I don't think it's any secret by now that I trust President Bush. Yes, he is liberal about many things, and I don't like his position on illegal immigration (Does he have a position on illegal immigration?) or his nearly out of control spending, but on the whole, I have to say I trust him.
I am not going to explain why here, nor will I answer the inevitable question as to why in my comments. I have explained my reasoning on many previous posts.
That said, I have to admit I don't understand why he's approving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World.
There is one thing about this issue that is interesting, though. After all the Political sniping and in-fighting that has gone on between the two parties, it looks as if Bush has finally found something that may unite legislators from both sides of the aisle.
And yet, there is still division. But a division of a different kind. Not between Democrats and Republicans, but between those who support this sale and those who don't. Opposition to the President on this issue is coming from both sides. Support for him, too.
This is truly a non-partisan issue.
Hillary opposes it, as well as Chuck Shumer, which is expected. But so does Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert, and that isn't expected.
Rush Limbaugh supports it, which is to be expected. But so does Jimmy Carter. That's scary. As Mark Levin says, he never met a dictator he didn't want to hug, or kiss on the cheek. So if Carter endorses it, It may be a grievous mistake by the President.
Sean Hannity is unsure.
What I heard, and I don't know how true this is, the UAE will only own the ports. They won't be actually operating them. Those jobs will go to red blooded Americans. And the security will be all Americans, too. If that's true, than the only reservation I would have is whether the UAE would use their ownership of the ports to assist enemies of the United States. They have a history of doing that kind of thing.
This is my opinion:
I don't know. But when national security is at stake, to err on the side of caution would probably be the wisest course. If we let this deal go through, we are possibly risking the security of our nation.
But it's still early and we really don't have all the facts yet with which to make an intelligent decision.
It will be interesting to see how all this comes out. If the UAE doesn't blow us all up.
10 comments:
Mark, I don't think you got any of the facts straight in this.
What "facts" are wrong, ER? The fact that I don't know what my position is on this yet? Or the fact that I trust the President? Or that I don't understand what he is doing on this? Or that he is getting opposition and support from both sides? Oh wait. I think I know what you're talimg about. You don't like the "fact" that Mark Levin said something negative about Carter, right?
Another "fact" that I didn't mention was the one about how Hillary and Chuckie are suddenly so concerned about National security. Perhaps the real reason they oppose this is because Bush approves it.
ER,
Yes, which facts... that seems to be the way I've heard it as well... that economically this would be a good deal. Politically it's a bad deal. They don't own the entire port. But sections of it... what are we missing here.
I realize another complicated issue.
Blessings
Mark:
I am totally with you on this 100%. It is interesting to watch the strange bedfellows this is making. I heard Rush & Sean yesterday take pretty different positions which is unusual. When I heard Carter was for it that made me very nervous.
Initially upon hearing this news I was against it. But hearing Rush make some compelling arguments I wasn't so sure. And I trust W also so I don't see him risking our national security. This morning Tony Snow talked about being for it and the only reason he doubts is because of Carter :-). But Crazy Politico made a good point that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
To sum all of this up I am like you and waiting for all the facts to come in. Until then I'm just not sure.
Brandon, That may well be what he's taking about, but I did hear that, so that statement is fact. And if he's referring to the statement that UAE has a history of aiding terrorist, that is true also, They have helped finance al-Qaida in the past.
MRS pretty well nailed it. The "fact" that you heard it, Mark, doesn't remove the "fact" that you got it all mixed up.
Note the date. I agree with a Michele Malkin column.
(Note: I did not ATTACK you, Mark, so I don't know why you're so defensive, as usual. If Id'a wanted to attack you, you know I'm quite capable.)
I agree with you and LMC. Although, I have trusted Bush in his decisions (except the border issues, like you). My DH says he can't see any reason to be against it. Isn't being against it "racial profiling" which the dems are against? This will change nothing with the way the ports are currently run.
I never said you attacked me, ER. I merely asked what facts i didn't get straight. Technically, if indeed I didn't get my facts straight, then the facts would be wrong, and if the facts are wrong, they aren't facts. Technically.
Here is a fact that was mis-stated. The UAE company will not own the ports. They will manage them. I presume that means budgeting, scheduling, managing berth assignments, negotiating contracts with suppliers, unions, and shipping lines. That sort of thing. Security will be, as always, provided by the Coast Guard and US Customs.
Did you know that Bush didn't even know about this until four days ago?
Did you know a 45 day investigation period is required by law for such a foreign investment deal to address security concerns? Did you know that the administration has admitted that this legally required investigation period did not occur and they say they don't know why?
Are they incompetent? Or is something shady going on? They broke the law.
You trust George Bush on this and he didn't even know about it until 4 days ago? Why do you trust him?
Jim,
I don't think the President not knowing until recently, is a big deal, and something unprecedented in the annals of presidencies. I don't think this story should have been this big of a deal.
But it's still early and we really don't have all the facts yet with which to make an intelligent decision.
Yup. Now all of a sudden we all have to become port authority experts. I'm sure we all know a little bit more now than we did when you made this post.
Well my "expertise" [*cough* *cough*] is that it may hurt us more if we renege on this deal with Dubai Ports World. The UAE has been a great ally in the war on terrorism since 9/11.
There are NO American companies that operate large ports like this. All are run by foreign-based companies. If we're going to be serious about worry-worting over possible security breaches, we might as well take a look at how globally, 24 of the 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, with many containers sent to the U.S. being packaged from there.
The only other company bidding on this is from Singapore. They have a huge Muslim population. Should we be so concerned if the contract goes to them?
There's a laundry list of other Middle-Eastern acquired Western assets. Should we be concerned?
This is just blind hysteria churning a mountain out of a molehill, mixed in with some legitimate questions, mixed in with partisan politics as usual.
Post a Comment