Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

<hoping the post was on-topic enough not to be considered spam>

old europe wrote:

<hoping the post was on-topic enough not to be considered spam>

Of course, OE.

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.

Quote:

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

Well no, not quite. 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.

I just need more information on it to know what I actually do think about it.

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.

Wow. Went back 15 pages and read almost 10 posts. The scroll wheel was working tirelessly.

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.

The U.S. will still control the security part of it, Tico, if that's any consolation. Keystone Kops and all that.

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.

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.

...

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.

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.''

Why can't there be a law forbidding foreign ownership--ANY foreign ownership, not just Arab ownership--of American port authorties?

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.''