Is is just me, or does something really smell about this UAE deal? Something inside me just wants to scream, "THIS IS WRONG." The US should monitor her own ports!!! Not some foreign company with a very questionable past.
For the life of me, I can't understand why the White House is in favor of this deal. You can't trust these people, I don't care how pretty they have talked to us about stopping terrorism. Don't we know by now that they talk out of both sides of their mouth?
Somone wake me up when it's over. It has to be a nightmare.
1 posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:26 AM PST by standingfirm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
...winning the war on terror.
2 posted on 02/20/2006 7:29:41 AM PST by Blue Turtle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
Someone will be along shortly to tell you that you are a liberal, aligned with the Democrats. Thank you for your patience.
3 posted on 02/20/2006 7:30:06 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
Is is just me, or does something really smell about this UAE deal? Something inside me just wants to scream, "THIS IS WRONG." The US should monitor her own ports!!! Not some foreign company with a very questionable past
Huh there was no outrage when a foreign firm was already operating port container facilites at US ports.
BTW, notice how FOX News doesn't disclose they are partially owned by a saudi prince.
4 posted on 02/20/2006 7:30:28 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
Even if it would be safe for the UAE company to handle port security, it looks absolutely TERRIBLE and undercuts the argument (PR-wise) that Republicans are the national security party.
I continue to be disappointed by the way this war is being fought.
If Iran is not handled soon, the war will be a failure.
5 posted on 02/20/2006 7:31:22 AM PST by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
What stinks here is the hysteria and ignorance of "Conservatives" who should know better then to fall for a Democrat directed Press smear job.
Here is what the Port story is about. A DNC press release was sent out by Chucky Schumer for the Democrat Senate Election Committee. It is full of rumor, innuendo and guilt by association. A bunch of junk journalists picked up the story and with out checking a SINGLE fact printed the story. A bunch of meat head grandstanding Republicans Congress Critters on Kneepads, read the story and freaked out WITHOUT bothering to find out a single fact. The Security Agencies, who did all the investigation and background checks were blown off or sneered at by the Democrats, their junk journalists propagandists and Republican Congress critter Media whores. Meanwhile the FACTS of the case are being ignored in order for everyone to gleefully parrot a DEMOCRAT Press release.
HERE is the logical diagram on this story. A company based in UAE is taking over port operations. UAE is an Arab Country. Arabs committed 9-11. Bush is turning Port Security over to the Terrorists! Not ONE fact or logically valid assumption is presented in any of these stories. The fact that the Port Operation company has NO security functions is either willfully or inadvertently left OUT of the story. Instead it is all basically a racist, guilty by accusation and rumor smear job. The people who ACTUALLY know the facts like DHS etc are being laughed at or ignored so supposedly "Conservatives" can gleefully push Democrat Election Campaign propaganda. Simply amazing how willfully ignorant some "Conservatives" are about how the Junk Journalists lie to them. Just like Flush the Koran, Rather Gate, Fitzmus, Downing Street Memo and dozens and dozens of other LIES manufactured by the DNC and fed to the Failed Media, THIS story is a LIE.
6 posted on 02/20/2006 7:32:46 AM PST by MNJohnnie ("Close the UN, Keep Gitmo!")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Dane
I've read many threads on this subject. Every single one of your responses that I've seen on this subject (and they are numerous) start with "HUH". Very strange.
7 posted on 02/20/2006 7:33:13 AM PST by battletank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
The US should monitor her own ports!!!
Isn't that what DHS is for?
8 posted on 02/20/2006 7:33:16 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
Has Bush gone insane?
9 posted on 02/20/2006 7:34:38 AM PST by Lexington Green (Hollywood Patriot - Now THERE'S an oxymoron.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: tomahawk
I just don't want any more sales to foriegn powers, especially when even more money will flow into the hands of terrorists.
10 posted on 02/20/2006 7:35:50 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
Hope the other bidder was Haliburton. Let congress decide between Haliburton and the UAE company!!
If this is like most contracts the gov retains veto over key positions and can run security checks on all employees, most would be Americans and Longshoremen. It still is a bad idea, but being totally misrepresented by MSM. Surprise Surprise.
11 posted on 02/20/2006 7:36:30 AM PST by muskah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MNJohnnie
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004597.htm Give the contract to Halliburton
Just because Dems oppose something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
This is a DUMB idea. It's worse than Harriet Miers. It's lunacy.
The quicker the administration climbs down and takes the lead on this - the better.
12 posted on 02/20/2006 7:36:40 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
You're not then only one who feels something is wrong with this deal. While I normally support the Bush administration's decisions, this one just seems to be WRONG. To let a foriegn power be in charge of any of our ports is a bad thing to do.
13 posted on 02/20/2006 7:37:03 AM PST by scooter2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MNJohnnie
Just when I was questioning my responce to this issue along comes a reasoned posting. Thanks.
