I'm glad someone (someone named Hillary) is addressing the ports fiasco

[mtnsnake]

When it comes to actions over rhetoric, Senator Clinton steps up again, along with Senator Menendez on this one. Nice to see someone is going after Bushco in his attempts to sell out control of our ports to foreign governments....

"Menendez, Clinton to Introduce Bill to Block Foreign Governments from Controlling U.S. Ports"

Legislation Would Block Sale of U.S. Port Operations to UAE-Controlled Company

snip:

Washington, DC – United States Senators Robert Menendez and Hillary Clinton announced today that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. The legislation would block such transactions as the proposed sale of operations at six major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

“Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments,” Clinton said. “I will be working with Senator Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments.”


Dubai Ports World has announced plans to buy P&O Ports, the company that runs commercial operation at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as other U.S. cities. The transaction was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a committee made up of representatives of different government departments and agencies, and seems headed for completion unless blocked by Congress.


“The Bush administration has neglected port security for years, and now they’re ready to turn port operations over to the control of a foreign government that is a known transit point for smuggled nuclear technology,” Menendez said. “Congress must act to protect our security.”

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=251709&&

[Sugarcoated]

1. Wow

she's really going out on a limb on this one

[mtnsnake]

2. Funny how if was anyone else, there'd be 200 threads about it, but

since it's Hillary, there's barely a whiff, and here it's one of the most important security issues of our country that this relates to.

[gratuitous]

3. And if she hadn't commented

There'd be a hundred Hillary-bashing threads begun about how she was an administration toady, uninterested in protecting we the people. With a bunch of gibbering, head-nodding agreements made by a bunch of folks with suspiciously low post numbers.

[Sugarcoated]

5. It's great that she's standing up

but it's not a shining example of bravery like the original post was implying.

[China_cat]

6. Sometimes there are things that are just so out of whack

that you don't know what to say about them.

This is one of those times and subjects.

[acmavm]

9. Oh bull. It's a Monday and a lot of people are at work. Even if it is

President's Day. The reason I'm here not on my lunch hour is I'm sick and they won't let me come back until I'm over this flu. So I have to see a damn doctor (which I cannot afford, but cannot afford not to work either).

I don't see her sticking her neck out on this at all. People on both side of the political fence object to this deal. For years there have been news reports, articles, you name it, on how lousy our port security is. Now turning it over to a foreign company who's base is in a place that has connections to funding terrorism and a couple of the 911 hijackers is really ignorant.

Before we go too far, let me just give you a hint of how hot a topic this is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x470304

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x191942

Those were at the crack of dawn this morning.

It's a good thing that she's questioning this sale. A damn good thing. And for Hillary, I'm surprised that she's even involved. But you have to give credit where credit is due. Maybe the others see the religious bigotry issue that the poster accused everyone of in the above two threads. Which, no matter that the learned gentlemen would like to make you believe is the reason people object to this sale, it is not at all the case. At least, not in mine and I don't believe in the minds of most people either. He apparently believes that we need to be 'politically correct' rather than to insist we have a right to demand full and total control over the entrances and exits to our country. Anyway. I'm glad that Clinton and Menendez are doing this. The insanity and the sell off/sell out of our country to the highest bidder has got to stop.

[mtnsnake]

15. Bull? It's been 3 days since her press release. Show me the the threads

You're suprised she's even "involved"? Maybe you should read post #7.

I'm always surprised at how often people here (not you in particular) question her sincerity although I'm starting to get used to it, lol.

[acmavm]

17. There's not political risk here. None at all. But the way you make it

sound, she should be named to martyred patron saint of the democratic party.

[mtnsnake]

19. Would you mind showing me the quote that backs up your statement

that 'the way I make it sound, she should be named to martyred patron saint of the democratic party'?

[still_one]

12. LOL

I love the profiles of courage they take

Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are doing it, but I wish they would do it on the tough issues also

[Sugarcoated]

4. If I'm thinking this is political

as a Democrat, that just doesn't bode well for her.

[mtnsnake]

8. If it's Hillary it's "political" but anyone else and it's sincere, right?

Please read post #7

It's sincere, not JUST political.

[HockeyMom]

7. Clinton lobbied for Port Security

immediately after she was elected. This is and has been a major issue for her. I have gotten emails from her on this with copies of letters she has written personally to Bush on Port Security gong back to 2003.

