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

No, it's just capitalism to me.

 

the worlds going to hell. i completely agree.

 

Can you refute the points that I made on the last page? I'm not going to respond to your silly tangent about Iran.

 

texxx you think there would be this much "ignorance" about the deal if Bush hadn't pounded the fear into Americans for the last four years?

 

I see you've retreated nicely to other topics to bash Bush on. Surrender accepted in light of the fact that you no longer are willing to argue the merits of this issue.

 

More insults and another question about Iran. Well, it's clear to everybody here that you've lost this argument.

 

lou dobbs just reported that p&o currently handle shipping of military equipment to iraq and when they asked a p&o spokesperson if the uae state-owned company would be handling that too all they got a was a "no comment".

 

clear as mud, yup.

 

See posts #55 and #60 in the other thread.

 

pfft. I think you need to take some time and understand what role DP World will take in this agreement. They're leasing terminals at ports. They are not involved with security at ports. That falls under the coast guard and the DHS (and local police). The fact that DP World is doing extra security (looking into smuggling, etc), while nice, is not central to this debate, because security will continue to be handled at the federal level.

Again, at best the detractors of this proposal are ignorant, at worst, racist.

 

Hardly

texxx won't honestly answer questions. No surprise.

 

=Uncle

 

I completely agree with the last three sentences in your post, wnes. That's where people should look for answers to why this deal was allowed to go down. Think about it, people... Bush and the Republican Congress have approval ratings in the toilet. Just awful, with various Republican Congresspersons running around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to figure out how to keep their "safe seats" from being yanked out from under them. GOP Senators are doing the same thing, but with slightly more finesse.

All this is going on and the Administration drops this bomb on them. They must be freaking out. Why on earth would the Administration do something that is this bad politically, when things politically suck already? Why indeed? Put aside whether it's a good idea or not, and whether the UAE corporation can do a decent job. Look at it from the political side.

The Administration would be hard-pressed to give the Democratic Party an easier weapon to use this Fall. Politically, it's an act of madness. So why do it? Someone has a major interest, of some kind, in this corporation, and major influence in the Administration. Influence so great that this was done regardless of the potential political costs, and the political costs could have been seen by a blind man. So, what's really going on? The veto "threat" by Bush is so much hot air. There is no way his first veto, of his entire Administration, is cast on this issue.

The only other explanation for this is an incompetence that is simply breathtaking.




Keep D&D Civil.

 

What is your obsession with name calling? Because someone doesn't agree with you they are racist?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-22-ports-arabs-protest_x.htm

Arab leaders: Lawmakers exploiting ports issue

By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY

The furor over handing control of some operations at six U.S. ports to an Arab company has more to do with politics than security, U.S. Arab and Muslim leaders charged Wednesday.

"There's an anti-Arab sentiment that is being exploited by members of Congress who see it as an election-year win," said James Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute. "You can stoke up a whole lot of fear by saying 'The Arabs are coming.' "

Zogby was scheduled to be in the United Arab Emirates today on business unrelated to the Dubai Ports World deal. He said the rhetoric "has been shameful, irresponsible, uninformed and dangerous" and preys on post-9/11 fears.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., one of a handful of members of Congress of Lebanese Christian descent, said, "There's no question that if this had been a German company, it would have been unlikely they would have brought up the fact that the 9/11 hijackers trained and were radicalized in Germany."

Issa said it was up to Congress to decide whether any foreign company should be allowed to operate U.S. ports or whether foreign ownership of port operations should be limited, as it is for TV and radio.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., also of Lebanese descent, questioned the deal. "I don't think we need to surrender the security of America by outsourcing it to foreign countries."

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the deal represented "normal business practice" in a global economy. "Only when Arabs became involved did we see concerns being raised," he said. "That sends a message ... to the Arab and Muslim world of a double standard, that no Arabs or Muslims need apply."

Zogby said the controversy has hurt State Department efforts to change America's image in the Arab and Muslim world. "It's not just what they think about us. It's how we talk about them."

 

Uh, no. I honestly believe that if you critically analyze the facts in this case, then you will come to reason with my view on this matter. The knee-jerk reaction to oppose an Arab-based company is what I'm not pleased with.

 

texxx is right. If we don't allow this transaction to go through, the terrorists win.


President tries to calm furor over takeover of port management

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The second in command at the Pentagon said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html