Our President is OUT of Touch

Yeah, Gene... whatever.

One of NPR's expert consultant's (Yes - NPR's) said on Saturday, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, "Never have the facts been so far removed from the public debate on an issue than with the ports issue. There is no security issue here and only one of a dozen security consultants & experts I personally contacted this past week had any concern at all."

This has been my opinion all along - the Republicans who have glommed onto this issue are demaguoging it just as much as the Dems. They have substituted a completely different, indirect at best, issue for the real one. I'm glad, in a perverse way, because container security does need attention, but that has nothing to do with DPW or who manages port operations.

You make excellent and intelligent points in this article, that of course, will be ignored or spun away.

WRONG. The company that supervises the ports has control of the loading of the containers and prepares the manifests that the Coast Guard relies on when deciding which containers to inspect. This company is OWNED and Controlled by UAE. No 45 day look will change these facts. Given the situation we can not rely of the UAE to supervise what goes into these containers nor supervise the preparation of the documentation. Like Rep. Myrick said Not only No but HELL NO!

Yeah, Gene, your bumbling idiot Bush flummoxed the Departments of Justice, Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security and a couple of others, sliding a sweetheart deal for his good buddies in the UAE right past their noses, because, after all, we need an effective outfit like DPW to outfox Customs & the Coast Guard.

You can be so dense, sometimes... no, make that most of the time. What we need is better/more Customs & Coast Guard resources to implement something close to adequate port security, no matter who manages port operations. And, I admit I could be wrong, but I believe those manifests you refer to are prepared at the port of origin.

I'm a-gonna buy me a parrot and name it after you, COL. I'll have to see if I can find enough liberal propaganda on the airwaves to feed it, though

It seems a little strange that the hardcore right wing Bush administration would have no problem with selling ports to Arabs (who are not famed for their love of America).

The right is split on this, most against but some in favour saying the market should decide whether America is safe or not. Seems to me that if the Democrats supported this Republicans would label them 'terrorists appeasers' and now that they don't some Republicans are using the old "racist" tag on Dems they moan about so much.

It seems a little strange that the hardcore right wing Bush administration would have no problem with selling ports to Arabs (who are not famed for their love of America).

Why do you not see the point of this? The point is, if we veto this purchase, we are essentially telling the Muslim world that we will not even deal with their moderate elements, thus giving ammunition to their extremist elements, both inside and outside our country. Col has provided facts about the UAE, and all of them are true, but he has neglected to inform you that the UAE has consistently assisted us in our war on terror, by providing us with bases and by assisting us in the capture of Al Qaeda operatives. There should be CLOSE scrutiny, sure, but the UAE has shown a level of cooperation with us that would indicate we should consider them an ally. Remember, this is NOT a war against Islam, but against Islamic TERROR. Refusing UAE the right to make this business purchase is, in essence, making this a war against Islam, which potentially makes EVERY Muslim our enemy. It would be a bad choice.

See how dense these people are? "Selling ports"???? They can't even bother to learn what the issue really is.

There is NO VALID reason to ALLOW UAE to operate American Ports.

Heh, the hardcore Right DOES have a problem with it, and they are fighting alongside their racist brothers on the Left. Britain has an active terror problem. ALL of the bombers in their recent attack were British residents.

This is just desperate political rhetoric, meant to enflame people who don't bother to think about it. The Dems just think this is a good issue to score "redneck" points with, and it's a little sickening. Outside of corrupt labor organizations the Left in America don't often get to march alongside the trailer park folks.

They're milking it because they know that all they have to do is villify all those "ay-rabs what are tryin to buy America" and score points. It's sad.

It's also sickening how some Republicans are trying to rack up more "redneck" points than the Dems, fearing they are somehow being "outflanked" (they obviously read too much of the Washington Press).

Sometimes, I hate all politicians. Let me correct that... I hate all politicians all the time, just less so sometimes.

CNN just announced the U S Coast Guard released a document saying they had problems with the Port deal. Homeland Security had earlier said there were NO objections. You ask do I trust agencies that report to the President - well in the past they have had to toe the party line or go away. Examples O’Neil, Whitman, Army Cos, Powell.Please recall that Bush said it was the Coast Guard that was responsible for Port Security!

Okay, COL - who would you have operate these ports? Halliburton? How loud would you scream for that one? How about ... Northrup Grummond? Another big defense contractor that would have people screaming "Collusion!!"

As Gideon has said, why not put forth the olive branch that shows that we can work with Muslims that DON'T resort to terror tactics?

Okay, COL - who would you have operate these ports? Halliburton? How loud would you scream for that one? How about ... Northrup Grummond? Another big defense contractor that would have people screaming "Collusion!!"

As Gideon has said, why not put forth the olive branch that shows that we can work with Muslims that DON'T resort to terror tactics?

Working with them is one thing. Allowing them to supervise what is placed into millions of containers and preparing the documentation as to what is in those containers is very different. Just ONE container with a nuclear bomb would make 9/11 look like a joke. That is TOO BIG a risk!

Any member of Congress who allows Bush to go ahead with this deal that is up for election in 2006 should be voted OUT OF OFFICE!

You've come completely unhinged, Gene. My condolences to you.

They, they, they. Ross Perot said "you people" and got tarred and feathered. How sadly transparent all this trailer-park outrage is. I can't wait for people to start condemning Republicans for fear mongering after this.

The UAE has been an active and cooperative participant in the War on Terror.

As a major shipping management entity, they're already involved in the international Secure Container Initiative, where they have also been very cooperative. They already supervise container security in ports throughout the world.

The UAE plays host to our naval forces on a regular basis. We have never had cause to complain about their security or cooperation in these matters.

Show where any of the statements I made in my Blog about UAE is untrue. You want to give them control of what is placed into the shipping containers coming into this country? You are NUTS!

Does anyone remember the Trojan Horse? How about millions of UAE horses per year coming into America.

" Show where any of the statements I made in my Blog about UAE is untrue."

That's kind of facetious considering none of the statements in your blog are really reason for concern. It's like me saying "The Sky Is Blue" and then demanding that you either prove it wrong or agree with my politics.

There is NO VALID reason to ALLOW UAE to operate American Ports

There is also no valid reason for them not to, even if they were actually "running the ports", or as some blinkered idiot said, buying the ports (because the US is "selling" them).
Everything you said about the UAE is true, though unflattering. They are an ally on the war on terror and they have every legitimate business reason to be in the shipping business. C'mon, COL MBA.

How about millions of UAE horses per year coming into America.

Man, you are paranoid. You don't think they've been coming in for years, from more places than just the UAE, who could give a rat's a$$ about the US. All they want is to do business.
But I echo (I think it was) Daiwa, who said that the increased scrutiny of port security on the whole was worth this tempest in a teapot.

The anti-Bushites have screwed themselves with this, though. They're going to have a hard row to hoe the next time they want to scream about our lack of diplomacy. It would be a shame if the Col backs himself into a corner and has to actually AGREE with the Bush administration later about dealing with nations that don't recognize Israel and all this fearmongering.

Any member of Congress who allows Bush to go ahead with this deal that is up for election in 2006 should be voted OUT OF OFFICE!

And that is the agenda machine behind this complete non-issue.