Deciphering Seaport Operations Deal
There are few clear lines that separate those who favor from those who are against the company from United Arab Emirates purchasing the company that operates any ports on the Atlantic coast. Both sides of the isle are mixed in their opinion while the Governors are mostly skeptical. Finally a benchmark has emerged to clarify what side of the issue is the correct one to take.
President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.
''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''
That's right, Jimmy Carter has determined that there is nothing to be concerned about. The very former president who has lost the ability to speak out loud without embarrassing himself.
Hillary came out against the deal but that is only an indication that a clear majority of Americans are against it. She can only be dependable as a gage of pubic opinion rather that any measure of the merits of an issue. Carter however has achieved the position of a weather vane of nitwittery. Whichever way he's pointing is the way of goofiness. So those of you who wish to know how to assess the harbor management deal can with confidence oppose it vigorously.
5 Comments:
|When I first heard about this UAE deal, I was aghast, it was made to sound as if port security was being sold to Arabs.
However, I heard both Tony Snow and Rush Libmaugh discuss it, and I am not so sure any more. Tony says it has nothing to do with security, only with unloading cargo AFTER passing normal security. And Rush says there just isn't much choice as to companies to provide this service, the British company that currently provides it is getting out, and no American company is in the business. It is, according to Rush, between UAE and China. Some choice.
And while UAE is somewhat shady, it is hardly equivilent to letting al Qaeda control port entry. (as some are portraying it). We are NOT at war with UAE, and with all they are doing to save American children from horrible abuse (by taking Michael Jackson off our hands), don't we owe them SOMETHING?
Bottom line, I need more info. (Carter being for it is sure compelling, though. Has he EVER been right?)
Ha ha, just saw my typo, Libmaugh. I bet noone ever called him that before.
make that Limbaugh...
>>Both sides of the isle are mixed in their opinion <<
Well, we let the Red Peril run the Panama Canal so why shouldnt people who actively label themselves our sworn enemies (remember that religion thing?) control cargo operations at our major ports?
Homeland Security is well able to search the incoming containers, one by one. Just dont send anything perishable on over.
Ooooops, gotta go, "Lost" is on TV and then Gilligans Island rerruns......errr, anybody out there remember Skippers real name? In the show I mean, not in reality (Alan Hale, of Robins merry band amongst other roles....)
Alan Hale Jr.
I still think the President has something up his sleeve on this one. I am going to wait and see. Something is fishy, Liberals worried about port security? We only inspect 5% of containers coming into this country anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home