Bush: No need to worry about port security
President Bush on Thursday defended his administration’s decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, “People don’t need to worry about security.”
“This deal wouldn’t go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America,” Bush told reporters during a Cabinet meeting.
When will he realize that lame duck presidents with 40% approval ratings don’t get the luxury of saying “trust me”?
>> Sept. 11 report ties bin Laden to UAE
He has got to be living in Oz if he thinks he can convince everyone
to trust him implicitly when he says
he has no concerns about things he doesn’t know anything about.
So, since Bush isn’t concerned about security, the deal will go forward?
This is just more of his fear mongering. Oh…wait.
He said hes not concerned with port security therefore hes letting a terrorist state guard our ports. What is there to discuss?
Can someone tell me how this administration has made us safer from terrorism? Point me to specific policies or legislation or statisitcs that show terrorism worldwide has decreased since 9/11.
Thank you.
Al…
Please explain to me how my seatbelt and airbag have made me safer.
Thank you.
Also…the Director of National Intelligence recently stated directly and unambiguously that certain administration policies had thwarted terrorist attacks. Of course, he’s probably lying, right? And his opinion means nothing until the classified details are laid out for everyone to see, right?
Wow. For once, I actually believe GDub. If he was concerned about security, there’s no way this deal would go forward.
Lost in Space wrote:
How about the truth being something to discuss?
Most of our ports have foreign companies controlling some or all of the cargo handling. The company which Dubai Ports World is buying is a foreign company, P & O Steam, from the UK.
And, naturally, the companies which provide cargo handling are not the one’s “guard(ing) our ports.” That is handled by Customs and the Coast Guard, now, and it will remain that way after the sale.
For example, the private contract at the Tioga Marine Terminal in Philadelphia is held by Delaware River Stevedores, which is half-owned by P & O, and, following the sale, will be half owned by DPW. DRS provides cargo handling, period, and simply leases their part of the Port of Philadelphia from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which retains ownership of the marine terminal.
We have ports being similarly managed by companies owned by the Red Chinese, certainly much more of an enemy than the UAE, but no one seems to care.
Of course, had the company buying out P & O been Dutch or French, no one would have said one freaking thing. But here we have a bunch of oh-so-tolerant, no-racial-profiling liberals who are all freaked out about this because Dubai Ports World is owned by Arabs.
You’ll pardon me if I find the reaction of Senatrix Clinton and Senator Schumer and the other outraged Democrats to be more than a little bit hypocritical.
Of course, y’all could decide that we aren’t at war with Islamic fascism, and not Muslims in general, as President Bush has been saying all along, but that we’re really at war with Arabs in general. If that’s the case, y’all had better be ready to nuke their ass and take their gas, because until we get over our dependence on oil from third world nations, we need the Arabs to be at least a little friendly.
scratch also thinks Shotgun Cheney had only one beer, before shooting his acquaintance in the face and heart.
See Scratch, that’s my point. Seat belts and Air-bags are two specific devices in a car that make driving safer.
What specific policies or legislation has this administration championed that has demonstrably made us safer? Where are the seat belts and air-bags to protect us from terrorism?
Two Different Questions.
1. Dept. of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, NSA Wiretapping AlQaida phonecalls, Tearing down the Gorelick Wall.
2. You can’t, because it hasn’t. That said, that doesn’t mean the new policies are inneffective. The terrorists could just be more active. That’s like complaining Kobe Bryant played a horrible game because he missed 18 shots.
So, Democrats that disagree with the port deal are hypocrites, and Republicans that disagree are good politicians. OK, just wanted to make sure that I understood the way your tiny minds are working on this. Because I’m really having fun watching conservatives running around basically calling the UAE responsible businessmen after whipping up the country into a frothing frenzied fear of anybody who holds the Koran sacred. You never? Maybe not you personally, but my point is justified, as are the objections of the Democrats in Congress.
Actually, Jay has it about right on this. (I, however, am NOT enjoying the spectacle nearly as much as he.)
There are bunches of questions that should be discussed in regard to this, but many of us on the left are too busy trying to find a little political leverage to bother with asking them.
