The bush Administration has arranged for a 6 Billion dollar sale of the operations of the Ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore, and New Orleans, to DP World, a company from United Arab Emirates.  Condoleeza is(of course) supporting the sale and is going to brief Congress about the sale.  A bi-partisan team has called for hearings.

www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/business/2006/February/business_February379.xml&section=business&col=

Wow! That is an interesting paper! I couldn't find a link for home delivery, though.  ::)
Why should I believe a word of it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/pl_nm/security_congress_ports_dc_1

I hope they can stop this, or the sale is reconsidered.

Wow! That is an interesting paper! I couldn't find a link for home delivery, though.  ::)
Why should I believe a word of it?


I read it in the Boston Globe.  It was an article by Nicholas Johnston of the Bloomberg News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/pl_nm/security_congress_ports_dc_1

I hope they can stop this, or the sale is reconsidered.

Can you imagine the media hysteria if Bill Clinton's administration had try to do this.  Ironic isn't it that Hillary is trying to bail us out of this insanity.  It's OK, GWB, I won't hold it against you if you still wanna hate Hillary.  I don't like her much either.

http://www.coaldelivery.com/images/wallpaper/flag1_1600x1200.jpg
God bless our flea market, auction block that I love!

Um, correction: It is TERMINALS at those ports. A TERMINAL at Port Newark is being turned over. And I think the Dems are starting an investigation about this. Anybody see this as the start of a scandal that could bring Bush down even more?

Some more accuracy might be nice.  It is not like they are giving them the contract.

The company that does the security at the moment is Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which is based in London.  Last week, that company was bought by Dubai Ports World, headquartered in the United Arab Emirates.

This sale was only made last week.  This is not exactly something that had a lot of warning, nor a lot of preperation for replacement.

Myself, I qould guess that things will stay with them, until some other arrangements can be made.

This is hardly the "Bush Administration turning over".  And what exactly could the US Government do?  Refuse the UAE the right to buy an English company?

Some more accuracy might be nice.  It is not like they are giving them the contract.

The company that does the security at the moment is Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which is based in London.  Last week, that company was bought by Dubai Ports World, headquartered in the United Arab Emirates.

This sale was only made last week.  This is not exactly something that had a lot of warning, nor a lot of preperation for replacement.

Myself, I qould guess that things will stay with them, until some other arrangements can be made.

This is hardly the "Bush Administration turning over".  And what exactly could the US Government do?  Refuse the UAE the right to buy an English company?



Aquisitions such as this do not take place overnight.  It isn't like Dubai Ports decided a month ago to buy Peninsular, then signed a purchase and sale agreement. The US government, I am sure was well aware that the DP had purchased, or was in the process of purchasing the company, probably knew before they began negotiations of the lease.  If they didn't then everyone involved should be fired as incompetent.  This is a case of the "Bush Administration" turning over control of the ports.  I am incensed to find out that any country other than our own would have any control of our ports.  What does that say about our governments respect for the american business community?

Aquisitions such as this do not take place overnight.  It isn't like Dubai Ports decided a month ago to buy Peninsular, then signed a purchase and sale agreement. The US government, I am sure was well aware that the DP had purchased, or was in the process of purchasing the company, probably knew before they began negotiations of the lease.  If they didn't then everyone involved should be fired as incompetent.  This is a case of the "Bush Administration" turning over control of the ports.  I am incensed to find out that any country other than our own would have any control of our ports.  What does that say about our governments respect for the american business community?
I have to wonder how many port terminal workers will lose their jobs because of this? Oh well, the Bush Administration doesn't care, let 'em collect unemployment is probably what Ol' Georgie is thinking!

I have to wonder how many port terminal workers will lose their jobs because of this? Oh well, the Bush Administration doesn't care, let 'em collect unemployment is probably what Ol' Georgie is thinking!

