Posted on 03/10/2006 3:52:28 AM PST by point
Some commentators insist that the opposition to the Dubai Ports deal was much ado about nothing and was simply ignorance of the way ports and terminals function. They insist that the whole sale was just about management of several terminals - nothing which would effect homeland security.
Question: If this ports deal was really nothing serious, why was the Coast Guard initially worried and opposed to the deal? It would seem from the Coast Guard's initial concern that there is much more at stake with this deal then some are willing to admit. It certainly indicates that security concerns to this deal were not just some imaginary and emotional concerns.
The ports deal was a euphemism for other issues that Americans feel powerless to deal with. On this issue, their voice had power, rightly or wrongly.
The Coast Guard's initial concern was exactly the uninformed knee-jerk, emotional reaction that most Americans and FReepers had too. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed at Coast Guard. Sorry I can't say the same about here.
The average.... (Sorry for the typo)
Duncan Hunter was on Savage yesterday stating that we must not allow foreigners to run our ports. Is he not aware that 85% of terminals in this country are operated by foreigners? I'll be waiting for Mr. Hunter to give the boot to every foreign port operator located in this country.
I think you are not getting the real reason for the ports oppostion. Not all of it of course, but alot of it. The ports deal was used as the vent for all the corrupted business deals that this nation has done under the guise of globalism. Alot of people feel disenfranchised by this stuff, the ports deal was merely the lightning rod. Again, by some, but not all.
Duncan Hunter and Peter King, another of the swine. Great point about 85% of ports being controlled by Foreign interests. Do you have a list broken down of the foreign interests? Also, could this be the left's assault on the war on terror? Dubai was used for docking and take off points for our military to fight the war on terror.
The disgusting stench of hypocrisy has spread across our country.
The stench is especially strong in the Clinton neighborhood, but it lingers (in a bipartisan way) among politicians and pundits.
Foreign involvement is nothing new [COSCO - Red Chinese gov't co. - runs terminals]
Where were our polticians and the MSM when the Red Chinese government's company (COSCO - an admitted arm of the Red Chinese military) was given exemptions to US shipping laws and permitted to control a terminal on the West Coast? That company, COSCO, had previously provided the ship which smuggled illegal arms into the US.
Where were the pols and MSM when Clinton guaranteed a loan to the Red Chinese so they could build a nuclear reactor which powers the shipyard which builds their warships?
Where were the pols and MSM when Clinton guaranteed a loan for COSCO (an arm of the Beijing government) to build ships in Mobile, AL?
Isn't this ironic....
King quickly became a tool of the Left and the MSM, didn't he? They were overjoyed to have the opportunity to quote his grandstanding ramblings.
Why were our politicians who serve on intelligence committees and on Homeland security committees (King heads one) taken aback by the idea that a foreign government company might run our terminals?
Where have those people been all these years?
I don't feel very secure, with politicians like that in "charge" of our security. .
Isn'tKing a backer of Sinn Fein? "King became a tool of the left", you got that right. And you know what, the left is already taking sole credit for defeating our President on this issue.
Before Dubai made its announcement, the Left was happy to point to the large number of Republicans who wanted to stifle the investigation.
And, you're right...Now that Dubai has made its announcement, the Left will try to take sole credit for killing the DPW deal and imply that they are better at protecting Americans than the Republicans are.
Here's an article from last year, that shows a cooling of politicians' hearts toward Gerry Adams.
Chilly St. Pat's For Gerry Adams March 14, 2005
But smiling American eyes are in less abundant supply in this year's run-up to March 17th - with Adams getting a distinctly bipartisan cold shoulder from President Bush, Democratic liberal lion Sen. Edward Kennedy, and New York Republican Rep. Peter King.
Just plain false. I suggest you read the even-handed analysis of the issue in Kenneth Timmerman's Homeland Transparency. He concludes the assurances were anything but reassuring, but in fact were weasel words.
Apparently unlike W the American people had learned to reflexively scrutinize spin and examine the platitudes dispensed by the party in power...they learned to parse Xlinton routinely. Thus, when the same kind of weasl-word misrepresentations were made under him, the People were put on their guard. The name-calling against Conservatives only lit off the explosion. The tinder had already been stockpiled.
The American people are slow to wrath, but when their wrath is once kindled it burns like a consuming flame.
--Theodore Roosevelt: First Address to Congress December 3, 1901
I gotta believe the Coast Guard is a little bit more familiar with port operations than you give them credit for. Obviously there is a security issue that needed to be addressed. And while it's true that some foreign companies have ownership in our ports, not all of them cozied up to Bin Laden and al Qaeda before 9/11 like the UAE, and that's a big differnce. China may be our adverseries but, they're not al Qaeda sympathisers. The Saudis, well they've got a little funny record on this one.
You are so damn wrong. The Coast Guard cleared this up and was not as you seem to imply. Another RAT crap.
FALSE. And DESPICABLY FALSE. Ken Timmerman exposed this attempted cover-up. Your position is hence irrebuttably illogical.
How many times did we see PRECISELY this kind of abuse. Where Clinton would have some tame brass hat like Weasley Clarke or Shinansky over-rule the serious concerns of underlings who actually were doing their job???
So suddenly, because its convenient for you lock-steppers and RINO/NWO/Globalists to fudge the realities this ABUSE OF POWER is okay. "Oh, yeah, a Brass Hat said they had "assurances"...but precisely from who?
The very same people who can't be trusted. The state-owned enterprises that gladly do the logistics for jihadist nuclear proliferation, and only 'cooperated' on 'busting' A.Q. Khan's operation...in 2003 (2 years AFTER 9-11) at the point of our bayonets. A country whose retiring dictator pens a whole slew of "Nabati" (arabic jihadist 'poetry') that fairly clearly alludes to the frustrations of a jihadist country yearning to plunge the knife into the back of the heathen world capitalists, but having to bide their time for the proper moment.
H'mmm.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.