OT: Arabs to take control of security of our ports?

[Brando70]

Bush sure picked a hell of a time to get all multicultural.

After reading more about this, I do think it will probably not cause any security problems. However, because it relates to ports, that makes it much more subject to scrutiny than if a UAE-based company was buying Starbucks or the Expos. To top it off, the President's explanation -- that it has been properly vetted -- doesn't inspire a lot of confidence these days. The President shouldn't be surprised that this has bumped "Cheney's Got a Gun" off the top of the charts.

[RobVarak]

Bush sure picked a hell of a time to get all multicultural.

After reading more about this, I do think it will probably not cause any security problems. However, because it relates to ports, that makes it much more subject to scrutiny than if a UAE-based company was buying Starbucks or the Expos. To top it off, the President's explanation -- that it has been properly vetted -- doesn't inspire a lot of confidence these days. The President shouldn't be surprised that this has bumped "Cheney's Got a Gun" off the top of the charts.

True about the confidence-inspiring element. But this was not something that was vetted solely by the White House. There is a statutory framework in place for review by the foreign investment review committee.

And this administration has always been..."pragmatically" multicultural and multilateral.

[Teal]

Bush sure picked a hell of a time to get all multicultural.

After reading more about this, I do think it will probably not cause any security problems. However, because it relates to ports, that makes it much more subject to scrutiny than if a UAE-based company was buying Starbucks or the Expos. To top it off, the President's explanation -- that it has been properly vetted -- doesn't inspire a lot of confidence these days. The President shouldn't be surprised that this has bumped "Cheney's Got a Gun" off the top of the charts.

No, after scouring for more info, I don't see this as a security concern; I think putting the phrase "US Ports" with "Arabs" just sounds scary.

But the Bush administration is history's most multicultural administration. So that doesn't surprise me.

After all that we've been through as a nation in regards to terrorism, and no matter where you steer your ship politically(no pun intended), no American President would put us so intentionally in harm's way, if any harm could come of it. After all the 'War on Terror' stuff, it'd be nuts and seemingly counter to the objective.

But we wouldn't have an ally in Japan and Germany now if we had not taken a chance on them and engaged with what's good about them. It is a goodwill thing, and now that I know that the whole thing about security is a moot point(we continue to handle all security), then I don't see a problem...

But I do understand those who don't see it that way. I really do. And you'll get no argument from me for being wary of it...

[JackB1]

the issue I have with all this right now are twofold:

1) Why didn't Bush know about this deal until after it was completed?
2) Why is he so forceful in his intent to veto any bill that is trying to delay thins until we are better informed?

Teal......how you are so willing to trust that "he wouldn't do anything to put us intentionally in harm's way" is beyond me. He has put thousands of US soldier's intentionally in harms way in Iraq for reasons that were proven to be false/exagerrated/bad intel, etc., so why would you trust him now? He ignored a memo that said "Bin Laden Determined To Strike US Using Airplanes", so again, how you can be so trusting is beyond me.

[Teal]

the issue I have with all this right now are twofold:

1) Why didn't Bush know about this deal until after it was completed?
2) Why is he so forceful in his intent to veto any bill that is trying to delay thins until we are better informed?

Teal......how you are so willing to trust that "he wouldn't do anything to put us intentionally in harm's way" is beyond me. He has put thousands of US soldier's intentionally in harms way in Iraq for reasons that were proven to be false/exagerrated/bad intel, etc., so why would you trust him now? He ignored a memo that said "Bin Laden Determined To Strike US Using Airplanes", so again, how you can be so trusting is beyond me.

I hate this merry go round, but ok...I'll bite one more time...

How are you so willing to immediately think the worst in every situation as it pertains to the office of the president? And did you think this way of Clinton and Mogudishu? A far greater waste of soldier's lives than the liberation of a country.

What the hell drives this intense, conspiracy-laden hatred of Bush? For six years, I've scratched my head at this stuff.

Ah, this is pointless. You're going to think whatever you're going to think regardless. I don't lose sleep at night worrying about Bush throwing everybody to the lions, because he isn't. It's just dumb...

[Brando70]

No, after scouring for more info, I don't see this as a security concern; I think putting the phrase "US Ports" with "Arabs" just sounds scary.

But the Bush administration is history's most multicultural administration. So that doesn't surprise me.