Yessss, a lot less unemployment funds for a lot less time once MY bill gets through this marvelous Republican congress!  Eggzellent, Smithers, eggzellent!
:o

Today the company that provides electricity to my region is being taken over by a British Company.  This is just not right.  >:(

Aquisitions such as this do not take place overnight.  It isn't like Dubai Ports decided a month ago to buy Peninsular, then signed a purchase and sale agreement. The US government, I am sure was well aware that the DP had purchased, or was in the process of purchasing the company, probably knew before they began negotiations of the lease.  If they didn't then everyone involved should be fired as incompetent.  This is a case of the "Bush Administration" turning over control of the ports.  I am incensed to find out that any country other than our own would have any control of our ports.  What does that say about our governments respect for the american business community?


Does anyone else know the way the deal goes down?

The position was up for sale and went to the highest bidder...if the American Govnt. wanted it, they had the opportunity to make the high bid...that's the business side of it...

Personally, I do not think this change will make one damned bit of difference.  The same people are going to be managing the ports.  The same people will be running the security.  The only thing that will change is the name at the top of the paychecks.

My question first and foremost is: If this is so danmed important to everybody, why on earth was it allowed to be handed over to a foreign company in the first place?  If you think that is such a big deal, then this kind of service should never have been turned over to any company outside of the US< Brittish or UAE.

And why all the fuss about UAE?  Are people trying to imply that just because it is an Arab country, it might not be trustworthy?

That sounds a lot like "Racial Profiling" to me.

And here is another question.  What other companies are out there that do this kind of thing?  Currently, 90% of port security is handled by companies in other countries.  They include England, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Denmark.

Myself, I am much more worried about another statistic.  Less then 5% of incomming cargo is inspected.  It is simply a matter of to many imports, and not enough time or inspectors.  I call this a much worse problem then where the country is that owns the company.

And why all the fuss about UAE?  Are people trying to imply that just because it is an Arab country, it might not be trustworthy?

That sounds a lot like "Racial Profiling" to me.




It absolutely is profiling -- and I'm all for it.  I don't trust the leaders of any Arab country any more than I trust Bush. 

The Port of Newark-Elizabeth, one of the world's largest container ports (we really handle most of the traffic in the greater New York City area, though they wouldn't admit it for their life), and a main oilport, is having some of its operations turned over. They apparently are keeping the jobs of all the dockmen, longshoremen, etc. Only the name on top of the paycheck would be different. It's a major employer in my area, so it's very, very good for our economy that they're not laying off anybody after the acquisition.

Personally, I do not think this change will make one damned bit of difference.  The same people are going to be managing the ports.  The same people will be running the security.  The only thing that will change is the name at the top of the paychecks.

My question first and foremost is: If this is so danmed important to everybody, why on earth was it allowed to be handed over to a foreign company in the first place?  If you think that is such a big deal, then this kind of service should never have been turned over to any company outside of the US< Brittish or UAE.

And why all the fuss about UAE?  Are people trying to imply that just because it is an Arab country, it might not be trustworthy?

That sounds a lot like "Racial Profiling" to me.

And here is another question.  What other companies are out there that do this kind of thing?  Currently, 90% of port security is handled by companies in other countries.  They include England, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Denmark.

Myself, I am much more worried about another statistic.  Less then 5% of incomming cargo is inspected.  It is simply a matter of to many imports, and not enough time or inspectors.  I call this a much worse problem then where the country is that owns the company.


I'm also concerned with the inspections...but do you really think the longshoremen watching will look through evverything if you added 100 more men to search..I heard they like to get their big checks for being where they are...then giving them a job where they have to search containers...that's another story..

WE CAN'T CALL THIS RACIAL PROFILING...CALL IT..THE 'LAW OF AVERAGES'...since the American KILLERS came from that part of the world, we know what they look like, or might,...if we search EVERYONE with blond hair as well...The probabilities are any other American killers WILL NOT HAVE BLOND HAIR.
The law of averages tell us, people with brown hair,brown eyes from Saudi Arabia attacked us..they may again, let's look for anyone like that!

My question first and foremost is: If this is so danmed important to everybody, why on earth was it allowed to be handed over to a foreign company in the first place?  If you think that is such a big deal, then this kind of service should never have been turned over to any company outside of the US< Brittish or UAE.

Myself, I am much more worried about another statistic.  Less then 5% of incomming cargo is inspected.  It is simply a matter of to many imports, and not enough time or inspectors.  I call this a much worse problem then where the country is that owns the company.


