Bush Right on Port Deal

Don't count on it being a done deal. Congress is getting involved.

 

how about a veto override........that would be sweet.

 

It is my understanding from BBC and CNN articles that the current company (English) handling the ports has been purchased by the Dubai company. Workers will remain American, security remains under the Coast Guard and other American agencies.

What differences are expected between a company based in London and one in Dubai?

 

Yes, like FEMA, which oversees Homeland Security. Need I say more?

 

Vice versa -- FEMA is older than Homeland Security. Once Homeland Security was established as a Cabinet post, FEMA reported to its head.

 

Either way, we lose.

 

What options other than the Dubai company are available to us?

 

Maybe Halliburton?

 

Cool! Good call!

 

A. There is a difference between having a London based company running them and having a Saudi based company running them. A company that has control of the port has the necessary knowledge of the port security to bypass any security that we can throw at them. There are already large gaps in port security and this surely isn’t going to help.
B. Even if you disagree with premise A, this is the worst possible move Bush could have made. It doesn’t look good to the (already discontented) public. The average voter doesn’t have the knowledge of this subject to discern the different headlines thrown at them. This is what they see – Bush campaigns on security (he isn’t popular right now as it is) + sells major ports to a Saudi company = trouble for the Republicans. The equation doesn’t add up in the publics eyes and in this case I agree.

 

The company is from the UAE.

Bush doesn't care about this nation's security even though he campaigns on it and talks about how much he cares every speech he gives. What a joke.

 

A -- Oops, Dubai isn't Saudi. Arab, yes, but not Saudi. And, I have a bit more confidence in American security, it would appear.

B -- You are so right about Bush. He drew a line in the sand before it was necessary. Acquiring more information would be advantageous to all of us. And I do wish the terminology would move away from "sells major ports" -- the ports themselves are not being sold. But, those who depend on a single source won't get a fuller perspective.

Thanks for the view!

 

The right thing to do is not always the best thing to do politically. In this instance I applaud the Bush administration for doing the right thing even if it is politically unpopular.

 

Yes you are right sorry.. I guess I should read the headlines a little closer..

 

The right thing to do is not always the best thing to do politically. In this instance I applaud the Bush administration for doing the right thing even if it is politically unpopular. </font>[/QUOTE]You could be right, but he is so bogged down with issues right now, it doesn't seem to be worth it. At least not from a Republican point of view. I will admit I have not done all the research needed to draw a full opinion (I just caught the story on the radio at work), but so far it doesn't sound good.

 

The right thing to do is not always the best thing to do politically. In this instance I applaud the Bush administration for doing the right thing even if it is politically unpopular. </font>[/QUOTE]Politically unpopular has nothing to do with what is "right." What evidence is there that this is the "right" thing to do? The Emerites are our friends? George Bush's personal assurance? This is way off the charts.