Sorry, I didn't save them.

[ninkasi]

10. I'm glad she's speaking out

I'm not interested in bashing any of our Dems right now, I'm interested in seeing them stand up to Bushco, and speak out loud and clear every chance they get. I want to change the image we have of being soft on terrorism, because it isn't true. Let's fight Republicans, not each other.

I hope more Dems join her, and take a stand against this lunatic plan to turn over security of 6 of our ports to foreign interests. Now's a good time to point out that for all of the chest thumping Republicans have done about being tough regarding national security, most of it has been nothing but power grabs with national security as an excuse.

[blm]

11. If Bill hadn't closed the books on IranContra and BCCI there would BE NO

port deal, no 9-11, no Iraq war and no Bush would ever have been allowed NEAR the White House.

[gratuitous]

13. Actually, Bush the smarter closed the books on Iran/contra

When he pardoned Cap Weinberger, Eliot Abrams and the rest of the cast that was about to go on trial. And Poppy did this in the dead of night during his lame duck tenure on Christmas Eve 1992, two weeks before Weinberger's trial was about to prove rather conclusively that Poppy was not "out of the loop" but was involved up to his eyeballs on Iran/contra. Oddly enough, though, the story of this perversion of justice gets very little exposure in the "Liberal" media. Try your own experiment on this one: Mention presidential pardons, and then say "Marc Rich." Then mention Iran/contra. And then see how many folks can call up some details on Rich, versus how many can recall anything about Iran/contra.

[blm]

26. Clinton had the pulpit to further scrutinize, including to investigate the

pardons by Poppy. He CHOSE NOT TO - in his own book he said he could have but wanted Bush1 to have a peaceful retirement since he served his country so well.

And Clinton doesn't even MENTION a word about BCCI in his whole book.

Clinton served Poppy well, but Bush2 didn't do the same for Clinton and allowed BULLSHIT INVESTIGATIONS into Clinton's pardons.

[gratuitous]

28. And what could Clinton have done about a presidential pardon?

Please cite specific U.S. Code provisions that would have allowed a successful challenge to a presidential pardon, because as hard as the Arkansas Project elves looked after Clinton stepped down, and as much noise as the GOP fool-tools made about those pardons, their isn't one scintilla in the law that would allow a challenge to a presidential pardon.

But go ahead; your uninformed flailing amuses me.

[blm]

29. He says so in his own words in his own book, gratuitous.

Why attack me? Read it for yourself.

And do you want to claim that BCCI should have been closed, too?

Bill Clinton:

I disagreed with the pardons and COULD HAVE MADE MORE OF THEM BUT DIDN'T, for three reason. First, the President's power is absolute under our constitution. Second, I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if the split would be to my political advantage. Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his own conscience.

------------

That worked out well, didn't it?

And there were STILL documents that could have been opened up to public scrutiny - and Walsh could have indicted Poppy Bush off those documents. Poppy never did hand over his personal diary, even though he had been ordered to do so a year earlier.

[gratuitous]

30. I didn't think you'd have a U.S. Code citation

And neither does Clinton, who says so himself: "The President's power {to pardon} is absolute under our constitution." Once that's out of the way, there's nothing substantive that's going to be done. Clinton may also have trusted to the power of the law, which would open Bush Sr.'s presidential papers to public scrutiny in 2004, a law his son unilaterally abrogated at the beginning of his first term.

But I knew you would not have a substantive, fact-based, law-based response; merely more emotional spinning. And that's not an "attack"; that's merely a statement of fact.

[blm]

32. The point was that he COULD have made it more of an issue - the GOP did

when he left office and did alot to damage Clinton AFTER he left office. They didn't have a legal base but ACTED as if they did for much less than what there was with IranContra and BCCI.

And you never even MENTION about documents that ANY president has the right to open - in IranContra AND the books on BCCI - which were NOT part of the pardon deal you seem to want to hang your hat on.

[mtnsnake]

16. Are you serious? Bill is responsible for 9-11, Bush in the WH, & the war?

What's next? He's responsible for so many Olympic ice dancers falling down yesterday? LOL

[blm]

27. Laugh all you want, but had BCCI books been allowed to be opened

wouldn't the BFEE and their goals in the Mideast using terrorism to further their agenda been OBVIOUS to even the most average thinking citizen by the mid90s?

