Up until now, I've always said that although I wasn't pleased with Bush, I had not regretted my choice to vote for him twice. But for the first time I truly regret it.
As you have probably heard, a company based in the United Arab Emerates (UAE) is about to buy a company that has been in charge of the ports in the USA. Because it's a $6.8 billion deal, and because Bush's family is very tight with arabic royalty (such as the Royal House of Saud), I guess it's too tempting a deal for Bush to pass up.
Here is a choice section out of the St. Pete Times article today, which I'd like to share with you, because it boils down the debate:
Hillsborough County Commissioner Ronda Storms said that while the UAE is an ally, news organizations have reported that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the nation as an operational and financial base.
"What you're being asked to do is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," she said. "We are being encouraged to ignore possible risks and questions raised by good and diligent people."
Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio pointedly asked if Storms was raising objections because Dubai Ports World is owned by Arabs. "I think it's very important we deal with facts," she said. "Their ethnicity should not be a factor."
Storms shot back that she was concerned strictly with the political beliefs of people involved. "They weren't Brazilians who blew up the twin towers," she said. "They weren't Chinese, they weren't Japanese. They were of a certain political persuasion. I'm sorry a member of this board turned this into a race bait(ing)."
I wish I had been there to cheer: Go Ronda Storms! But sadly, it's too late. Last night, the Tampa Port Authority was authorized to sign the contract with the British company that is selling out to the UAE company.
No problem, you say. This time there are plenty of Republican congressmen, as well as Democratic ones, that are opposed to it. They all want to know why the deal was speedily OK'd, despite a federal law that requires a 45-day investigation when a foreign acquisition "could affect the national security of the United States."
Ah, but here's the stumbling block in this road of progress: Bush doesn't care what they think, and he doesn't care what you think.
President Bush told reporters Tuesday on Air Force One that the sale had been examined by the administration and was "a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country." He pledged to veto any attempt in Congress to block it.
With this most recent development affecting our families in the Tampa Bay Area, I am going to do my very best to make sure that he cares what *I* think. I am going to start a letter writing campaign, to begin with.
Please, please take out some time in your busy day today to help me (and all of us). Email:
- Your local congressmen/women in both houses. To get their email addresses, go to both The House of Representatives and The United States Senate.
- Vice President Cheney.
- President Bush. Although his email address isn't listed any longer(!), it's still probably this one. But, copy it to the regular comments email addy as well.
- Your State Governors.
- Your State-Level Legislators.
(Don't forget to alter it wherever it's needed to be changed)
Dear
I am writing to you to beg you to do something concerning the sale to Dubai Ports World of the contract for seven of the major ports in the United States, including Tampa (since yesterday evening, as reported in the St. Petersburg Times).
This decision is not simply a decision to allow an Arabic company to do business in the USA. Instead, it’s a decision that could very likely compromise what little security we have in our ports.
If the Bush administration is in Iraq because the terrorist threat is real, why are we opening the doors to deals with any company based in a country that both harbored and financially supported some of the hijackers in the 9/11 incident?
Our nation’s security is too important to abandon easily for the almighty dollar. I want to know why the deal was speedily OK'd, despite a federal law that requires a 45-day investigation when a foreign acquisition "could affect the national security of the United States."
Please get us the answers, and stop the sale.
Sincerely,
Your Name Here
P.S. For those of you who are interested in follow-up stories to earlier posts, click here for the newspaper sequel to my post about Hammoudeh's false imprisonment. And go here to read about how the Sheriff has decided to close the kids' bootcamp where the 14 year old boy was murdered this month. It is now being investigated by the State Attorney, as well. My original post about it is here.
34 comments:
I am concerned about this development. I would have been concerned had I known that many of our ports were owned by British and Chinese but until this broke, I assumed that America owned America's ports. I guess I made an ass out of me.
I don't think this is a racial issue or a cultural issue but this is a sovereinty and a security issue. It is our land and we should own it and control it. I also think it is a huge security risk. Bush made the comment that the Coast Guard would still provide security and yet the commander of the Coast Guard security said that they can only check less than 5% of all cargo containers entering the country. If I were a terrorist, I would really love those odds. Even if the terrorists couldn't get a nuke out of the harbor and onto dry land, isn't the port of a major city close enough?
I'm disgusted but happy to live in no name middle of nowhere Iowa and not along a coast.
I am pleased a number of the local port authorities have stepped up to the debate. One of the justified criticisms laid on the locals after Katrina was the expectation that the Feds were responsible. I am glad your port authority is not making the same mistake
No, Mallory! As a matter of fact, they've abdicated responsibility to the Feds for this one, by signing the contract despite objections. Now the Tampa Port is an additional port on the list which will be compromised. We really need your help, please write anyone you can!
Ed, exactly! Who knew that the ports are not being monitored by United States companies??? There are some solutions which need to be found, fast.
Saur.. It is hard sometimes to live the American dream. And in order to live it you have to take the good and the bad of FREE ENTERPRISE. I despise Bush but this has nothing to do with him. It is all about free enterprise. At the same time I will defend, with my life, your right to stage this protest.
