I think Bush has lost his mind
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): I think Bush has lost his mind
Does anyone think having the United Arab Emirates in charge of US ports is a good thing? I wasn't a huge Bush supporter (nor did I like Kerry or Gore) before, but this whole thing just blows my mind. What is he thinking?
It does scare me. And, I learned today by reading the papers and listening to NPR on the way home, some Chinese companies run several of our other ports. One difference here, however, is that the United Arab Emirate's business is a UAE government owned and controlled business.
The President threatens to veto any legislation which would postpone, put a hold on, or stop this plan. Even Senator Frist, who is a rock-ribbed Bush Republican, wants the deal at least put on hold. One of the ports in this deal is the New Jersey port, right across the river from my city, Philadelphia.
Come to think of it, the UAE is buying the business from a British company, and why do we have any companies that are not U.S. owned and operated doing something as sensitive as running any of our ports.
I usually don't watch the news, so I have never even heard this. I am HUGE Bush supporter but this sounds pretty crazy to me. I can't image what he is thinking. I am going to look this up so I can get up to date on things!!
This is outrageous! We might as well contract out the Dept. of Homeland Security to them!
Ame
Um, I thought he lost it a long time ago. Then again, I wasn't sure he ever had a brain to begin with. This is pretty terrifying, my BIL is a Coastie, and I don't know how this will affect him, but I think we ought to keep our ports under our control at all times. We have enough safety issues as is.
There is a arguement out by Bill O'Reilly that it is such an insult to our very goood friends the United Arab Emirates not to hire the United Arab Emirates company that they might stop helping us in the middle east. I think they have the contact already. The United Arab Emirates helps us with intelligence in the middle east. We have very very few friends in the middle east.
The United ARab Emirates takes alot of heat being our friends. If you slap the United Arab Emirates you slap Saudia Arabia and Kuwait and we use their ports and military intelligence. The United Arab Emirates is some of the weathiest states in the world. Huge oil deposits. We are stupid enough to still be dependant on oil too. Half the population of United ARab Emirates is south asian. Includes 4 million people living there - 3 million live outside the country. They have so much money there they have to go outside the country to find stuff to buy.
United ARab Emirates is the third largest oil producer after Saudia Arabia and Iran. Its friendliness to the west has lead some to call it the Hong Kong of the east.
Most of New York Citys buildings are owned by the Arabs and Japan.
He said we should monitor the company and not slap them in the face.
Sounds like an important arguement. He also said there was alot of lies about the United Arab Emirates circulating.
I was very surprised Bill O'Reilly said this... I am not sure what I think about it and am glad I am not making the decision. Very convincing arguement.
This company bought the company from a British company for millions of dollars. The compnay has the contact already I believe.
Ditto Crystal. And Ditto Ginny - it scares the heck out of me, particularly living in a port city........
The UAE is an ally and I can't see any more problem with it owning the port then England...But then I think when it comes to something of such critical importance to security, maybe it shouldn't be in private hands period.
I don't find O'Reilly's argument that good though. A different spin on it is potentially compromising security isn't as important keeping s friend from getting offended.
Actually it is slapping three countries faces. Saudia Arabia - Kuwait - and United Arab Emirates.
It isn't like we are going to have an influx of unknown arabs to do the security. They will keep the personnel the company has already. These rich Arabs don't want to be security guards making 7 dollars an hour.
Lets see if we have no safe ports then their expensive oil won't get in our country safely. Do you think they want that?
United Arab Emirates is the most western of all the Arab countries.
I don't think we have any other friends over there in the middle east besides Israel.
Who do you think buy most of the US treasury Treasuries? Arabs and everyone else. Our entire economy rest of Arab money and oil.
The next time you and I buy oil for your car or house you and I are buying Arab oil. Or venezula (we are enemies of them too) We are all contributing to the problems with our big cars and SUVS. Cheap oil made this country. We act like our country is in a bubble but our economy is Global based and supported and dependant on other countries.
