Share your thoughts...or, in the case of moonbats, your unintelligble grunts!
Jonathan, I'm shocked you can't see through the political opportunism of this "scandal" in election time. Suddenly, the democrats are strong on security!?
Heres a quote:
-"The fear-mongering is that a bunch of Middle Easterners are going to come over and work on the docks, and nothing is farther from the truth," said Robert Bonner, the former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (and retired Navy, DEA, prosecutor and federal judge - hardly a trader or an idiot)
Heres some facts:
-Most US ports are and will be operated by foreign companies.
-13 out of 14 ports in Los Angeles are foreign operated.
-There is one remaining US port operating company, the rest have gone out of business (probably thanks to labor unions - the longshoremen who still run the docks through indepedent cotnracts with those scary foreign operators)
-There is consensus among security experts that this is a ridiculous political bruhaha over something very common (and convenient).
Notice: the people you are surrounded with on this issue are those preparing their election campaigns (and Pataki?!?) - none of them have proposed facts that undermine this established company... none have offered any expertise - just the emotional irrational reaction you despise... On the other side are seasoned security experts, Sen. John McCain (not opposing the deal), Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense (officials from both sit on the review committee that approved this deal) and President Bush.
But its not even a matter of who makes better company, the facts speak for themselves.
Another quote (LA Times):
P.J. Crowley, domestic security expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington, said that insufficient security at America's ports was the nation's "greatest single vulnerability," and the federal government had provided insufficient resources to prevent the "nightmare scenario" of a nuclear device being smuggled into the U.S. in a shipping container. But Crowley and other security experts didn't see the Dubai Ports World purchase as a threat because of the way U.S. ports operated. The transaction wouldn't alter security procedures or the makeup of the unionized workforce on the ground.
Take a moment to read someone who says it way better than me (and makes it so painfully obvious): http://www.latimes.com/news/colu...la-news-
columns
Example of the political opposition's argument:
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) offered her thoughts on the port deal in a one-sentence letter to Bush: "In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO!"
Nuff said. I think I'll go with the facts and the security experts on this one.
Suddenly, the democrats are strong on security!?
C'mon, Kira, how naive do you think I am? Considering I posted something only a couple of posts back about how the left thinks we should abolish the military, I would never entertain the notion that Democrats are strong on security!
"The fear-mongering is that a bunch of Middle Easterners are going to come over and work on the docks, and nothing is farther from the truth," said Robert Bonner, the former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (and retired Navy, DEA, prosecutor and federal judge - hardly a trader (sic) or an idiot)
No, I don't think he's a traitor, nor an idiot. However, his view is also shared by Jimmah Carter, who is very much a traitor and an idiot, and thus gives me greater pause in just how good of a deal this port thingee is.
Heres some facts:
I hear you, and I still maintain that I think it is a huge security risk to let ANY foreign country manage ship ports, airports, etc. By the way, which is the remaining U.S. port operating company? To be honest, I know nothing of that.
the people you are surrounded with on this issue are those preparing their election campaigns
Fair enough. However, others (such as Frist and Warner) are not running for re-election this year.
On the other side are seasoned security experts, ... and President Bush.
And President Bush's new Maritime Administrator who was an executive at...what a coincidence...Dubai Ports Worldwide. While such a connection does not automatically disqualify the choice of DPW, are we irrational to question the possibility of a conflict of interest? Is that question entirely illogical?
...or the makeup of the unionized workforce on the ground.
I recall in my first post on this subject that one of my biggest concerns was due to unions playing a prominent role in port operations! 
Regarding the column you linked:
[people] now argue that ... our Arab ally the UAE should go suck eggs
How? Because we won't hand them our ports? I'm not going to give someone the keys to my house just to make them like me! If failure to give up my house angers someone, he/she can go pound sand.
and that racial profiling of foreign firms is just fine.
Racial? The UAE openly advocates wiping Israel off the map, and still recognizes the Taliban as the legit government of Afghanistan. You're telling me that they're our friends and we can't do better than them? Pretty discouraging news, then.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) now even thinks Halliburton should run the ports. And Jimmy Carter is backing the White House.
That's insanity, no question about it.
the same Dubai company bought CSX's American port business in 2005, and nobody seemed to care then. So, why now?
Easy...few people knew or noticed. They know now.
Totally off topic, but this is too good to pass up:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/col...r-
leftspact.php
PS - I would warn that your moonbat readers skip this one, as truth tends to hurt their feelings. The rest - enjoy!
"Levin also questioned the UAE's past record on terrorism matters, saying the country backed the Taliban and allowed financial support for al-Qaida. He said the UAE has an "uneven history" as "one of only a handful of countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan." He added that millions of dollars in al-Qaida funds went through UAE financial institutions.
Levin at one point noted that a special commission that investigated the terror attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2000 concluded that "there's a persistent counterterrorism problem represented by the United Arab Emirates."
"Just raise your hand if anybody (at the witness table) talked to the 9-11 commission," commanded Levin. There was no response among the handful of administration representatives."
** linked by "Homepage"
Speaking from a perspective of, "I really don't have an opinion". All this attention about this does not make sense to me.
Is it just me or does anybody get the feeling that there are alot of private agenda's at work here? Right now I think the opposing side is just trying to score points for a possible Presidential bid or reelection. And I can't help but think even on the Bush side someone is getting some sort of kickback. I sound like a conspiracy theorist right now, hmmm.
Honestly, I think this whole issue is more smoke than fire, and mostly set by the MSM and the Bush Hating Left.
I'm not exactly comfortable with Non-American companies managing some of our major ports; however, this has not been uncommon since before 9-11 for this to be. We haven’t been attacked since 9-11, and these companies are not responsible for security, the Coast Guard and DHS is. Who am I to try to prevent a company from making a buck? That is down right Un-American.
I think Kira's right on the money on this one. I agree with her point of view and I also was convinced when General Franks said all the same on Fox and Friends yesterday morning. You gotta step back and realize what brought this about. The MSM said that the UAE (dirty rotten scoundrels and Arabs too) was going to be GIVEN the responsibility of our ports' SECURITY. That in itself would throw up a big red flag...Were it not the MSM making that headline!
But again, that was not the entire TRUTH. I'll bet you're surprised right?
The truth is that our security remains as it has been before and that the employees remain as before also. Only thing changing is the management of the logistics.
But that's just me. Great post Kira!
I think a lot of free thinking individuals are going to come around on this issue. The intial reaction of misunderstanding may have been warranted - but as the facts come out, any right-minded individual will see this as a good thing and support the president.
Warner and Frist are both running for president in two years, don't forget.
I spent the entire eight years of the Clinton Administration being smarter than the President (and before that, four years of Carter and before that, six years of LBJ), it just flat wore me out!
I am willing to sit back and expect President Bush to look out for the best interests of the American people and our ports.
That said, I'm not sure he is being well served by his closest advisors. Someone up there in that big white house needs their butt kicked.
Thanks tnjack, I think Jonathan is more likely to listen to you than me. So, knock some sense into him 
Thanks tnjack, I think Jonathan is more likely to listen to you than me.
I dunno...I do have the benefit of about 700+ miles of separation!
Commenting by HaloScan
