BUSH wants a foreign government to own our PORTS!

[iconoclastNYC]

Impeachment should start immediately.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. They are currently owned by a British company

I wonder who negotiated that deal?

[iconoclastNYC]

That is a publicly traded company.

The UAE company is owned by thier government.

And the british are not trying to blow our shit up. The arabs are. The ties to 911 are compelling.

This issue could topple Bush, but he's probably thinking up way to back off and save face already.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Good point

Thanks

[CJCRANE]

6. Why should he should he back off?

Once he's cut the deal he can retire to a condo on one of the artificially created billionaire's islands in Dubai and fraternise with his real base - "the haves and have-mores".

[iconoclastNYC]

7. Love the sentiment.

Because this is the noose that will strangle him and set his movement back years.

This is 100x bigger than the Downing Street Memo.

[Telly Savalas]

16. All Arabs want to blow our shit up? Whatever you say.

If port security is the responsiblity of any private firm, then we've got a problem regardless of whether it's an American company, a British company, or one owned by folks that make for good race-baiting.

My understanding is that security is in the hands of U.S. Customs and the Coast Guard, not the actual port operators. If in fact these security responsiblities have been privatized, then that's the real issue here, and it predates this deal. Why was there so much silence on it until this week?

[iconoclastNYC]

21. You shouldn't have a foreign company in control of the ports

What if we were in a war situation and they decide to shut down the ports to hurt the war effort?

Ports are too important.

And I agree with you I don't think they should be turned over to for-profit corporations who's only focus is on the bottom line.

I say we nationalize the ports like we nationalized Airport Security which was previously privatized.

[Seen the light]

19. Give me a break

While I agree with your point about the ports, I could do with a little less racism please.

[Greeby]

2. Could be worse

It could be run by Bushco :yoiks:

[DS1]

3. Really? I hadn't heard.

[iconoclastNYC]

5. I'm framing the debate here Mr. Sarcasm.

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

[zulchzulu]

8. How many Repugs are going to use Carter's agreement with Bush?

Jimmy Carter apparently wanted to throw Chimpy a fig leaf...

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
[e-mail]
WASHINGTON - 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.''

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13921401.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

[iconoclastNYC]

9. Jimmy Carter is wrong.

That's the reply.

And start talking again on why this is a raw deal for America.

[bbinacan]

10. Correct me if I'm wrong but

they don't own the ports, they run the ops. Right?

[iconoclastNYC]

11. Subtle distinction

But they would control them and our ports are too important to hand over control of them to an Arab government.

Let alone an Arab government that has connections to terrorist financing.

[bbinacan]

12. Allow me to play devil's advocate

simply because I'm in that kind of a mood. What Islamic country doesn't fit that definition?:smoke:

[iconoclastNYC]

13. USA should own USA ports. Plain and simple.

If not on security grounds, then on economic grounds. It'S a bad idea. They shouldn't have been privatized in the first place.

CALL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS: DEMAND NATIONALIZATION OF THE PORTS.

[bbinacan]

14. I agree, however

why no big to do when the Brits had the contracts?

[iconoclastNYC]

15. TWO glaring reasons.

#1 Britan is an ally with no connection to the 9/11 attacks.

#2 The British firm is publicly traded. The UAE deal means that the government of an Arab country will control the security of our ports.

HUGE difference.

US Ports should be owned by the American people.

[bbinacan]

17. First of all

the US ports are owned by the American people. The Brit co. ran the ops and got bought by DPW. We have not sold the ports to an arab. I think that DPW is publicly traded but, as I said on another post, I need to see who the shareholders are. They could be only UAE royalty.

That said, the US should run its own ports. The government will have to do it because I don't think there are any US cos. left to do it. I believe the last US co. was CSX and they were bought by DPW in early 2005. Guess we should have been complaining then, but alas.

[iconoclastNYC]

18. Who says it has to be a company?

The federal government has the resources to get those retired CSX executives out of retirement.

This is a National Security Priority.

[bbinacan]

20. Good point. n/t