Bush Threatens Veto To Ensure Arabs

[LegalEagle 22]

Bush is threatening to use his veto power if congress moves to block United Arab Emerites (sp?) from controling six of our most strategically important seaports.

http://www.cnn.com/

Rumors abound that we will pay Mexico to patrol our southern border. "They already know the language," Bush stated. NO LINK

[SouthLink02 8]

[vatz22au 142]

I think it should be obvious to alot of people this was coming. The Bush family has many "ties" to its east friends.

[LegalEagle 22]

I think it should be obvious to alot of people this was coming.  The Bush family has many "ties" to its east friends.

221204[/snapback]

Vatz, I used to think you were a pretty level-headed guy, but now I think you'd speak ill of the devil!

[quietfan 233]

I used to give the Administration credit a few years ago for at least being politically sharp in sculpting their public image ( I mean they did win the last election and had pretty good poll numbers at one time), even when I disagreed with most of their policies.

But how many times can they continue to shoot themselves in the foot in term of public relations? This, on the heels of Cheney's poor handling of his little hunting accident and polls having already slipped because of the eavesdropping controversy.

I mean, I'll admit that I don't know all the details to know if UAE control of the ports is a security threat or not (apparently Congress doesn't know either, hense the call by many for hearings). But even a half-retarded politician should realize that the public reaction to such a deal would be almost universally negative. I truly believe that the current adminstration no longer gives a damn what the public thinks. Bush can't run for office again and I don't think Cheney plans to, so it seems like they have the attitude "let's just do whatever the hell we want and screw what the people or Congress think!" JMHO.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

They want to bust the Longshoreman's International Union. I heard today that the US will continue to provide the security for the ports, but the foreign owned company would provide the labor for loading/unloading the cargo. There go more jobs to cheap foreign laborers.

[vatz22au 142]

I think it should be obvious to alot of people this was coming.  The Bush family has many "ties" to its east friends.

221204[/snapback]

Vatz, I used to think you were a pretty level-headed guy, but now I think you'd speak ill of the devil!

221205[/snapback]

Ya, I'm one crazy guy:

January 2000: Former President Bush Meets with bin Laden Family on Behalf of Carlyle Group Complete 911 Timeline

Ex-President Bush Sr. meeting with Saudi Arabia's King Fahd on behalf of the Carlyle Group in 2000.

Former President George H. W. Bush meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He had also met with them in November 1998 (see November 1998), but it is not known if he meets with them again after this. Bush denies this meeting took place until a thank you note is found confirming that it took place.

Link

Part Three : Ex-Prez Bush's Financial Ties With Defense Contractors Leads To Call For Resignation

Link

Living in a glass box just ain't my thing.

[rexbo 104]

They want to bust the Longshoreman's International Union. I heard today that the US will continue to provide the security for the ports, but the foreign owned company would provide the labor for loading/unloading the cargo. There go more jobs to cheap foreign laborers.

221215[/snapback]

Exactly, cheaper labor to off-load the cheap foreign goods. You have a choice, just Buy American, and you will put the ports ,and 12 year-old Vietnamese seamstresses out of business. Increasing labor costs and therefore overall prices is certainly a way to boost our economy you complain so much about...

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Why don't we put the Saudis in charge of airport security while we are at it?

[LegalEagle 22]

Geez, where are Captn Liger, PT and the crowd? Captn, this is your Commander In Chief! Get out here and support him!

PT, these guys are talking bad about the Greatest American President of all time, a Republican! Get out here guy. Straighten these Bush bashers out.

Who else have we not heard from on this issue????

You've been defending the indefensible for years, don't skip out on us now!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Security won't be any different , and many are overlooking that fact. The same folks who are in charge of security now would be if this deal were to go through.

You've been defending the indefensible for years, don't skip out on us now

Not exactly true. Much of what Bush has done is easily defended, if not hailed. However, on this matter, it's such a poor P.R. move that even many Republicans are flat out against it.

[LegalEagle 22]

The way I understand it, they would hire, fire and control the labor used in loading and unloading ships. 40% of our military supplies go through (Baltimore?) these ports. If something happened, DP could just lay off all the labor and effectively shut down our supplies to our troops, as well as disrupt our economy.

It just doesn't make any sense (unless you are more concerned with busting labor unions than you are about national security) to put our ports in control of UAE. Now that I know, they should not have been in control of a private Brittish company either.

Only 5% - 7% of the containers coming into this country are inspected now. Our ports are a great weak spot in defending our country from terrorist attack. We don't need to be going in the wrong direction.

