Port Contract the Last Straw

Published on February 20, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

It is time for the Congress to reel in George W. Bush and the Executive Branch of our government. The proposal that the Bush administration has approved to allow a country that supplied two of the 9/11 terrorists and where radical Islamists exist to run six ports in our country is outrageous. The country is the United Arab Emirates. What the Hell is our President doing? He refuses to stop 3 million illegals to come into our country from Mexico last year where any one of those people could have been a terrorists. Now his administration has approved this contract. We are stuck with Bush until January 20, 2009 but it is time for Congress to pull his teeth. There can be NO POSSIBLE REASON FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE OPERATION OF OUR PORTS TO THIS COUNTRY!

Comments

Daiwa

on Feb 20, 2006

Please educate yourself on this before you post, Gene. Not that you will, but it should at least be said. See the thread on this in the Current Events channel - you might learn something. OK, maybe not.

COL Gene

on Feb 20, 2006

I have read several stories about this contract. There is no reason to allow a company in an Islamic country to run our ports. All sides both GOP and Democrat have said they are opposed to this contract. Hell even the Fox viewers believe Bush has lost his mind. Are you saying you support this action? If so WHY?

Deference

on Feb 20, 2006

We really need more facts on this - too bad the transfer occured behind closed doors - the MSM hasn't been much help either.

What happened to transparency?

Daiwa

on Feb 20, 2006

Who operates the ports has little to nothing to do with security. That's a customs resources issue that changes not a whit with who owns the revenue stream from port operations. A British company owned that revenue stream (for those ports) for some time, now they've sold it to a UAE company. I think everyone should calm down, including the politicos who are only concerned with the PR issue that has Gene's knickers in a wad. Short of nationalizing the ports in question, what options did the administration have? Force the British company to keep the contract? Force some other company to take it over? What?

COL Gene

on Feb 20, 2006

Our security is not PR. There is no valid reason we should allow an Islamic company to operate our ports.

Daiwa

on Feb 20, 2006

There is no valid reason we should not - just ask Al Gore.

And who said it was an "Islamic" company, Gene? Is that even possible? New form of LLC or something?

bakerstreet

on Feb 20, 2006

" Our security is not PR. There is no valid reason we should allow an Islamic company to operate our ports.

Yet racial profiling and making people from particular nations work harder to get visas is a heinous crime. This is fluff, and worse, bigoted, politically-motivated fluff. Obviously the Col doesn't realize that the ports in question are already handled by foreign interests. The company being bought out is a British company, from a nation that also was a stopping point for 9/11 terrorists, and which has an active terror recruiting subculture responsible for attacks there in London.

Al Gore was in Saudi Arabia this week complaining about how we pick out Arabs when we investigate terrorism and hand out visas. To me, such hypocrisy is just political desperation.

Deference

on Feb 20, 2006

To me, such hypocrisy is just political desperation.- Bakerstreet

Great plug.

Lee1776

on Feb 20, 2006

It is time for the Congress to reel in George W. Bush and the Executive Branch of our government.

OK, lets just have Congress become the administrative branch now..... Just let Bush do the job he was elected into and authorized in the Constitution. I may not like everything Bush does with his executive powers (or Clinton and especially Carter), but it is not the Congress that was voted into office to run the Government. That’s all we need, over four hundred heads of States thinking each one can to it better.

Some people are seeing way to many checks and balances where there are none in the Constitution. (For some strange reason the Press even thinks it now has a Constitutional check) Why don't you work on getting someone that you like elected in the next election, and stop trying to cripple the President's authority to run and protect the country?

DJBandit

on Feb 21, 2006

Well, it seems that Col has been following the "easy as 1-2-3 Insert foot in mouth" instructions again.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!