Well we can agree on this. I don't think anyone but the USA should be involved with any aspect of port management.  We do it for airports and borders, there shouldn't be any difference with the ports.

Personally, I do not think this change will make one damned bit of difference.  The same people are going to be managing the ports.  The same people will be running the security.  The only thing that will change is the name at the top of the paychecks.

My question first and foremost is: If this is so danmed important to everybody, why on earth was it allowed to be handed over to a foreign company in the first place?  If you think that is such a big deal, then this kind of service should never have been turned over to any company outside of the US< Brittish or UAE.

And why all the fuss about UAE?  Are people trying to imply that just because it is an Arab country, it might not be trustworthy?

That sounds a lot like "Racial Profiling" to me.


ah yes... Karl Rove's talking points... "racial profiling" huh?  If you're a Republican, I guess it's ok when we're talking about the cops, but not when we're talking about the companies the US deals with.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This firm actively takes part in the Israel boycott.  That's against US policy.  There's one reason not to do business with them.

How does the US determine which arab states are "rogue" status and which are not?  The UAE has been proven to have more connections with terrorist organizations that Iraq did before we invaded them (post invasion, they have lots of terrorism ties, way to go Bush!).  I guess that's not a good enough reason to prevent them from running major US ports though. Syria, Iraq, Iran bad.  Saudia Arabia and UAE good even though the 9/11 hijackers were from those two countries.  Weird how that works.

The UAE has given $8 billion to the Carlyle Group, but that doesn't prove anything, right?
8)

I can only hope John Q. Redstate will have the intellectual powers of deduction to figure out at last what the Bush Family and the Bush Administrations were and are all about. 
Bush Administration brown-noser Mort Kondrake (of Roll Call magazine) said on FOX News' "Beltway Boys" (with Fred Barnes, Bush @sskisser-in-Chief), in regards to the UAE sellout, "There are Arabs, and there are Arabs."
Bush and Cheney are polling at all-time lows, and if this is the best their sworn defenders in the media can do, then the Bushies have finally hanged themselves with their own rope!

But remember, polls don't matter, votes don't matter.  What matters is who gets to vote and who counts the votes.  Judging by the last three nation-wide elections, the Repugs have that straightjacket all sewn up!
:o

All the Bush administration is about is putting money in corporate coffers, not protecting or symbolizing the common American man as they claim to. The last time I checked, there weren't any corporate logos in the place of the 50 stars on the flag they love waving around so damn much, so why do they act as if there are? I smell hypocrisy here...

ah yes... Karl Rove's talking points... "racial profiling" huh?  If you're a Republican, I guess it's ok when we're talking about the cops, but not when we're talking about the companies the US deals with.


You seem to totally miss my points.  And no, I take my opinions from nobody.  I have absolutely no idea what Karl Rove, or anytbody else thinks about this issue, or any other issue.

If this is such a big deal, why was it not brought up before this?  Foreign companies already run the security of 90% of the ports in the US.  And this is just another foreign company taking over for a foreign company.  If people really care, why was this not brought up long before this?

Either get them all in the hands of US companies, or pipe down I say.  And I can't see any reason other then race to object to this.  The company is not under any accusations that I am aware of.  Nobody is saying they are a front company for terrorist organizations, nobody is saying that they provide shoddy security to other facilities they manage.  So what is the big deal?

Babs Boxer for example got some egg on her face when she tried to attack this decision.  It seems that she did not know that the ports in her home district of Los Angeles are run by...  a company from China.  Personally, I would be much more worried about a Chinese company then one from the UAE.  The last time I checked, our soldiers have never been involved in a war against the UAE military.

All the Bush administration is about is putting money in corporate coffers, not protecting or symbolizing the common American man as they claim to. The last time I checked, there weren't any corporate logos in the place of the 50 stars on the flag they love waving around so damn much, so why do they act as if there are? I smell hypocrisy here...


OK, now this I really do not understand.

Unless you are proposing that this be taken over by the US Government, then who should be doing this job?

I seem to remember a few years ago when they took over airport security, and a lot of people were screaming about that.

