the PORTGATE thread, where do you stand?

[TheEgg]

and then the next, find nothing wrong with turning over port security to "mooslems".

This is NOT being proposed. Security will still be handled in exactly the same fashion as before.

Now, if you want me to Bash Bush on something, I will be happy to criticize the pathetic state of port security under the Bush Admin. But, it is still a separate issue from the port contracts.

 

[longeyes]

People are finally connecting the dots, that's all. It's understandable we want to believe that Bush has our best interests at heart. What leaps out at me from all this is Bush's behavior.

 

[longeyes]

We now have three threads going on this subject (I started the first one days ago). Maybe we need to conflate?

But permit me to re-post what I said the other day:

"The anger is about more than national security danger, yes; it's even, I believe, more than about the U.S. being sold off to foreigners. It is about a sense of betrayal and violation at the deepest level, something beyond just a rational assessment of risks and rewards. A bit of shock and awe, if you will, at suddenly discovering the true nature of someone purporting to be their leader and on whom they realize they are dependent for their survival. Bush's failure to grasp what's wrong (secretiveness again), his immediate reaction (stonewalling), compounded now by intransigence (threatened veto) suggests an arrogant rogue President who is in a state of total disconnect from the citizens who elected him.

Bush is in grave danger of Caligulizing himself before our very eyes."

Americans are suddenly becoming aware of how much has already been ceded to foreign interests under the guise of "free trade." This is a wake-up call and coming out of a deep sleep can be difficult.

I find the charges of "racism" to be absurd and insulting in light of the realities of the world situation, past, present, and future.

Lastly, a President who can't secure our southern border has no business preaching about national security issues ANYWHERE. That's my view, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[hso]

They're just a logistics management company like the U.S., Danish, U.K., Dutch, Chinese, based corporations that currently manage the port operations at 90% of western and half of east coast ports. They won't OWN anything except the contract to lease the facilities and handle logistics for the port. They won't have sole control of security at the facilities either since they have to have a government approved security plan that gets audited by the fed and state/locality gov. as well as U.S. Customs, Homeland Security and USCG presence on site.

The noise coming from Hillary is just that, noise.

 

[CAnnoneer]

A bit of shock and awe, if you will, at suddenly discovering the true nature of someone purporting to be their leader and on whom they realize they are dependent for their survival. Bush's failure to grasp what's wrong (secretiveness again), his immediate reaction (stonewalling), compounded now by intransigence (threatened veto) suggests an arrogant rogue President who is in a state of total disconnect from the citizens who elected him.

+1

If somebody should be angriest with GWB, it should be the people that voted for him, not those against him. The latter pretty much knew what they were getting.

Check out:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...104-9301536-4629502?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

I'll pick it up when it comes out on the 28th.

Bush is in grave danger of Caligulizing himself before our very eyes."

I think he is more of a Claudius than a Caligula. Guess who are our modern Messalina and Agripina... And the next in line is Nero...

 

[shecky]

shecky,
Please explain to this red state peon how allowing foreign control of strategic assets is good for the security of the nation?

Foreign control of the ports is inconsequential. Care to explain how it would be any more dangerous than it is now?

What do you think your corporate earnings will look like once they nationalize you at gunpoint after you sell everything to our enemies.

You're the one advocating what is basically nationalizing business decisions. Thanks to Bush, the Republican party is now the biggest defender of Big Government since the Johnson administration. The biggest lie of the last 50 years is that Republicans stood for smaller government. The saving grace of this latest deal is that at least there's presumably some sound business reasoning behind it.

However, it didn't keep the Prez from completely botching up the presentation of the deal and his reaction to the backlash.

 

[wolf]

another brick in the wall...i remember when Honda had this little "car" that was powered by a motorcycle engine...we didn't seem threatened by it...now that toyota..honda et al..are about to replace GM/Ford in the near future as the worlds largest auto makers..do we feel threatened..there is no uproar about it..it seems like a natural progression..btw: what do you drive..i have been trying to "buy American" but until "we" produce a $35,000 car as good as a BMW ill shop with my feet...or tires..i know I'm helping a foreign country take a piece of ours...but today..walmart rules..

when the smoke clears..if we cant recognize the language someone is speaking..or understand their culture or religion...and we as Americans feel persecuted and made to look like the "bad guy"..are we going to ask...who did this to us..who took our culture

the port issue..i doubt many even know what a port is and fewer care..as is with most of issues that the media presents...it just seems far removed from most..

wolf

 

[Camp David]

If somebody should be angriest with GWB, it should be the people that voted for him, not those against him. The latter pretty much knew what they were getting...