1) What safeguards are written into the deal to prevent security problems?
2) What was the decision process in clearing the sale?
3) Is there a quid pro quo involving military access to middle eastern ports for our military?
These are questions that deserve answers. However, there are too many lefties who hear the words “Bush,” “Arabs,” and “ports” who reflexively look for the political angle.
Either we’re serious about making Middle Eastern nations our partners in modernity, or we’d rather hate us some ragheads.
Which is it?
Dana, excellent points you make at the beginning of your post. But what about the response of Senatrist Frist? Is that also hypocritical, or is he OK since he s been in the Arab-hatin game from the get-go? Or what about Rep. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee? Or Susan Collins?
Simple. For many Republicans, it’s good politics. Congressional Republicans are always painted as nothing more than a rubber stamp for anything the President wants. An override of the President’s first veto would allow them to deflect that accusation.
Not necessarily good policy, but definitely good politics.
scratch also thinks Shotgun Cheney had only one beer, before shooting his acquaintance in the face and heart.
And if you can prove otherwise, do so.
I’m just having a little fun watching liberals run around basically calling the UAE a bunch of terrorists (and don’t deny it. It’s hard to see somebody not mention UAE and bin Laden/Al Qaeda at the same time or Oliver’s little Readers Digest piece where he discusses us being attacked because the UAE is in bed with Al Qaeda) after lecturing people for so long on just throwing Arabs into a particular group. The company involved, DP World has been doing this for quite some time. The Chief Operating Officer, and the one who would call most of the shots is Edward Bilkey, an American.
I don’t know much of the particulars so I’m not saying the deal is good one or not. But the volume seems to have turned way up and by people who have no frigging idea what they’re talking about. Like Chuck Schumer who suddenly is an expert in the ocean shipping industry yet called manifests ‘manifolds’ on the Imus show. If he doesn’t even know basic terminology, why should anybody take his word for anything?
In addition, people aren’t really talking about it yet, but Democrats have another angle here: the unions. The unions are opposed to this move, and that’s another reason why Democrats are opposed to the deal. My guess is that’s their major objection and not anything having to do with national security.
“Like Chuck Schumer who suddenly is an expert in the ocean shipping industry yet called manifests manifolds on the Imus show. If he doesn t even know basic terminology, why should anybody take his word for anything?”
Oh lord, Jay are you seriously suggesting that misstatements like this are a sure sign of incompetence? Do we have to recite the litany of Bushisms which suggest that the man’s lucky has brains enough to breathe let alone run a country?
Dana, excellent points you make at the beginning of your post. But what about the response of Senatrist Frist? Is that also hypocritical, or is he OK since he’s been in the Arab-hatin’ game from the get-go? Or what about Rep. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee? Or Susan Collins? See, I’m not sure if you should go to the dictionary and refresh your understanding of the word “hypocrite”, or if you’re just suffering from the cognitive dissonance that stems from voting for Bush twice.
“…when he says
he has no concerns about things he doesn t know anything about. ”
That pretty much covers everything, doesn’t it?
“There s nothing that prevents Republicans from being hypocrites and demagogues; the fact that they usually aren t as bad as the Democrats is a plus, but only a plus.”
Wow. I don’t even know where to begin with this one. Dana, what color is the sky in your world?
Duros, you’re wasting your time with Dana. People like Dana actually approve of insider arrangements like this- they are part of the spoils of being the ruling class.
Most Bush apologists don’t believe in Democracy, they are actually more comfortable with a ruling class of their betters. Who could possibly question the royal family as they use their monarchy to enrich theirselves and their fellow royalty?
Oh lord, Jay are you seriously suggesting that misstatements like this are a sure sign of incompetence?
Not incompetence. Ignorance. I can guarantee that if I sat down and asked Senator Schumer what shipping line was more at risk, Wallenius-Wilhelmsen Steamship Lines or Fednav, he probably wouldn’t know. I don’t have an issue with that, except that he shouldn’t be out there presenting himself as somebody in the know, when he doesn’t know.
I agree with Quaker 100%. Now excuse me while I go and shovel all of the snow that just fell out of the sky here in Florida.