14 posted on 02/20/2006 7:38:09 AM PST by River_Wrangler (Nothing difficult is ever easy!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: muskah
Hope the other bidder was Haliburton. Let congress decide between Haliburton and the UAE company!!
Nope the other bidder was a Singapore company. If it had been Halliburton, schumer/hillary would be screeching 100 times louder.
15 posted on 02/20/2006 7:38:39 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MNJohnnie
"The fact that the Port Operation company has NO security functions is either willfully or inadvertently left OUT of the story."
That is just not true.
According to
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185107,00.html "DPW would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator is responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port, the port facility itself and the hiring of security personnel."
16 posted on 02/20/2006 7:39:54 AM PST by battletank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Dane
Huh there was no outrage when a foreign firm was already operating port container facilites at US ports.
England hasn't attacked us since 1812.
BTW, notice how FOX News doesn't disclose they are partially owned by a saudi prince.
You've been told REPEATEDLY that he owns 5% of the parent company, Newscorp.
Dubai owns 100% of DP World.
17 posted on 02/20/2006 7:40:03 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MNJohnnie
What stinks here is the hysteria and ignorance of "Conservatives" who should know better then to fall for a Democrat directed Press smear job.
I think you nailed it. The Democrats think they can use this issue to appear strong on security and drive a wedge in the Repbulcian party. However, there's political opportunity here that I would bet the White House is not ignorant about. Expect the WH to back down after a group of Conservatives angry over immigration use this isse to draw a distinction between themselves and the White House. Since there is no VP heir apparent the Republican party will be forced to "split" with the White House over the next few years. Republicans must reinvent themselves because people like to vote for someone who is "new and improved". Issues like this present an opportunuty for Republicans. Watch for more such things in the coming years and ignore the nonsense the press will write about Republicans being in "disarray", etc.
18 posted on 02/20/2006 7:40:12 AM PST by rhombus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: cripplecreek
I just don't want any more sales to foriegn powers, especially when even more money will flow into the hands of terrorists.
A very noble position -- however, the Company running the port is already OWNED by a foriegn power. All of the ports mentioned are run by a British based firm. That firm is now being bought out by the UAE.
So, the port operations are not being sold to a foriegn power, they were already run by a foriegn power.
19 posted on 02/20/2006 7:41:06 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: DJ MacWoW
You've been told REPEATEDLY that he owns 5% of the parent company, Newscorp
That cash infusion saved Murdoch from a takeover, but what the hey I guess you don't think a wahabbist saudi prince wouldn't call in some favors.
20 posted on 02/20/2006 7:42:53 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: commish
We aren't at war with Britian. Big difference, eh?
21 posted on 02/20/2006 7:42:56 AM PST by battletank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Dane
The Rats are just whining because their pals, the ChiComs aren't in on the deal.
22 posted on 02/20/2006 7:43:05 AM PST by dfwgator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: MNJohnnie
You said: "The fact that the Port Operation company has NO security functions is either willfully or inadvertently left OUT of the story.
Chertoff said: "In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel."
Well, which way is it? Believe me, I'm not some idiot just starting to pay attention. And I'm not someone who is just going to bow the knee just because the White House says it's OK. Our representative here is FL (Mark Foley-R) is also demanding a congressional look see. I agree with him.
23 posted on 02/20/2006 7:44:00 AM PST by standingfirm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: battletank
Nice strawman -- we are not at war with the UAE either -- we have military bases in the UAE.
24 posted on 02/20/2006 7:44:09 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: standingfirm
PING
25 posted on 02/20/2006 7:45:38 AM PST by Dewy (1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: commish; cripplecreek
So, the port operations are not being sold to a foriegn power, they were already run by a foriegn power.
The British company isn't owned by England, it is private and has stockholders.
However, DP World IS state owned, by Dubai.
26 posted on 02/20/2006 7:47:09 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: commish
we have military bases in the UAE.
We have troops in a lot of places we shouldn't trust.
27 posted on 02/20/2006 7:47:43 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: commish
Nice strawman -- we are not at war with the UAE either -- we have military bases in the UAE.
-
Is it safe for our service persons, to leave those bases?
28 posted on 02/20/2006 7:48:59 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: battletank
...the port operator is responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port...
Load and unload those boxes over there. Check.
...the port facility itself...
Turn the lights off when you leave. Check.
...and the hiring of security personnel...
They might do themselves a favor by rehiring the security detail already in place.
29 posted on 02/20/2006 7:49:23 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: battletank
We aren't at war with Britian. Big difference, eh?
No, but I would prefer to buy my gas from an American company. I've traded for years at Amoco, then all of a sudden it says bp. It took some time to realize this is British Petroleum.
Are there any American-owned gas companies left? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot to choose from. Quick Shop?
30 posted on 02/20/2006 7:49:35 AM PST by Aliska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
. 
