Bipartisan Hysteria Is Not Security

[sunsettommy]

Another level headed article:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=570 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=storyTtl>Bipartisan Hysteria Is Not Security</TD><TD class=miscTxt align=right>Font Size: http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_up_font.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_down_font.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_default_font.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;)</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD background=/images/dot_3h_2w.gif colSpan=2>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storyAuth colSpan=2 height=25>By Veronique de Rugy : BIO (http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=222) | 24 Feb 2006 </TD></TR><TR><TD background=/images/dot_1h_3w.gif colSpan=2>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD class=artActions style="HEIGHT: 22px" colSpan=2>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_discuss.gif Discuss This Story! (http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdContentType=1&fldTheirID=022406I) (6) http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_mail.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;) Email (http://javascript<b></b>:;) | http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_print.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;) Print (http://javascript<b></b>:;) | http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_bkmrk.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:doBookmark()) Bookmark (http://javascript<b></b>:doBookmark()) | http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/icon_save.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:doSaveAs()) Save (http://javascript<b></b>:doSaveAs())</TD></TR><TR><TD background=/images/dot_1h_3w.gif colSpan=2>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gif</TD><TD>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/clear.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--Article Content --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=570 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE id=Body1_GetArticleByArticleID1_Table1 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=story>http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/Library/None/dubai-shipping-speech.jpg The bipartisan hysteria over the pending $6.8 billion deal allowing the company Dubai Ports World to oversee operations at key U.S. ports demonstrates how misguided Congress is in matters of homeland security.


The fear over this deal is that Arab control would make it easier for terrorists to smuggle a dirty or nuclear bomb inside one of the approximately 9 million containers that enter U.S. ports every year, blowing up a port and shutting down commerce. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) introduced emergency legislation Tuesday to "suspend the handover" of our port operations to Arabs.


Yet, the idea that this deal somehow means turning over the ownership of American ports to foreigners makes no sense. In the age of globalization, foreign ownership is commonplace. Most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade -- the ships, the containers, the loading equipment, and the facilities -- is owned by foreigners. As the Baltimore Sun pointed out earlier this week, you can see a Greek-owned ship flying a Liberian flag, employing a Filipino crew and carrying cargo from China into a U.S. port terminal managed by a British company that hires American longshoremen.


At least 30 percent of terminals at major U.S. ports are operated by foreign governments and businesses. At the port of Los Angeles, the busiest in the country, it's 80 percent. And let's not forget that the current owner of the port terminals in question is the British company P&O. In fact, very few port terminals are operated by Americans: 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators worldwide are foreign governments or foreign-based companies.


Furthermore, the notion that this deal will outsource our port security to foreign companies is absurd. The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials provide security independent of who is operating the terminal. The operator's job is to manage the incoming and outgoing shipments at their facility. This involves scheduling the pick up and delivery of shipments, loading containers on and off the right vessels, and providing storage space for cargo. Like P&O before it, the employees of Dubai Ports World would be local longshoremen who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, an AFL-CIO-affiliated union. In short, Dubai Ports World would simply be a manager directing American longshoremen to load and unload cargo that is secured by American homeland security officials.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022406I

[Naturalized-Texan]

There are 300 terminals in the U.S. and this deal only involves 9 of them - only 3%.

[Native American]

There are 300 terminals in the U.S. and this deal only involves 9 of them - only 3%.


AAAaaaarrrggghhhh! We're gonna die for sure!!

(Let's call this what it is - Bushophobia, on the part of the Democrat Party, which only has 8 months to go before the November congressional elections, has no viable agenda or plans or leadership ability whatosever to offer the American People, and which is frantically casting about for something, anything, to run on.)

[sunsettommy]

There are 300 terminals in the U.S. and this deal only involves 9 of them - only 3%.

Saudi Arabia has a few of them already.

Yet no screaming about that from us here or in the media.

Selective indignation or just plain ignorance?

Came back to add this to show that Saudi Arabia is already here:

http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/091037.asp

Excerpt,


AN ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PORT DEAL

My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don’t spread them in your discussions.
Clearly, this is a hot-button issue, and there are plenty of reasons for concern in the UAE’s past behavior, particularly before 9/11. Of course, we’re hearing from guys like Ret. Gen. Tommy Franks (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/221135.shtml) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/24/04017.shtml) that UAE is “a friend” and “very, very solid partners” in the war on terror. And Sen. John Warner (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11486286/) observed that the U.S. military has docked more than 500 ships in the past year in the UAE and uses their airfields to perform support missions for both Afghanistan and Iraq. But some folks still feel as if they can’t trust the UAE, and/or they want a fuller review. Fair enough. I don’t begrudge someone for having concerns about this deal.


Another excerpt and the relevant one too showing what a crock it is to oppose DPW when many other "enemies" already have berths in our ports.Bolding mine.


As reported in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-22-ports-flap_x.htm), 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light (http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia/) observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. (The link has an inadvertently haunting photo, BTW.)


Still want to scream about it and look foolish in the process?

[DoctorDoom]

Selective indignation or just plain ignorance?Neither. It's classic MSM/RAT politics in an election year. Never mind reason or logic or facts. Play on fear and ignorance. The RATs have exactly nothing to offer, so their only strategy is to attack.

Phuquem.

[sunsettommy]

Selective indignation or just plain ignorance?

Neither. It's classic MSM/RAT politics in an election year. Never mind reason or logic or facts. Play on fear and ignorance. The RATs have exactly nothing to offer, so their only strategy is to attack.

Phuquem.

I was also talking about forum members too.

I agree with you in the above.It is hysterically easy to debunk,but hard to show the true picture to those who are irrationally emotional about it.

This includes unfortunately some forum members who have deliberately ignored the posted facts on the subject.

Oh well.