We are told by the neocon apologists that we invaded Iraq because they were state sponsors of terror.
We are told by the neocon apologists that we must stop Iran, because they are state sponsors of terror.
We are told by the neocon apologists that we must allow a state-owned corporation from the UAE, state sponsors of terror, to control security at many of our ports.
Bananapeel wrote:
While I wouldn’t call Senator Frist quite the same hypocrite that I’d call the oh-so-inclusive Democrats, he’s way wrong on this one. Quite frankly, anyone who has been claiming that this war isn’t against Arabs in general, but then turns around and says that we can’t approve this deal because the cargo handling functions will be partially owned by the Arabs is being hypocritical.
There’s nothing that prevents Republicans from being hypocrites and demagogues; the fact that they usually aren’t as bad as the Democrats is a plus, but only a plus.
Please. Please read this. Even if it is 2 years old. It’s important. I’m talking to you, Dana.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0111-01.htm
After you’ve read it we can discuss the merits of hypocrisy in re the Republican Guard Party
factcheck,
who is saying that the Coast Guard is being outsourced to the UAE? I’m not aware of any such proposal.
Read that, though. Everyone, right or left. Red or Blue. It’s important.
The dumbest thing I hear is, “they are playing politics.”
Of course! Its all politics!
Whether or not UAE port management is a good or bad idea really isnt the point. Depending on which party was out of power, this arrangement would be attacked just for the political gain by the other party.
It is an opportunity to screw with the administation. It’s good politics and its the way the game has been played since Lee Atwater.
As far as foreign companies owning important parts of our infrastructure…why? Is international trade more important than US security? Fear mongering is part of this Admins political agenda. Does this deal reveal that we dont need to fear anything after all?
This adminstration thrives on puttig a scare into the public. Doesnt the vetting of UAE company demonstrate that the fear is just political BS? If the Admin was serious about American security, they would pass on this deal regardless of its merits.
And yes, of course it is petty and political but, thats the game.
As far as Bush hating goes, its just part of politics. And I am sure that GOP people had just as much fun hating BIll Clinton as we do hating Geo BUsh. Hating Bush is not a sin. Its kind of fun, actually.
I m just having a little fun watching liberals run around basically calling the UAE a bunch of terrorists
AWOL George seems to be enjoying it as well. So much so he’s backing away from his threat to veto any Congressional action to void the port deal.
And let’s face it, the UAE served as the financial conduit to the 9/11 terrorists. It was one of only three nations on earth to recognize the Taliban. It continues to advocate the destruction of Israel (isn’t that what we have against the democratically-elected Hamas Govt?). And the UAE has routinely been used as a shipping point for Pakistani nuclear technology to No. Korea and other garden spots.
What amuses me is that AWOL George is reaping what he’s sown. He’s the one who fostered an anti-Arab hatred. Now his business buddies are getting what AWOL George carefully nurtured.
What amuses me is that AWOL George is reaping what he s sown. He s the one who fostered an anti-Arab hatred. Now his business buddies are getting what AWOL George carefully nurtured.
Hah hah. That’s a good one. The possible anti-Arab stance by Democrats on this issue is BUSH’S fault.
Next: Bush was on the grassy knoll!
The possible anti-Arab stance by Democrats on this issue is BUSH S fault.
Even if all the Dems were solidly aligned against the port deal, they couldn’t do a thing about it.
It’s AWOL George’s party of racists who are beating the drums against the UAE.
This is good fun watching the racist Repugs’ heads explode. After years of “9/11 changed everything” and “Islamofascists”—their hero is giving the keys to US ports to a company which has been a leading exporter of terrorism and still calls for Israel to be destroyed.
Yes, never forget: Republicans are against the deal because of racism while Democrats oppose it because of national security.
I can guarantee that if I sat down and asked Senator Schumer what shipping line was more at risk, Wallenius-Wilhelmsen Steamship Lines or Fednav, he probably wouldn t know. I don t have an issue with that, except that he shouldn t be out there presenting himself as somebody in the know, when he doesn t know.
I’m certain you don’t know either, Jay Caruso.
The reason you don’t know is that you assume ownership nationality confers some degree of safety or risk.
