a little idea

[radfringe]

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company," --- GW Bush

We know bush* doesn't watch the news, read newspapers nor does he pay attention to polls. However, it seems to me he is inviting a response from Americans.

In the quote above - he did not specifiy that he only wants to hear from Senators/Representative/Mayors/Governors/other officials - he said THOSE WHO ARE QUESTIONING IT -- seems pretty wide open to anyone...

so how about writing to him and outlining our objections? We know he won't read the letters personally -- afterall if he doesn't pay attention to polls he doesn't care what we think.

I'm suggesting an good old fashion deluge of snail mail - no faxes, no e-mails, no phone calls -- snail mail hard copies! Just picture a "brazzillion" mail bags being delivered to the White House filled with letters telling bush* why you "object"

With copies to your senators/representatives/governors/newspapers etc. and encourage your senator/representative to read your letter into the RECORD!

yes?

list your objections and let's try to get a coherant letter together

[Memory Container]

1. Great Idea.

K&R

We should definitely include something about the 45 period for investigation that the BA completely ignored.
And although I haven't researched it thoroughly yet, I'm sure we can include an ironclad assertion that the UAE has ties to terrorism.

(Sorry, I haven't enough posts to recommend)

[newyawker99]

8. Hi Memory Container!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[radfringe]

2. some snippets to consider

pulled from a variety of articles:


----The security aspect. Is it possible or easier for an Al Qaeda member to infiltrate into the staff of a company based in Dubai? It so, how? If not, why not?

----The sovereignty aspect: There isn't an American company that can do it? Or several companies?

----two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and that the emirate was used as a financial and operational hub by al-Qaeda.

----Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press federal approval of the sale was focused on how the "company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people. They don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaeda or someone else; how are they going to guard against corruption?"

----The greatest security concern is the estimated 9 million containers that enter U.S. ports every year. The volume is so vast, that only a small percentage of these containers can be effectively searched, Flynn says. In many ports from which U.S.-bound cargo originates, there is little security oversight, which makes it possible to fill a container with people or weapons intended to harm the United States. The gravest concern is that terrorists could smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States in an unchecked container. Another growing concern is the vulnerability of shipments of liquefied natural gas--an increasingly important energy source--to terrorist attacks while in U.S. harbors.

[0007]

3. It would seem that a little chore like letter writing wouldn't be

to be of a strain on America, 'eh? Love to see about 75 million letters going to the White House.

Let's Roll!!

[radfringe]

4. not much interest I guess or too early on a Sunday?

enny whoo -- here's a real rough draft

Sir:

You recently requested that those of us who opposed the UAE Port deal to come forward and voice our concerns.

I am not a Senator nor a Representative nor a Governor nor a Mayor nor do I hold any elected political office. I am just an American Citizen and I have some concerns.

I am concerned about our national security and how our ports will be protected from attack and preventing WMDs from passing through those ports. As I’m sure are aware of by now – an United Arab Emirates company is poised to take control over many of our ports.

You asked to tell you the difference between the UAE company and a British one and why this would concern me. You probably didn’t know it – but the British company is privately owned and originates from one of longest and most trusted allied country – Great Britain. The UAE company is state run – that means owned and operated by the UAE government who’s record on fighting terrorism is suspect.

The UAE-owned company does operate many ports around the world – but just because “everyone else does it” does not mean it’s a good idea. The UAE-owned company underwent review for 45 days or less. Review is not an investigation, nor does it mean the review was of any great substance. Nominees for federal judgeships undergo a much longer and more intense “review” – shouldn’t foreign companies operating in our borders be subjected to at least as an intense review?

Finally, you ask that we trust you. We trusted you in the days before September 11, 2001 and then learn you ignored a PDB stating Al-Qeada was determined to attack. You claimed you didn’t know.

We trusted you on the Patriot Act. We trusted you when you said there would be no wiretapping with out a warrant – only to learn wiretapping and other domestic spying without a warrant is going on.

We trusted you when you said Saddam had WMDs – then learned he had none and the intelligence was not only wrong but also may have been manipulated.

We trusted you with Homeland Security and FEMA – and learned a painful lesson with Katrina.

Mr. President, perhaps you would like to explain in spin-free terms why we should trust you now?

[radfringe]

5. a monday morning kick - then I give up

[Bhaisahab]

6. K&R!

[magellan]

7. I've stated my objections elsewhere but here they are again

The administration entered into a secret deal with DP World Ports that grants them two unusually permissive conditions:

1) they aren't required to keep their business records on US soil

2) they aren't required to have a US Citizen designee to represent them to the US gov't

These are USUAL conditions for foreign companies operating in the US, yet BushCo have given DP World Ports a pass on them. Why? What impact could this have down the road if their US operations require investigation? And what other foreign businesses are operating here under similarly lax backroom deals?

BushCo call this "Free Trade" but let's be real. Nothing to do with big business is ever "free". Someone always pays, particularly when things go wrong, and it's rarely the CEOs with the clout to buy political favors who suffer. "Free Trade" as it's practiced is nothing but cronyism, an open invitation from one government to another to engage in corporate corruption and graft on a global scale.

Think we're going to be able to subpeona DP World Ports' business records from Dubai if we need to? World Court? How many decades do you think that hearing might take?

That's the stink I smell with this ports deal.

[AtomicKitten]

9. 9/11, baby, remember? Everything changed after 9/11 , or so you say.