3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 02:52 pm
old europe wrote:
<hoping the post was on-topic enough not to be considered spam>



Of course, OE.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 02:53 pm
We missed you Walter.

And thanks for the information OE. My own education on this subject is nowhere near up to speed. I'm listening to Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton (also Lindsay Graham) blast the administration for handing over the ports to the UAE. But on paper, it looks all proper and perfectly legal for the Brits to sell the port authorities to the UAE. And there is no denying that the UAE is considered an American ally.

But there is the practical side of me too that sends those little warning flags popping up in my head. Blood is thicker than water and all that, and is there any risk that ME terrorists would take advantage of having Arab brethren in charge? However racist that might sound, I can't shake the notion that it's a legitimate question.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 02:55 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
old europe wrote:
<hoping the post was on-topic enough not to be considered spam>



Of course, OE.


Splendid!
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:05 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
We missed you Walter.

And thanks for the information OE. My own education on this subject is nowhere near up to speed. I'm listening to Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton (also Lindsay Graham) blast the administration for handing over the ports to the UAE. But on paper, it looks all proper and perfectly legal for the Brits to sell the port authorities to the UAE. And there is no denying that the UAE is considered an American ally.

But there is the practical side of me too that sends those little warning flags popping up in my head. Blood is thicker than water and all that, and is there any risk that ME terrorists would take advantage of having Arab brethren in charge? However racist that might sound, I can't shake the notion that it's a legitimate question.



On the other hand, the ME terrorists might not be so happy that their rich Arab brethren in the Emirates are negotiating a FTA and inviting those damn 'murricans in to invest and buy stuff in their part of the world......

On the other hand, I quite enjoy the novelty of seeing you on the side of Hillary Clinton!

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:09 pm
old europe wrote:


Quote:
On the other hand, I quite enjoy the novelty of seeing you on the side of Hillary Clinton! Very Happy





Well no, not quite. Smile I have no confidence of what side Hillary Clinton is on other than hers about anything, and if this turns out to be a good thing, she'll very likely switch sides. I haven't picked a side yet.

I also have no confidence she wouldn't be bitching about selling those port authorities to Germany or Australia or Canada if she thought she could make political points doing so. And I am NOT condemning the President for masterminding the sale either. I'm able to see the spot he might be in over this.

I just need more information on it to know what I actually do think about it.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I just need more information on it to know what I actually do think about it.


Yup, I'd agree. It's just that in terms of national security, I think it's a non-issue. There are about 7,500 ships with foreign flags making 51,000 calls on U.S. ports each year. They carry approximately 890 million tons of goods, including 7.8 million containers, and at current staffing and funding levels, U.S. Coast Guard personnel and Customs agents can thoroughly inspect only a fraction of the arriving ships and shipping containers.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:28 pm
This is, of course, outrageous, it flies in the face of all things capitalistic, We shant put up with it. Next thing you know some french company will buy out Kraft Foods just to get control of velveeta.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:18 pm
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I just need more information on it to know what I actually do think about it.


Yup, I'd agree. It's just that in terms of national security, I think it's a non-issue. There are about 7,500 ships with foreign flags making 51,000 calls on U.S. ports each year. They carry approximately 890 million tons of goods, including 7.8 million containers, and at current staffing and funding levels, U.S. Coast Guard personnel and Customs agents can thoroughly inspect only a fraction of the arriving ships and shipping containers.


I agree to an extent, but this certainly doesn't seem like a good step in the direction of tighter port security.

I can't believe I agree with Chuck Schumer.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 05:18 pm
The U.S. will still control the security part of it, Tico, if that's any consolation. Keystone Kops and all that.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 08:22 pm
Wow. Went back 15 pages and read almost 10 posts. The scroll wheel was working tirelessly.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 09:17 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Wow. Went back 15 pages and read almost 10 posts. The scroll wheel was working tirelessly.


Typical cognitive dissonance. And not only from McG. Here's a wee something direct from the heartland; the very place that Tico maintains a sod hut and the same place that his smoke & mirrors program emanates from.

Quote:


http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/13900376.htm

Oversight EDITORIAL: ROBERTS' CREDIBILITY ON LINE

Many Kansans, including members of The Eagle editorial board, have long admired Sen. Pat Roberts for his plainspokenness and reputation for fair brokering of issues.

So it's troubling that Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is fast gaining the reputation in Washington, D.C., as a reliable partisan apologist for the Bush administration on intelligence and security controversies.

We hope that's not true. But Roberts' credibility is on the line.

...

