Too bad politics is so much in the forefront & not commonsense. It might now make sense to disband homeland security & open our borders & save all that money the agencies involved cost. Wonder if Israel would allow the Arab Emirate to have anything to do with the operation of their ports. Israel may be a tiny country but Israelis know about terrrorists, long before we became so aware. The US is a huge country & we are just learning about terrorists after 9/11. Perhaps we can learn something from a tiny country with a long history of experience with terrorism. I could care less about the politics involved. It is a matter of practicality that Americans secure & manage their own ports.
Janet
As for Bush, just ordered refill of my Rx from Canada. The meds will come from Israel; Tel Aviv in fact.
Bush has done such a great job with health care. Being facetious of course. Hey Greta! you cant disown me. Not a mom or can you?
CP,
> Germany declared war against us after the fact...
So it doesn't count that they declared war against us? No one declared war on 9/11 either, so I guess that doesn't count. If Germany in WWII doesn't, then why would 9/11? CP, I do understand the rhetorical point you were trying to make. I appreciate the irony of the British being the aggressor in 1812, but the numbers don't even support your quip. It's impressive the limbs people will climb out on to support George Bush.
Hooah for that observation Brainhell!
Brainhell, I do count the revolution, even though I probably shouldn't. Even if you don't, Germany started one with us, WW I. WW II was started against us by Japan, and Germany declared war against us after the fact, which puts Britain on par with them, and 1 ahead of the UAE.
> But since when did we all become experts on port operations...
This gets back to my first comment in Greta's blog. She (or someone) posted wondering how come everyone is suddenly an expert on the Iraq war. Through various layers of sarcasm, I said that in this country we are supposed to formulate opinions and judge our leaders. Same goes fr the ports deal.
> I guess the Bush administration shouldn’t be so surprised at the public reaction to this story, though, given their tendency to play on our fears.
Amen to that!
Brainhell,
“DHS and DOD also defend the Arizona Cardinals, but stadium security is handled by the NFL.”
Good point. I have to admit I’m not yet willing to give the administration a pass on this one simply because they are using the standard “just trust us” defense. But since when did we all become experts on port operations and the national security implications of outsourcing them to a foreign (and in this case Arab) company? I’m sure there are many agencies involved and at many levels. I guess the Bush administration shouldn’t be so surprised at the public reaction to this story, though, given their tendency to play on our fears.
brainhell,
It may stop there, but it goes through a few hands before it does.
Here's the link again to that article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
ij...00602221412.asp
This article (http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/
ijaz200602221412.asp) makes some interesting points about the controversy over the Dubai deal.
“Islamophobia, not national security, is at the heart of the raging controversy on Capitol Hill over a United Arab Emirates-based company, Dubai Ports World, assuming ownership and management responsibilities at six major seaports in the United States…But their fiery rhetoric and threats of congressional action mask an increasingly patronizing racism fueled by illogical paranoia rooted in past events.
It is understandable that American politicians would want to seek clarifications, safeguards, and accountability on the DP World deal in honor of all those who were mercilessly murdered on that tragic September morning. But the best way to honor their memories is to use the Dubai deal as a model to build effective bridges to the Arab and Muslim world — as we did in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan — instead of erecting barriers that reveal America's paranoia and fear about some Islamist doomsday scenario no one can predict, all the while alienating the very people we need to help raise up the Muslim world's disaffected so they are not so desperate to tear us down.”
I think it was ingnorance on all US citizens part. If we were so concerned about other countries managing our ports - we should have thought about this policy and decided not to outsource before it was time to change contracters. Now that the British company that previously managed it is no longer in business, if we open to all foreign sources we should not discriminate or should we review our policies on dealing with foreign countries on American soil?
I for one did not realize that our ports weren't managed by American countries prior to this "newsbreaking" story.
Interesting, Greta. I read it all.
This sums up the whole port gig http://michellemalkin.com/archiv...ives/
004620.htm
Chris,
I think Bush would say that the motto "The buck stops here" is for wimps and Democrats.
I love how the Left still seem to think that it was all up to Bush, himself, to get the people in New Orleans to safety. Nagin and Blanco had no role to play. It's funny, Mississippi got hit just as bad as Louisiana and yet their local government was able to get people to safety. Their local Republican government.
CP,
They started the war of 1812, IMO, but we started the war of independence. You can say that they initiated hostilities in 1776 and there would have been no war if they'd left us alone. I don't give you that, but if I did, it's two. Germany started two as well. Remember the Lusitania! Did the British start more wars with us that I'm not aware of? Don't give me Jenkin's Ear.
Silke,
I notice the WH now saying port security is not involved, that the DHS and DOD handle that. It's disingenuous. DHS and DOD also defend the Arizona Cardinals, but stadium security is handled by the NFL. But even if we assume that there IS no security issue involved (there is, and the alert will come in the shape of a mushroom cloud) -- even assuming no security issue, the WH has displayed monumental political incompetence on this one. They allow a Dubai firm to contract to run our ports, they don't get out in front of the issue but instead let it roll them up, and simultaneously commit the president to a veto threat AND say he didn't know about the deal until after it was done. I think the wheels are finally coming off this wagon of deranged monkeys.
Brainhell, actually it’s not port security we are outsourcing, it’s port management…
“People keep thinking we are giving up port security to other countries; that's not the case. There are many port managers in our country that are actually foreign -- that are foreign country-owned port managers. These managers do not do our security. Security is based on local authorities in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, which has the Coast Guard and the Customs under it.” -- Clay Lowery, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/t...ports_2-
21.html
I’m not really sure how I feel about this latest “controversy.” On the surface it seems fairly simple but I suspect there are a lot more layers to this debate. I think it’s a case in which the public is blissfully unaware of something (i.e. just how reliant our economy is on foreign companies) and then they are shocked when the press points it out. The fact that so many politicians (Republican and Democrat) have come out against this seems more political than anything else. Then again, maybe they’re right.
Brainhell, don't forget the British now currently run those ports. They've started more wars with the US than any nation on earth.
Just food for thought.
Commenting by HaloScan