They could raise the price of gasoline to 8 bucks a gallon and lets watch what happens. Our country is owned by foreigners.
This is exactly what our enemies want us to do... Isolate ourselves and make more enemies and stay out of the Middle East. If we can't use our friends(Saudia Arabia and Kuwait) ports then that would be an interesting expensive war.
Iraq had invaded Kuwait our largest oil producers. Iraq was threatening our oil supply. If we don't have any oil we can't run our country. Actually we can't run the war without the Arab oil. Now that is interesting...
In England they pay about 6 dollar a gallon for gas. (mostly taxes though) We have one of the lowest gasoline prices in the world here.
Anyway it is something to think about. I think now if you build a new house our government will buy you the solar heating for the new house. They are finally wising up maybe.... maybe.... Anyway it is just interesting. We will see what happens.
The thing that the terrorist want is for us not to be friends with any Arab country in the middle east and to isolate ourselves. We can't do that because we are dependant on the middle east. The terrorist would love it if we were all afraid of any Arab. I think we are beyond that though hopefully.
There's a big difference in being "afraid" of all Arab countries, or in real estate being owned by foreign corporations and having foreign corporations - especially ones that have the potential to harbor terrorists - run our ports! I'm sorry, but here I disagree with Bush - and am ususally supportive.
No foreign country should have a contract to run our ports or any other place of entry into the United States. It is a huge hole in security.
Remember - the 9/11 terrorists were citizens of Saudi Arabia. What's to prevent a "sleeper" cell in a Saudi corporation that runs a US port from bringing in terrorists or planning an attack? Abdsolutely nothing!
Yes, they are our allies, and we purchase huge amounts of oil from them. They need us as much as we need them. Without our dollars purchasing their oil they are stuck.
I don't see this as a slap in the face. I see it as a strengthening of our security.
Anybody know if other foreign corporations have contracts to run our ports or airports or border crossings? I'd be curious to know.
Ame
I could be wrong, but wouldn't this be just a change in ownership and nothing more?? It wouldn't change the way we patrol or inspect or what control the government has over any of the ports would it??
This from MichNews.com
But most puzzling to lawmakers is how Dubai, which provided most of the financing for the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, will now be overseeing the very port where nearly 3,000 lives were claimed that day. And Dubai was the base for much of the terrorist planning and operations for the attacks in New York and Washington, according to the FBI.
Since the Bush administration considers Dubai and the UAE a vital ally in the war against terrorism, it approves of the sale. However, it raises vital questions of U.S. national security and homeland security policies at ports where presently less than 5% of all cargo is inspected. And having an Islamist nation in charge of U.S. ports arguably makes little in allowing it to dictate port operations, given that U.S. ports remain top terrorist targets.
With the Department of Homeland Security still struggling to implement systems and operations to secure U.S. ports, allowing Dubai to run the ports could be a gateway for contraband, weapons of mass destruction and arsenals, as well as hiring practices without proper scrutiny, including the quality of security which would have to conform to U.S. law. Steve Coleman, Port Authority of New York/New Jersey spokesman stated, “We need to take a real close look at security before we approve such a company.”
James Lewis, a former State and Commerce Department contractor, sums it up by saying, “It’s in Dubai’s interest to make sure this runs well.” And unfortunately, it will take an act of Congress to prevent the finality of the sale in what will become the world’s second largest port operator. Hopefully, cooler heads in the Congress will prevail in the best interests of the U.S. in order to supercede those of foreign interests, all in the name of globalization. For the greatest asset to the U.S. is the American people, who not only deserve the protection of their government but one which vows to do its best to prevent terrorism on its shores ever again. Anything less is just unacceptable.
Copyright by Diane M. Grassi
Vicki, I don't know. A change in ownership can mean anything. As it is, there is little oversight at our ports. The whole thing is scary. There is also a plan afoot to allow foreign ownership of US airlines. Again, scary.