What's bothering many, though, is that Roberts seems prepared to write the Bush team a series of blank checks to conduct the war on terror, even to the point of ignoring policy mistakes and possible violations of law.

That's not oversight -- it's looking the other way.




Robert's credibility is on the line. The apologists here on this thread long ago lost theirs.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 07:28 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
The U.S. will still control the security part of it, Tico, if that's any consolation. Keystone Kops and all that.


This seems to be a bipartisan concern. Since this has been on think progress for days, I think the issue is going to continue to be a concern for leftist. (I actually have no opinion) Since this is a move defended by the administration, if anyone changes their stance, I am betting it will be the GOP, but so far a lot of them are against this move.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/port_security

Speaking of the secuirty, I don't know about the US still retaining the security of those ports since 40% of our military equipment goes through those ports.

Quote:
UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army
There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration's decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation's largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation's troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of "the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia."

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today's edition of the British paper Lloyd's List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician "Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports."

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been "a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia" direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 07:43 am
The problem is that to tell the UAE that they are 'unqualified' to manage these ports would likely alienate a solid Arab ally. We are trying to win over Arab allies for the purpose of effecting a more stable, more peaceful world than what exists now.

After giving it some thought, however, I think I'll put my support behind the Democrats. Right or wrong, they may solve the problem in their zeal to oppose the President. I believe there is still a law on the books forbidding foreign ownership of American radio stations. Why can't there be a law forbidding foreign ownership--ANY foreign ownership, not just Arab ownership--of American port authorties?

And we can let the Democrats take the heat for a racist policy for a change. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:02 am
The whole reason why the GOP and conservatives have been so succussful is that they have been appealing to the fear factor, do you honestly think US voters who did vote for Bush in the last election despite the unjustified Iraq war and the prison abuse scandals are going to be concerned with racism against the Arabs stacked up against the security question? You have more faith in the every day "joe public" than I do.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:10 am
Hmm....the Dems oppose the Port authority sales because of 'fear' that the UAE would be more likely to allow terrorists and WMD to enter through US ports. But Revel extrapolates that to a GOP fear factor.

Sometimes you just have to wonder.

I do think the government needs to fully explain why the UAE sale is okay if it is. Jimmy Carter, by the way, is on the side in favor of the sale on this one. I thought that interesting. That might be reason to give this deal a whole lot of extra scrutiny. Smile

Meanwhile, the GOP will hopefully continue to be the party most likely to at least have some ideas, some hope, some optimism, and the party that is able to also see that which is good instead of just that which is bad. And the Dems will hopefully continue to be their usual whining, complaining, negative, pessimistic, critical selves at least through next couple of elections.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:16 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmm....the Dems oppose the Port authority sales because of 'fear' that the UAE would be more likely to allow terrorists and WMD to enter through US ports. But Revel extrapolates that to a GOP fear factor.

Sometimes you just have to wonder.

...


Well, Foxy, it appears the Dems will take whatever position is contrary to the President, regardless of the internal inconsistencies involved. Tomorrow they will downplay the terrorist threat as they oppose another of Bush's plans.

They just happen to be correct on this one.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:33 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hmm....the Dems oppose the Port authority sales because of 'fear' that the UAE would be more likely to allow terrorists and WMD to enter through US ports. But Revel extrapolates that to a GOP fear factor.

Sometimes you just have to wonder.

...


Well, Foxy, it appears the Dems will take whatever position is contrary to the President, regardless of the internal inconsistencies involved. Tomorrow they will downplay the terrorist threat as they oppose another of Bush's plans.

They just happen to be correct on this one.


I still don't know for sure on this one as I'm hearing excellent arguments for both sides. Emotionally I tend to agree with you on this one.

Howiever, I'm tickled to let the Dems take the heat for doing the right thing for a change for there will be the devil to pay for alienating the Arabs Smile.

Quote:
Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.

Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.

''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:19 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Why can't there be a law forbidding foreign ownership--ANY foreign ownership, not just Arab ownership--of American port authorties?


Condemnation?

And why didn't the US - private, state or other officiial authorities get it before the foreigners got those ports .... like before P&O?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:21 am
Oh, and what about airports? (Share-)Owners of airplane, ship, car factories? Etc. etc ...

Another question: of you you would agree that in such a case all US-owners outsite the USA ... ?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 09:25 am
The Bush administration and you might like to turn this into another usual democrat vs. the administration squabble, but the fact is that it is an equally bipartisan concern.

Quote:
In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. -- both members of Collins' committee -- have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, ''The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real.''


http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3530132
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 09:10:06