This is starting to look like a set-up
If this means what I think it means, Karl Rove just made a lot of his- and Bush's- enemies look really really bad. Arab votes for Hillary next election, anyone?
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 2/23/2006 12:36:00 AM
10 Comments:
Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
if it's true it certainly would be explosive.
but in any case let me ask you, why would a necon President support the takeover of US ports by a foreign state owned company? Seems a little odd as well.
SM,
Please excuse the off topic - I couldn't see how to start a new thread.
I have a very 'simple' question I'm hoping you can clear up for me:
Why don't 'moderate' muslims replace 'radical' clerics? I can sort of understand the quran and sharia law, being 'given from god' as being beyond questioning. But surely the clerics themselves are merely mortals? Why don't the 'parishoners' simply hire a new cleric or request one from the 'bishop' (do islamic clerics have a hiearchy?)
For example, the catholic church has had to replace several clergy in highly publicized cases regarding sexually abusing children. If an islamic cleric sexually abused kids, won't he be replaced ?? If so, why isn't he replaced for preaching violence, intolerance, etc. Even to my ignorant eyes, these things don't seem to be condoned by muslims any more then they are by christians? Again, if this is possible, is it likely to happen now that 'moderate muslims' are actually organizing and trying to make their presence known ?
In summary - I guess what I'm asking, is don't the clerics have any cupablitly to their 'congregations' ?
BTW - I'll be invoicing you for all the time lost to wikipedia looking up stuff you bring up I don't understand :-P (I lost a lot of time on that van gough murder reference you had a while back - I'd never heard of it before.)
Mech422
reality check?
1. it's CONTRACTS to run the six US ports - security stays with US port authorities and other US departments. It doesn't affect ownership of ports either.
2. P&O is indeed a $6bn company but the US ports account for just 6 per cent of group profits*.
3. A Singapore state owned ports company was the rival bidder for P&O. The biggest ports operator in the world is Chinese ... so the alternatives..
(*which may be why the deal didn't make the US headlines/ a huge amount of US scrutiny. This row irrevelant to the takeover happening and whoever handles the US port contracts, a lot of containers landing at US ports are and will continue to arrive from DPW ports, including English ones!)
Liz
ps - for the conspiracy theorists out there, (Im feeling evil)
-
DPW links to Bush include (source: San Jose Mercury) John Snow - yep on committee that Okayed the deal - was "chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations ** to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration."
** Hong Kong and Latin America ops
then again (source: FT) Madelaine Albright is now working for DPW
pps. what do you think this means SM? Karl Rove involved where? Sorry, am from London, walk me through this one please.. (promise this is the last post I'll send on this - half rotfl, half totally flaggergasted over the US reax)
oh, and for yanks reading this, please don't cancel your holidays with P&O cruises because of this ; )
liz
I'm in agreement- I think there was a definite setup here. I just hope it is the one you are seeing and not something Much worse, which is what the Dems are always seeing (when they can't get a piece of it for themselves)
~Gary
*slap* that is defiantely going to leave a mark LOL The "evil" Rove tricks the left again. It must be true, give a fool a little rope and he will hang himself.
There is no security issue.
The security will be just as bad under the management of this company as it was under the Brits.
The security is determined by the amount of money given to the Port Authoritys and to the Border Patrol and to the U.S. Coast Guard.
That money is controlled by the US Congress.
The UAE is a critical part of US Military operations in the ME.
Bush and Co want UAE good will and cooperation.
Bush and Co don't care what the democrats or even what the repubs want or think. They have nothing to lose by this and will gain substantially in areas that are not shared by the administration even with congress.
Besides very few know Bush and Co. is three steps ahead of the rest of us while giving the impression he is an idiotbushhitlerhaliburtondumbasscowboy, who is ultra religious.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
1. it's CONTRACTS to run the six US ports - security stays with US port authorities and other US departments. It doesn't affect ownership of ports either.
Which is no security at all. It the people overseeing the loading and unloading of the ships that have the ability to smuggle contraband. Why is this even a discussion? Us ports should be run by the US government. Period. Might fix some of our drug smuggling problem along the way, and human trafficking as well.
2. P&O is indeed a $6bn company but the US ports account for just 6 per cent of group profits*.
Good! Then they won't miss the business much!
This isn't going to happen. If Bush vetoes, the veto will be over-riden. Either way, Bush comes out looking like a chump for supporting this foolishness in the first place. Why didn't he federalize the ports when he fedralized the airports 4 years ago? I want to see him explaining this, because I don't think most Americans had any clue how wide open out ports were until the issue started the conversation.
Papa Ray, I voted for Bush twice, but if this plan goes through, I want him impeached.
This is insanity.
This will go through and it won't make a bit of difference. They have been running most of the ports our stuff comes in from for a very long time. What is the difference that they manage the ports on the recieving end too? There are no domestic companies that do this sort of work.
Post a Comment
<< Home