Ame
This is what happens when you have friends in high places. Bizarre decisions that make no sense to anyone else are made. It's kinda like when a totally incompetent woman gets promoted to a position she is not qualified for and the HR department starts spinning it saying she has potential and she promised to take some classes at night and then you learn the woman is the manager's mistress and *then* it all makes sense.
It is now being said that Bush didn't even know about this decision until it was made. This morning I was watching the Today Show, and they had a terror expert on who said that it will make no difference about how things are done at the ports. All security measures will still be under US control. I don't know if what he says is true or not. So, I am not sure how I really feel about this.
That is the story that I heard the other day too Debbie. That it makes no difference who owns the ports, everything that has to do with securing them will remain the same. That this is nothing more than a change in ownership.
From everything I've read and heard since this first came out, it appears it will have absolutely no effect on port security, and that the UAE is, as Mideast countries go, supportive and friendly.
I do think, however, that this administration has a "tin ear" when it comes to understanding what gets people upset. If they had talked to Congress beforehand, instead of now, after the fact, all this hooraw could probably have been avoided.
Call me a radical, but I think the United States should own their own ports.
Ginny, I understand what your saying, really I do. BUT, if the media would also make sure they have complete stories before running stories that get people all fired up, this could have all been avoided also!!
Another thing to consider is that this UAE company is a state company, not private. You'll effectively be having a foreign government running the ports.
Other issues include the seeming hypocrasy of using security to excuse everything from ignoring the geneva convention to spying on citizens while foreign ownership of a port is shrugged at and that may have apparently been handled outside of the proper and legal channels.
Opposition crosses party lines (scroll down 'till you see "(Watch how members of both parties oppose deal -- 1:14)"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html
I have no doubt that racism has a part in this but if people are angry about this for the wrong reasons, they may still be right in the thought that a port should not be in foreign hands, british or UAE. What might be the next question to ask is whether they should even be in private hands, foreign or domestic.
Vicki, yes, it would be nice of the media had the "full story", but it's not really the media's fault it doesn't have the full story. If they wait for more information, that information may never come. Most administrations (though I do think this one and Nixon's are the worst) are very secretive, and stories usually come out in pieces - someone blows a whistle or leaks a story, it is publicized, the administration responds and tries to excuse or cover up, more leaks and more unidentified sources, and eventually the full story. And the full story may well be nothing when it is all out in the open, but getting it out in the open isn't easy.
I was reading an article a few days ago where material that had been declassified and was in the stacks and available at the National Library has suddenly been reclassified, with the story that it should never have been declassified. Some of the material is material from the Korean War that a scholar was using for research.
I do understand that some stories come out in bits and pieces, but in this case, it wouldn't have been to hard for them add some more to the first release. The very day this story started breaking, they could have done just a wee bit of checking into it and stressed the facts that it has nothing to do with security and that all of that. That is not what they chose to stress. (I believe many places didn't even report that) The "spin" they put on things to get everyone all hyped up is just plain silly anymore.
Well, Vicki, what the press was reporting was what prominent and important people were saying. They were reporting. Reporting doesn't mean adding to the story unless you are reporting what someone else says or does in response to the first person or first report (I'm not talking about investigative reporting, a la Woodward & Bernstein - just plain reporting). Many of the editorials I have been reading, including in my Philadelphia Inquirer, are basically saying, hey, no big deal and no security problem - they looked into it further and expressed opinions. But I don't expect reporters to do much more than report. Maybe they should have learned more, and followed up on stories. But the story was things like Bill Frist saying he will sponsor legislation, and other major Republican figures chastising the President for threatening a veto and saying they'd vote to override it.