BTW, I appreciate you candor.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Only 5% - 7% of the containers coming into this country are inspected now. Our ports are a great weak spot in defending our country from terrorist attack. We don't need to be going in the wrong direction.

That number keeps getting tossed out, I'm sure for shock value. But honestly, is 100% a feasible number to expect? 100% ? I know it sounds ridiculously low, but there has to be more to the story than what we're being told. Just look at the back log of people at the airport as they get checked through security, and you can begin to see the unmittigated mess would be made at our ports of we checked 100% of everything right there. I'm sure some things get checked as they are getting loaded on in other countries, so rechecking them here would be redundent.

[Tigermike 3,051]

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either. But they have told me for years that port security is somewhat of a sham.

At the least it is a PR FU of royal proportions. I don't even want to think of the worse scenario. But then our ports and borders are now and have been forever pours. If the dems wanted to make points with the American VOTING citizens they would come up with a workable and viable plan to stop illegal immigration. But then the dems are usually only thinking of what they can do to get those illegals to vote for them. Don't think I am overlooking the little done by the repubs on the illegal situation, in my opinion they all, dems & repubs, have failed miserably.

[Captain Liger 0]

Geez, where are Captn Liger, PT and the crowd?  Captn, this is your Commander In Chief!  Get out here and support him!

PT, these guys are talking bad about the Greatest American President of all time, a Republican!  Get out here guy.  Straighten these Bush bashers out.

Who else have we not heard from on this issue????

You've been defending the indefensible for years, don't skip out on us now!

221273[/snapback]

And you've been accusing me of blindly following the Republican Party. How naive of you. I vote Republican because they represent the majority of my political and moral views. They're the lesser of two evils (Democrats being the Great Satan). Just because I vote that way doesn't mean I'm going to agree with everything they do. Sorry to rain on your parade. That's the difference between you and I. I'm man enough to say when I don't agree with something my party is doing. You on the other hand...well...I'm not so sure about.

If it turns out to be the case that port security is going to be turned over to Arab nationals then I will be highly disappointed, no, that's not the right word for it. I will be severly pissed. I will admit I was completely taken aback yesterday when I first heard the news from a fellow officer prior to a staff meeting. Then I got back to the office and saw the initial posts on this forum. After watching the news I don't think it's the case at all that Arabs will be securing our ports. But then again, if it is, the President will lose serious cool points with me. So there.

And I HATE unions so I can't say I'd feel too sorry for port workers. Say hello to capitalism. I hate the way unions have a stranglehold on industry where they can just walk out and everything come to a standstill when things don't go their way. Just look at UAW. That's BS if you ask me. If I owned GM and everyone walked out, fine, you're all fired. You think I'd lose sleep over it? No. You think it'd be hard to get new employees? No. And if the old ones wanted their jobs back, ok, starting pay is minimum wage. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Sorry, unions are just a pet peeve of mine. Anyway.... So if the Longshoreman just walk off the job to strike, what's the difference in that and Dubai laying off their workers? Both would affect ANY kind of exports whether it be civilian or military. Besides, there's probably not a whole lot that a cargo ship can hold that an Air Force C-5 Galaxy can't get to the Middle East. Don't lose any sleep over our military supplies getting to the battlefield.

Our ports are a great weak spot in defending our country from terrorist attack.  We don't need to be going in the wrong direction.

221284[/snapback]

Nah. The U.S. Navy is doing a bang up job of protecting our ports. How do I know? Let's just say that a naval officer with more rank and privy to intelligence than I'll ever be able to obtain told me so. I feel safe.

[LegalEagle 22]

Unlike you CL, I am not affiliated with or beholding to any political party. I am an Independent, and wish we could have a strong 3rd party in this country.

Why do I not trash Democratic policies? Do they have any?

[Tigermike 3,051]

Why do I not trash Democratic policies?  Do they have any?

221331[/snapback]

Dang, we do agree on something!

[Captain Liger 0]

Unlike you CL, I am not affiliated with or beholding to any political party.

221331[/snapback]

I am a conservative. I am not, however, a registered Repbulican. I vote my conscience. It's just that the Republican Party gets my vote more often than not. I voted for Bud Cramer in the last election. I've met him and I like him...that, and he is a former Army officer. I like Zell Miller. I wish he were still in office.

Like I said, I vote for who more closely holds the same beliefs that I do.

[Captain Liger 0]

Why do I not trash Democratic policies?  Do they have any?

