Skip to comments.THE PORT DEAL - THIS COULD BE BUSH'S FIRST VETO? HE'S JOKING, RIGHT?
Posted on 02/22/2006 6:31:33 AM PST by rattrap
I've tried ... tried hard ... but it's no use. I just can't understand why George Bush is so invested in this idea of turning the operations at six essential U.S. ports, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, over to a foreign government ... and an Islamic foreign government at that.
Security experts are pretty much in agreement that if -- and I think it's a "when" rather than an "if" -- a nuclear device is ever smuggled into this country, the weapon will arrive in a container through one of our ports. Do you think that these containers are screened? Actually, many of them are. But where and how they are screened is critical. Most of the screening actually takes place in a foreign port before the containers are loaded onto a ship for the trip to America. Are any of those containers screened here? Yes. A few. A very few. The primary method of screening is for our security officials to look at the container manifests while those containers are at sea to determine which containers will be opened for further screening. What is being proposed here is to put a foreign government, an Islamic government, in virtual control over just how those manifests are prepared and how they will read ... especially the manifests for containers being shipped from a port operated by an Islamic government TO a port being operated by an Islamic government.
Let this swirl around in your brains for a moment. The wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam is involved in most of the shooting "hot" conflicts around the world. I can't cite the exact numbers right now, but we probably have factions shooting at one another in about 130 or so locations on every continent --- with the possible exception of Antarctica. In about 97% of those conflicts you will find Muslims on one side or another. There is only one major world religion out there that has as one of its basic tenants the goal of world domination. That religion is Islam. There is only one religion out there with a sizable faction that has declared war on our country, and which is dedicated to the goal of killing as many of us as they possibly can. That religion is Islam.
Though far too many people don't realize it, the Western world now finds itself smack in the middle of World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism. (World War III was commonly referred to as the "Cold War." It was a world war nonetheless.) On just what level does it make sense to the President of the United States to turn over the operations of six critical American ports to an Islamic government ... especially an Islamic government with established ties to terrorists who have already struck and killed thousands of Americans?
So this is where George Bush wants to use his first veto? How many budgets has he signed? Six? We've seen non-defense government spending increase throughout his administration at record rates, and never a veto. Never. Not even a hint of a veto. So now Bush has finally found something he wants to veto? He wants to veto any bill that would prevent the turnover of six critical ports to a Muslim government? Pardon me, but what the hell is going on here?
Bush pretends .. and it has to be pretending .. not to see why people are so worked up over this. On the one hand he suggests that this is all about anti-Arab prejudice. Please, Mr. President. Give us a bit more credit than that. Then Bush says: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company."
OK ... where do we start. As you read through this list keep this fact in mind: Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the company selling the American ports operations to Dubai Ports World, is a private company. Peninsular is not owned by the government of Great Britain. Dubai Ports world is a state-owned company, owned by the United Arab Emirates. So, what we have here is a private company selling its rights to operate these six ports in the Untied States to a government ... an Islamic government. (96% Muslim) So, to answer Bush's question as to ...why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." let's start with this correction. It's a Middle Eastern government that's being held to a different standard than a British company. Governments often use deadly force to accomplish their goals. Private companies do not. There, President Bush is your reason No. 1 for a different standard. Now that we've established that rather important difference ... let's move on to compare Great Britain to the UAE.
Great Britain is not an Islamic Nation. The de facto state religion there is Anglican, the Church of England. My extensive research shows that the Anglican Church has never, at least in modern times, committed an act of terror against the United States. Nor has the Church of England demanded that Israel be wiped off the face of the earth. Additionally, the Anglican Church has not announced it's intention to subjugate the entire world under Anglican rule.
The UAE IS an Islamic Nation. Review Item No. 2 above.
The 9/11 hijackers did not use Great Britain as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
The 9/11 hijackers DID use the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.
None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Great Britain.
Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates
Great Britain did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban, you may remember, provided the operational base for the operations of Al Qaeda.
The United Arab Emirates DID recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Good move.
Great Britain recognizes the government of Israel.
The UAE does NOT recognize the government of Israel.
Supporters of this move will tell you that there are already foreign companies already running most of American port operations.
We're not talking about a foreign company here. We're talking about a foreign government. There just must be something here under the surface. Something unseen. Something undisclosed. The Bush White House just can't be this blind to the legitimate concerns of the people and of those in Congress who are concerned about this move.
China runs ports in California and they have nukes, maybe you should have those ports shut down?
My gasoline contains Middle Eastern oil, should my car be concerned?
