the nations 6 largest ports will now be run by a corporation out of United Arab Emirates......

does our goverment hate us???????

Mucking forons! We're doomed at this rate.


Here is the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/16/congress.ports.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics

i love how chertoff says....safeguards will be put in place to make the deal more safe for the american people......safeguards=tax dollars from the american people...so we will pay more in taxes so they can sell out our jobs and security......

I agree, I think it is a mistake to have a company from the UAE run our port security, (given UAE's record of links to terrorism). But I also think it is a mistake to have a company not from the US run port security. So my question is hasnt the job already been out sourced for some time? The UAE company is simply buying out a British company that was already responsible for port security.

Maybe the UAE will give a big contract to Halliburton, so it will come out even.

Nothing like giving them a key to the door.

Maybe I'm wrong about this but as far as I can remember, the only catch worth noting on the war against terror was a large pile of C4 exposives in a van being smuggled in from Canada by some towel heads on a ferry in WASHINGTON state. I don't remember the details, but it was enough explosives to make a major BANG. It was a few years ago.

gvbest- that is true....it was a british company before the buyout......i think that the usa should be in charge of our own ports no matter what the country....corporate profits from enterprises based in the USA should stay in the USA no matter what the industry.

B-run
and that was durring clintons term and before the war on terrorism began...that guy was going to explode them in LA on new years eve 2000......right now ujama (i believe his name is) is sitting in the prison off of 2ooth street in desmoines that goes past the tyee golf corse

Kinda' like right out of, "When corporations rule the world." Actually, I haven't read that book, but keep meaning to add it to my reading list.

Countries don't matter to corporations. Only money, and borders are irrelevant except to the extent they can influence the acquisition of money.

When the story of the decline and fall of the United States is written, people will shake their heads at our collective stupidity.

Speaking of Corp's this is from a column in todays PI:

http://www.mariaesalinas.com/column.php?article=244

salmo- that is a great book....definately give it a read

Salmo, do you believe that individuals are on average less intelligent than in the past?

There was a mainstream (AP) article a few weeks back that said research shows that well under 50% of the population has enough "analytical ability" to read and understand a newspaper editorial.

Our founding fathers wrote a constitution which they thought would ensure rule, in a representative democracy, by analytical rational men like themselves. The majority that lacked "analytical ability", as the AP article called it, were to be guided politically by neighbors and family who had that ability in selecting rational men who would represent them.

IMO we have become so collectively stupid because the Rovians exploit control of modern media to bypass people with "analytical ability" and directly manipulate the vulnerable majority.

If so,our political system no longer works the way our founding fathers intended.

What's the problem? According to most of you guys we are not at war.

Sounds like payment for keeping their mouths
shut,about what was allowed to happen.

I am pretty conservative, and this one even has me scratching my head.

papaslap- you dont have to be "at war" to be concerned with a secure nation.- somehow i think you know that....do you support the decision of Bush corp.???????

From the CIA:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

"the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving "

look them up under suffrage and you see that the UAE is one of the only countries in the world where people are not allowed to vote....the only other country i found with no suffrage was brunai.....

if we are pro-democracy......how can se turn our ports over to a country with no right of suffrage.....hell even in iran they can vote at 15 years of age.........and for those of us who are totally committed to capitalism.....how do you feel about turning our capitalist oriented ports over to a state owned institution........isnt state owned referred to as socialist or communist here in the USA??????

This is about as pleasant as scooping dog poop. However, I gotta agree that it seems the administration has gone nuts. I have been patient about the festering mess on our
southern border with Mexico. I can no longer be patient. Allowing companies that have given so much support to our enemies, control of our Eastern Seaboard is insane. Instead of the Cole for a target we now have the whole East Coast. And it is rather obvious that those companies are for sale to the highest bidder or worse, the purveyors of holy murder.

SS,

I don't believe that humans, on average, are any more or less intelligent than in the past 2 or 3 millenia. This is in terms of cognitive, or critical thinking, or analytical thinking skills. The primary difference regarding intelligence is the vast increase in information and access to it. But the ability to cognitively process information seems to evolve rather slowly in comparison to the increasing amount of information.

Intelligent men wrote the Constitution and created a representative democracy, which is unfortunately contingent on an informed and participating electorate. I say unfortunate because of the great many who choose to not participate by voting, or not be informed enough to understand issues critical to their well being.

Intelligence comparable to what exists today must have been around for a long time now. Ancient Greeks and Incas, for example, independently discovered complex mathematics. Probably Egyptians too, given their major engineering works.

I suppose some folks simply lack analytical ability, but I think the majority have the potential, but it never gets cultivated or developed enough for them to express it.