221331[/snapback]

Dang, we do agree on something!

221339[/snapback]

LOL, is this a bandwagon that I want to jump on? Wow, I agree with him too!

[Guest Tigrinum Major]

Unlike you CL, I am not affiliated with or beholding to any political party.  I am an Independent, and wish we could have a strong 3rd party in this country.

Why do I not trash Democratic policies?  Do they have any?

221331[/snapback]

A strong 3rd party is a pipe dream at the moment. But if the Democrats don't pull their collective heads out of their fourth point of contact, we are about to end up with a one party system, which is even worse.

[rexbo 104]

Back on topic, let's just say once you spend 10 minutes reading about this issue, or listening to a more detailed radio or TV report, it is not NEAR as scary or bad as you would think be reading headlines, or listening to Hillary. In fact, it was an NPR report this morning that leads me to believe this is much ado about nothing. The interview was with operators at the New Jersey/New York port.

Port Newark Not Worried by Dubai Purchase Plan

A summary of what I heard this morning, maybe not 100% because it was 9 hours ago. First off, the port is owned, operated and secured by the States of New York and New Jersey; along with monitoring by the Coast Guard. They have 6 terminals, and different companies have the contract for running the loading and off-loading for the terminals. A Chinese company has the contract for 2 of the terminals, a USA company has the contract for 2, a Danish company has the contract for 1, and the British company P&O and another Danish company partner for Terminal #6. The Dubai company is buying the British company, P&O, and so will end up partnering with the Danish company (what irony) for running terminal #6. The port authority members they interviewed were adamant that there would be, and could be no adverse affect on the existing security of the cargo containers handled at Terminal # 6, and that just because the owners were changing, there would not be a flood of foreign nationals coming in to run the Terminal.

The UAE is a strong ally of ours in the fight against terrorism, and working to influence the Middle East towards democracy; if we should have any beef against dadburn foreigners operating our port terminals, I say we start with the Chinese...

[LegalEagle 22]

I believe it is 6 ports they will be controlling. (Not security)

We don't need them. We need Americans doing that. I am also against the Brits, Danes, Mexicans or others running our ports.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

They want to bust the Longshoreman's International Union. I heard today that the US will continue to provide the security for the ports, but the foreign owned company would provide the labor for loading/unloading the cargo. There go more jobs to cheap foreign laborers.

221215[/snapback]

Exactly, cheaper labor to off-load the cheap foreign goods. You have a choice, just Buy American, and you will put the ports ,and 12 year-old Vietnamese seamstresses out of business. Increasing labor costs and therefore overall prices is certainly a way to boost our economy you complain so much about...

221249[/snapback]

I don't not buy foreign made goods. If it is foreign made and I need it, I make one instead. Tool and Die. Made in the U.S. of A.

http://www.unionbuiltpc.com/umc.php

http://www.unionbuiltpc.com/laptop_ubs1733.php

[Tigermike 3,051]

I believe it is 6 ports they will be controlling.  (Not security)

We don't need them.  We need Americans doing that.  I am also against the Brits, Danes, Mexicans or others running our ports.

221463[/snapback]

So then you prejudice is only directed toward Arabs? Would you then approve profiling by law enforcement agencies?

[Tigermike 3,051]

They want to bust the Longshoreman's International Union. I heard today that the US will continue to provide the security for the ports, but the foreign owned company would provide the labor for loading/unloading the cargo. There go more jobs to cheap foreign laborers.

221215[/snapback]

Exactly, cheaper labor to off-load the cheap foreign goods. You have a choice, just Buy American, and you will put the ports ,and 12 year-old Vietnamese seamstresses out of business. Increasing labor costs and therefore overall prices is certainly a way to boost our economy you complain so much about...

221249[/snapback]

I don't not buy foreign made goods. If it is foreign made and I need it, I make one instead. Tool and Die. Made in the U.S. of A.

http://www.unionbuiltpc.com/umc.php

http://www.unionbuiltpc.com/laptop_ubs1733.php

221480[/snapback]

Maybe you should talk to all those UNION folks who have no problem buying foreign made products, both at home and in their work place. I sold industrial supplies for years and sold American made products. If I had 10 cents every time I was told they were happy with their current supplier (even after pointing out they were using foreign products), I would be a millionaire. And all the while a huge banner was hanging that said, "Buy American" "Proudly made in America by union workers!". Get over it Bud those are simply marketing tools to fool the ignorant uninformed masses.