The GOP lapdogs will have every possible explanation for why it's patriotic to see the country off.
Me either. It is another one of these moments for GW Bush.
Time to give those NWO "rumors" a second thought. We'll have to replace ALL of our "Representatives" soon or lose our sovereignty.
My guess is that the authorities in Dubai have been, um, helpful in our pursuit of terrorists. One thing you can say about George Bush is that he believes in rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies.
I dont know what quasi means, but it sounds like good ol fashioned racism to me. Given the fact that CHINA has ports in California! WTF!
We need to look a little more closely at who is really behind this deal. We know Michael Jackson surfaced in Dubai not that long ago. Connect the dots, folks.
Yeah sure what ever you say your master says you say.
OMG! we got a live one! hehe
The worst thing about this whole fiasco is that President George W. Bush has just thrown FIVE years of his tough on terror reputation down the toilet.
And in doing so, GWB probably handed the mantle of "tough on terror" to the wimpy AlJazeera-luvin Democrats.
All I can think is that GWB must be losing brain cells from all the pressure of the Presidency.
I haven't been this depressed since he nominated Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court.
Would YOU like to connect my dots?
One really bad decision doesn't require another one.
China should not have any dealings with our ports either.
The globalists will get us killed.
That is so wrong on so many levels, dude.
Please don't do that again.
Guess what Neil ,a STATE owned Chinese company, China Ocean Shipping Company, already operates the Port of Long Beach container facility in a joint venture with an American firm, SSA.
China Ocean Shipping Company ("Cosco") is a state -owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China ("China"). It was established in 1961 utilizing four ships with a combined tonnage of 30,000 deadweight tons. The company operates a worldwide network service with five operating branches: Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Company, Shanghai Ocean Shipping Company, Tianjin Shipping Company, Quindao and Dalin Shipping Companies. Cosco, now one of the world's largest shipping companies, was reorganized in 1993 through a merger of four companies, China Ocean Shipping Company, China Ocean Shipping Agency (Penavico), China Marine Bulker Supply Company, and China Road Transportation Company. The reorganized company was named China Ocean Shipping Companies Group and is known both as "Cosco" and "Cosco Group" (hereinafter "Cosco").
2001 SSA Terminals (Long Beach), LLC was formed as a Limited Liability Company jointly owned by SSAT and Terminals Investment Limited, an affiliate of the Mediterranean Shipping Company, to operate the 170-acre Long Beach container terminal facility at Pier A. Operations commenced in December 2002.
SSA formed the joint venture Pacific Maritime Services, LLC ("PMS") with China Ocean Shipping Company, to operate a major container facility in the Port of Long Beach. SSA manages the facility day to day, and operations commenced July 1, 2001.
In both cases, neither China or Dubai have anything to do with security. We still handle all security. Running the ports (in the UAE case, it is actually container storage facilities, not the full ports..) is akin to programming traffic lights and schedules, nothing more..
I'm going to Hell for that, aren't I?
Admit it. It does make you feel funny though, doesnt it?
Perhaps the most succinct , accurate and incisive comment I have read recently was this ...
"... it demonstrates a sort of continuing tone deafness..."
Religion of peace crap
Maybe he's not "invested" in this idea at all. The notion that this proposed acqusition could simply have been reviewed -- and approved -- no differently than any other corporate acquisition involving foreign companies seems to have been lost on a lot of people.
The Coast Guard will still run security and the Longshoreman will be the employees. Only 5% of the
cargo currently coming in to this country are inspected now.
If my information is correct, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has offices at port facilities in 42 different countries around the world.
Sounds like huge knee jerk and selective outrage over this whole deal.
(This post is by Joe Contrarian from the RX posting forum)
1) No matter who gets the contract - the Brits, a UAE company, whoever - exactly the same people - Americans - will be working at the ports. Those people have been investigated thoroughly and have security clearances following about a 2-year procedure.
2) The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not object.
3) U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year and only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival as it is. Does this deal further increase the threat of an attack? Probably not.
4) Some in Congress have expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations. Three of the 9/11 terrorists came from the UAE. All fair points.
As far as I've heard, this UAE company (Dubai Ports World) has not had any problems, and is in fact a major, respectable, and successful international company. They would not be in the position they are; that is, to buy up another international corporation with such widespread business, if they were not well-run and thoroughly competent. The problem is, the government of UAE owns Dubai Ports World. They will be privy to many security procedures at these six ports. Sure, they are friendly at this point in time, but then the same was once said about Saddam Hussein. And Japan and Germany were once our enemies, etc. etc.
