UAE to take over Control of 6 U.S. ports

[Fitz505]

A secret government panel with the Bush administrations approval is going to allow the UAE to take over control of 6 major US ports. They want to know what kind of books I'm checking out of the library, but they don't have a problem with a country that was the base of operations for 911, a country that the last I read, still wants to destroy Isreal, a major transfer point for smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran & North Korea. Even House Republicans are scratching their heads over this one as it appears the Bush administration is going to fight to push the deal through.
I'm pushing 60 and I'll admit there are times when I'm glad I'm not younger. There are times when I'm unsure that this country is going to exist in it's present form in as short a time as a decade away.

Fitz

[tycho102]

I have a problem with this one. Mostly because of the administration side of the company, not even to mention the security or intentions of said company. Even if every longshoreman was required to pass an FBI background check before being employed, I would still have a problem with this issue.

I have a problem with Saudia Arabian companies owning 50% of several refineries as well, but I'm prepared to deal with 50% and a close watch on their conduct. I would be prepared to deal with 50% and a close watch on the United Arab Emrites conduct, as well.

100%, no.
75%, no.

50%, maybe.

[blue3golf]

Instead of giving the contract to some country overseas, ANY COUNTRY, because they're cheaper they should get unemployed AMERICANS to do it. I would bet anything that there are qualified people right here to do the job. I'm sick of hearing about unemployment and no jobs from the government when they're selling them off to other countries.

[bradclark1]

You guys forget that the American goverment is for sale. Dollars talk patriotism walks. Thats why this kind of stuff is tried to be slithered through.

[JSLTIGER]

Remember that governments buy things from the lowest bidder. Whoever can do what the government wants for the least amount of money will win the contracts.

[Sea Demon]

JSLTIGER and bradclark1, I understand what you say, and I am also disheartened by this trend. I've tried to tell myself that the buck stops where national security is concerned. I only wish the administration would tell us why this is proper. So far, they have not. And this port security situation looks very questionable.

[Kapitan]

saudi arabia is a good country not many arab countrys allow westerners to use thier millatery facilities, but after my mother visited saudi she liked it.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

saudi arabia is a good country not many arab countrys allow westerners to use thier millatery facilities, but after my mother visited saudi she liked it.

Saudi Arabia let in the western military for one reason only and that was for the protection of Saudi Arabia. They didn't do it to be good guys.

[Fitz505]

The really sad thing is, even if they get the 45 day delay that the House and Senate is pressing for (which Bush says he'll veto), in 45 days, the American public will have completely forgotten about it, while we sit on our supersized fat asses, waiting for the next brain dead reallity program to show up on TV.
What I haven't heard mentioned much is that this isn't a private company, but a government controlled company. Essentially, you have a foreign government, in 10 day's time, taking over control of parts of the U.S.
Bottom line. I think this is a done deal.

Fitz

[TankHunter]

Originally Posted by blue3golf

Instead of giving the contract to some country overseas, ANY COUNTRY, because they're cheaper they should get unemployed AMERICANS to do it. I would bet anything that there are qualified people right here to do the job. I'm sick of hearing about unemployment and no jobs from the government when they're selling them off to other countries.

Americans will be used in day to day operations, just as they were when the Brits were running the show.

[TankHunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

JSLTIGER and bradclark1, I understand what you say, and I am also disheartened by this trend. I've tried to tell myself that the buck stops where national security is concerned. I only wish the administration would tell us why this is proper. So far, they have not. And this port security situation looks very questionable.

Because the UAE is an ally of the US, and saying "hey, you are Arab, we dont want you doing business here" (which is what keeping them from getting the ports says) will not play out well. It would be more of a problem war on terror wise than letting them in. For that would send a message that we don’t want to have anything to do with fair business practices with the Middle East. Also they have had no problems with complying with UN port regulations, assumptions can be made that they will have no problems with American port regulations.

[bradclark1]

Bush can't veto if both sides of the house are against it. 2/3 majority isn't it? (unsure)

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by TankHunter

Because the UAE is an ally of the US, and saying "hey, you are Arab, we dont want you doing business here" (which is what keeping them from getting the ports says) will not play out well. It would be more of a problem war on terror wise than letting them in. For that would send a message that we don’t want to have anything to do with fair business practices with the Middle East. Also they have had no problems with complying with UN port regulations, assumptions can be made that they will have no problems with American port regulations.

The response to this is rather obvious or at least it should be:

Has Bush gone mad?

Port Jihad Update. Drudge has a siren up with this headline, as yet unconnected to any story: "BUSH ISSUES VETO THREAT; VOWS TO KEEP PORT DEAL."

Has Bush gone mad? The UAE may be the most reliable ally the United States has ever had (and of course it isn't remotely that) and there would still be no way for it to ensure that Dubai Ports World hires no one with jihadist sentiments. The situation in the Islamic world, compounded by the Administration's inability or unwillingness to come to grips with the reality of the jihad ideology, indeed make it quite likely that Dubai Ports World will be sending at least a few mujahedin to work in these American ports, and that they will be able to work there unhindered. After all, no one in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues.

Why would Bush want to be so obstinate on this? Doesn't he realize that it does immense damage to his position as being, for all his faults, at least tougher on Islamic terrorism than his opponents? If this deal goes through, will the United States have the luxury of undoing it before it undoes us?

UPDATE: Drudge has just added this:

• Bush called reports at about 2.30 aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said.... MORE... MORE...

I'll be happy to step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard. It has to do with the prevalence of jihadists and jihad sympathizers in the population, the lack of any mechanism, on the government level or any other, to vet them properly, and the consequent likelihood that they will end up working in the American ports in question.

Is that so unreasonable?

SECOND UPDATE: Drudge has just added a link to this brief Reuters story.

Or, as Michelle Malkin states (read the whole thing):

"Dubai media outlets are calling critics and skeptics of the port sellout "Islamophobes." If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an "Islamophobe," and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an "Islamophobe," I plead guilty."

[Skybird]

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Speechless?

Hard to believe! :hmm: