompson-Draper ran her own company. But Elyse? What gives here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The scary thing is that Bush seems to be losing touch. What is scarier than a strong Bush presidency? One that is totally rudderless. He threatens a veto knowing full well it will probably be overturned leaving him even weaker. What is he thinking? Does he not get any good advice from his subordinates? Does he listen?Wouldn't that be amazing? Bush has not used his veto power in the entire 5 years of his presidency, and his first one will be to protect the right of a Middle East government to run our biggest ports. I heard Ted Poe talking today. He said not only is Congress preparing bills to outlaw foreign ownership of the ports, but that there is probably enough support to override Bush's veto.And to make this all even more strange...Hillary Clinton strongly opposes the sale, but apparently Jimmy Carter supported Bush.Things just get curiouser and curiouser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 This issue isn't about ownership of our ports as much as it is about who is contracted to conduct shipping operations at the ports, as I understand it. I admit complete ignorance over port control so maybe someone could tell me why there are no US companies qualified to run our ports. I'm not suggesting it be a requirement-just curious as to how we got our ass in this crack to begin with. [besides the fact that the Bush family has always had close ties to the Saudis and the UAE-you know, our "partners in peace"-except when they are funding and giving aid to terroists bent on attacking you and I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I don't see Jimmy Carter as a "feather" in Bush's cap ! I am growing angrier and angrier by the day as this transaction grows near. I feel like Captain Kirk when he made an entry in his log about Klingons. He said, " The Klingons cannot be trusted, I will never trust them, they killed my boy." I know that sounds korny as Hell, but it is just like that, these UAE people CANNOT be trusted, they think we are ALL infidels, they envy and despise everything that America stands for, and as soon as they have the chance they will unleash Jihad on us. I have backed everything else that this President has done to this point, and I still do, I am unwaivering on all the other calls he has made, but this one thing I cannot tolerate, I don't give a rat's ass if we offend any middle eastern companies or peoples, that would be offended by us putting the "kaybosh" on this bad business deal for America. I don't believe that any FOREIGN country should have control of our ports. Having the UAE run our ports is like having Vincente Fox run the border patrol, and we are damn near that extreme also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The reality is that the port operator does not control security. The Coast Guard, and DHS does. However, some believe that no foreign companies should run the ports. I don't necessarily agree with that prospect, since most of the largest and best shipping and port firms are foreign. US laws make it tougher for shippers to operate under the US flag.My bigger gripe is consistency. If we are going to invade Middle Eastern countries with no ties to 9/11, shouldn't we not allow countries who DO have ties to 9/11, terrorists and trrorism financing to control something as vital as a port? Lots of conservatives are up in arms over this issue, but I think they are 4 years late to the party. Where is the outrage at Saudi Arabia, for instance? If you really want to know why Bush is standing alone on this, follow the money. When you find the money trail, you'll find why he is pushing this through in spite of ferocious opposition.Hint: Treasury Secretary John Snow has deep ties to Dubai Ports World."The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers."http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...cs/13922695.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 I have backed everything else that this President has done to this point, and I still do, I am unwaivering on all the other calls he has made, but this one thing I cannot tolerate, I don't give a rat's ass if we offend any middle eastern companies or peoples, that would be offended by us putting the "kaybosh" on this bad business deal for America. I don't believe that any FOREIGN country should have control of our ports. Having the UAE run our ports is like having Vincente Fox run the border patrol, and we are damn near that extreme also. I'm still with you on this one, TJ. I know you back Bush on most things-and I respect it because you return the respect-but this thing just stinks. Until the Saudis, the UAE and all the other backers of the 9.11 attackers dissavow their cooperation, I too see no reason to trust them. If Bush, his family and Snow are comfortable with them-fine. But if that is the case, they need to be removed and replaced by someone who has our nation's best interests at heart. These people clearly do not. Beam me up, TJ. BTW, I know Red said US laws make it tougher for shippers to operate under the US flag...that may be..if so, why don't US laws make it easier for shippers to operate under the US flag? If it's merely a matter of lobbiest $$ and profits going to Snow and the Bushes, why don't they at least show a minimal amount of loyalty to the nation that allowed them to get where they are by rigging the laws in our favor instead of in the favor of totalitarian regimes like the Saudis and the UAE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Red, the problem I fear is that the UAE will now have a look at the "books", and if they are smart enough and have a few "radicals" in the wings, they will be able to distinguish a pattern of what usually gets checked and what doesn't. They find the point of least resistance and funnel nuclear materials, chemical weapons, and the like, through these "weaker" points. Whereas having a REAL ally to help govern all comings and goings of the ports makes it a little bit easier to sleep at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Elyse Lanier, Bob Lanier's wife, was just "chosen" as Port Commissioner for the Port of Houston Authority, to replace Cheryl Thompson-Draper, who resigned recently over another case of "political correctness" run amok. Seriously, Elyse Lanier? Besides selling expensive but tacky jewelry and being Lanier's arm candy, what experience does she have to qualify her for this new position? At least Thompson-Draper ran her own company. But Elyse? What gives here?Experience? Well, she's attended a lot of parties. And who can forget that, nine years ago, she headed up the Houston Image Group? Except maybe everybody.Let's put it this way - she's every bit as qualified for the position of Port Commissioner as she is to reprive Marlon Brando's role in On The Waterfront. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Red, the problem I fear is that the UAE will now have a look at the "books", and if they are smart enough and have a few "radicals" in the wings, they will be able to distinguish a pattern of what usually gets checked and what doesn't. They find the point of least resistance and funnel nuclear materials, chemical weapons, and the like, through these "weaker" points. Whereas having a REAL ally to help govern all comings and goings of the ports makes it a little bit easier to sleep at night.TJ, I'm with you on the insider look at things, but my points are even simpler and more straightforward than that. One, do not reward countries that are part of the problem, with money. UAE and Saudi Arabia are both part of the problem. They should not be rewarded. They both have used their profits to fund individuals and groups that the US gov't. has said engages in terrorism against the US and Israel. We should not be paying the tab for our own hitman. Bush says this sends the wrong signal to the Middle East. I say that is EXACTLY the signal we need to send.Two, as I've mentioned before, if the US gov't. says their is no problem with allowing a UAE government owned company to run our biggest ports, it suggests to me that the terrorist threat is overstated. I realize that many find that hard to believe, but all of our information on the threat comes from the same people (Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney) that now tell us that the UAE running our ports is OK. Remember, the government AND the Defense Dept. AND the defense industry all have overstated threats to the US to get what they want. Kennedy did it by overstating the Soviet missile threat. Johnson, Nixon and Ford overstated the threat of Communism. Reagan went back to the Soviet nuclear well. The Bushes, and to some extent, even Clinton, have gone to the Middle East. And guess what? Now, our military budget is over a half trillion dollars! And a bunch of that money is going to buy long range bombers that are not even needed for today's wars!So, even though I think this deal sends the exact opposite signal to the Middle East that needs to be sent, it is oddly comforting that Bush is sending a subliminal message that things are not as bad as they seem.Or, the dude is just plain crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 And to make this all even more strange...Hillary Clinton strongly opposes the sale, but apparently Jimmy Carter supported Bush.I think Jimmy is just twisting the knife a little bit. He must be laughing at all the confusion his siding w/Bush on this one has caused. I mean it is not the type of issue Carter usually sounds off on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Or, the dude is just plain crazy.Speaking of crazy, I wonder how long before the Israeli's finally snap and send a squadron of full-payload F18's over one of their nieghbors."Affirmative Ghostrider, the pattern is open for bombing of muslim neighbors.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsGuy Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 My view is that it's not so much an issue of a Middle Eastern or Muslim corporation taking over (to me, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation) operation of these ports, it's that it's a government-controlled corporation taking over control. I would protest a government-controlled corporation of ANY country taking control of operations of US ports.I think the dissenters in Congress and elswhere need to articulate that, and take the whole "Muslim" equation out of it. All that does is inflame things even more, and it's Bush as much as anyone fanning those flames by saying anyone against this is an "Islamaphobe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gto250us Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Why not just let the damned Arabs run the airports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 I think the dissenters in Congress and elswhere need to articulate that, and take the whole "Muslim" equation out of it. All that does is inflame things even more, and it's Bush as much as anyone fanning those flames by saying anyone against this is an "Islamaphobe". ...but if you remove the "Muslim" equation, then Bush, Rove and his hacks can't call you a racist. That will never do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Notice how the rainbow of security alerts has disappeared since the elections? Probably why Bush feels it's safe to turn ports over to the UAE. Be careful though, I have a feeling there will be a flurry of terrorist activity come November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Chronicle touts Elyse as the perfect choice for Port Commissioner based on her background in "public relations". "I'd like to think I can make a difference, whether it be bringing more business to the port or raising its visibility to the rest of the world," she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.