Bush cheerleaders have a problem here.  We have a lot of Bush cheerleaders in the media and the general population. We even have a few on inthe00s, you know who you are!
Part of the problem with rooting for the fascists is you have to put your sense of righteousness, pride, and patriotism behind your rhetoric.  When the fascists become insufferable, you are left with either--gasp--admitting you got taken for a ride, which nobody likes to do, or you have to hunker down and lie to yourself, which makes you feel like crap.
All those who now defend Bush on any given issue know darn well if Clinton tried to pull the same crooked deals, they would see red and turn livid with rage! 
The Bush Administration has proven itself utterly incompetent at everything they were hired to do.  What if you hired some guys to paint your house, but instead of painting your house, they stole all your belongings and fenced them at pawn shops? That's the Bush Administration.
As Randi Rhodes said today, if Clinton handled the aftermath of Katrina the way Bush has, there would have been Confederates marching on Washington already.  However, because Louisiana and Mississippi went overwhelmingly for Bush, the Repugs got a heck of a lot of leeway.  Now people are finally getting fed up.  However, you will never see the Republicans in the media say Republicans should not be elected in 2006 or 2008! 
::)

Personally, I do not think this change will make one damned bit of difference.  The same people are going to be managing the ports.  The same people will be running the security.  The only thing that will change is the name at the top of the paychecks.

My question first and foremost is: If this is so danmed important to everybody, why on earth was it allowed to be handed over to a foreign company in the first place?  If you think that is such a big deal, then this kind of service should never have been turned over to any company outside of the US< Brittish or UAE.

And why all the fuss about UAE?  Are people trying to imply that just because it is an Arab country, it might not be trustworthy?

That sounds a lot like "Racial Profiling" to me.

And here is another question.  What other companies are out there that do this kind of thing?  Currently, 90% of port security is handled by companies in other countries.  They include England, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Denmark.

Myself, I am much more worried about another statistic.  Less then 5% of incomming cargo is inspected.  It is simply a matter of to many imports, and not enough time or inspectors.  I call this a much worse problem then where the country is that owns the company.
It's in the news that the UAE has been involved in money-laundering for terrorists...why trust them knowing that this laundering goes on?

Bush cheerleaders have a problem here.  We have a lot of Bush cheerleaders in the media and the general population. We even have a few on inthe00s, you know who you are!
Part of the problem with rooting for the fascists is you have to put your sense of righteousness, pride, and patriotism behind your rhetoric.  When the fascists become insufferable, you are left with either--gasp--admitting you got taken for a ride, which nobody likes to do, or you have to hunker down and lie to yourself, which makes you feel like crap.
All those who now defend Bush on any given issue know darn well if Clinton tried to pull the same crooked deals, they would see red and turn livid with rage! 
The Bush Administration has proven itself utterly incompetent at everything they were hired to do.  What if you hired some guys to paint your house, but instead of painting your house, they stole all your belongings and fenced them at pawn shops? That's the Bush Administration.
As Randi Rhodes said today, if Clinton handled the aftermath of Katrina the way Bush has, there would have been Confederates marching on Washington already.  However, because Louisiana and Mississippi went overwhelmingly for Bush, the Repugs got a heck of a lot of leeway.  Now people are finally getting fed up.  However, you will never see the Republicans in the media say Republicans should not be elected in 2006 or 2008! 
::)


White people in LS and MS did, I think now blacks and poor whites are going to turn out against Bush in record numbers in those states who experienced the incompetence of handling Katrina. I'm so glad people are finally getting fed up with Bush's hypocrisy and relentless business panderings.

I really have a major problem with the UAE possibly using this 'Dubai Ports' company to possibly slip terrorists and their tools of destruction into our country right under our noses, therefore there just might be a terrorist attack that would make 9/11 look like a backyard barbecue!!

I really have a major problem with the UAE possibly using this 'Dubai Ports' company to possibly slip terrorists and their tools of destruction into our country right under our noses, therefore there just might be a terrorist attack that would make 9/11 look like a backyard barbecue!!


Yeah, and in NJ no less...

It's in the news that the UAE has been involved in money-laundering for terrorists...why trust them knowing that this laundering goes on?


The laundering was not done by the UAE, but people who lived there.