If the media made sure they had the "complete" story - and how would they know, in the early hours or days - they'd be publishing a lot less and what they published wouldn't be particularly timely. The "spin" wasn't from the media, it was from the people speaking to the media - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Pennsylvania's own Rick Santorum, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, Senators Kerry and Kennedy and Carl Levin (to add a few Democrats to the mix), and NY Governor Pataki and Maryland Governor Erlich. If you want to criticize people for not waiting until they had the full story, criticize the people who were talking to the media, not the media for reporting it.
So you don't think they have any obligation to report full and true stories? As long as they report what someone tell them, that is enough??
I think if anyone can figure out what the "full" and "true" story is, good luck to them. I expect reporters to report what is told to them by whomever, and to identify who the whomever is and the position the whomever holds. Unless they are investigative reporters, I don't expect them to dig very much behind what is being told to them by a public figure or putatively authoritative figure (and in the case of unidentified sources, most responsible newspapers require a reporter to seek to confirm the information from at least one or two known, reliable sources or to see actual documents/photos/etc.).
For me, a reporter's obligation is to report truthfully and fully what is told to them - if they distort that, then I have problems with it. But reporters are not responsible for the less than "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that is told to them, only for reporting what is told to them. Do you really want reporters trying to decide whether, for example, Governor Pataki (a) knows the whole truth and (b) is telling them the whole truth? Whatever the whole truth may be - which I surely don't have a copyright on.
I do, however, believe that government officials speaking officially for my government have an obligation to tell the truth and to tell the whole truth (except when doing so would cause security risks).
All I can say is that we have way different expectations of what they should/should not be doing.
I know I am jumping in late here, but I had a busy week! 
There are a number of other ways to look at this port deal.
Does anyone remember how we defeated communism in the Soviet Union (besides with the arms race)? Capitalism. We flooded the USSR with opportunities to partake in a free market. We showed the people how they can bear their own fruit which exposed to them the flaws in their government, and they realized that there was a better way to live. The same thing is happening in communist China. The same thing happens in Arab countries. It goes hand in hand with what the president has said all along- free nations are instrumental in defeating terrorism. This includes nations in which their citizens take part in free market economics as well, and which is all that the UAE is doing here.
Now, I am well aware that there have been numerous mistakes in the Bush presidency. Hurricane relief, border control, spending, etc. and in addition I do not think that the president communicates enough with the public. However, if there is one area in which he is strong, where he gains the most support, and which he has spent his entire presidency building on, it is the war on terror. He has never pulled any punches when it comes to where he stands on protecting our nation from "the bad guys." So I just do not believe that he would put his entire agenda on the line for some port deal. He may be wrong sometimes, but no one can be that utterly stupid.
A question I have is - why is it that it isn't okay to profile Arabs in airport security, but now suddenly we can't trust them to do business in our ports? We waste our time and resources searching 84-yr-old ladies in airports, and then we have a major hissy fit when it comes to doing business with the UAE.
Oh, and by the way, does anyone remember that under Bill Clinton, Lockheed sent 80 F-16 planes to the UAE in 1998 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/000305-f-16-usia1.htm and it didn't cause a ripple of attention?
Now, I may be wrong, but this seems like more of a business arrangement. It's not that they are going to actually own the ports. They are only transferring ownership of the day to day operations and the actual containers that are shipped in and out.
Furthermore, the US is still in control of security at these ports in question. In fact, security may improve because I read somewhere that the UAE had to agree to numerous conditions included in the negotiations.
I agree with Feona that we need allies, especially in the war on terror. Isn't that what John Kerry said he wanted when he ran for president?
It also seems to me that with all the cash the UAE is putting up for this deal, and given the number of countries in which they also currently run ports (which I think is in the dozens), it would be foolish of them to allow use of our ports for terrorist activities. If they get caught, which they would eventually, then there wouldn't be any country in the world that would trust them enough to do business with them any further. They would lose their tails.
So the way I see it, it's more a matter of economics and common business sense.
I have wondered, why doesn't the US own these ports? Why do we outsource them like we do everything else?
