mindsquirt

lets all talk about the selling of 6 US ports to a UAE (United Arab Emirates) government-controlled company, called Dubai Ports World.

The obvious negative implication of this is that we will have 6 ports (which are targets for terrorist activity) under control of an Arab nation that has terrorist activity in and around it.

I don't have a lot of time, so I will list some more "for" and "against" points that I have found in newspapers, CNN, and online.

AGAINST:
as of now, less than 2% of incoming material in ports are checked for stuff like WMD. plus, A undercover terrorist port operator (from the UAE) could easily change manifests and records to slip bombs and other WMD material through the port. We can not control who these guys hire.

Even though Bush says that UAE plays by the rules, this country still has terrorist activity:
Some 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base.

UAE was a transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components to Iran, N. Korea, and Libya.

The late president (Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan) of the UAE is bad news. Here is some content from the following can be cfoundon the Zayed Center website to fulfill the vision of Sheikh Zayed:
promotes Holocaust denial,
anti-American conspiracy theories (they claim that US was responsible for the attacks on 9/11),
hate speech in its lectures, symposiums and publications:
a speaker called Umayma Jalahma, said: "The Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare for holiday pastries."

Niel Bush(GW's brother) was also a speaker for this group.

and here is a surprise:
Neil Bush is in bed with the UEA government and companies and is over there all the time (he got married there). That stinks to high heaven.

Nepotism in the Bush administration? NO WAY!

no, seriously, there has been no direct link to him having part of this deal....yet.

The Carlyle group owns (or invests in, i forget) this company(Dubai Ports World), whom Bush Senior was a high paid advisor for.

Obvously, the Dems are against it, but Bush is catching some heat from his fellow party members for this. here are some republican (very) heavy-hitters that are floored:

Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert
Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist
Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King

There are many more senators, representatives, and even the gov of NJ, who are fighting this thing. I also understand that the dept of national security is up in arms.

FOR:
Here is Bush's response:
"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world and can't manage the port. "

I think this is a decent point. and this whole scenario has the US looking more anti-Arab than ever. I guess what i have to say about this, is: we already have a 10-30% favorable opinion in that part of the world as of now. How could a move like this make it worse? Plus, the people who own our ports are people like Britain, who have been allys for decades and are a stable democracy and not next door neighbors with a country we are at war with and a breeding ground for terrorists. plus those are completely private companies.

and i think the ultimate argument is that American Citizens have nothing to gain from this transaction and everything to lose, including security and jobs. Can't the feds seed a American company to take these ports? Keep some American’s holding our own stuff, that would be great.

How many more mistakes, fowl-ups, examples of corruption and incompetence does the bush administration have to do before people realize that bush is not fit to run the local Walgreens, much less our country?