Folks, its not about UAE, its about American Economy and Security

[rpgamerd00d]

This is the message the Democratic leaders need to hammer home to win BIg in 06.

This has nothing to do with UAE vs England. That is the NEOCON SPIN.

This is about promoting AMERICAN BUSINESS, getting AMERICANS JOBS, and making 100% SURE we have SECURE PORTS.

The sooner we get -OFF- of UAE and -ONTO- ECONOMY + SECURITY, the better.

[CJCRANE]

1. Good call.

There seem to be a few "divide and conquer" posts popping up on this issue...

[BamaLefty]

2. I'm just in disbelief!

We were already the party that America trusts on the issues of the economy, the Iraq war, and healthcare. And now, they have just HANDED us the issue of national security. Just like that!! The one issue that they owned us on, they just completely gave it to us.

I thought that the Repubs we're much more clever than this. I'm honestly not believing what he is trying to do. We're golden!!

Yet another point that will carry Dems to victory in 06...

UAE=Al Quaeda

[mdmc]

3. please don't get mad

but what if an UK or UAE could run the port better (cheaper and safer) than an American firm (like Halliburton)? What if UAE used all longshoreman / American labor?

not sure what else to say, except the best firm should run the port. All of our ports should be run by the longshoreman teamsters.

[Vincardog]

4. Who should make the SECURITY PLANS? Hint it is not the UAE

The cheapest is not the best. Having the Government of the UAE making SECURITY PLANS for our ports is a BAD IDEA.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Even if the best firm once controlled 70% of BCCI, and funded

terrorist networks from Afghanistan to Occupied Palestine?

Sure, American longshormen will work the docks, but the people who control the security, who hold all the plans for the docks, who OK the shipping manifests of the container ships that use those docks have an incontrovertible link to the prime source of terrorist funding in the world.

[dogday]

17. Every decision this administration has made

have been wrong choices, wrong for the country. Why would you think this decision would be any better than the worst ones he has already made? He has been so good up until this point? Not likely.

They brought security to the spotlight and made it their number one priority. The people are not stupid, this is a security risk for our country, it is up to Americans to see to their own ports and not out-source the responsibilities to a country known to filter terrorist funding...

[sandnsea]

22. Globalization bullshit

This is the lame excuse that's been given for years for selling off US industries. What if India can do call centers better, oh yeah right, they drive every one of us nuts, they don't do it better and we all know it. They do it cheaper for the corporations is all. Just like the cheap Chinese crap that replaced cheap Japanese crap that we used to get in the 60's. PR, propoganda, call it whatever you want. I don't believe they run ports any better than anybody else, but even if they do, it's in our own economic and national security to have a company that does it as well as they do.

It's no wonder the country blindly follows any idiotic thing Bush has to say. Any time somebody can't reconcile political ideology and reality, we start seeing them pop off with rhetoric to excuse the inexcusable.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. Funnelling taxpayer $$ to big corps and OUT of the U.S.

They are trying to destroy the economy from within with tax breaks for the rich and without by spending billions in Iraq & allowing a foreign company to collect taxpayer money, not one thin dime of which will be invested back into the infrastructure. I also predict they are trying to break one of the strongest unions in the country, longshoremen's.

[rpgamerd00d]

7. kick

[Armstead]

8. Yes -- That's it

Why the hell is America no longer capable of having mid-sized and smaller companies, instead of relying for everything on a handful of gloibal corporate giants?

That's the real issue here.

[yourout]

9. American Ports....American Management....American Workers.

Anything else is unacceptable.

[rucky]

10. It's about the UAE & Security:

In 2004, the GAO releases a report about port security, concluding that it is extremely vulnerable to breaches.

In the Presidential debates, John Kerry mentions port security the biggest security risks to the US that must be dealt with.

You don't hear anything new about port security, until this deal, where the White House decides to hand over the ports to a country whose port is infamous for smuggling of drugs, weapons and possibly humans.

Plus, the government has historically been sympathetic to the Taliban, and Al-Queda - and has not cooperated in our efforts to "follow the money" which is probably the most effective (and peaceful) way to fight terrorism.

On it's face, any one of these points is a dealbreaker, so there's no point in clouding it, just because Rush Limbaugh called us racist.

[rpgamerd00d]

11. You have fallen for the neocon spin

Its not about the UAE + Security. It can be argued that security still falls on the Nat Guard, Coast Guard and Customs Dept.
That isn't changing, and its a red herring.

The issue is that the country making the money off of the port operations is NOT AMERICA.
The issue is that the people getting jobs off of the port operations are NOT AMERICANS.

This should be an American Company with American Jobs.
Period.

[rucky]

12. um, no. The neocon spin is that it's not about security.

How can anyone ignore those obvious red flags, no matter who's said to be "in control"?

If Democrats want to show the nation that they are serious about security, they would push this angle instead of downplaying it. Of course, the best solution either way is US Ownership & control.

[rpgamerd00d]

13. Because I can read and have listened to a lot of the details.

Container ships are subject to Coast Guard.
Then, containers are randomly screened by the US Customs Dept.
At no time does the security of those containers fall onto the longshoremen who are doing the labor of unloading and moving the containers around.

That said, the main point is American jobs and economy. You can say "security" in passing, but you'll get beaten down on that issue if you push it by the neocons. You'd have to show exactly how security is threatened by high-level managers/owners of the port. Remember, the guys down on the docks are all American longshoremen. Its the execs that are foreigners.

