Bush ceding US ports to the enemy?

if true that is very disturbing indeed.

will be "How will this effect John Snow financially?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which is a problem right there. I'm sure that the $600 million budgeted for port defense will go really far at each of the nations 359 ports. 66 of which have already been labeled as being "especially vulnerable to terrorist attacks": We can’t find the page you are looking for.I just think a little caution and review is warranted. The ports may already be a danger. Shouldn't we be cautious about turning them over to a government with even limited ties to terror?

fair enough.. that was just an "I suppose" on my part.Seems to me though, and I stress "seems to me" that a government would be more accountable through things like trade agreements, the U.N. etc. than say two private companies battling it out without as much attention at government level.But I am no expert and do not claim to be. How so? do you mean specifically for a theocratic nation or just any nationalised company? equally as likely and quite common in U.S. companies. a "glass ceiling" is not the exclusive trademark of a theocratic state owned company.

That doesn't challenge the point I was making. Given security concerns of the modern world, that in itself might not be a policy to continue as it has been in the past. Given credible differences between a foreign company within a friendly stable nation, and a foreign company owned by a hereditary theocracy in a region marked by instability this trade in specific may not be a policy to treat like business as usual.Given the rhetoric of this administration regarding security and the nature of our goals in the mideast, as well as longstanding republican ideals about both, there is an unusual inconsistency. I'm sorry, are you claiming that the UAE does not block import or control of various industries coming from the US based on spurious grounds including security? And given that we have just given carte blanche to nations to invade any other at any moment based on spurious security grounds... what's so extra upsetting about not owning businesses operating major ports?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

It doesn't have to be an active security risk, to be something one does not put in a position of trust regarding something that is a security concern. PORTS are a security concern, not the UAE. We need to make sure PORTS have the BEST protection.I am not seeing how a shift in control from a company in a stable nation, to a hereditary theocratic gov't owned company in a region of relative insecurity is a way to improve longterm security concerns of those ports.I am mystified how the same administration that imposes draconian recordkeeping regulations on US companies involved in entertainment, cuts the above company in charge of ports extra leniency on recordkeeping obligations.I never argued the UAE is a security concern for the US. But even if it was, I would not be for invading it in a pre-emptive fashion in order to build a new nation, you know like we did in Iraq, against every stated principle of Reps during the entire Clinton administration.I'm looking for an explanation of consistency, specifically with regard to increasing security at vital points of national interest.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

For things like recordkeeping? And as I pointed to, and so did crash, this administration has granted them concessions. The potential for problems rises with increases in potential for instability, mechanisms for radical change, and lack of transparency/accountability.A nationalized company will have less accountability, given that a gov't may more easily merge company interests with its own. A theocratic nation will contain more mechanisms for radical change in policy, as well as merging other interests with corporate interests. A hereditary theocratic nation contains a greater potential for instability and radical change as policy is linked to individuals or individual families maintaining power, rather than a processes for stable change based on interests of the public, not to mention no reason or mechanism for transparency/accountability.That the nation is located within a region of historic instability, does not help. No that's true, but in a theocratic state operating outside the US, they may be enforced with little recourse to justice. It might be restated that they already have a public record of such abuses, unlike other companies which might actually get excluded from such work on US projects. Of course as I pointed out the Bush administration is trying to cut that kind of protection out anyway.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

All deals like this HAVE to be approved by the Government! Are you completely ignorant dude? Bush didn't know about it personally but his ADMINISTRATION already approved it on a fast track. Have you even done any reading on this?You know the guy who approved it? John Snow? Yeah, well he will make 32 million dollars from option vesting acceleration if this goes through due to the CSX options he holds.You might want to either read something about this or stop looking so ignorant.Jesus, even other republicans are mad about this!

Unfortunately not as many as there should be. They were even carting out McCain and Dole to defend this.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Thanks for bringing this up. I intended to, but I couldn't think of the guys name and then you beat me to the punch. Personally, this is one of the things that pisses me off the most about the whole fiasco. This guy (who, correct me if I'm wrong, recently sold his own business to the same people) stands to make a hell of a lot of money on this deal...and nobody is bothered by this? Be honest Tal...if everything were EXACLTY the same, except the name “George W. Bush” was replaced with the name “Bill Clinton”...you'd be screaming for his head and would probably have blood squirting out your ears.

Yes, I stand corrected. The deal was approved through the proper channels by the administration. My original point was that Bush didn't know about it until after it was done. That was all.

---

I'd still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving across a bridge with Ted Kennedy.

maybe he should start tapping his own cabinet.

If that is true, isn't it problematic given the obvious security issues?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

What security issues?

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

Dude, are you living in a closet with your hands over your ears screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"I personally don't think a country that still practices SLAVERY has any place running our ports.