That is true. Bush loves people of all creeds and colors as long as they have money

I am of course just yanking chains. But certainly he isn't looking to put America in harm's way. It's just that this story has illuminated something that many Americans (me included) didn't know: that a foreign entity can operate sections of a port. I guess I always assumed it was more like the airport model, where you would have companies operating there, but not managing their actual space. I know the security is separate, but even so, having employee access could allow for some casing and stuff. I was uneasy about it because ports seem the most vulnerable for some type of 9/11-style attack.

[XXXIV]

It's just that this story has illuminated something that many Americans (me included) didn't know: that a foreign entity can operate sections of a port. I guess I always assumed it was more like the airport model, where you would have companies operating there, but not managing their actual space. I know the security is separate, but even so, having employee access could allow for some casing and stuff. I was uneasy about it because ports seem the most vulnerable for some type of 9/11-style attack.

Exactly. It isnt as bad as what the press flew out with originally(Shocking). UAE isnt in charge of security nor do they get the entire ports. still dont find the situation much less frightening.

It is eye opening.
We have virtually no security at these ports. Only 2-4% of all cargo is inspected? WTF. What happened to National security?Spend some God damned money and get some real security.

I have visions of the movie The Sum of All Fears in My head. How easy would be to have some type of WMD(remember those?) in a cargo container?

[RobVarak]

We have virtually no security at these ports. Only 2-4% of all cargo is inspected? WTF. What happened to National security?Spend some God damned money and get some real security.

I have visions of the movie The Sum of All Fears in My head. How easy would be to have some type of WMD(remember those?) in a cargo container?

2 Billion tons of material passes through US ports annually. Scanning or inspecting even 10% would be enormously difficult, expensive and dilatory. This has been discussed at length since 9/11, but there's no easy, cheap or efficient solution.

[JackB1]

I hate this merry go round, but ok...I'll bite one more time...

How are you so willing to immediately think the worst in every situation as it pertains to the office of the president? And did you think this way of Clinton and Mogudishu? A far greater waste of soldier's lives than the liberation of a country.

<<<I am not thinking the worst, but having ANY foreign country in charge of the day to day operations of these ports just doesn't make any sense. Bush keeps preaching that "fight them over there, so we dont have to fight them over here" crap, but he cuts spending on ports security and he pulls this crap. He says he didnt know about this deal until a few days ago, but yet he's so driven to veto anyone who blocks the deal. Make sense to you?


What the hell drives this intense, conspiracy-laden hatred of Bush? For six years, I've scratched my head at this stuff.

<<<Why do you write off every negative against Bush as "conspiracy"? He is blazing a trail of incompetence that is unprecedented and you just look the other way. His list of failures is a mile long. But you are so hung up on your "party loyalty" or Bush's so-called "Christian morals" that you believe he is really trying to what's best for the American people. I will never forget when Bush was asked if he consulted his father before invading Iraq and he replied, "I consulted a higher father".


Ah, this is pointless. You're going to think whatever you're going to think regardless.
>>> and you're not? anything anti-Bush is some left-wing, created conspiracy. that's realistic.

[JackDiggity]

It is flat-out stupid to suggest that we prohibit companies owned by Arabs or Muslims from doing a job which we have already decided could be done by an overseas company. Perhaps we should prohibit airlines from Islamic countries from flying into the US...or ships from Arab nations from docking in our ports. After all, even though homeland security still inspects these things, they have an ability and insider information that could prove valuable to any terrorist wanting to smuggle something into the US.

It is VERY important that it is perfectly clear that we are not at war with the Arab or Muslim world as a whole, and in the absence of evidence of a direct tie to terrorists will not discriminate against Arab or Islamic nations, companies or organizations.

I couldn't agree more. Some of the comments made today are flat out racist and ignorant. I lost many things on and after 9/11. I hate terrorists. I do not hate Arabs. I spent a few weeks in the UAE and the people are pro American. Sure there are some that align themselves with Osama. But that can be said about any country in the world.

Hell the 9/11 highjackers came through Canada. Should we cut off our relationship with them? What a joke this has become.

[JackB1]

I hate this merry go round, but ok...I'll bite one more time...

How are you so willing to immediately think the worst in every situation as it pertains to the office of the president? And did you think this way of Clinton and Mogudishu? A far greater waste of soldier's lives than the liberation of a country.

