Rendition: better safe than sorry
Torture: better safe than sorry
Invade Iraq: better safe than sorry
Illegal Wiretaps: better safe than sorry
Letting a gov’t with ties to Al Qaeda run some of our ports: who cares.

Nice job zombies.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia/

Re your response to jade. Its not port management and this is not outsourcing - in the sense that it is in essence the renewal of an existing foreign contract.

The only diffreence is that the company is now owned by an UAE entity. The only difference.

Dugger

Again, I fail to see why US port management is outsourced to anyone. There are plenty of US companies that do this work in fact, the US were the innovators of modern port management.

Then perhaps you can explain to us why when P & O went up for sale (that was last October, not just a couple of weeks ago), there were no American bidders.

At least at Tioga Marine Terminal, in the Port of Philadelphia, the port is owned by the state. Delaware River Stevedores (half owned by P & O) won the contract from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to manage Tioga. Apparently there were no wholly American companies that could compete with DRS’s bid.

Anyway, and on a more serious note - there are too many dubious aspects to this deal, to much to be mere coincidence… that leads to conjecture.

Though, you’ll note - that there was much less (but similar) concerns raised by the GOP when the Chinese began operations on the West Coast… that was one of the early charges against Clinton, remember?
Didn’t hear anyone throwing the race card then.

And please explain to me this - why… why, approaching midterms; in the midst of faltering public support; as a string of initiatives fail… and programs aren’t received well by the public - why, would no one in the administration have had the sense to work w/ congress closer, let alone anticipate that this would be a lighten-rod and try to pre-emptively damage control?

The whole thing is silly… and terribly telling.

The “racism” charge(s), however continue to be the most hilarious thing I’ve seen since Hillary’s “plantation quote” brouhaha. Guess that’ll be a continuing GOP theme going into midterms as well.

Should be entertaining.

Again, I fail to see why US port management is outsourced to anyone. There are plenty of US companies that do this work–in fact, the US were the innovators of modern port management.

The arguments against this deal are plain: port management will be privy to port security operations. Additionally, this deal has cronyism written all over it.

The arguments for this deal is that AWOL George says he wants it.

Dugger, Oh well

Nice analogy Constantine…

Here’s an example of their sterling ability to help investigations…

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/022206.html

And there’s the simple fact that DHS strongly objected to it. Initially…

“the port deal opens us to a number of unnecessary security risks.”

Considering what we know about security, the operation of this firm at other ports (Germany, Korea, Australia, etc), that it is essentially an experienced British firm (now owned by a UAE entity), considering there have been terrorist incidents in Britain, France and several terroists from the US, what are the ‘number” of unnnecessary risks this deal opens us up to?

Dugger

No one is arguing that the UAE is “the enemy.” What they’re arguing is that the port deal opens us to a number of unnecessary security risks. You might be best friends with an alcoholic and you might be proud of him for faithfully going to AA meetings. That doesn’t mean you need to hire him as your chauffeur.

Of course, this letter supports the administration’s case. Why do you think they declassified it now? It’s basically al-Qaeda telling the UAE, “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” They threaten the Emirs, and warn them not to side with us.

The fact that the UAE’s response was to give the document to us shows what side they chose. And when you think about it, they have a lot more to gain from siding with us, and siding with bin Laden comes with a heavy downside. If I wasn’t already convinced that Bush is right on this one, I would have found this document very persuasive.

…must be one of those covert “secret, even in success” operations Dubya told us about all those years ago.

Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message. [emphasis added - fd]

***

“If it’s real [emphasis added], the document shows that the UAE really is trying to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, because they were being threatened by al Qaeda,” said terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino.

“But it also reveals that even though they [the UAE] are our friends, al Qaeda seems to have people on the inside in the UAE, just as it has [emphasis added] in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Kuwait.”

Sometimes what we reveal is less important than what we conceal.

Oh, wait — he doesn’t carry it at all.