Bush, House Republicans at Odds Over Ports
House Armed Services chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. holds a press conference on a bill he is submitting in reaction to the Dubai ports deal on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday, March 7, 2006. The bill, called the National Defense Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2006, would allow only American companies to run U.S. ports and would block the Dubai Ports World's deal to take over operations at Read the full story.
posted at 3/08/2006 09:03:00 AM
8 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Illuminating that there were no objections throughout the years when British-owned P&O ran the ports.
Since port security has been under the authority of U.S agencies during that time, and would continue to be so under the running by Dubai, it's a blatant political act against Arabs.
Understandable on some level when you consider NY and the East Coast have been victim to attacks, but hardly a glowing testament to the free market.
Mind you, the French and Spanish are being just as protectionist, if not more, at the moment..
The previous comment by thedacs was right on point.
It is ironic that this "outpouring of public patriotic objection to the ports deal" will quite likely be the straw that breaks the camel's back and consigns America to the dustbin of fallen nations. Objection to the ports deal is based on ignorance and hatred, and this objection is fueled by the people who squawk the loudest about ignorance and hatred... the liberal news media.
These particular Arabs (Dubai World Ports and the United Arab Emirates) are the best friends we have in the War on Terrorism, and any racial profiling package deal that would deny them the fair shake they have EARNED through their past performance would send a message to the world that America cannot be counted on to treat our friends fairly and equitably. They have been handling our military cargo at ports in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere for quite some time. They allow us to use their military bases, and they have "boots on the ground" in Iraq. Scuttling the ports deal would not be good for our relationship with them, and could result in losing the war on terror. Make no mistake about it: we will fight these terrorists with our Army in Iraq, or we will deal with them on the streets of America. These people are taught to hate America and to want to kill Americans from the time they are old enough to walk and talk. It has nothing to do with anything some slobbering pundit says about "the dipshit Bush".
This ports deal would NOT give them "control" of our ports, any more than the previous contractor (P&O) had "control". In fact, our ports would be MORE secure, as shown by the past performance of Dubai World Ports. CONTROL of our ports would remain where it has always been... under the authority of the USCG, Port Authority, FBI and US Customs. We have a worldwide network for monitoring freight at all stages of packaging and transport. DWP would simply be the contractor who provides the "worker ants" who do the grunt work of moving the freight. DWP has demonstrated a willingness to comply with our rules in every instance, past and present. Scuttling this deal will be foolish indeed, and will play directly into the hands of our enemies... foreign AND DOMESTIC.
I like how the previous posters take this subject and make it THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!!! Memory has gotten terribly short in this world. It seems something earth shattering is announced every day and then forgotten the next. This is why we do nothing about govt. corruption, are attention spans aren't long enough, by the time we realize we are outraged something else is being brought up in the news to drag our attention away. Give it a month or so and people won't even remember anything about the port deal.
Really brilliant insight into the human psyche, there, "horus". The light is blinding.
Too bad that previous comment by chickenquano anonymous was removed. I had a response to it that could double as paint remover. Oh, well....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Your astute political commentary leads Smacky to deduce two things:
1) Your views on foreign policy were likely stolen from a particularly dim-witted 4 year old child.
2) You are a twat.
I am surprised that your ports are run by private foreign concerns at all. Not sure who runs the Port of Vancouver, but I'd rather it were domestically controlled.
The Feds did cut their support for the Ports Police and left it up to the cash starved muncipalities to take care of. The city of Vancouver hired a private company and crime has sky-rocketed at the port. (our security gurds in British Columbia are forbidden to carry guns, impact weapons or hand cuffs)
Not the same thing, but it just seems to me that a nation's ports are something that a nation would want tight control over and domestically managed.
Post a Comment
<< Home