On the other hand, all this uproar is a kind of double standard: America expects the Middle East to "get civilized," and improve their countries and economies to America's standard of international capitalism, but then rejects the efforts of Middle Eastern nations to do business. One one hand, many of us talk how the Saudis and the Pakistanis need to be more responsible in their governance (of which the UAE is a shining example, which you've heard me discuss), then tell the UAE they can't operate US ports because they might kind-of maybe harbor terrorists.
I've heard rumors some Arabs threatened Bush with sour diplomatic relations if this does not go through. Other rumors say some threatened Bush with turning off the oil spigot. Hopefully, this kind of stuff is more hysteria over the uproar at the thought of "Arabs guarding our ports." Much of the hysteria Im hearing, reminds me of a sound byte I watched a few years back on tv, in England, when a German car company threatened to buy off Jaguar: "We didn't let the Nazis win in WW II, we're not going to allow them to win now," an old lady scoffed.
Globalization is a reality. 'Arabs' own allot of entities in the US as do Japanese, Chinese ad-nauseum (even electronic parts in the military). It's part of what makes America work. As far as national security is concerned, that line was crossed long ago. Indeed, many have made the case, global capitalism is an excellent deterrence to large scale war.
That all said, whatever you think of the deal on substance, this is terrible politically. It's hard to understand what benefit the President might believe he will gain personally through his support of U.A.E. supervision over American Port Authorities. Perhaps he expects some benefit in the way of "political capital" he can use to strengthen US presence in the middle east? That was my sense when the administration, of all govts, came to the defence of Muslims over the cartoon uproar. The bigger picture and indeed a significant piece of the Bush doctrine, seems to be a focused effort bringing the Arab/Muslim community into our global economy.
Politically, we're dealing with a lame duck president and a red hot potato in an election year. If Bush tries to push extremely unpopular legislation or oppose extremely popular legislation, he doesn't stand a chance. None in Congress is going to bother listening to his rhetoric when they actually have races to win or lose.
I predict this deal won't go through, followed by more finger-pointing from Arabs/Muslims, at home and abroad, with cries of racism and double standards. They have a point.
"In both cases, neither China or Dubai have anything to do with security. We still handle all security. Running the ports (in the UAE case, it is actually container storage facilities, not the full ports..) is akin to programming traffic lights and schedules, nothing more.."
And your assurance is????????????????
Nice to have your assurances.
You are right! He has threatened it before but it has never happened. There are a lot of other stuff he should have vetoed, not this.
China does NOT perform security at our ports, and neither will the UAE company that is our job.
Nothing to fare but fear it salf.
"The Coast Guard will still run security and the Longshoreman will be the employees. Only 5% of the
cargo currently coming in to this country are inspected now."
--And this, too, is WRONG. We had better WAKE-UP and wake-up quickly. The "religion of peace" (gag me !)wants to K-I-L-L each and every one of us.
Well, that's good. I hope they have the tools to do real detailed inspection of cannisters, I'm sure they look at manifests for cargo.
Pre 9-11, many things like this were not issues at all.... now, you would think people would get it.
And another thing, BELIEVE ME when I tell you this, many republicans, including myself, are still mystified by the president's inaction on securing the border and Immigration in general (The big elephant in the room). His inaction on the border, in light of the fact we are having people dying in Iraq every day, in the name of ** SECURITY **... is baffling to me... how can one square this INCONSISTENCY... how?.... AND THEN, just to add for fuel to the fire... he decides to be the faithful friend to our loving, trusting friends the Saudis by letting them roam around our ports, etc, etc, etc.
So, anyone who thinks this JUST about the PORTS... think again.
Maybe we should.
yep, the MSM has framed the debate again. "domestic spying" or
"hide the judge" when they talk about the Patriot act. This time its "Hide the Homeland Security, US Customs and Coast Guard"
Our side has joined the irrational emotional side on this issue.
Neal is wrong. Not to mention violating his Libertarian principles on this one. This is a business deal, not a political deal. And it would be great if the Arab world invested a lot of money in US-based assets and facilities? Why? Because then they would have a stake in our survival and prosperity. Lots of people are wrong on this one, and I expect my share of flak, but this is the truth.
I can't believe that this may be his first veto. How much harder is this going to make it for our ports to be secure? We have busted over backwards making muslims feel welcome, and now we are going to give them our ports? China having a pacific port is bad enough, but the hijackers didn't come from that country. Does China want to destroy Israel? No, but the Islamic militants do. Where did Wahabism come from? Saudi Arabia. This is amazing.
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.