Also, it is said to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If you think that the Saudi company is an enemy then having them right here, open to our scrutiniy, could be a very good thing.
Fodder for the fire. :)
Peace
PS. Love Tampa! I have sisters there and really enjoy the city when visiting.
Okay. All done here.
My Senator Tom Coburn's site already mentions his plans to fight this.
I wish I could support you in your plans, but I honestly feel that it is a little over the top. You stated that the Dubai company would control security, but the isn't what the Brits from whom they bought the leased controled. The ships will still be unloaded and loaded by U.S.Dockworkers (not that that union hasn't had some problems). The security will be handled by the U.S. Government, as it always has been and is still done in Los Angeles where the leases on many of the terminals are held by the Chinese. I think that this was a politically stupid thing for the Bush Adminstration but I have yet to be convinced that it is dangerous. Enough members of both the congress and the senate have spoken out against this that you will probably have your way.
I don't know much about this, but I will certainly look into further. From what I read in your post, there are two things I have opinions about...
1. Will be be an easy target for terrorism?
2. TrappedInColorado brings up a valid point though. I can't help but wonder if this is, in fact a good idea for the means of free enterprise.
I wish I had more of a stronger opinion for you, but I will read further into this. I'm not too educated on this matter, so let me look up those links you provided and then I will make my decision from there.
Thanks for informing us!
That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard! I can't believe it! I will email when I get home! Hope you are having a good day!
This whole thing is starting to stink worse:
According to DP World, "Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
So the way it looks to me is that someone who used to work for DP World would now be overseeing them. This is our security measure?
Ed, I just read that too!!! My jaw dropped.
Jules, thank you.
Deb, by all means, investigate further. What you find will astound you.
3 Score & 10, you're correct. I misspoke when I mentioned 'security'. However, they are in charge of port management. And the security is done through the U.S. Coast Guard, which can only oversee about 5% of what is imported. It will be much easier to take advantage of the 95% free lunch if the port management is a group that comes from an area where security has been repeatedly compromised, to say the least. To read more about the compromises, read THIS article.
Uncle Joe, thank you.
Trapped in Colorado, but do other countries' companies deserve to live the American dream??? I don't think so.
TC, thank you.
TC, yeah, and if anyone believes that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell 'em... I believe it's possible that Bush didn't know (you can't stay on top of everything) but he was a little too anxious to defend this, which shows something else entirely. You're right.
Seeing as I live about 1 mile from the port of New York, I take this very seriously. I can just see this as being the pearl harbor of the great middle east vs america war. I know I am all paranoid, but really... Maybe the government should operate the port and not a private company.
R2K
After hearing about this I was waiting to hear the rest of the story... some kind of logical explanation for something that sounds so outrageous. Turns out there is no good explanation. Thanks for the sample letter. I will do my part.
Yeah, and let's sell the Arabs our pilot training schools....
I had already read the NYT article (I read the Times with deep suspicion anyway)The British stockholers of P&O the selling company think that we are penalizing them on a racial basis. We are coming off as "Raghead haters" in much of the rest of the world. If we want to declare war on all Arab countries why not go ahead (actually in Dubai, we have a head start with a major base there.) I'm sorry, the more I read the more I think it is anti arab hysteria. ( a big point has been made that some of the hijackers were from Dubai and transported through there, but they met in Germany too and transported -any moved finances - through there. What should we do with the German companies that have port services in San Diego and Savannah. As far as citizenship is concerned two of the latest three terrorist planners in Michigan (or Minnesota , one of those M states) Were U. S. citizens.
I'll close here, I don't want to lose friends, but I don't buy it.)
Thank you for the good information. I will definitely be looking into this further.
Hey folks, the whole thing is moot. According to BBC. about an hour ago, Singapore has outbid Dubai for P&O in Britain and it appears that Singapore will assume management of the leases that are owned in U.S. ports by P&O.
Of course, though they are not Arabs, Singapore is part of the largest Muslim country in the world so the uproar will probably not die down.
Saur, like you I was dumb struck when I first heard. This was like a no brainer. But, like Three Score, I have come to believe that this is not as obvious as I originally thought. I am still gathering information and have not decided where I stand yet on this issue. This is a great post and a really important subject. Thanks for the kick in the pants.
Like you, I am gathering all the info I can. Thank You for the email links and more info.
I don't know why any of our ports were being managed by ANY foreign nation to begin with. I had no idea that a British company was managing them prior to this deal. Why has there been nothing said prior to this? I would think that no foreign company should be operating our ports. I have to look into what their role actually is. I'm inclined to think that only Americans should be overseeing Amercan ports.
I've heard many argue against racial profiling at airports, etc... Those same people should be arguing FOR this deal, but I find it very telling that they are not. I have never had a problem with racial profiling, particularly after 9-11, and I have great concerns about our ports being operated/managed by an Arab country, even if they are an ally.
I see both sides of this issue, and have not fully made up my mind as to where I stand.
I will study the issue further & come to a decision soon.