And here is a shocker, there were people doing that right here in the US also, US Citizens.  As far as I know, nobody has given any allegation that the company involved in this transaction is under any suspicion of anything like that.

You might as well say "Enron was crooked, therefore Turner Boradcasting and every other person and company in the US is corrupt also".

White people in LS and MS did, I think now blacks and poor whites are going to turn out against Bush in record numbers in those states who experienced the incompetence of handling Katrina. I'm so glad people are finally getting fed up with Bush's hypocrisy and relentless business panderings.

They may turn against the Bush Administration, but they're a buncha lame ducks. If Southern Whites vote Democrat in the next two elections, I'll eat my sneakers, my old filthy sneakers!
::)

OK, some new news just came in.  The company that is buying the Ports is going to divest itself of all US holdings.

They have announced that they are going to sell the US Ports contracts to a US Company, and pull out of all other holds in the US.

At the moment, there are 2 companies that have the experience, money, and ability to take over these contracts:  Haliburton and Wal-Mart.

Is everybody happy now?

Wal-Mart.  ::)

You seem to totally miss my points.  And no, I take my opinions from nobody.  I have absolutely no idea what Karl Rove, or anytbody else thinks about this issue, or any other issue.


funny then, that the "racism" card was screamed loud and long by several Bush apologists at the same time you mentioned it.


If this is such a big deal, why was it not brought up before this?  Foreign companies already run the security of 90% of the ports in the US.  And this is just another foreign company taking over for a foreign company.  If people really care, why was this not brought up long before this?


because the royal family of the other countries running our ports, aren't generally hanging out with Bin Laden on a regular basis.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

I could be mistaken of course.  Maybe Prince Charles hangs with Bin Laden at the country club every weekend.


Either get them all in the hands of US companies, or pipe down I say.  And I can't see any reason other then race to object to this.  The company is not under any accusations that I am aware of.  Nobody is saying they are a front company for terrorist organizations, nobody is saying that they provide shoddy security to other facilities they manage.  So what is the big deal?

Babs Boxer for example got some egg on her face when she tried to attack this decision.  It seems that she did not know that the ports in her home district of Los Angeles are run by...  a company from China.  Personally, I would be much more worried about a Chinese company then one from the UAE.  The last time I checked, our soldiers have never been involved in a war against the UAE military.


The Bush adminstration would be quick to point out we're not fighting China at the moment, we're at WAR with the TERRORISTS!!! We were involved in a war against Japan, but we do business with them.  Sorry, but the last time the Chinese military declared war on the US was???  I can't even figure out how you could use China in that argument.  Old Vietnam reference? The chinese fighter pilot thing from five years ago?  sorry, this strawman is pretty sad.

If you wouldn't let Iraq run the ports with Hussein in charge, why would you want these people to?  Their country leaders actually met Bin Laden within the past five years, even Hussein can't be tied that easily to him.

funny then, that the "racism" card was screamed loud and long by several Bush apologists at the same time you mentioned it.


Look, I do not watch or listen to "Opinion" shows.  In fact, I rarely watch TV news at all.  About the only time I will watch an "Opinion" show, is if there is a guest comming on that I find interesting.  I do not watch Hanity & Combs, Bill O'Riley, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, or any other shows like that.  Unless there is something going on, I no longer watch TV news.  That includes Fox, CNN, CNN-HN, MSNBC, or the "Big 3" network news.

Every opinion I have, I make for myself.  And I call things like I see them.  And yea, I have heard about the UAE Royal Family and Osama.  So What?

The port security contracts were not being bought by the UAE Royal Family.  And that was before 9/11.  What has their reaction been since then?

Well, up until now, they have become steadfast allies of the US.  They have even been helping in our attempts to negotiate with Iran.  They even gave us land so we could broadcast radio and TV signals into Iran, in order to give a moderating voice.  They are also outspoken critics of the President of Iran.  Not to mention several large contracts they have signed with US companies, including Boeing and General Motors.

Now, I would not blame them if they told us to go urinate on a braided fiber cord.  After the way they were just treated, they would have every right to do that.

I still see nothing in this but racism.  And that is my opinion.  I take full credit for it, and it did not come from anybody else.