Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>How amusing it is to see how tenuous connections are being trotted out by those who are usually so, so skeptical.<< And vice-versa.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"The port's closed today, folks. Come back tomorrow."> Then their contract gets cancelled and the job goes to someone else. Sure, they could cause a disruption, but to what end? It would be a big loss for no gain.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I find it fascinating that an ARAB company would be running security. And we don't like this, because they're not to be trusted? But, we feel that the rest of the world can trust us. Why is that? 'Cause we're such neat people?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<"The port's closed today, folks. Come back tomorrow.">> Moose out front shoulda told ya. ;-)
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger That's what I was going for, RoadTrip >> <"The port's closed today, folks. Come back tomorrow."> Then their contract gets cancelled and the job goes to someone else. Sure, they could cause a disruption, but to what end? It would be a big loss for no gain. << It won't be that blatant. They will just require a thorough security screening before any cargo is unloaded. After all, that's their job, isn't it? A very, very, VERY thorough security screening.
Originally Posted By Lake Nona Here's the latest AP wire story that Bush supports this... <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-21-16-26-11" target="_blank">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s tories/P/PORTS_SECURITY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-02-21-16-26-11</a>
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Here's the truth--The UAE is basically our best Arab friend. They are not out to destroy Israel. They are our best Arab allies in the war on terror who lets us have our planes in their country and they help us gather intell. Two terrorists from 911 DID come from there which means their government controls aren't perfect as Britain's are not either >(prior company). With billions of Muslims in the world, if we don't let the UAE run this (with government transparency, obviously)i.e. clear cut supervision, we have NO chance to win this war on terror as it would be seen as unequivocal RACISM! We would be screwed and there is no other way of putting it. We would be screwed and it would be impossible to win the hearts, minds, or anything of the Muslims being racism against our BEST arab friends and not trusting them with the same contracts we trusted the British. Bin Laden would love to have us cancel the contract.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder (P.S. The governmenet of the UAE, unlike Iraq, have been one of Amwerica's staunchest allies in the region. That its private citizens have been involved in 9/11 does NOT tie the government to that disaster. How amusing it is to see how tenuous connections are being trotted out by those who are usually so, so skeptical.) Dubai was one of just two countries who recognized the Taliban as an official government. That in and of itself is enough to give me pause.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Bin Laden would love to have us cancel the contract>> Bin laden's first demand was for us to get the bin Sultan Air Force Base out of his holy land, Saudi Arabia. Bush quietly did that shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Bin Laden also wanted to have a way to recruit more people to join his terrorist network. We gave him that in Iraq. They have more members than ever thanks to the increasing hatred of the US. Now with this deal to the UAE, which is a known sponsor of terrorist regimes and has been known to funnel money to al Qaeda, we've pretty much given him the keys to the front door. It's a trifecta and bin Laden couldn't be happier with the way things are turning out.
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13922695.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld /mercurynews/news/politics/13922695.htm</a> Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF New York Daily News WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House. One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port. Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet. The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/" target="_blank">http://thinkprogress.org/2006/ 02/20/uae-military-equipment/</a> Headline - UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.†A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List: [P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010. According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.†Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia†direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm also searching for a link to a story I heard earlier that the US earlier categorized the UAE (our "staunch ally") as "uncooperative" in our efforts to trace the money trail for 9/11. The money went into a UAE bank, to a UAE citizen, but the government prevented the US from investigating both the source and where the money went after entering the UAE bank. Still checking. So why would bush do this? Is he saying that this company is best suited for the job? Nope. It's backscratching, pure and simple. "I predict" that bush will back down. He's got a lot of gruff talk going now about vetoing any move on the part of congress, but he's got no support on this, not even from his own party. Hey - I hope he digs in his heels and does his stubborn pouting bit - it can only hurt the GOP further. But this was done as a run-around of congress - including the majority GOP party, and he's not going to find much support there, so I'm guessing he'll back down - he almost has to. This contract is clearly counter to the best interests of our own national security (some people still believe bush cares about that) and he has yet to offer any kind of justification as to why they're better suited than any number of other possibilities. This has all the telltales of a back room deal cloaked in the usual secrecy of the bush administration, in which somebody somewhere is getting kickbacks - guaranteed. In other words, our very security is being sold down the river by bush for the sake of continued corruption. Business as usual.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Now with this deal to the UAE, which is a known sponsor of terrorist regimes and has been known to funnel money to al Qaeda, we've pretty much given him the keys to the front door.> Has the UAE ever appeared on our terror list? All reports I've seen are that, since 9/11, they've been cooperating with us against terrorism.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I am certainly not an across-the-board Bush supporter. But the all the flack on this is politically motivated and amounts to kicking Bush when he is perceived to be down. The only good Arab's a dead Arab?? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By Disneyohno <Now with this deal to the UAE, which is a known sponsor of terrorist regimes and has been known to funnel money to al Qaeda, we've pretty much given him the keys to the front door.> And as you know if NY City is hit again the Dems will say we should have been more vigilant. And If we are more vigilant the Dems will say were racists.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why are the operations and security of our ports being outsourced to begin with?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder There just isn't enough known about this deal to support it. If not for the uproar caused by regular citizens to their elected officials, who in turn have voiced their concerns, Bush would not have stepped to the microphones to defend this deal today. It would have been quietly announced on a long holiday weekend (as it was) and not explained at all if not for the uproar. This was supposed to be yet another "trust me" decision of the Bush Administration, and they've finally been called on it. We're being asked, by a President who mocked Kerry for his outsourcing ideas, to trust the same decision makers who wholeheartedly believed in the intel that got us into the war in Iraq, who had no long range plan for that war for so long, who haven't found bin Laden, Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Zarqawi, etc. etc., to not trust them on this decision without any explanation. No way. The officials who are asking for more information before buying off on this are doing the prudent thing. If Bush wants to guarantee a 2006 backlash and be faced with a Democratic House then he should continue to make calls like this without consulting Congressional leaders and keeping himself insulated in the arrogant secrecy of his little group of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. If the Congressional leaders follow through on this, Bush's first veto will actually be overridden and "shoved down his throat", as one official said today. If Bush is so concerned about "sending the wrong message" to Dubai, of all places, he should have thought about what kind of message he was sending to Congress and the American public by unilaterally signing off on this deal. All he needed to do was keep people in the loop. This very well would have and still could be a benign thing. But the careless way Bush has gone about this looks to be finally the one insular call he makes that blows him up.
