Bush Administration OKs United Arab Emirates Company to Handle US Port Operations

I still disagree with the President's (and Senate's) stance on this sale, but I also find it HILARIOUS that lefty Bush haters are coming out of the woodwork saying things like "no US ports should be under foreign control" when they have been FOR YEARS! These exact ports were already under foreign control.

I am ALL for anything about national security, so I support blocking this and removing the Brittians from controlling them as well... our ports, our control. However I find it sad, idiotic and pathetic that the liberals are bashing Bush for something that has been going on for DECADES... and I also find it appauling that they are only doing this because it is a middle eastern country... so much for them not supporting racial and ethnic profiling eh?

 

When did Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Peter King become libpigs? On another note, didn't you assert it was the Chinese who were controlling the US ports? Racial and ethnic profiling too?

 

Probably the same day in 1998 when Hutchinson-Whampoa became part of the PLA in Supernaut's fantasy universe of misconceptions.

 

Like I said, I agree completely with the people trying to block the sale but I DON'T agree with the idiotic politicization of it all... this is NOTHING NEW, they've just decided to try and bash Bush over it all. The senate including Hillary freaking Clinton have known about this sale for ages because there have been thorough investigations.

 

Why is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) simply trying to bash Bush over it all?

 

Frist disagrees with the President and is taking the RIGHT avenue in trying to stop it (hardly taking pot-shots at Bush), while Hillary is going to colleges and fundraisers just politicizing it... there is a huge difference. Ignorant Americans are going to listen to Hillary and Boxer and Schumer and just think "oh, this is the first time this has happened... how horrible!" meanwhile it has been going on forever! I don't know how much more clearly I can state that I support Frist completely in his stance on the issue, but I refuse to think for one second that Hillary and friends are standing up for "the safety" of us all considering they continually want to cut defense funding, profiling, border security and countless other security measures.

 

blah blah blah - so your distinction rests on the fact that you firmly believe evil Hilary hates america while Bill Frist supports the red white and blue?

That's enough, no more need to waste time with this.

 

No, I believe the entire attack is purely political, and the politicizing of the issue has made it a hot-topic. I agree with Presiden't Bush statement here:

This topic was made "hot" simply because dem's thought it was a way that they could make the President look bad. This is a problem I have know about for years and sadly most American's didn't, but I do think the UAE has as much right as the UK in having control if that is our policy, it is wrong and a horrible step in foreign policy to say "you're not as good as the Brits" so you can't have access. It either needs to be a completely on or completely off issue, and I would prefer that NONE of our borders be under the control of foreign countries. We are trying to gain respect in the Middle East but are saying taht one of their countries isn't good enough but the Brits were? The only real way to quell this storm is to ban all foreign interests from controlling our ports.

 

are you referring to democrats such as republican speaker of the house hastert and republican senate majority leader frist, who have both spoke out against the sale?

why do dirty libpigs like these guys hate amer'ca?

 

I think SamFisher has that post copyrighted.

 

not anymore bushboy!

"are you referring to democrats such as republican speaker of the house hastert and republican senate majority leader frist, who have both spoke out against the sale?

why do dirty libpigs like these guys hate amer'ca?"

©jo mama 2006

on a serious note, i wish all these republcian libpigs would just shut their traps and go along with the president on this. just trust him...when has he ever been wrong before? your absolutely right svpernaut, these republican libpigs just hate bush and are exploiting this issue for purely political gain.

 

Sadly, some liberals and Democrats are being hypocrites on this issue, and seem to be more interested in anti-Bush bashing rather than holding firm to a principle. Had they protested in the past when these same exact ports were also operated by a foreign company, they would be consistent; it's either that or they're as bigoted as many right-wing politicians are. Pick one or the other or perhaps both...

Just to clarify something: I am completely against leasing our ports to foreign companies, period! I am a firm believer that certain industries should be American-operated and not outsourced, the ports are one of them. I wouldn't want airline security to be out-sourced to a foreign corporation either, if not government-operated, then they should be American-operated. Now, I know that's against the principle of Free Trade and all, but I am not a fan of unhindered free trade, I think there should be limitations to safeguard the overriding interests of the country.

Anyways, here's some discussion on this...

http://www.cairfl.org/video/060220_msnbc_hooper_uae.wmv

http://www.cairfl.org/video/060220_scarborough_arsalan.wmv

 

This has been fun reading!

Just a few things...

Bush has said that he would veto any legislation banning the sale.

A member (Treasury Sec. Snow) of the cabinet has ties to said company.

And Bush appointed a CEO of said company to a high level Maritime Administrator position reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

Of course Jr's for the sale.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.

Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.

The political fallout over the deal only grows.

"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.

Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.

"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

 

Anyone watch the first five minutes of the Factor? Bill discussed this topic in his "Talking Points" segment, I think it would help dismiss some false claims made in this thread about the UAE if you watch it. The show repeats at 10pm central so tune in if you want to...

 

from a poll taken by wjz in baltimore (home city of one of the ports in question)

http://wjz.com/
Poll:
Are you comfortable with the proposed deal at the Port of Baltimore?
yes - 2%
no - 96%
d/k - 2%

ill tell you what, that is an overwhelming majority of democrats and liberals living in baltimore. 96% of a major american city are libpig democrats. i might have to double check my atlas, but are we sure that baltimore isnt in france (because if your against the sale of our ports than you are against bush and if you are against bush than you are against freedom and france hates freedom - get it?).

 

i completely understand slapping bush in the face with this.

but its not right. its straight up racism and this method of labeling arabs and arab companies as somehow terrorists is disgusting.

if the liberals understand this and still are using this for political motives...im cool with that. but if not...its just wrong.

 

a mc josh post (I love these!) --

"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 Great British (sic) company. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of the world, we'll treat you fairly. And after careful scrutiny, we believe this deal is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country, and at the same time, send that signal that we're willing to treat people fairly."

That was part of the president's comments today about the UAE ports deal while on board Air Force One. With his coinage of the new adjectival phrase 'Great British' you sort of wonder whether the pressure may have brought back his earlier foreign name mangling tick.

But however that may be, set aside the merits of whether it makes sense for a government owned company from the UAE to manage major ports of entry into the US. Forget about that for a moment. Doesn't the president seem ... well, a bit laughable with his new decent respect for the opinions of mankind message?

Does he wear it well? I really did chuckle when I heard him with this stuff. I mean, with racial profiling pretty much the whole world, not outsourcing our foreign policy to people with funny accents, eavesdropping without warrants because that's what tough guys need to do to get the job done, a whole foreign policy framed around the premise that the rest of the world can blow it out their $#@#&.

Even if he's right on the merits, it just doesn't work from a president who makes his political coin of the realm not caring what anybody else thinks or even what the law might be so long as security is even conceivably at stake.

-- Josh Marshall

 

I am against selling our ports to foreign companies, but I also find it rather funny the same people that post "the few Muslims that torched buildings over the cartoons doesn't represent the whole population, we shouldn't judge everyone based on the actions of a few" are also bashing Bush over this. When in effect they are saying "we don't trust Arabs and Arab companys".

Hypocrites I tell you. For some people, its not what they believe, its all about bash Bush every chance they get. They will side with whomever is opposite of Bush.

I can almost guarantee that if next week, a story comes out that the government is singling out Arabs at the airports, then the same people will come out of the woodworks and show their outrage, "how dare Bush racially profile people, he is a bigot!!!"