Sorry... don't see it that way... would you be equally upset if, as others have pointed out and used as an example, you found out your favorite airline was being operated by a foreign nation? Why? Isn't this the worst sort of profiling... saying that because UAE has terrorists in their midst we should not deal with them? At all? Do you buy foreign goods? Are you upset your automobile's brake pads are being made by foreign nations?

What right do you have soley criticizing President Bush for this issue? Is he solely responsible for our increased geopolitical trade and manufacturing economy which would bring about a UAE interest into our port operations?

What is your alternate solution to the port issue? Got an alternate port manager? Would you be happy if Haliburton did it instead?

If there is any blame in this issue it certainly does not reside at the White House but rather in the geopolitical nature of our commerce...

JUST A REMINDER: Close to 100 percent of the west coast port leases are foreign owned, with the east coast clocking in at 60 percent.

 

[longeyes]

If we don't have a company here that can handle port management, then let's make one--or let's make it worthwhile to an American firm to do the job because of its sensitive and strategic nature. We piss away billions on God knows what every budget year and yet we can't get our act together on strategic essentials?

No, it's not all Bush's fault, but Bush, bless his heart, is the guy who's going to make clear to us just how deep the rot goes and how much debridement we are going to have to do.

 

[shecky]

I think he is more of a Claudius than a Caligula. Guess who are our modern Messalina and Agripina... And the next in line is Nero...

I'd liken him to more of a Manchurian candidate, as he's been able to completely change the character of Republican platform 180 degrees without hardly anyone blinking an eye. The few that did raise concerns were effectively marginalized by simply labelling them disloyal.

 

[ArmedBear]

As long as there are no West Coast ports on the list, I don't care.

Besides, the conflict between the ports and the Longshoreman's Union shut down the West Coast ports better than a terrorist attack could, a few years back.

<insert obligatory droning negative comment about Bush without offering any viable alternatives here>

 

[shecky]

If we don't have a company here that can handle port management, then let's make one--or let's make it worthwhile to an American firm to do the job because of its sensitive and strategic nature. We piss away billions on God knows what every budget year and yet we can't get our act together on strategic essentials?

OK, more welfare state...

 

[Camp David]

QUOTE SEEN ON ANOTHER DISCUSSION BOARD ON PORTS ISSUE:

"Which is why I am convinced this is all a Rovian plot to make Chuck Schummer come out in favor of racial profiling. Bow down before Rove -- you can not hope to compete against him, only to acknowledge his infalibility!"

 

[longeyes]

Is the U.S. military a "welfare state?"

Think outside the bucks. I don't think we can afford to be philosophical purists on every issue of national concern. When WW II came about we stopped making such fine decisions. Perhaps we should recognize that we are in a permanent state of global war, economics famously being an expression of that war by other means. In general I don't like government control, involvement, subsidization, but there are exceptions needed to make things happen. Was DARPA a bad idea? NASA? Do we need gov't monies to build nuclear reactors? Encourage alternative energy? Build a network of high-speed rail? We are going to have to do what's necessary to compete economically in this word and preserve, as best we can, our essential political liberties.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Vote out the "I"ncumbent's...All of them

I wouldn't feel any LESS secure with a ANOTHERforeign company in charge, but it just seems odd that we are kissing the Islamo-Fascist's butts...

Next few elections, I'm voting against anyone with an I by their name, Democan or Republicrat. Time for new Millionaires to be made!

 

[Biker]

Strange how so many Bush supporters are in favor of "profiling" when it comes to airport security, but now use the practice to attack the detracters of portgate.
Incidentally, I have no problem with profiling, so to speak.
Biker

 

[longeyes]

"Which is why I am convinced this is all a Rovian plot to make Chuck Schummer come out in favor of racial profiling. Bow down before Rove -- you can not hope to compete against him, only to acknowledge his infalibility!"

Racial profiling sucks. So does economic profiling. That's the deliberate targeting of certain classes (try middle) for political extinction and the profiting thereby.

 

[PCGS65]

Donning my Nomex.

1. The ports have been run by a foreign owned company for years.
2. There is no actual EVIDENCE that the UAE company would in any way run the ports differently than the British company.
3. The UAE has been very cooperative in the fight against terrorism.
4. Security is handled by our own security agencies, not the port company.
5. The Democrats and Republicans have jumped on this as an easy way to garner public support by appealing to the racist and xenophobic tendencies of many Americans. Both are looking for any way to dump on Bush, as his popularity numbers shrink.
6. The irony of Democrats, of all people, objecting to this, is overwhelming.
7. Killing this sort of deal will play right into the hands of our enemies in the global propaganda war (that we are losing badly, by the way!).