JaqyC once again demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension. Turning ports over to a state that sponsors terrorism is bad, that is the democratic stance. The Bush fanned anti-muslim fervor among the right (republicans) is where Bush is experiencing his backlash. Apparently, being concerned about National Security is the democrats’ basis here and as JayC points out, playing bigotted politics is where the anti-port Republicans stand. Good point JayC.
The democrats thank you Save Farris for your endorsement of their Department of Homeland Security idea, the NSA wiretaps through FISA, they had an effective sidestep of the Gorelick wall too, but since Bush couldn’t figure it out, tearing it down can stay with Bush as a bad idea. You can keep the ineffectual patriot act that does more to spy on US citizens for the republicans too.
m certain you don t know either, Jay Caruso.
The reason you don t know is that you assume ownership nationality confers some degree of safety or risk.
Wrong stupid. My example had nothing to do with ownership nationality. One ships breakbulk, the other breakbulk and containers. It’s an important distinction, which I won’t bother explaining to you. Believe me, ocean shipping is not the most exciting subject in the world, but it’s something I am very familiar with and experienced with. I’m sure I know more about it than Chuck Schumer and I’m positive I know more about the subject than you.
My example had nothing to do with ownership nationality. One ships breakbulk, the other breakbulk and containers.
Still false but irrelevant.
FedNav’s fleet are largely bulk carriers–different than breakbulk which are general purpose cargo carriers.
For someone as experienced as you claim to be not understanding the difference is amusing.
And it’s not just container traffic that represents a potential threat–it’s also general cargo–that which is shipped on pallets or triwalls, etc.
Jay shrieks>>If he doesn t even know basic terminology, why should anybody take his word for anything?
Box of rocks…meet Jay. Jay…box of rocks.
A few selected Bush’isms..
1.)BOB SCHIEFFER: Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?
DUBYA: Uhhh — Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn’t allow *contamidated* medicine into our country
2.) “Uhh — I hear there’s rumors on the, uhh, Internets that we’re gonna have a — draft. We’re not going to have a draft. Period”
3.) AND my personal favorite:
“We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin’ out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren’t able to practice their — their love with women all across this country.”
Tune in next week, folks, when Jay’s denial manifests itself as hypochondriacal paralysis of the left big toe!
JK
So Jay,
Seriously, since you appear to be the expert on the subject, what is the best way to ensure that the terrorists do not smuggle a nuclear weapon throught one of our seaports through any kind of shipping container or vessel?
Still false but irrelevant.
FedNav s fleet are largely bulk carriers different than breakbulk which are general purpose cargo carriers.
Please. Put away the “Ocean Shipping For Dummies” book, ok? Just stop embarassing yourself. Fednav’s fleet are called ‘bulk’ carriers but handle both bulk and breakbulk cargo. Whole ‘bulk’ carriers are more specialized. The main difference between bulk and breakbulk is how the cargo is stowed. IE, bananas stowed loosely in a hold (not in boxes or containers) is considered ‘bulk.’ A pallet of boxes of bananas is considered ‘breakbulk.’
I’m going to charge to educate you from this point on.
And it s not just container traffic that represents a potential threat it s also general cargo that which is shipped on pallets or triwalls, etc.
Read for content Mr. Stevedore wannabe. I said which one would be more at risk
JK, what does President Bush have to do with Chuck Schumer’s ignorance regarding the ocean shipping industry?
“Not incompetence. Ignorance.”
Um, and the operative difference in this case is what? If Schumer is ignorant of the basic facts he may still be capable of making a competent decision? I guess that’s the possibility that we’ve all been hoping and praying for the past five years: “Oh lord, please let George W. Bush guess right.”
And for the record the only delight I take in this controvery is the cognitive dissonance it must be causing in the heads of loyal A-rab hatin’ Bush supporters. Other than that, I don’t really care what company manages our ports as long as all the legally required i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed before the deal goes through. There seems to be some question that that happened in this instance. As far as I’m concerned it looks like just another case of Bush cronyism and corruption only this time it happened to tweak the quivering paranoia that Bush has done so much to cultivate since 9-11. Bush can cry me a river.