Thursday, February 23, 2006
Holy Ship!
As if being punched in the face over the non-response to Hurricane Katrina and questions about the missing $9 billion in Iraq (among numerous other scandals) weren't enough, the ineptitude just keep getting worse at the Bush White House.
This week, the latest scandal is a deal that would sell control of 6 major American ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates. The biggest problem with this deal (at least in the eyes of thinking people) is that the UAE (claimed as an ally in the "War on Terror" by the Bush White House) partially funded the 9/11 attacks, was home for two of the 9/11 hijackers, and stonewalled an FBI investigation into 9/11 funding.
To repeat: one of the nations responsible for 9/11 will soon be responsible for our security. I certainly feel safer. Don't you?
As if that news wasn't bad enough, the plot thickens. Documents uncovered and reported by the Associated Press show that the White House and the Dubai company had a secret agreement. That secret agreement "did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."
To repeat: one of the nations responsible for 9/11 will soon be responsible for our security, and they won't be subject to legal proceedings or American oversight. Isn't that feeling of safety just getting stronger?
In what could be an answer to the proverbial question of how much worse things can get, two of the ports up for Dubai control are New York and New Orleans. Just when we thought Bush had done enough, or rather, hadn't done enough for these cities, it gets worse.
Luckily, some Republicans are putting their partisanship aside and are actually looking out for our safety. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have both called for a review of the Dubai agreement. Frist has even threatened to write legislation to that end, drawing a veto threat from Bush (which, by the way, would be his first ever veto).
One Republican is making her stance on the Dubai agreement quite clear. Representative Sue Myrick, in a letter to the President, said "not just NO--but HELL NO!"
This issue is one that will only get bigger, and more troubling, for the White House. Stay tuned to Melder's Musings for further analysis. If you don't think aiding the people responsible for 9/11 is enough reason to say "hell no," just wait. I'll post items in future days that show just how bad a nation Dubai really is.
This week, the latest scandal is a deal that would sell control of 6 major American ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates. The biggest problem with this deal (at least in the eyes of thinking people) is that the UAE (claimed as an ally in the "War on Terror" by the Bush White House) partially funded the 9/11 attacks, was home for two of the 9/11 hijackers, and stonewalled an FBI investigation into 9/11 funding.
To repeat: one of the nations responsible for 9/11 will soon be responsible for our security. I certainly feel safer. Don't you?
As if that news wasn't bad enough, the plot thickens. Documents uncovered and reported by the Associated Press show that the White House and the Dubai company had a secret agreement. That secret agreement "did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."
To repeat: one of the nations responsible for 9/11 will soon be responsible for our security, and they won't be subject to legal proceedings or American oversight. Isn't that feeling of safety just getting stronger?
In what could be an answer to the proverbial question of how much worse things can get, two of the ports up for Dubai control are New York and New Orleans. Just when we thought Bush had done enough, or rather, hadn't done enough for these cities, it gets worse.
Luckily, some Republicans are putting their partisanship aside and are actually looking out for our safety. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have both called for a review of the Dubai agreement. Frist has even threatened to write legislation to that end, drawing a veto threat from Bush (which, by the way, would be his first ever veto).
One Republican is making her stance on the Dubai agreement quite clear. Representative Sue Myrick, in a letter to the President, said "not just NO--but HELL NO!"
This issue is one that will only get bigger, and more troubling, for the White House. Stay tuned to Melder's Musings for further analysis. If you don't think aiding the people responsible for 9/11 is enough reason to say "hell no," just wait. I'll post items in future days that show just how bad a nation Dubai really is.
Comments:
<< Home
The port was already owned by a British company, and most of our country's other ports are owned by companies outside of the USA. The fact remains that there are several layers of security that all shipments to the US must pass, and these are all out of control of the actual "owner." If we want to keep a Dubai company out, then we should just pass a law requiring all teh ports to be run by American companies...
# posted by 
: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:08:00 AM
: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:08:00 AM
It is not foreign ownership that I object to. It's ownership by this particular terrorist-supporting state that I strongly oppose.
Contrary to what you may think, all those layers of security don't work and are very much controlled by port ownership. Only about 5% of cargo containers coming into this country are even checked today, but that's an issue Democrats have been screaming about for a long time. No matter how many layers of security there may be, the people in ownership and management could very easily know and control what's going through any port they operate. It's the very nature of management and ownership. The UAE has already been caught using ports on their own soil to ship nuclear material for Iran. Do you really think that couldn't happen here?
I would not at all oppose legislation limiting port control to American firms. Since I'm not a Republican, I don't have to defend the double standard of "letting the market decide" while demanding the government "protect our families" (like the Republicans do every time they get their panties in a wad over dirty jokes on TV and porn purchased by consenting adults).
Post a Comment
Contrary to what you may think, all those layers of security don't work and are very much controlled by port ownership. Only about 5% of cargo containers coming into this country are even checked today, but that's an issue Democrats have been screaming about for a long time. No matter how many layers of security there may be, the people in ownership and management could very easily know and control what's going through any port they operate. It's the very nature of management and ownership. The UAE has already been caught using ports on their own soil to ship nuclear material for Iran. Do you really think that couldn't happen here?
I would not at all oppose legislation limiting port control to American firms. Since I'm not a Republican, I don't have to defend the double standard of "letting the market decide" while demanding the government "protect our families" (like the Republicans do every time they get their panties in a wad over dirty jokes on TV and porn purchased by consenting adults).
<< Home