Thanks very much for your input and info on the matter.
Whoa. Singapore? Are there any ports in the US that are managed by US companies . . . if there is such a thing anymore?!
What this has done is to bring the security of our ports front and center. Time to lay it on the table and start making plans to improve our security.
Thanks for stopping by my site today: I am glad you like the site meter! And i sent the letters, like you asked.
Thanks, Saur. This was quite the topic of conversation at school today. My AP Comparative Politics students had a discussion about it today; the vote was 21-5 to kill the deal.
I'll send my letter tomorrow.
Like uncle joe alluded to, we have a great Senator in Tom Coburn. Yes, I'll send the letters.
It really doesn't surprise me that Bush is doing this kind of thing; it runs in the family. His Grandfather, Prescott Bush, while a director of Union Banking Corporation in New York, helped finance the Nazi war effort. Yes, it was investigated but nothing ever came of it. He was also a senior partner of the Wallstreet banking firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman. I'm not even going to say what group they financed because no one would believe it anyway. Although it is all verifiable.
Anthony Sutton has some great books out on this subject.
Like it or not, Bush won his second term. Now he is a lame duck president. He can do pretty much whatever he wants, whenever he wants - and nobody can do squat about it. This is just ONE of many reasons I voted for the other guy, if you ask me winning re-election should be a very hard thing to do. The dangers of a lame duck president are too great.
So the ports will be sold. Letters are pointless, as the members of congress who might read them will vote no. Bush will veto it, then the republicans in congress will all get "lets go hunting" invitations from Cheney. The message will be clear - vote to overturn the veto and Cheney will shoot you.
So the deal will probably happen. America is quickly turning into less of a democracy than Russia is today.
I find that I am purely not liking it because it is a GWB move (even though he claims to know nothing about it, yet he's defending it), and we all know how notorious he is for shooting himself in the foot.
For a President who has used every security speech in the book to get re-elected and wage a war... I find this a bit curious that he would prostitute our land and declare it free enterprise. Shouldn't our ports be controlled by us, and nobody else?
I'm smelling a rat, and I want time to find the source of the stink before I come to any real conclusions on the matter.
As always, you find the most interesting subjects, Saurkraut!
I promise. Nothing more. The remainder of this story can be found on AP Newsvine or by google in CBS New.
(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.
Horselips.
Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.
The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.
THis goes on with evidence --3score
Saur. check Patrick's blog. I would like to send you something by Email and my addy is there. You could send me an Email address. I promise I won't bookmark it, sell it or otherwise disgrace it.
Saur,
First and foremost I don’t care if rug heads live or die but since I don’t want the SEC knocking on my door I’m just throwing out a few thoughts.
As a military trained linguist I naturally don’t like the idea of foreigners owning U.S. transportation facilities. On the other hand I have assisted U.S. companies in the purchase of foreign transportation facilities.
Most of the ports/terminals in the U.S. are in dire need of capital infusion. From strictly a business perspective I’m sure this foreign investment would greatly benefit the ports, create U.S. jobs and yes I’m sure Bush has some stake in it.
Most of the inland marine transportation facilities are still U.S. owned and operated. The offshore marine business (terminal & barge) has been going foreign for several years. The Chinese and Arabs can’t get enough raw materials to sustain their growth. It makes perfect business sense for foreign capitalists to resolve the infrastructure bottleneck by purchasing U.S. ports and upgrading them so that they can get enough coke (coal) to run their raw material mills 24/7/365 WFO.
If you look at where you’re making all your money it’s in foreign stocks.
If I were young I would be looking into buying property in foreign countries since the liberal media is well on its way to destroying the U.S.
What "liberal media" is there? The same media who walk in the bathroom after Bush uses it and proclaim that the place smells like roses? That liberal media?
I no longer have ANY use for the media in the USA. I get all my news from the BBC and other international sources.
Little but wiser Brother,
You just can't believe anything that comes out of the U.S. media sources. I raise my tail to your news strategy.
Good Informaton. I will copy it down, I will try to mail it, but if you know anything about me at all you know that I live in an electronic world and I rarely mail anything. ANYTHING.
It would be so much easier just to lie and say that I was totally going to do this wouldn't it.
Ugh. I am an irresponsible, lazy, American.
unfortunately eddo, too many of us are. Maybe we could make a difference, but it is too easy to assume others will do it and that our one little voice doesnt matter anyway, so its ok to be lazy. I am not attacking you in any way whatsoever. I am usually the lazy one too, but i did actually email this letter today, and i feel good about it. Just making a point about society as a whole. I am usually right there with you on the lazy thing. Its the thought that counts right?
On it saur. I think it's time someone bursts the bubble.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
~Mike
The only comment I can come up with is :
Tabarnac!, a french "bad word" which I rarely use except when the emotion is too strong for my English self-espression.
I am amazed at the grrrr factor you just put in. I wish I had a congressman to email. I'm yet so glad I'm Canadian!
Go girl! Us worried neighbours to the north are cheering you on!
ROCK ON!
Beav'
Post a Comment