Bring me some kind of EVIDENCE that the new owner of the port company is in any way going to compromise security, and then we have an issue.

Otherwise, this is all just a cheap political grand stand play, reeking of racism. If you buy into this, then let us go around and make sure that none of our security or strategic assests have any Arabs in them at all -- after all, they MIGHT be a security liability. No evidence needed, just the fact that they are Arab/Muslim will do.

<Hunkering down now!>

Egg By the time we have solid evidence UAE ownership has/might compromise security it will be too late!! But that's the american way!
Ever hear of preventative maintenence?
No one knows if we will regret this?
But if we do we can scream hang em high for several months afterwards. Then we can forget about it and say why the heck are we going after these people? It costs too many lives. You know just like 9-11-01
Would not having UAE run the ports cause security problems?

 

[shecky]

Is the U.S. military a "welfare state?"

Think outside the bucks. I don't think we can afford to be philosophical purists on every issue of national concern. When WW II came about we stopped making such fine decisions. Perhaps we should recognize that we are in a permanent state of global war, economics famously being an expression of that war by other means. In general I don't like government control, involvement, subsidization, but there are exceptions needed to make things happen. Was DARPA a bad idea? NASA? Do we need gov't monies to build nuclear reactors? Encourage alternative energy? Build a network of high-speed rail? We are going to have to do what's necessary to compete economically in this word and preserve, as best we can, our essential political liberties.

Thinking "outside the bucks" is what the Democratic party has been doing since the New Deal. The beauty of walking hand in hand with the military is that damn near ANY program can be (and has been) justified in the name of national defense. There is literally no end of "good ideas" deserving some kind of government funds. The Bush Administration seems to agree, the way it's been spending.

Taking on this stance, however, forefeits one's b*tching rights about their eventual tax burden. Eventual, because we aren't actually paying for all the goodies the republican controlled government have purchased.

 

[Jeff White]

shecky said;

Foreign control of the ports is inconsequential. Care to explain how it would be any more dangerous than it is now?

Have you ever heard of a labor dispute? Here's a scenario for you:

It's 2 years in the future. Iran has just demonstrated to the world that they are truly a nuclear power by conducting open air tests of their new hydrogen bomb.

Iran demands that all Crusader forces leave the Middle East. US forces have been drawn down to approx. 60K in theater. The president responds by announcing he's going to bolster the forces in the Middle East. Heavy units at Ft Hood, Ft Carson, Ft Benning, and Ft Stewart begin rail loading their tanks and IFVs for the trip back to the sandbox. The trains begin arriving at the seaports, where the foreign owners have decided to go to war with the longshoremen over contract issues. Work slows, it finally stops.

The administration is now faced with a politically impossible position, does it side with the UAE owners and order the longshoremen back to work? Does it reroute the heavy equipment to other ports?

We've now got an additional 100K troops enroute to the Middle East by air where they are walking around in the FOBs in Kuwait armed and equipped with what they can carry on their backs. How do we sustain them? What have we accomplished except to give the Iranians a big juicy target for their new nuclear capability.

I'm not concerned in the least about the UAE owners permitting containers full of al-queda operatives and nukes into the country. I am concerned about their ability to slow or shut down port operations during a crisis.

Strategic assets need to be under American control. We seem to have lost sight of that.

Jeff

 

[longeyes]

Strategic assets need to be under American control.

In a sentence, that's it.

That, of course, assumes that one's ultimate strategy is promoting America rather than promoting global corporatism.

 

[longeyes]

Bush now says he didn't know about the deal.

Uh-huh.

For a guy who didn't know he certainly swooped down on the issue like a mother hawk. I don't remember hearing anything about, "Hmmm, let me look into this."

 

[shecky]

I'm not concerned in the least about the UAE owners permitting containers full of al-queda operatives and nukes into the country. I am concerned about their ability to slow or shut down port operations during a crisis.

Strategic assets need to be under American control. We seem to have lost sight of that.

This can happen already under domestic control.

 

[Camp David]

I am concerned about their ability to slow or shut down port operations during a crisis....

Legitimate concern Jeff but this has been the case on the West Coast for quite some time... why is it rising to a crisis now on the East Coast?

 

[PCGS65]

by Jeff White I'm not concerned in the least about the UAE owners permitting containers full of al-queda operatives and nukes into the country. I am concerned about their ability to slow or shut down port operations during a crisis.

I agree about causing havoc at our ports in a crisis.
But you might want to re-read and delete the first sentence of this quote from your post. I don't think you realize how it sounds.