Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Selling U.S. Ports Won't Endanger Our Security??

Anybody in their right mind knows that you don't sell something like your ports and expect every thing to be hunky-dory, as the old saying goes! And, you surely don't sell them to someone outside your own country.

I voted for President Bush, and have been behind him on most things. But, sorry, this is just one thing I cannot get on board with. As one guy on the local radio talk show said this morning, 'no matter what kind of ally they are now, what will they be in 10 years? ' He's right; others have turned against us, and there is nothing on the books that say these will be any different. How could President Bush say that there would be no danger to our national security, when the ports would no longer be ours? They would have the sayso on what came in and went out. How much gets checked coming into this country even now? How much less would security be upheld under a different organization?

I think our government officials, including all the state officials, need to get behind this move by Congress to try and stop this sale of the ports. Pressure needs to be put on the President to sign these bills to stop the sale.

When it comes to America's land, any and all of it, especially it's ports, Americans should be concerned. And, we here are greatly concerned since New Orleans is too close to my home state! Most agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on, since people change their minds, after deals are made. When it's a final transaction, Dubai Ports World will be the owner; they do what they want to do - doesn't matter about the US.


"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," he said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

At the same time, a senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief Operating Officer Edward H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal is final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

I have a problem with this. Bush says HIS approval of the deal is final. He should listen to the lawmakers in Congress! I know he has the option to veto, but why now? He has never vetoed a bill in his entire time in office. And, this VETO could mean trouble to the US down the line, when he is out of office. As one man said on the radio show today, 'this smacks of the start of one-world power'. I tend to agree with him. "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." And, one local church sign said, "Give the devil and inch, and he'll make a ruler". Hopefully, Bush will wake up, and his words and veto will never come back to haunt him.

Over at Publius Rendezvous, he says, "I find the position of President Reagan to be quite appealling at this point in time: “Trust, but verify.President Bush seems to trust because 'they said so'.

Also check out Michelle Malkin's article on Bill's Frist email - Senator Frist On the Port SellOut.

One other point I heard on the radio was the fact that, anytime you hear former President Jimmy Carter be behind a deal with the President, something is up!

CARTER: Well, I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world. I'm not knocking the ones in the United States, of course. My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports. I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.


Linked to Conservative Cat

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

faeriebell said...

The ports were already in control of a British company. Free enterprise dictates that the best offer wins, right? There is evidentaly no US firm capable of the job at a cost efficent level, therefore it has been outsources like so many other things in the US. Oh, you're not concerned because it's an Arab company are you? That's not prejudiced or anything.

Barbara said...

I know they were controlled by the British. But, I had rather see it in their hands than the Arabs, yes. Call it what you may, but I think America needs to wake up, after what happened 9/11.