[rucky]

14. The workers touch every single container that goes through.

The Coasties do not.

[rpgamerd00d]

16. And those workers are Americans. Its the execs that are foreign.

Which is why its impossible to prove they affect security other than the "boogey man" factor.

The stronger Dem issue is American Jobs, not Security.

[rucky]

18. Says who? They're doing the hiring.

and signing the paychecks.

[rpgamerd00d]

19. I guess via H1Bs, green cards, etc. they could, over time, replace...

... Americans with foreigners.

Again, I included this in my post title (Security).

I am just saying, its not about England vs UAE, or anyone vs UAE, or Arab vs non-Arab.

Its a pure economy and security issue.

[rucky]

20. OK. Suppose you want to smuggle something in the US:

I don't have that kind of mind, but I find it hard to believe that the management of the ports has no bearing on how easy or hard it would be.

[rpgamerd00d]

21. Smuggling is not easy.

Smugglers expect x% of their shipments to be caught and captured, leaving only y% that gets through.
They simply accept that and suck up the minor losses.

To get something going on a regular basis (like drug shipments) it would require a network of individuals at the port, starting with the dock workers and moving to the movers and the truck drivers/trains.

Anyway, smuggling bombs or anthrax or something into the US via containers is hard. The dock workers would have little to do with its success or failure. The suspects would be the companies who are receiving the containers, and the US Customs folks that are in charge of inspections.

[rucky]

24. Check out this Lou Dobbs report:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/23/ldt.01.html

The White House has repeatedly failed to make that distinction between a government-owned company and a foreign company. The White House is ignoring what we've been reporting here for some time, that terminal operators themselves do play a critical role in protecting our ports and preserving security.

Bill Tucker tonight reports from one of those ports in Brooklyn, New York.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): When it comes to port security, it is the case of the administration that protests too much.

MCCLELLAN: This not about control of our ports, this is not about the security of our ports. And let me be very clear, one thing we will never do is outsource to anyone the control and security of our ports, whether that's Dubai or any other entity that operates terminals at our ports.

TUCKER: The White House is wrong. It is about control of our ports. And security is routinely outsourced. Port security is very different from airport or border security. It is a public-private partnership and private companies play a key role.

SAL CATUCCI, AMERICAN STEVEDORING INC.: We're at every ship, and we watch everything that's going on. We know of everything that's going on within the port. And the security right now happens to be the top priority of the company.

TUCKER: In simple terms, at most ports security works like this: while the ship is in the water, it's under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. While docked at the port and those goods are being unloaded, it's under the jurisdiction of Customs and Border Protection. But the minute those goods come off of the ships and land on the dock, security is the sole responsibility of the terminal operator.

The security plans are reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the terminal operator is solely responsible for the execution of those plans. The plans are classified secret. If a foreign government gains control of the terminal it becomes privy to the classified security arrangements. Not wise, in the opinion of this terminal operator.

CATUCCI: I think we're in trouble right now because it's happening. It's -- you're going to have to give that -- they're going to have a blueprint of that security.

TUCKER: The port authority's authority at most ports ends at the roads leading to and connecting the terminals.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now, the cost for lighting, fencing, closed-circuit TV, Lou, those are shared by the port and the terminal operator. But when it comes to the security guards, they are hired, fire and paid by the terminal operator.

In this case, it happens to be American Stevedoring, one of only two American terminal operators left in the ports of Newark, New York and New Jersey -- Lou.

DOBBS: Thank you very much.

Bill Tucker setting the record straight on whether or not terminal operators are involved in security at the ports.

Tonight, the largest port complex on the East Coast is filing suit to block this Dubai government port deal. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey set to file a lawsuit as early as tomorrow to stop Dubai Ports World from taking over a Port of Newark container terminal. Port authority officials say the federal government failed to assure them that this deal would meet their critical security standards.

It is important to note tonight that almost every governor whose ports would be affected in a Dubai government company takeover is completely opposed to this dangerous deal. Pennsylvania's governor, Ed Rendell, says if this deal goes through, he will fight to make certain a terminal lease is the Port of Philadelphia is not renewed.

The governor says, "We can just not renew the lease. 'Trust us' isn't good enough."

New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, said on this broadcast here last night that he's filing state and federal lawsuits to block the deal. The governor says, "It's just outside of the realm of reason that we are going to without complete disclosure believe this isn't a risk."

New York's governor, George Pataki, saying, "Ensuring the security off New York's port operations is paramount, and I am very concerned."

Maryland's governor, Robert Ehrlich, "We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are given security."

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco: "We in Louisiana take the management and safety of our ports seriously and we expect the same from Washington."

Only one governor out of six says that he's not concerned about the takeover by a foreign-owned firm. It is none other than Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, who says, "I have full confidence that the president of the United States will make the right decision as it relates to our national security interests."

Still ahead here, a special report on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Did in fact this committee break the law when it approved the port deal?

And why Bush administration officials are so intent on possibly compromising national security in order -- in order to favor high- powered corporate friends.

[rpgamerd00d]

25. Nice find, this is important, should be its own thread.

[Armstead]

15. IMO you're both right -- It's a matter of walking and chewing gum

It's about security AND it's about American control of American economic assets and our infrastructure.

If the country involved was Switzerland, that'd still raise a lot of questions and unknowns, in terms of security. And the money from managing the ports would still be flowing out of the US.

We need to restore the idea that Amerrica has the wherewithal to manage our own economy and public assets, and that Americans are still capable of building businesses.

[rpgamerd00d]

23. Exactly