Bill Clinton says U.S. should consider running its own ports

[sabra]

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060228/NEWS01/60228002

Bill Clinton says U.S. should consider running its own ports


WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton weighed in on the port security controversy Tuesday, saying the United States should consider whether it should have more control over its ports.

Speaking to reporters after addressing the National Governors Association, Clinton said he is a "huge fan" of the government of Dubai, a United Arab Emirate state whose maritime company is poised to take over some operations at six major U.S. ports.

But, he added, the adequacy of port security under foreign management is a legitimate issue.

"I don’t think there is any question that this (state-owned Dubai Ports World) is a reputable company," Clinton said. "And there is no question that the United Arab Emirates is a good ally of America. But all of us are feeling that we want to maintain the maximum control we can over our national security. This is one area where we have really failed."

[fooj]

1. Hey Bill...little late to the party, eh?

Peace.

[MADem]

4. Better late than never!

And he's right--we already have the talent right here at home. Of course, devils are always in the details...the management company would likely end up being Hell-aburton!

[CAcyclist]

17. Outlaw corporate control and re-nationalize our ports

We have got to stop this insane drive to privatize everything.

[MADem]

19. I have to say I'm with you on that n/t

[Hekate]

37. You got that right

Will there ever come a time again when Congress puts the brakes on the Robber Baron juggernaut? When our so-called elected representatives realize that corporate interests are not the same as national interests? The billions we pour into the military machine in the name of "defense" are truly wasted if our leaders no longer know what strategic assets at home actually consist of.

Hekate

[MADem]

40. Your deity of choice willing, we should live to see that!!!

And I am hopeful that we might. I really feel as though we are poor assholes, unwillingly riding the pendulum, sick at our stomachs, and, YES, we just may LIVE until it will swing back...hopefully before I am in GEEZERHAPPY VILLAGE, the home for the doddering....!!!

[zann725]

31. Agreed...better late than never.

For once I agree with Big Dog.

[xultar]

15. That's the point. Why should he even have to say we should consider

running our own ports.

[Texacrat]

28. He's a private citizen, for christsakes

He has no responsibility to you or me.

[iconoclastNYC]

41. He's a former president

And he gets that 300,000 for life. I think it's a stretch to call him a private citizen. We don't have lifetime secret service details, now do we?

[Ron Mexico]

2. Gee, there's a thought (n/t)

[wakeme2008]

3. Sidenote: Bill make $500,000 in speaking fees with UAE

but still he will not back this.

[tularetom]

5. Duh - the question is

Can we really refer to ourselves as a "superpower" if we can't even operate our own ports? We really are in deep shit if in a country of 300 million people we can't find anybody that can operate a port.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seen the light]

12. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

38. Lay off Clinton, you psycho!

[tabasco]

6. No shit, Sherlock.

The American People DEMAND our ports be under OUR control !!

DOWN with the corrupt Saudi/American corporate cabal !!

[oscar111]

11. caption: Bush "After you kickback half, what do you want me to do next?"

nt

[blm]

7. If you opened the books on BCCi when you had the opportunity, there would

be no question of the UAE controlling our ports today or EVER.

[worldgonekrazy]

20. I gotta say blm, you are spot on about this BCCI thing

I remember when there were heated arguments over who ought to get the Democratic nomination back in '04. You were one of the very few people on this board who backed Kerry before he won the nomination, and you took a lot of heat for it. I recall that you would always post about BCCI and how Kerry was the guy who fought the corruption and would continue to do so. At the time I thought you were grasping at straws, but I've done some more research and, well, new shit has come to light, and I think you were exactly right about that.

It is too bad Kerry didn't get the Presidency. He would've taken steps to make sure these kinds of crooks could not operate with such impunity again.

[blm]

24. My personal rule is to trust the open government lawmakers - they are

the true representatives of the American citizen who believe that the government really belongs to the people, and that informed citizens make for a stronger nation.

It's Octafish who deserves most of the thanks for keeping us informed reBCCI. The more people understand it, the greater the numbers willing to battle the entity that is BushInc.

[oscar111]

8. NATIONALIZE solves many problems inmany areas.. healthcare

for one.

Tamiflu shortage, flushot shortage, for others. only one tamiflu factory for the globe? Nationalize pill factories, make our own.

Libraries a good example of nationalizing.. interstates are another..
====================================================================================================Co ops another good option... groceries, credit unions....


Things are cheaper by the dozen.. and done better when controlled democratically, not by one boss.


dont fall for Rush's antigovernment p;ropoganda.. just his scheme to avoid taxes.

[lumpy]

9. Duh ....Bill

obviously...

[rodeodance]

13. maybe this will be catchy?