KK,

Ties to the White House? Oh, well now the deal at least makes sense. People important to Bush will make money on the deal. Bush may not be very bright, but at least he doesn't sell out his nation for no reason.

Papaslap,

Your point about being at war isn't relevant to the topic. The problem is that the Prez is hired to work for the national interest, not his family and friends' interests. Fortunately, some congressional Republicans are showing some spine, instead of being unthinking cheerleaders for the administration, and properly questioning stupid decision-making by Bush. The highest priority national interest is security. Outsourcing action that is directly related to national security to an entity that doesn't have the security of the U.S. as its highest priority is illogical by any measure. Outsourcing it to an entity that by many estimates is directly contrary to U.S. security interests may be treasonable. As problems go, does that work for ya'?

If TK/KT were here, he would tell you that all Muslims are fundamentally at odds with, and perhaps at holy war with, the entire Western world, and that we are in a fight to the death with them, like it or realize it or not. In which case, even a neocon like him would by logic alone, be opposed to this outsourcing security action.

Sardonicus,

Welcome aboard. See, it really isn't so much about liberalism and conservatism here. Many of us with a liberal bent are pretty tolerant of mainstream conservatism. It's the whack job of a Prez you and the fundy conservatives elected that has us concerned to the point of outrage.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g. I know you are a reasonably bright guy...so would you really have had us elect Kerry as CinC? I have lots of issues with W's approach to things. However, I could not for the life of me vote for that imposter, Kerry. I could have voted for Zell Miller, but it wasn't an offered option.
Btw. Give credit where credit is due. Thank the WEA and the NEa for their bit in the stupifying of America.

good to hear sardonicus- i was in the same position when i finally had to say " yeah clinton should be impeached" although i didnt want his opponents to win......maybe this is what our country needed to bring us all together

this is just crazy....to say on one hand we are in iraq to spread democracy (which may have erupted into full blown civil war today)and on the other hand we give control of our ports to a country where the people have no right to vote.............. after we kill this deal we need to remain addamant that ALL US ports be managed by american firms...... think of all the tax money going back to other countries that should be here. when we control all of our ports we will gain more economic strength as well as growth

dubai ports will still pay some local taxes but the majority goes back to dubai- which along with bahrain, is the financial hub of the whole middle east, much like wall street in the usa

one thing that isnt being mentioned is that the Bush admin has taken out huge long term loans to finance our budget shortfalls, from the Saudi's and the financial centers of the middle east and from china who has ben given control of many other ports along with huge control in the Panama canal

Sard,

Thanks, yeah, reasonably bright. Yes, I would have had you vote for Kerry, but not because he's the best possible choice, only the very lessor evil contrasted against Bush. Bush isn't bright, and to the extent he's smart, he's evil smart in a way that is directly contrary to my interests, and I believe, to America's interests. I haven't been kidding when I remark about Bush: there's the Bushes, other rich people, and the help. So that makes about 98% of Americans "the help" to the Bushes point of view.

When it comes to the stupifying of America, the WEA and NEA have very little to do with it compared to the shirking of individual responsibility of millions upon millions of middle of the road Americans who send their poorly equiped children to be educated in public schools. The schools are a small part of the problem. The major problem is the raw material being sent there for an education. The baby boom generation, on average, was born into privilege and blew it in the worst way by begetting the shoddy baby boom echo generation, of which a very significant fraction shows up in public schools undisciplined, unfed or under fed, unclothed or improperly clothed, unloved or under loved, and yet the parents expect the schooly system to do the job they failed at as parents and educate the kids besides. Sorry, that ain't a feasible outcome.

I love to give credit where credit is due.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sardonicus,
It shows where you are coming from that you wingnuts typically refer to the President as the Commander in Chief. ("CinC")

We elect presidents, not CinC's. The President is a civilian. As a means of establishing civilian control of the military the Constitution says the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy.

Unless you are active duty military the President is not your Commander in Chief and he is most emphastically NOT the Commander in Chief of our country. Fortunately we aren't yet at the point where we have a Commander in Chief of the country or of civilians.

KK

I have been listening to the storm and the fury and I believe that this particular deal does not enhance or degrade our security posture. This is a business deal pure and simple. After all, if our battle is with all Arabs, we are going about it in the wrong way - we might as well bring back Slim Pickens and Dr. Strangelove....

However, if this is a business deal we need to examine the parameters of the deal. It would be very instructive to understand how the Dubai company took over the contract. Generally, when ownership changes, contracts get renegotiated. Were there new terms and conditions? Were there new bid proposals? Those should all see the light of day and since we have the Freedom of Information Act, we will be able to examine eventually - why not now? After all, the Admin can't claim National Security issues, right?