<<<I am not thinking the worst, but having ANY foreign country in charge of the day to day operations of these ports just doesn't make any sense. Bush keeps preaching that "fight them over there, so we dont have to fight them over here" crap, but he cuts spending on ports security and he pulls this crap. He says he didnt know about this deal until a few days ago, but yet he's so driven to veto anyone who blocks the deal. Make sense to you?

What the hell drives this intense, conspiracy-laden hatred of Bush? For six years, I've scratched my head at this stuff.

<<<Why do you write off every negative against Bush as "conspiracy"? He is blazing a trail of incompetence that is unprecedented and you just look the other way. His list of failures is a mile long. But you are so hung up on your "party loyalty" or Bush's so-called "Christian morals" that you believe he is really trying to what's best for the American people. I will never forget when Bush was asked if he consulted his father before invading Iraq and he replied, "I consulted a higher father".

Ah, this is pointless. You're going to think whatever you're going to think regardless.

>>> and you're not? anything anti-Bush is some left-wing, created conspiracy. that's realistic.

[JackDiggity]

I am not thinking the worst, but having ANY foreign country in charge of the day to day operations of these ports just doesn't make any sense. Bush keeps preaching that "fight them over there, so we dont have to fight them over here" crap, but he cuts spending on ports security and he pulls this crap. He says he didnt know about this deal until a few days ago, but yet he's so driven to veto anyone who blocks the deal. Make sense to you?

So were you pissed that the Brits had this contract or did you even know?

[JackB1]

I didn't know.

So were you pissed that the Brits had this contract or did you even know?

[JackDiggity]

But you are so hung up on your "party loyalty" or Bush's so-called "Christian morals" that you believe he is really trying to what's best for the American people. I will never forget when Bush was asked if he consulted his father before invading Iraq and he replied, "I consulted a higher father".

What does religion have to do with this? Why is it whenever Teal is involved in a debate religion comes up? He hasn't said a f***in word about God. Yet you throw this up in his face. This pisses me off to no end. I swear I am really starting to hate the masses that are asses that make up this f***in country.

[Brando70]

I think the reaction has as much to do with how this information was presented and the way Bush reacted to the reaction. You pick up the paper or go on the Web and hear that an Arab-based company is going to manage some sections of very busy American ports. The UAE is one of the more progressive countries in the Middle East (like Qatar), but still, the idea of infiltration immediately comes to mind.

Then Bush says "this has been reviewed and there's no cause for alarm." Then the White House says the President didn't know about the deal ahead of time, which naturally makes you wonder how closely the President reviewed it before saying the deal was fine.

It's as much of a perception issue as anything. There may be a misunderstanding, but I don't think there's an overreaction considering this came as a big surprise to a lot of people, including Congress.

[wco81]

No, after scouring for more info, I don't see this as a security concern; I think putting the phrase "US Ports" with "Arabs" just sounds scary.

But the Bush administration is history's most multicultural administration. So that doesn't surprise me.

That is true. Bush loves people of all creeds and colors as long as they have money

I am of course just yanking chains. But certainly he isn't looking to put America in harm's way. It's just that this story has illuminated something that many Americans (me included) didn't know: that a foreign entity can operate sections of a port. I guess I always assumed it was more like the airport model, where you would have companies operating there, but not managing their actual space. I know the security is separate, but even so, having employee access could allow for some casing and stuff. I was uneasy about it because ports seem the most vulnerable for some type of 9/11-style attack.

It's just another thing that's being outsourced. Some domestic companies are among the parties complaining but those are probably competitors who wanted the contract for themselves.

Bush reportedly didn't know anything about this but since his cabinet secretaries signed off, he's going to circle the wagons.

Now what if something does go wrong through the ports? Well since the cabinet secretaries and Bush himself defended this, they will of course blame the intelligence agencies and the staff who told them this would be okay to approve. :p

[JackB1]

Jack....you are right...religion has nothing to do with this, but it seems to have a lot to do with Teal's loyalty to Bush and his willingness to overlook all his shortcomings, as it does with a large portion of the religous right and so called evangelist population. Teal has brought up religion many times in the past and his beliefs are well documented. Maybe that remark was uncalled for in this discussion and if so, I appologize. I am just frustrated when Bush supporters downplay everything as a "left-wing conspiracy" and refuse to acknowledge any of his shortcomings.