[riona]

14. duh

our country, our ports. some things you don't share.

[wordpix]

16. Hillary should adopt this mantra & point out that airports aren't managed

by other nations, either.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[worldgonekrazy]

18. Thats a great headline

I mean, you'd think it'd be just way too obvious, yet most people aren't saying this. The criticism from most of Congress is that we should not let a state-owned Arab company run our ports, but not that we shouldn't let any foreign entity run them.

[Solly Mack]

21. So, the UAE is a good ally, who had a couple of criminal citizens

who opted to crash planes into buildings in the US - and therefore the UAE did not deserve to be invaded by America since it wasn't the government, it was a couple of their citizens, who just happen to be terrorists? Never mind that bin Laden is hardly a stranger to the UAE - it's not the countries fault bin Laden was ever in the UAE or that terrorists reside within the UAE. We can't go invading innocent people to catch a few terrorists. No sense in blaming an entire government for the actions of a few citizens. We can't allow ourselves to be biased against an entire country simply because of the acts of a few of it's citizens - or even if some in the goverment have a connection to terrorists?


BUT

Afghanistan, with a group of murderous theocratic zealots at the helm (that were NEVER chosen by the people), instead of a legitimate government, deserved to be invaded because another terrorist group had members living in the country? So it was OK to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan because some terrorists did live there? So it was OK to blame the entire country and kill it's people then?


and Iraq was an axis of evil nation that had to be invaded even though none of it's citizens crashed planes into American buildings? So it was OK to to bomb the shit out of Iraqis because, even though they were in no way involved in 911, Saddam *might*, one day, in some future, be a threat?

(and I'm not forgetting Saudi Arabia)

Cause see, this whole Dubai deal just reeks from the hypocrisy and all the lies surrounding 911 and the invasion of Iraq - and it just beggars the question(s)

How is it that a country (or countries) that does (do) have a direct link to 911 become a "good" ally when a country that had nothing to do with 911 gets invaded and occupied? And another country, where the people had no say whatsoever in their illegal government, get blamed as a whole for the actions of a rogue government's connection to a terrorist group? And the Afghan people as a whole have paid for the actions of the few.

How do we justify going after one and not the other?

Of course it's proper to question foreign control of ports...

but I still want my questions answered by those in government.

[Generator]

25. Stop making sense

It will get you nowhere. (yes I think it IS time for that Talking Heads album to come out) Oh and I love how Clinton does his usual talking out of both sides of his mouth. Dubai ports OKAY! SAFE. But, on the other hand we should run our own ports. No real opposition. Only the nice soundbite. That's our Clinton. When do we get real leaders? When oh when?

[Solly Mack]

27. I do feel utterly frustrated

Thanks! :)

[blm]

26. Pretty much sums it up.

.

[Solly Mack]

29. Thank you

I was beginning to question my own sanity. :)

[blm]

33. Better not - jeez, if YOU'RE insane, what does that make me?

;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Tracer]

23. I think Boston runs its own ports.

http://www.massport.com/ports/about.html

Why can't other cities do the same?

[NVMojo]

30. no shit, Bill!

[Duer 157099]

32. Why is he a "huge fan" of the govt of UAE??? n/t

[saracat]

34. Wow! Ya, think? Duh!

[Clarkie1]

35. This is a good way of framing the issue.

Regardless of how you feel about UAE, it's an argument the Republicans can attack only at their own peril.

[NuttyFluffers]

36. tee hee, and freeper heads explode from cognitive dissonance

it's cute that he said this, even though he didn't have to, and i don't care too passionately what clinton says about this (it's nice, but wasn't needed). but what i appreciate most is how it sets the most lunatic reactionary among us in an untenable situation: bill clinton, the all-evil, all-wrong vs. bill clinton saying something sensible that goes against "dear leader's" apparent betrayal of their concerns. aww, poor things, maybe this time i'll only whisper "i told you so."
:evilgrin:

[iconoclastNYC]

39. Good.

I'm glad the moderate wing isn't walking away from this issue but I think they should be a little more activist in tone.

[Zynx]

42. This is a real serious point.

I'm amazed people have not brought it up more.

[Psephos]

43. Two weeks ago, Clinton was advising UAE on how to make the deal happen

He has had a very cozy financial relationship with UAE for years, and has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (that I know of) to carry their water.

Two weeks ago he was working as their consultant to show them how to slide the deal through, and now he's opining about how the US should run its own ports. Meanwhile Hillary's slamming it three ways from Sunday.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html

Hmm, that just about covers every possible angle, doesn't it? For it, against it, halfway in between. I've had enough of the Clintons to last me the rest of my life.

Mark Warner 2008.

Peace.

[osaMABUSh]

44. Naw, ya' think?

morans