You may be satisfied that Clinton sided with Greenspan on this over John Kerry, but I think Clinton fucked up BG TIME, and didn't even have the courage to say one word about BCCI in his book.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Michael Savage and Fox have been ranting about this one for the

last two weeks. In fact, I think it was the conservatives that started talking about it first.

[papau]

20. This was exposed a few weeks ago-shortly thereafter onto DU - & GOP/Fox

response was as it is now - that a secret group had looked at the deal and approved it as OK for National Security.

In the past week Fox has done some op-ed pieces where Chertoff's "approved by secret panel" is restated but some opinion types on Fox have been assigned the task of saying they do not like the deal.

Note how many GOP co-sponsors Hillary has for her bill.

Roger Ailies does a good job of pretend "both sides" when issues have a substantial GOP minority saying WTF to the latest Bush incompetence.

But note that Fox and RW radio still refers to the port contract and security as going to a "company based in the UAE" and never says it is going to the Government of the UAE - the UAE gov owns the company - or that Hillary's bill only deals with contract transfers affecting security that involve a a company with foreign government ownership.

[Well_Seasoned]

18. Wow ... Go Hillary ... fix it for Bill

This is interesting since the current holder, P&O of Great Britain, got their control in 1999 and 2000 under none other than Bill Clinton ...

[papau]

21. Again - P&O of Great Britain is not owned by a foreign government.

In contrast, the UAE firm is owned and controlled by the government of the UAE.

The GOP excuse is the that the UAE company runs other non-US ports and have always talked nice to us when we discuss port or origin security.

[Well_Seasoned]

23. Absolutely correct ... UAE firm is owned by UAE ...

My only point here is that the so-called "outsourcing" has already taken place. The argument against the transfer of control from P&O to the UAE company needs to be made on national security grounds ... not on a rant of "selling our ports". The issue is whether to transfer control from one foreign company to another foreign company controlled by its government. From my perspective, that is a bad idea ... but not because we are "outsourcing" our port management.

[papau]

25. I agree - and Hillary agrees - and Hillary's bill only deals with "foreign

gov control of US ports".

[mdmc]

22. go get em Hillary!

:kick:

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. New York is one of the Ports, and she is NY's Senator

I'm glad she is fighting for us, and fighting well on this issue, but that is exactly what I expect from a Senator from New York. Geeeze, we already had 911 here.

But no intent to knock her on this one. Good for Hillary. Give them Hell!

[iconoclastNYC]

31. She deserves all the credit, right? Barf.

The Clinton Jr. Sycophants at DU are really brazen.

[AtomicKitten]

33. * barf * is right

the ANTI-DEMOCRAT spoilers at DU are really brazen

[iconoclastNYC]

35. LOL.

Right...because anyone with a (D) behind thier name must be supported regardless of any other factor.

The (D) is the most important thing, right?

Loyalty above sanity.

[AtomicKitten]

40. reason above gross exaggerations

just to make a point.

[mtnsnake]

34. Where did I say that? Keep preaching your anti-Dem rhetoric though

...talk about brazen. Just what we need are more people spewing hatred and divisiveness within our own party. Yeah, that's real conducive to improving our chances of winning :eyes:

[iconoclastNYC]

36. Yeah keep saying that.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to support DLC corporatists who get labeled front-runner based on who they married.

Hillary is not a leader, she's a DLC puppet.

I want a real leader.

IF you think this sentiment hurts the party then you really underestimate our party.

[Snivi Yllom]

37. point of fact, P&O is a foreign based company already running our ports

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207172&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL


P&O Ports

P&O Ports is one of the world’s pre-eminent container terminal operators and stevedores, with 29 container terminals and logistics operations in over 100 ports, P&O Ports has a presence in 19 countries across the world. Its main service is containerised cargo handling based on long term concessions to operate terminals in ports which offer strong growth opportunities. Other services include: general cargo, bulk cargo, roll on-roll off facilities and cruise passenger terminal management. The company also provides specialist maritime services to industry and government as P&O Maritime Services.

map of their port operations here
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=36,1,36_31159:36_34057&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

[neverevergivein]

38. Did I hear that JImmy Carter was siding with Bush?

That would be disappointing if true.

[mtnsnake]

39. How about a link

or is it just more hearsay?