I found a cool article by Associated Press columnist Bruce Meyerson, and he talked specifically about outsourcing. He refers to outsourcing as the growing pains of spreading capitalism, and that in every country where we are outsourcing jobs pay is starting to rise. When other countries' standard of living rises, then that is an economic benefit for the global economy, and for the US.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13983763.htm
After speaking to my dad, who worked on the Delaware River Port Authority, and is an officer in NJ, he said pretty much EVERYONE in the PA/NJ/NY area is really upset by this. Apparently, PA and NJ WERE fighting over the dredging of the river, because of possible toxins... these people were ready to kill each other in press conferences, but as soon as this port deal went public these "enemies" united to speak out against it. We have a lot of traffic come through those ports, and these people are our "friends" but have had ties with the 9/11 hijackers, we don't need to even open up the possibility of another attack. I'm against outsourcing in general, there are millions of Americans who need jobs, but to outsource our PORTS is insane, IMO. If I were a New Yorker, I'd be especially angry... didn't they suffer enough?
I think maybe the information the FBI gets in investigating terror cells as valuable. Like they investigate the Mob or something....
This foreign company owned by a foreign governemnt is going to be so monitored by our governemnt that our ports are going to monitored to the millionth degree and we are going to be safer than ever. When the bid comes up again and they want it to make it under federal government employees only or US company only, I think that is great. This is all politics now. How the US saves face and how the foreign company saves face. I am sure port security will come under US government control soon.
I don't think New York uses it ports much. I think they move people through its ports. They truck everything in I think. New York is a financial capital and a fashion capital not so much any shipping capital. We have not an inch of space in New York city.
I think 1 in 25 big huge massive cargo boxes are checked. Can't anything get into the country?
The money isn't going to the right places.
I remember being in Hawaii and seeing some of the security at the ports.
Even the employees at the Hawaii cruise ports couldn't keep a straight face about checking under the cabs to see if bombs were attached to the bottom of the cabs at Honololu cruise port so when the cabs drove by the port they could not blow the port up. But it was giving people jobs so everyone was happy.
There are 8-12 million people in New York. You can blow up anything you want whenever you want here in New York. Security has to be a show because there are 12 million people walking around... What are the police going to do check 12 million people and 12 million bags and car and vans for bombs?
We joke that there is one cop on every bridge. So if you have a big sign on you van that says "Bomb" they can catch you. Else they would have to stop 12 million cars a day and check them. So you can blow up any bridge in New York or anywhere. Also half the city might pass for Arab too so you could not check just arab car or vans.
Every state got the money for protecting the state against terrorist and I am glad people got jobs. Maybe we are safer but here in New York I think it is impossible. But it is nice they are trying. They can poisen the water supply in about a hour if they want.
Israel has the best security I have heard. They can't control the bombs there at all. It is too easy to blow things up. Of course we are all the way over here so the terrorist have to get here so it is hard for them to blow things up thank goodness.
They did some sort of bombing or something in London with the trains or buses.. I can't remember. Do you know how easy that would be to do in New York city subway or the port authority (train and buses terminal) Everyone just went to work the next day. What else were they to do? They have bills to pay. They have the soldier at the port authority so if you have a sign on you that says "Bomber" they can catch you. I think like 3 million people go through the port authority ever day.
They were checking random backpacks in the subway in New York City after the London incident, but you could just leave if you didn't want your backpack seached and go up ten blocks and catch a different train. I remember thinking that people would leave their drugs and guns and knives at home so they could get on the subway easier.
The New York ports are in New Jersey and there are a few ports in Brooklyn but I don't know were they are... I saw alot of closed ports in Brooklyn when I lived there. The ports are turning away business. I think it must have something to do with the gridlock traffic.
http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_15/28_15nets1.html
We have two cruise ship spots in New York which are nice. I think it is Carnival and NCL stop by. I think they call that a port.
|
Members
