What's next? North Koreans operating our nuclear plants?
In his five-plus years as president, George W. Bush has never seen fit to veto a bill. But Tuesday, he promised to veto any legislation seeking to block a deal that would allow a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates to manage shipping operations at six major U.S. ports, including New York and New Jersey.
When the story first broke last week about the Bush administration signing off on the deal, I assumed the approval must have somehow slipped through the cracks. Obviously not. Bush says the deal was fully vetted by the appropriate agencies - in about six weeks - and there's no reason to pull out of the deal. I can think of plenty of reasons.
For starters:
The UAE was one of three nations to recognize the Taliban as the official government in Afghanistan. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE nationals. The UAE is reportedly pursuing trade talks with Iran. The FBI claims the money for the 9/11 attacks was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE banking system. After 9/11, the U.S. Treasury Department said the UAE was among the Arab countries failing to fully cooperate in its attempts to track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts. And Dubai has been identified as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Even if President Bush believes the current regime in Dubai is on our side, the lease on the ports runs for 30 years. Bush will be gone in three years, and who knows how long the friendly despots in UAE will manage to keep their subjects fat and happy.
But the most important reason for opposing the deal is that the United States should not be outsourcing the operation of our ports, which account for 95 percent of the imports into this country, to any foreign nation. As President Bush reminds us on a nearly daily basis, we are engaged in an all-out war on terrorism. He says it's better to fight the terrorists on their own soil than here in the United States. Maybe. But I'd like to see more resources devoted to the defense of the homeland. And I'd feel far more secure knowing that American companies, employing American citizens, were responsible for protecting our borders.
When the story first broke last week about the Bush administration signing off on the deal, I assumed the approval must have somehow slipped through the cracks. Obviously not. Bush says the deal was fully vetted by the appropriate agencies - in about six weeks - and there's no reason to pull out of the deal. I can think of plenty of reasons.
For starters:
The UAE was one of three nations to recognize the Taliban as the official government in Afghanistan. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE nationals. The UAE is reportedly pursuing trade talks with Iran. The FBI claims the money for the 9/11 attacks was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE banking system. After 9/11, the U.S. Treasury Department said the UAE was among the Arab countries failing to fully cooperate in its attempts to track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts. And Dubai has been identified as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Even if President Bush believes the current regime in Dubai is on our side, the lease on the ports runs for 30 years. Bush will be gone in three years, and who knows how long the friendly despots in UAE will manage to keep their subjects fat and happy.
But the most important reason for opposing the deal is that the United States should not be outsourcing the operation of our ports, which account for 95 percent of the imports into this country, to any foreign nation. As President Bush reminds us on a nearly daily basis, we are engaged in an all-out war on terrorism. He says it's better to fight the terrorists on their own soil than here in the United States. Maybe. But I'd like to see more resources devoted to the defense of the homeland. And I'd feel far more secure knowing that American companies, employing American citizens, were responsible for protecting our borders.
posted by Randy Bergmann at 10:53 PM
8 Comments:
I'm conservative and voted for Bush both times and more or less agreed with his policy. I find his arrogance and insensitivity over this issue appaling. I would support impeachment proceedings against him. I couldn't agree more with your views.
Much ado about very little. First of all, shipping companies don't protect our borders; American border patrols do. We're not turning over the Coast Guard to the UAE. Second, terrorists are going to pull their shenanigans regardless what company is in charge of loading and unloading ships. Third, the next gang of terrorists will likely NOT be Arabic-looking men wearing Middle-eastern outfits. They're getting smarter than that. Finally, think about this: on your next visit to NYC for a show and dinner, you are far more likely to be killed by an American teenage gang than by Arab terrorists.
Hey Democrats and Republicans can you see all those illegal immigrants streaming over our southern border?Thanks for representing the citizens of the United States.Thanks for being serious about national security.
anonymous is right. We need to watch that southern border as well as our ports.
This is just another example of his arrogance and stupidity. To have the White House say he did not know about this deal until it was done, goes to show just how little he is running the county, and just how little he cares for its people. Impeach him, Clinton just lied about Monica.
It is all politics. I do not believe for one minute Bush did not know about this deal. Why?
1. A sheik from UAE gave over $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation back in the '90's.
2. Bush's family/administration have business ties to UAE. UAE is a major investor in The Carlye Group. Neil Bush has supposedly received funding for his software company from UAE.
3.The Bush administration is in the middle of a 2 year push to ink a corporate backed "free" trade deal with UAE. The U.S. trade relationship with the UAE is the 3rd largest in the ME. It is all about Big Money "free" trade agenda.
So anyone who thinks Bush has America's security first on the list had better think again.
We Americans are on the bottom. Making money for for his friends and corporations will always come first.
If we removed all our military people from Iraq, Afganistan etc. we would have plenty of port security personnel available here in the USA.
And some left over to watch the southern border.
Randy,
You are the problem, along with all your other "reporters" who fail to tell the whole story. You said " United States should not be outsourcing the operation of our ports" that is the main problem, well your a little late on that one. It's misleading to ignore the fact that for decades, American ports have been operated by foreign companies, some from countries not-so-fond of our nation's policies or way of life. I did some research, which you did not, and also learned that of the six terminals at the port in Elizabeth, New Jersey, only two are operated by American companies. It's of particular interest that China operates two of them. I wish the reporters like yourself would do a better job of telling the whole story. You should stick to the story, port operations, not port security, they are two different things. I trust the security of our ports to the professionals that work hard everyday in our military and domestic agencies to prevent another 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home