Frist Turns On Bush

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wow, this is interesting.

The president is threatening to veto any effort to block the ports deal and, astonishingly, asking Congress to explain why there was no problem with the deal when it was with a British company but that there is now it’s with company owned by an Arab Muslim country’s government…

I can’t say I think this is a good move politically at all – it looks like an attempt by the President to grab some moral highground vis a vis racial profiling and racial preferences generally, but I think the net effect may be to let the Dems make up some ground in the perception of the public that they’re weak on national defense issues (because most people don’t seem to understand the basics of the issue).

Unless of course the Republican congressional leadership thumps him – but that would take back what little he may have gained from this statement in the first instance. I’d say with this issue, a veto override would be a distinct possibility.

Ugh – politics over substance.[/quote]

Hey Barrister,

I hate to come down against Bush, but on this one I have to say a big “NO.”

In my opinion, the major difference between a British company and a Muslim one from the UAE is that simply people from England are not the ones usually blowing up things like sky scrapers, busses, pizza parlours, etc. Our National Security must come before other “business” considerations. I am not sure what Bush is thinking, but I have to say this sale should be defeated.

Would we let Arab countries own the major electric or other utility companies in the US? This really seems to be a “no-brainer.”

22

One thing I have to say is this isn’t just a firm- it is a state owned firm. As to my understanding, thats not private investors and what not- thats the UAE government.

Now I don’t like any other country controlling the ports around here. I understand that the coast guard does security and what not…but it doesn’t bother any of you that the money made off the port of Newark could be funneled into attacking it?

Iraq had no connections to 9/11, but we attacked them. The UAE did have connections, and has further connections to terrorism, but you are willing to let their government profit off 6 massive ports? Why do I smell hypocrites running rampant here? Apparently idealism only runs wallet deep huh?

23

It is to laugh. Most everything to do with homeland security has been nothing but feel-good politics, right down to confiscating Granny’s manicure scissors at boarding time. The reality is, we’re surrounded by a permeable membrane and for all our sakes it has to remain permeable, despite the risks.

To whomever is impressed with the “scanning” of containerized cargo at HK, what is being scanned are RFID tags. Which is definitely a help, but is probably not quite the safeguard the writer had in mind. BTW, if you get the chance, you should visit a container terminal. The sheer scale of operations, and the precision of control required, boggles the mind.

Seeing as they’ve made quite a career of using fear to manipulate the gullible, I shall watch with pleasure as Bush and Cheney now apparently hoist themselves on their own petard. Say what they will, the general fear level they have inspired in the public can only lead to trouble over the security downside of this UAE deal, especially as seen in the post-Katrina light of revealed Bush-y incompetence. I’m dumbfounded Karl let them stick their necks out so far.

Quite sensibly, Bushco don’t give shit about homeland security, except as it affects spin and the pharmaceuticals bizz. Actual security improvements at the ports would cost money and probably hurt trade in an on-going way. That’s also why nothing much has been done to harden chemical plants in this country. Making things very secure in these areas just isn’t economically feasible, and even minor security improvements can cost some campaign contributor big $$.

Us plebes, on the other hand, should be willing to submit to impromptu searches in the subway. Does that make us any more secure? Not really, but it makes it look as if somebody cares, and it give the public something to do with its hands.

Security is a fantasy in the interdependent world of the twenty-first century. Terrorists are the least of our worries, our own government seems lately to have become the greater threat to our collective survival. Don’t give up anything else you treasure in exchange for your security, because your security isn’t worth a plug nickel. It’s an illusion, like ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge, and the dude brokering the trade is a con artist.

Our best course moving forward, security-wise, lies in international cooperation, solid police work, and forebearing to piss off our fellow human beings. The so-called War on Terror is a complete crock, especially as it applies to Iraq.

24

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Hey Barrister,

I hate to come down against Bush, but on this one I have to say a big “NO.”

In my opinion, the major difference between a British company and a Muslim one from the UAE is that simply people from England are not the ones usually blowing up things like sky scrapers, busses, pizza parlours, etc. Our National Security must come before other “business” considerations. I am not sure what Bush is thinking, but I have to say this sale should be defeated.

Would we let Arab countries own the major electric or other utility companies in the US? This really seems to be a “no-brainer.”[/quote]

I don’t know about that Steve.

For instance, wasn’t Richard Reid, aka the Shoe Bomber, and British citizen? And weren’t the London subway bombers British citizens as well?

Taking the line of logic that some of the hijackers passed through UAE, didn’t all of them pass through here? Weren’t two of the three guys just arrested in Ohio U.S. citizens - one born, one naturalized?

Port security is an issue that needs focus, as it needs improvement. However, I don’t see the huge security problem here.

Political problem? Sure. Security problem? No. If they are really worried, they could demand background checks on all the port workers – not a bad idea anyway…

25

Boring thread, I though it said “Fist Turns in Bush” so I clicked on it.

26

[quote]Dorso wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why, one has to wonder, does a company in the United Arab Emirates want to do this and with US ports of entry?

My guess is to make lots and lots of money.

I agree with Boston Barrister that UAE ownership of ports is not realy a security threat. It is a political issue though. Even James Carville raised the question of why the US cannot manage their own ports. The ports in question were previously run by a British company.[/quote]

Then you’re both fools.

If running a port would make lots of money, surely a US company could be persuaded to run a port? Couldn’t they? Or perhaps US companies are not interested in making lots of money? Am I missing something here?

Did you know that Dubai was 1 in 3 countries IN THE WORLD that recognised the Taliban regime? And you want these guys to run your ports? And if someone objects, you accuse him of playing political games?

27

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Dorso wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why, one has to wonder, does a company in the United Arab Emirates want to do this and with US ports of entry?

My guess is to make lots and lots of money.

I agree with Boston Barrister that UAE ownership of ports is not realy a security threat. It is a political issue though. Even James Carville raised the question of why the US cannot manage their own ports. The ports in question were previously run by a British company.

Then you’re both fools.

If running a port would make lots of money, surely a US company could be persuaded to run a port? Couldn’t they? Or perhaps US companies are not interested in making lots of money? Am I missing something here?

Did you know that Dubai was 1 in 3 countries IN THE WORLD that recognised the Taliban regime? And you want these guys to run your ports? And if someone objects, you accuse him of playing political games?[/quote]

See the other thread entitled “Arab owned ports?” It’s not worth re-posting everything here (for me or the mods).

28

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Coast Guard is in charge of security irrespective of the nation of origin of the Company running the commercial aspect. [/quote]

I think you’re mistaken. My understanding is the Coast Guard does not have any security jurisdiction within in the port itself.

29

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The Coast Guard is in charge of security irrespective of the nation of origin of the Company running the commercial aspect.

I think you’re mistaken. My understanding is the Coast Guard does not have any security jurisdiction within in the port itself.

[/quote]

That is when Customs takes over.