Shove the Pork and Protect the Port

[TomClash]

Republicans are now out in front leading the charge on the port issue and there is little serious discussion about the broader security implications. Their newfound opposition to foreign companies owning ports (I'm so shocked!) is nauseating. Hey, Congressional Republicans! How about stepping up to the plate for more funding - especially for gamma ray content scanning of inbound containers.

Everyone listens to people mouthing off about merchant mariner's documents, the UAE as "terrorist haven" in the 1990s and other dated nonsense. Ok, fine. Have your little day in the sun. But you're barking up the wrong tree.

I hate to say it - and I can barely type the words - but Bush is finally right. So is Jimmy Carter. Weaker relations with the UAE weakens the security of the United States in the name of some very short term political gain. All to kill a port terminal deal with a highly reputable company where three of the top seven executives are former Sealand managers. Sealand was a US company sold to Maersk (Danish) in the 1990s and approved by the Clinton Administration - it was the last -yes last - serious US ocean carrier.

Here's a question for the two or three people out there reading this: where's Steven Flynn? Don't know who he is? He's one of the country's foremost experts on port security and a constant, eloquent critic of the Bush Administration's port security policies. What is he saying? "Port ownership is at the bottom of our concerns." Hmmm.

Instead of promoting gamma ray content scanning, or analyzing the effectiveness of C-TPAT, the business partnership that helps track containers, or discussing the Customs Border Protection Agency, or the expanding the Container Security Initiative, which may have already saved your life, we are dealing with which foreign termnial operator provides port service.

For some it is a chance to get Bush for his multitude of sins. Others truly think there is a huge problem with this deal. some see it as symbolic of the American giveaway to foreigners. For some who dwellin darkness, including a select few on this Board, it is a racist chance to get "the Arabs."

Let's at least use this opportunity as leverage to push Bush to improve port security in the US, You want this deal you get it if you effectively devote another $10 or $20b to port security - especially in the affected ports. Instead of building bridges to nowhere in Alaska, let's shove the pork and really protect the port.

[Coexist]

1. I don't agree with a lot of what you say

but I have been shouting at my television: What we spend in THREE WEEKS in Iraq is all we need to REALLY PROTECT THE PORTS!

Strangely, the talking heads don't respond. My children however, ask me to please lower my voice.

When someone brought this up today on Hardball, Matthews seemed stunned that someone would actually think protecting our ports and borders would be money better spent than the endless and expensive war in Iraq.

[Stephanie]

2. You can't fight it - it's a visceral reaction.

I live a few blocks from one of said ports. I bicycle past the place all summer long. I am a well-read and rational DU'er. I don't like this at all. Not one bit.

[TomClash]

4. I can see a good number of the piers from my kitchen window

so I understand your fears. It was my initial reaction too.

[Telly Savalas]

3. But Congressional Republicans aren't up for election in November.

Bush is.