Outsourcing national security

[weenie]

<p>Oh wait — Suddenly the GOP responds!</p>

<p>

CAPITOL HILL Senate Republican leader Bill Frist is trying to put the brakes on a deal letting a company from the United Arab Emirates take over some operations at six major U-S ports.
Frist wants the Bush administration to delay the contract while it conducts “a more extensive review.” Frist says if the administration can’t stop the deal, he’ll introduce legislation to put it on hold.

</p>

<p>

The Republican governors of New York and Maryland say they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states.

</p>

<p>

…Republican Congressman Peter King, who is chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, would push the legislation as soon as Congress resumes on Monday, Schumer‘s office said in a statement.
King said on Sunday the Bush administration had failed to put adequate security conditions on the deal…

</p>

<p>

Senator Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said: “It’s unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history. Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now?”

</p>

<p>

Frist’s announcement came after word arose Monday evening that House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly-minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be “flexing muscle” against the Bush administration-approved transaction.

</p>

<p>Oh those crazy lefties just starting trouble all over the place.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>UAE</p>

<p>still flogs women for committing adultery
has not had any elections</p>

<p>– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.</p>

<p>– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.</p>

<p>– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.</p>

<p>– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.</p>

[weenie]

<p>The howling goes on…</p>

<p>

“On the face of it, it makes no sense,” said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who has a sent a letter to Bush, joining the chorus of Washington lawmakers asking the president to block the sale.

</p>

<p>

“I’m confident that we in the Congress will raise enough stink that we will [prevent the deal],” said U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.,…

</p>

<p>Can you imagine if the Democrats were running the country right now??? Imagine the HOWLING (no, it would go right to impeachment I guess) over an illegal war, illegal wiretapping, national debt, illegal immigration, media manipulation, Katrina; oh, heavens, the list just goes on and on. And now - trying to tell us that it’s just fine to hand over control of our ports to the UAE. If Hamas wants to buy Kennedy Airport do we let them? How about the Taliban - can they buy the nuclear power plant near your house?</p>

<p>I’m starting to feel sorry for the conservatives as they try desperately to keep up appearances.</p>

[mini]

<p>There’s no question in my mind that such an action on the part of a Democratic administration would likely lead to impeachment, but whether it should is another question.</p>

<p>Hey, the domestic terrorist sleeper cells managed to take out the OKC Federal Buidling without any access to the ports. (But they did have training from the U.S. military, as opposed to the 9/11 folks, who had training from retired U.S. military.)</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>This is a pretty balanced editorial from a Miami paper - no hyterics, just asking for some time to evaluate the deal more thoroughly.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13921417.htm[/url]”>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13921417.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue. What I am hopeful about is that perhaps some real attention will be paid to our port security as a result of this action.
People in this administration have ties to this company (surprise), which could mean that the review was not as thorough as it might have been with a completely neutral body doing the vetting. The fact that King and Pataki are both upset makes me think that this thing was rushed and not checked out adequately. It may pass muster in the end, but given the current state of affairs in the middle east and the fact that this company is state-controlled, the deal should be put on hold until Congress, at least, is satisfied.</p>

[weenie]

<p>From a president who NEVER vetoes anything:</p>

<p>

President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run six major U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.

</p>

<p>And they are trying to call Al Gore treasonous?! What is the relationship here anyway? It feels like blackmail: You sell us your port or we won’t support your “war on terror.” Nice foreign policy. Nice position to find ourselves in.</p>

[barrons]

<p>A more reasoned account. They have been a very good friend to the US overall. Excellent for an Arab country.</p>

<p><a href=“http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-02-21T201433Z_01_N21145126_RTRUKOC_0_US-PORTS-BIAS.xml&rpc=22[/url]”>http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-02-21T201433Z_01_N21145126_RTRUKOC_0_US-PORTS-BIAS.xml&rpc=22&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[garland]

<p>From that “liberal” (not!) rag, the New York Daily News:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html[/url]”>http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.</p>

<p>One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

</p>

<p>It also quotes some more of those, to Barrons, unreasonable Republicans who oppose the deal.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>You consider the race card article more “reasoned?”</p>

<p>The problem is not Arab Americans. The problem is an Arab GOVERNMENT operating our ports. This is a state controlled entity.
This government may be our ally now, but can we guarantee that this will always be? Do we want ANY foreign government running our ports, much less a government with questions regarding their Al Queda ties? Why would we?</p>

<p>We just need answers, and a willingness to answer our concerns. It’s wrong to assume that any question about this deal is race based. Really slimy. I don’t think that this tactic will shut people up this time.</p>

[mini]

<p>"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.</p>

<p>The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. "</p>

<p>Capitalists all. What’s this about “foreign” control? U.S. goverment has ties to Saudi Arabia, that has/had strong Al Queda ties. Why shouldn’t another entity run our ports, if they are the highest bidder?</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>When the “other entity” is a foreign government, more than a quick
pass through by folks in the administration who have ties to these people is important. </p>

<p>And who said we’re happy about the Saudi’s? We’re dependent on them,
no denying that.</p>

[garland]

<p>Good point, Mini! ;)</p>

[mini]

<p>“When the “other entity” is a foreign government, more than a quick
pass through by folks in the administration who have ties to these people is important.”</p>

<p>Why do you think there is such a distinction between “government” and “corporation”? To the corporate socialists, government is just a tool anyway, to mediate their interests and keep things smoothly running. Yes, the Dubai Ports World may be “owned” by the UAE government; but did you ever stop to think who “owns” the UAE government? (or, for that matter, the U.S. one?)</p>

[barrons]

<p>The best way to make real friends internationally is to have mutually beneficial financial interests. The more Arab states are invested in the US the less likely they are to want to see it damaged. Nixon knew that when he opened China a crack. Now China is slowly opening itself to international investment and trade. $$$ makes the world go around in a good way. The more countries that appreciate this the better off everyone will be.
Worry about countries who don’t want to invest in the US.</p>

[mini]

<p>I agree. It is wonderful to know that Wal-Mart has now moved its international purchasing office to Ghangzhou, where the political climate is much more to their liking. And they now know to ask why we can’t be more like them.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>

To the corporate socialists, government is just a tool anyway, to mediate their interests and keep things smoothly running.

</p>

<p>Sure, and true enough, mini.
I’m not ready to throw in the towel just yet, though.</p>

[barrons]

<p>If you want to complain about companies buying overseas complain about stores like Nordstrom that buy stuff made in many of the same factories in the far east and then mark it up 500% instead of the 50% WalMart might charge.</p>

[mini]

<p>Quite right! I think it high time that Nordstrom (and Macy’s and the rest) move their corporate offices to places which are more politically in tune with their needs. Boeing too. </p>

<p>As for “national security”, don’t you think we really could get a better job done if we farmed the entire job out? I mean, $2 trillion for Iraq alone is an awful lot of drachmas - why, we could buy an entire nation and its people for that, and let them do the dirty work.</p>

[A.S.A.P]

<p>“The best way to make real friends internationally is to have mutually beneficial financial interests.”</p>

<p>Yes, and “mutual” is the key word here. Balance and oversight is what we’re after - not isolationism.</p>

<p>The Saudi’s have a great financial interest in our continuing solvency - yet most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia.</p>

<p>What worries many of us is the lack of oversight -we want to be assured that the fox isn’t the only one guarding the hen house.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>I wondered why Bush would waste political capital (from his rapidly dwindling supply) on threatening to fight Congress on this one. As soon as I heard him threaten a veto, I figured there must be a good ol’ boy tie-in somewhere.</p>