Not a good Idea

Interesting too, that many of the vocal critics like Shrillary and Schumer who have whined about "Bush putting our security into the hands of a Middle Eastern country sympathetic to terrorists" are the same folks who opposed the Patriot Act. And this is the same posturing chorus that opposed National Security Agency surveillance of al-Qaida phone calls. And aren't these the same people who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? The ones that were for it before they were against it?

Why the sudden about-face?? Now Dims are concerned?? The Dims consider the UAE an enemy, while Saddam was just a misunderstood guy leading a peace-loving country. What's going on with that?

It's a case of racial profiling, dammit.

Simply no objections other than that they are Arab. It's Arab bashing plain and simple. It's like the Dims always have to play the fear card; bring 9-11 into it...:rolleyes:

This deal looks to be widely accepted in a short amount of time and Libs will pretend they were for it all along and use sound bytes of republicans opposing it during the next elections to call them racist hate mongers. Just wait.


Arab Company Accepts Broader Ports Review
Feb 26 11:43 AM US/Eastern

By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

A United Arab Emirates-based company said Sunday it has agreed to seek a broader U.S. review of the security risks from its deal to take over major operations at six American ports.

In addition to the request for a 45-day examination, DP World is promising to create a U.S. subsidiary that would operate independently of executives in Dubai until May.

The moves are an effort to avert a damaging showdown between President Bush and Congress over the fate of DP World's $6.8 billion takeover.
Click to expand...
 
The biggest issue is that Bush has an R behind his name, if it was a dem they would be singing about the genius about slicing up the American pie....
 
I think some just saw the out-pouring from the public, and decided to take
advantage, but, at this point I see that as a good thing. (Bush-bashing or no)
They will find/make-up something to bash about anyway.

It's a case of racial profiling, dammit.
Click to expand...
Not in my case, ....it's geographical profiling, and I see nothing wrong
with some scrutiny. I do see something wrong with NOT scrutinizing it.
I'm about on the same page with Sen. Lindsey-SC.
 
highwayman said:
The biggest issue is that Bush has an R behind his name, if it was a dem they would be singing about the genius about slicing up the American pie....
Click to expand...
They're slicing up the American pie anyway, but I'm an idiot for thinking there's really no difference other than marketing. :shrug:
 
chcr said:
They're slicing up the American pie anyway, but I'm an idiot for thinking there's really no difference other than marketing. :shrug:
Click to expand...


That has some marret, but one of several issues I have is, not only is it a corperation that is based off American soil and is compounding this move by going with a corperation based in the middle east, no matter how qualified. I realise how this sounds but I can be reastic about the whole deal and I don't have to like it.

What is bothersome to me is the timing of the announcement...
 
chcr said:
I'm an idiot
Click to expand...

What is good for the Big corporations
and rich white Republicans
is good for America

and what is supposedly good for the poor downtrodden
minorities and gays and the anti-war anti-gun anti-ANWAR
drillin’ anti-global warming fringoids
doesn’t profit anyone, including them.

The choice is clear!
 
The Other One said:
Why the sudden about-face?? Now Dims are concerned?? The Dims consider the UAE an enemy, while Saddam was just a misunderstood guy leading a peace-loving country. What's going on with that?
Click to expand...
Who considers the UAE the enemy. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the muslim hating folks and the obvious agenda of BushCo.

Right here.....You couldn't wait to cut loose on the adjectives....
Click to expand...
Read that a little more carefully and you'll see that it's not name calling. Figure it out yet?
 
Everyone seems to think that there is no difference between letting a British held company have this job and letting government owned Dubai Ports World, owned and operated by a middle-eastern, arab, muslim country have the same job. I just don't know what to say to that. Hello, what world do you live in? It's not racially motivated, it's not religiously motivated, it's the simple reality of the world situation today.
 
chcr said:
Everyone seems to think that there is no difference between letting a British held company have this job and letting government owned Dubai Ports World, owned and operated by a middle-eastern, arab, muslim country have the same job.
Click to expand...
Not me. :nerd:

Yep the difference there is a different setup for companies, than government anyway,
and they were going to set it up as a standard company, not like the deal with China.

But I'm with Hwyman, this timing sucks at best, and more like suspicious. IMO

I think the whole way of doing business with the ports is going to have to be re-written,
to reflect post-9/11. The old way of doing business in the ports is just not
acceptable all the way around.
 
chcr said:
Everyone seems to think that there is no difference between letting a British held company have this job and letting government owned Dubai Ports World, owned and operated by a middle-eastern, arab, muslim country have the same job. I just don't know what to say to that. Hello, what world do you live in?
Click to expand...

Yup! This isn't direct foreign investment as most folks understand the term, it's handing over management of major ports of ingress to the US to a muslim, terrorist-aligned, FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. Wake up, folks.
 
Part of me wonders what this is supposed to be distracting us from. It soulnds kind of conpiracy theorist but I worry about it anyway. It's just difficult for me to believe that anyone in the administration could have looked at this and said, "This'll be okay."
 
What gets me is that the only investigation that I have seen reported is by the treasury department and the Whitehouse says that they check out good, not to mention that Bush made the statement that he had not seen anything about it untill recently. Sounds a bit off to me...
 
Gonz said:
Moving this into the light & opening discussions is great. EXCEPT...its open season on anything & anyone (re-elections coming) & what should be a security matter will become a political hot potato.
Click to expand...


I think it is a fairly non-partisan thing. Having other people in control of US ports is just a bad idea all the way around. Though it does make the Bush admin. look like they have no idea what is going on. (not that big of a suprise though really...)
 
ekahs retsam said:
I think it is a fairly non-partisan thing. Having other people in control of US ports is just a bad idea all the way around. Though it does make the Bush admin. look like they have no idea what is going on. (not that big of a suprise though really...)
Click to expand...

The very definition of irony.
 
How much "Control" is the "main" question that needs to be cleared up.
It seems there's conflicting reports.
I'll be following the hearings closely myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top