Also, this thread was never about "anti-Arab" stuff and that crap was also uncalled for. The main point which I would like to get back to, is that why are we outsourcing ANYTHING to do with the security of our country's ports? Why do we spend all this money on airport security, but we cut back on port security? We seem to have huge holes of vulnerability witn our borders and ports and I hope that it never comes back to bite us in the ass.

But you are so hung up on your "party loyalty" or Bush's so-called "Christian morals" that you believe he is really trying to what's best for the American people. I will never forget when Bush was asked if he consulted his father before invading Iraq and he replied, "I consulted a higher father".

What does religion have to do with this? Why is it whenever Teal is involved in a debate religion comes up? He hasn't said a f***in word about God. Yet you throw this up in his face. This pisses me off to no end. I swear I am really starting to hate the masses that are asses that make up this f***in country.

[XXXIV]

I am just frustrated when Bush supporters downplay everything as a "left-wing conspiracy" and refuse to acknowledge any of his shortcomings.

Amazing familiar to the Clinton years and his supporters. The Bush Sr years and his supporters. The Reagan years and his supprters. The Carter years and his supporters. etc etc etc...

[Teal]

Jack....you are right...religion has nothing to do with this, but it seems to have a lot to do with Teal's loyalty to Bush and his willingness to overlook all his shortcomings, as it does with a large portion of the religous right and so called evangelist population. Teal has brought up religion many times in the past and his beliefs are well documented. Maybe that remark was uncalled for in this discussion and if so, I appologize. I am just frustrated when Bush supporters downplay everything as a "left-wing conspiracy" and refuse to acknowledge any of his shortcomings.

Also, this thread was never about "anti-Arab" stuff and that crap was also uncalled for. The main point which I would like to get back to, is that why are we outsourcing ANYTHING to do with the security of our country's ports? Why do we spend all this money on airport security, but we cut back on port security? We seem to have huge holes of vulnerability witn our borders and ports and I hope that it never comes back to bite us in the ass.

But you are so hung up on your "party loyalty" or Bush's so-called "Christian morals" that you believe he is really trying to what's best for the American people. I will never forget when Bush was asked if he consulted his father before invading Iraq and he replied, "I consulted a higher father".

What does religion have to do with this? Why is it whenever Teal is involved in a debate religion comes up? He hasn't said a f***in word about God. Yet you throw this up in his face. This pisses me off to no end. I swear I am really starting to hate the masses that are asses that make up this f***in country.

Jackb:
My loyalties have nothing to do with it. Common sense has everything to do with it. Unlike you, I care enough about the truth to research beyond whatever first headline agrees with my viewpoint. You attack me when you have nothing left to say-good for you. That must make you feel all validated or something. And you do it by bringing out the most ludicrous, unrelated baloney you can find. Again, good for you.

The ports were run by a British company before this. I didn't know. But for me, after finding out that we weren't running the ports ourselves, it changed my outlook some on this. And then doing some research on the UAE, I'm even less inclined to be nervous about this.

You just continue to run with the first ball you brought to the game-even though it is quickly running out of air. Forget about all the holes in the ball...you'll just blow more hot air into it-that'll do the trick, right?

Look, come after me all you want. You think that makes you Mr. Big Guy, I suppose. I'm not impressed...

[Teal]

double post

[JackB1]

Please dont make generalizations about me. You know me about as much as I know you.....not very much. I do care about the truth. I do reasearch past the headlines.....in fact when a headline peaks my interest, I quicky scan multiple news websites to get other viewpoints, as we all know how biased some sources can be.

Now you talk about "common sense" and common sense to me, would be to take some time and research this issue instead of trying to quickly pass it thru like Bush is trying to do. He admits he only heard of this a few days ago and then in the same breath he threatens to veto any motion that attempts to block it. Today he is telling us "not to worry, that our ports are secure". How about showing us how they will be just as secure with the UAE company running things. Talk is cheap. Just saying "everything is OK" doesn't make it OK.

If dismissing every anti-Bush statement as "ludicrous unrelated baloney" makes you feel better, than go right ahead.