The second thing that needs to be examined is the role of Treasury Secy. Snow and Maritime Admin. head Sanborn. This wouldn't be the first time that payola has been used to influence the outcome of a bid process.

If all passes the smell test, Congress should back off. I can never just trust this Admin., they need to prove what is going on and sell the American public on the safety of this transaction. I can't see why the UAE company would be willing to risk all of their Corporate assets by abetting terrorism. We are going to need Arab allies in the battle against jihadism, UAE looks like the best candidate. It looks like they worship the $ just as much (or more) than they worship Mohammed.

Sorry Salmo g. I didn't mean to offend. I meant the comment on your intelligence as a compliment. And I agree that as long as the parents in our society consider the schools babysitters and abdicate their responsibitlies as parents we will continue to have problems with the public school system.
Hey suckersnagger, W is my CinC, he is also POTUS, and he is the chief executive of the USA. You have heard of the executive branch, right? Those psuedonyms all fit way better than the juvenile tags you and some like you would hang on him.

Bush is one smart cookie. Look how he manipulated libs and cons to agree on something.

Sardonicus, if you get a warm and fuzzy feeling by calling Bush your CinC, your great leader or whatever, go for it.

The problem with this CinC thing is that the Bu****es are claiming that Bush can do just about any damn thing he wants because of powers inherent in his role as CinC.

The intent of our founding fathers, as embodied in the Constitution, President as CinC of the military, was to ensure civilian control of the military.

To claim that Bush's role as CinC feeds back to gives him whatever powers as President he deems necessary is illogical as well as perverting the Constitution. It's to claim that the Constitution provides for military dictatorship when the Presdident decides that's necessary.

Of course we know that Bush regards the Constitution as being nothing but a "goddamned piece of paper" anyway.

I don't believe Bush or any other president should have a carte blanche to govern the country. We have 3 elements of governance and all should be involved in their respective areas of action. However, in times of war there are some special circumstances at work. Do you Suckersnagger have any question about our being at war since 911? You and I may disagree on the conduct of some facets of the struggle, but the fact remains 'we are at war.'The non-issue of NSA listening to overseas telecons is simply political muckraking in my opinion. Too bad they weren't listening prior to 911.

Sardonicus, no we are not at war. Anymore than we were in Korea, or Vietnam. Is the war on drugs a real shooting war? It's convienent for Bush to use the term "war" so he can get what he wants. 9-11 was horrable, but it was a terrorist act. Not an act of war. Is Palistine and Israil at war? Bush dosn't think so.

Gosh does that mean what Lt. Calley did in My Lai was just an act of terrorism? Not at war in the "UN police action" in Korea? Not at war in Viet Nam? Tell that to the guys that didn't make it. Third planet of what sun BW?

Sard,

No offense taken. I should have thanked you for the compliment.

Are we at war when the Congress has not issued a declaration of war? The Prez and Congress authorize military actions all the time without the window dressing of a formal declaration of war, the last of which was WWII.

Declared or not, we persued military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq that look very much like war to those involved. In that sense, the US is engaged in war.

The "war on terrorism," however, is straight out political BS, pretty much the same as the "war on drugs." Unless and until terrorism can be correlated specifically with one or more politically organized governmental unit(s), it's not a war. Terrorism is a criminal action, not a war action, when it isn't carried out by governments of nations. Fighting terrorism then, is a police type activity, since we're not fighting against a terrorist government of a nation or nations.

And let's not confuse fighting terrorism with the war we begat in Iraq. At this point in Iraq, it's hard to say what we've got. We started a war by invading the country, but that was over in a few days. It appears that what we have now is an unsuccessful occupation of a foreign land. Unsuccessful inasmuch as soon as we pop off a few insurgents, more Iraqis and other Arabs join the insurgency to replace them. "Staying the course" is a stupid game plan, a stupid war plan, and a stupid occupation plan.

Sorry Sard, but your boys Team Bush are really Team Dunderheads, who cannot seem to produce a useful thought or plan in the realm of foreign affairs. Much as I detested Nixon, at least he had Kissinger, who might be useful in ending a situation like this.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Rant all you want, Fact is these were not called wars. You said it yourself "UN police action" IT was made very clear to my dad that he was not in a war in Korea.

Same in Vietnam, sure felt like one. But politicans at the time called it something else. The fact that you think they were wars kind of sets you at odds with conservitives of the time. Suggest you ask them what planet they are on.

My son is very well aware that what he has been doing in Afganistan is NOT fighting a war also.