Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE PORT DEAL - THIS COULD BE BUSH'S FIRST VETO? HE'S JOKING, RIGHT?
Nealz Nuze ^ | 22 February 2006 | Neal Boortz

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.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boortz; loosenukes; nationalsecurity; newworldorder; nwo; ports; trop; uae; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-190 next last
To: MojoWire

Nothing to fare but fear it salf.


41 posted on 02/22/2006 6:57:40 AM PST by Vaduz (and just think how clean the cities would become again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: southernindymom

"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.


42 posted on 02/22/2006 6:58:46 AM PST by Mayflower Sister (DEMOCRAT: THE PARTY OF COWARDS AND TRAITORS, and I almost forgot... BABY KILLERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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.


43 posted on 02/22/2006 6:59:09 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rattrap
I do agree with this article a lot. When I hear that people "don't see" this or that... my conclusion is that they simply "don't want to see it."

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.

44 posted on 02/22/2006 6:59:43 AM PST by ElPatriota (Let's not forget that we are still friends despite our differences!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Maybe we should.


45 posted on 02/22/2006 6:59:52 AM PST by TXBSAFH (Proud Dad of Twins, What Does Not Kill You Makes You Stronger!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

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"


46 posted on 02/22/2006 7:00:01 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rattrap

Our side has joined the irrational emotional side on this issue.


47 posted on 02/22/2006 7:00:49 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rattrap
"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."

As an aid to understanding, deals in this part of the world are invariably greased with bribery. Someone got paid off.
48 posted on 02/22/2006 7:01:04 AM PST by brainstem223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rattrap

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.


49 posted on 02/22/2006 7:02:54 AM PST by Viet Vet in Augusta GA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rattrap

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.


50 posted on 02/22/2006 7:03:19 AM PST by Lemondropkid31 (Our battles are first won or lost in the secret places of our will in God’s presence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

Yep, like a cheap majician. I understand people's frustrations with DHS, but this is a BIG INSULT to the US Coast Guard in portraying them as useless as well.


51 posted on 02/22/2006 7:03:42 AM PST by mnehring (Perry 06- It's better than a hippie in a cowboy hat or a commie with blue hair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

They will have a office at the port. That office will have computers. Those computers can e-maill photo's of the ports day to day operations.

It seems that many of the same people that were concerned when Presidents Carter and Clinton allowed this to happen thinks it is just fine for President Bush to allow it to happen.

Remember what the Japanese were doing prior to WWII. They were traveling our roads and picking up scrap metal and sending it back to Japan. They gave it back to us at Pearl Harbor.

This is treason.


52 posted on 02/22/2006 7:03:57 AM PST by vernvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Sounds like a good deal to me.

I like it.

No problem here.

THIS IS CRAZY!!!

53 posted on 02/22/2006 7:04:22 AM PST by evets (God bless president Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

I agree assurance is just a word..

If I remember right, months ago media highlighted significant security issues at the ports. All containers are not checked. The President took an oath to "PROTECT" (twice) didn't he?


54 posted on 02/22/2006 7:04:25 AM PST by juzcuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Viet Vet in Augusta GA
It's not like this was a secret deal or anything like that, either. It was publicly announced last November (which leaves me wondering why all of these morons in the media and in government have waited three months to express their concern over it), and the name of the UAE company buying out P&O Port is Dubai Ports World.
55 posted on 02/22/2006 7:05:10 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: vernvet
"To allow any foreign government or company other than American to even maintain an office..."

The president who started that has already been impeached, but not for allowing foreign countries in our ports. P&O Steam has run the cargo facilities at those ports for some time now, and they are foreigners.

I'd like to see American companies in those ports, and running our powerplants and our big farms. We must find out why American companies are outbid, or fail to bid, on these critical infrastructure points. Is it some policy in the USA? Or simple economics?

This problem goes way beyond ports and cargo and needs to be addressed soon.
56 posted on 02/22/2006 7:05:18 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: evets

Brilliant.. except you need to add MSM glasses (the ones with the cBS eyes) to old steam head..


57 posted on 02/22/2006 7:05:37 AM PST by mnehring (Perry 06- It's better than a hippie in a cowboy hat or a commie with blue hair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: evets

So may we assume you are cool with the open border policy, as well?


58 posted on 02/22/2006 7:05:41 AM PST by DC Ripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SquirrelKing
"Funny" as in "nauseous"?
59 posted on 02/22/2006 7:05:43 AM PST by nuffsenuff (Don't get stuck on Stupid - General Russ Honore Sept 21, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rattrap
I have a question... Do the foreign owners have to be beholden to crooked unions, like the Longshoreman's? Something to think about.
60 posted on 02/22/2006 7:05:57 AM PST by AlexW (Reporting from Bratislava, Slovakia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson