Comments on: ‘Operations’ Is Not ‘Control’

By: A Blog For All

A Blog For All — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:14:45 +0000

No Safe Harbor From Swirling Controversy

As for the odd political bedfellows, I noted yesterday that much of the current outrage stems over parochial and home rule issues – the municipalities where these ports are located wanted a say in the decision, and that cuts across party lines. That’…

By: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Port Deal Short Sightedness Runs Amok

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:29:05 +0000

[...] My posts on the UAE port debate are here, here and here. In these posts I tried to call for reason. But the mob left the station and burned down the town. [...]

By: MerryJ1

MerryJ1 — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:17:38 +0000

I’ve only heard one (often, maybe even ‘usually’) reasonable voice nay-saying this UAE buyout, and that was Krauthammer on Brit Hume’s panel at the end of (I think yesterday?) a “Special Report With …”

His main point of contention was that the UAE group would be fully and thoroughly briefed on all Port Authority security measures; and his related concern is that if even one UAE-group principle is sympathetic to the terrorists’ goals, they would be handed our entire security blueprint in one tidy little bundle.

He also stated that the legal provisions behind this move leaves the Bush Administration with no legitimate option to oppose it, because the laws governing the whole transaction were/are based on Cold War circumstances and assumptions, and do not address realities of the GWOT. His view is that the underlying laws, regulations or whatever should be scrapped and rewritten.

As to the validity of his comments, I plead general ignorance but I’d like to hear some thoughtful responding views.

AJ? You’re my Guru on this one. Any thoughts?

By: AJStrata

AJStrata — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:39:42 +0000

I would never ban you Ernie!

Not over this, at least.

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:37:01 +0000

Your feelings on the UAE port deal (TUE PM UPDATE AND BUMP)

There’s lots of rumbling going on in conservative AND liberal circles over the Bush-admin approved deal that would turn over control of port operations in six US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Story via FoxNews:
WASHIN…

By: BurbankErnie

BurbankErnie — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:12:12 +0000

AJ,
I have nothing concrete, and I don’t towe the Repub line; hell, half of ‘em make me as sick as a Dem does.
I was reading over at Malkin’s site regarding the buyout of P&O and the battle between UAE and Singapore over the takeover, and it just doesn’t sit well with me that a Country WITH TIES to Terrorism will be in charge of ANYTHING in the U.S. Forget the Political fallout, I bring that up only as a reminder of repurcussions should anything happen in a port, related or unrelated to this Company.
I agree with many Dems (sure they are posturing as Strong Defenders of our Country) that a U.S. Based Company be in Charge of ANY and ALL Security of our Country ON OUR SHORES.
If this drives away those precious Muslim hearts we are trying to win over, tough.
BTW, your Blog is recommended by the biggest players on the Right. I am always humbled when you speak directly to a comment I make.
Hope I don’t piss you off and get banned….

By: vadkins

vadkins — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:57:46 +0000

But this is what the media does-spins, spins, spins. Many conflicting spins (spin=lies) are put out there to blur the news. Same thing happened with the Terri Schiavo story and the Able Danger story. For years the media lied about Schiavo-she was in a coma, on a respirator, etc. Then when the whole thing came to a head, there were plenty of folks who took up for one side of the issue (starve her to death) or the other (let her live and her family take care of her). With the Able Danger story, because of the media coverage some people believe since there’s no chart so there’s no story that matters, others know that the story is hugely important-that we need to know who stopped the information about a Mohammad Atta terrorist cell in Brooklyn in 2000 from getting to the FBI.

So because of different spins from the media the country ends up with groups that each believe the different spins. And voila, the media gets its ready made, automatic contraversy. And it doesn’t even require many reporters’ boots on the ground, just a few phone calls to find someone who says something that supports the spin. Much cheaper than reporters’ boots on the ground. Seems to me that the same thing is happening now with the port story.

By: AJStrata

AJStrata — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:57:40 +0000

Burbank,

You and I agree on a lot, and you one of the first readers of this little ‘ol blog – but so what if Reps take a hit? It’s the right thing to do. And I still maintain the UAE company (with many Americans in its leadership) will do more to protect the ports given this visibility.

If you have something concrete bring it forward. If not – forget it. The Dubai company controls major ports all over the world.

What you don’t know (and never will know) is what deals the US made for transparency at those overseas ports – where threats will originate. We need partners in the sending ports to help stop threats even getting in the ships. The Dubai company has a great security record.

Sorry – Haliburton is not up to the job. We need smart answers on this one.

By: BurbankErnie

BurbankErnie — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:42:30 +0000

While it is known that this Company was British owned for many years, all it will take is ONE incident, of ANY kind, at ANY port they have ANYTHING to do with, and it will end up as POLITCAL DEATH to the Repubs for many, many years.

I agree with Sen. Schumer spit, Halliburton can do the job.