My loyalties have nothing to do with it. Common sense has everything to do with it. Unlike you, I care enough about the truth to research beyond whatever first headline agrees with my viewpoint. You attack me when you have nothing left to say-good for you. That must make you feel all validated or something. And you do it by bringing out the most ludicrous, unrelated baloney you can find. Again, good for you.

[JackDiggity]

Jack....you are right...religion has nothing to do with this, but it seems to have a lot to do with Teal's loyalty to Bush and his willingness to overlook all his shortcomings, as it does with a large portion of the religous right and so called evangelist population. Teal has brought up religion many times in the past and his beliefs are well documented. Maybe that remark was uncalled for in this discussion and if so, I appologize. I am just frustrated when Bush supporters downplay everything as a "left-wing conspiracy" and refuse to acknowledge any of his shortcomings.

Also, this thread was never about "anti-Arab" stuff and that crap was also uncalled for. The main point which I would like to get back to, is that why are we outsourcing ANYTHING to do with the security of our country's ports? Why do we spend all this money on airport security, but we cut back on port security? We seem to have huge holes of vulnerability witn our borders and ports and I hope that it never comes back to bite us in the ass.

It's all good brother. Just a heat of the moment thing.

What were the cuts made in port security? I haven't seen those. Got any links? I am interested in this.

Our borders are and have been a joke. It did bite us in the ass on 9/11. We are such an open society it's almost a given it will happen again.

By the way, the Brits are not the only country operating our ports. China has control of some West Coast ports. Another interesting point is that no American company made a bid on this contract. The reason.....Labor costs.

[wco81]

I heard these foreign companies manage the ports (specifically terminals) but they have to hire local workers. You wouldn't think they would get papers (work permits) to bring over stevadores from overseas to work American ports.

Maybe they have a way to not use unionized workers or they use more automation to eliminate the manual labor work.

Some of the most outspoken critics have been Republican members of Congress who say their constituents are up in arms.

Just the symbolism of Arabs having some role in our ports.

[JackDiggity]

Just the symbolism of Arabs having some role in our ports.

Pretty sad. I guess this country hasn't come as far as I thought in regards to racism.

[JackB1]

I read somwhere that Bush recently (in the past year) cut spending on port security......I will try and find the article.

I also read today in the USA Today an article about all the Foreign companies that own large portions of the US in railways, airplanes, airports, etc. All part of capitalism, I guess and living in a free society.
If we HAVE to have foreign countries owning our ports, we should at least make sure all the safeguards are in place and do our research upfront, instead of being sorry later.

Funny thing is, I believe that this administration has put way too much emphasis on fighting terrorism and neglecting other areas that have a much better chance of killing you first......healthcare, disease, poverty, crime...all in our own country. This was evident in the Hurricane Katrina
debacle. Almost as many people died needlessly there as did on 9/11. Lets face it, most of us have a better chance of getting killed by a maniac on our highways or by a heart attack, than we do by the hand of a terrorist. I'm not saying we should neglect homeland security.....just be smarter about it and have a better balance. I think the terror threat is overblown by politicians to win votes. It's something that strikes a chord in people. It's more moving than saying something like "I will do more for cancer research this year".

Jack....you are right...religion has nothing to do with this, but it seems to have a lot to do with Teal's loyalty to Bush and his willingness to overlook all his shortcomings, as it does with a large portion of the religous right and so called evangelist population. Teal has brought up religion many times in the past and his beliefs are well documented. Maybe that remark was uncalled for in this discussion and if so, I appologize. I am just frustrated when Bush supporters downplay everything as a "left-wing conspiracy" and refuse to acknowledge any of his shortcomings.

Also, this thread was never about "anti-Arab" stuff and that crap was also uncalled for. The main point which I would like to get back to, is that why are we outsourcing ANYTHING to do with the security of our country's ports? Why do we spend all this money on airport security, but we cut back on port security? We seem to have huge holes of vulnerability witn our borders and ports and I hope that it never comes back to bite us in the ass.

It's all good brother. Just a heat of the moment thing.

What were the cuts made in port security? I haven't seen those. Got any links? I am interested in this.

Our borders are and have been a joke. It did bite us in the ass on 9/11. We are such an open society it's almost a given it will happen again.

By the way, the Brits are not the only country operating our ports. China has control of some West Coast ports. Another interesting point is that no American company made a bid on this contract. The reason.....Labor costs.