Don't get me wrong - I'm not claiming the UAE is some Mecca of anti-terrorist thought in the region (pun unintended), nor am I insinuating that there are no terrorist activities in the nation. I'm just saying this:

. . . should be considered until evidence to the contrary is found - rather, we should look at the merits of the plan, as well as the potential risks, and determine if it makes fiscal sense for the government as a whole. This may help to understand arguments such as "why don't WE take over the ports?", since those considerations may have already been addressed.

(Also, I'll admit I thought the rampant xenophobia and 'guilt by association' was hilariously ironic, so I drove the discussion further in that direction on purpose - I laughed, sorry.)

Rep. Sue Myrick says it best. :)

I've missed that... Why doesn't the US control its ports? I am still a bit confused on that subject matter... Just asking?

I find it more like, doublespeak, rather than xenophobia. But it is racial profiling plain and simple. Is isn't right.

The issue for me is the US is giving a big government contract to a foreign government owned company. I think that there are probably quite a few foreign government owned companies that the US government has business relations. Which makes me begin to believe some "things" are in motion to carry out so "snaky shady chit".

That's my conspiracy theory gene that has been activated, and I cannot control it.

But giving the benefit of the doubt, it does seem rather, "shady"... Like backroom politicking is going on with some corporate giants... And Notorious V.P. Cheney is already done shot somebody, and could have killed him, so from my perspective in my world, it seems rather "tricky"...

Thats awesome! Is that letter legit?

NBC Nightly News had a story on tonight that clears part of that up. The contract is for management of the ports, which certainly has some security issues, but the security of the ports is still the responsibility of US law enforcement and military -- ie Coast Guard.

My concern is still the difficulty of oversight of the security issues such as background checks, etc. during the hiring process.

As DeltAlum pointed out, this is for port management and not security. Additionally it is a UAE based firm that is partially owned by the UAE.

Many Republicans are against this and many Democrats are for it. It's not a party issue and it's sad that someone on this site interpreted it that way.

The UAE is a hub for money laundering but that means nothing. What does mean something is the fact that Osama hung out in the UAE as detailed in the 9/11 report. What also means something is the way that the rulers there have protected charities that are terrorist fronts. And finally, China, Russia, and France have armed terrorist nations like Iran and Iraq but we are still friendly towards them. There is no black and white in diplomacy, only grays; the UAE is our ally and less of a rogue nation than Iraq.

And President Bush knew nothing about this. This has nothing to do with him. But people are here to spew vitriol. A national security agency required the company to go through stringent checks and investigations before it provided clearance.

-Rudey
--I can't wait for someone to ignore all I've written and post something anti-Republican now.

Seems to me that the politics involved here are international -- not Republican vs. Democrats.

The other thing I didn't think to mention from the "Nightly" story is that it isn't that we're suddenly giving up management of our ports to a foreign government -- the previous contracts for some of these ports was held by a British firm.

My understanding is the British firm was sold to the UAE.

I didn't catch that. Figures I suppose.

I agree with DeltAlum. Republicans and Democrats are against this.

An example is this letter from a House Republican to Bush about it...

Her gov homepage...
http://myrick.house.gov/

Her letter in pdf form..
http://myrick.house.gov/letter%20to%...AE%20ports.PDF

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...r66/Letter.jpg

There may be a labor union (dock workers) pulling some political strings here. The british owners have been lax in enforcing security in some ports (like not doing the real required background checks, employing felons).

I bet large numbers of dock workers would be fired if their criminal records were exposed.

I bet Clinton and Schumer would say anything their union donators request.

My letter to you:

Get a life.

-Rudey

Lol nice arguement for the topic.

You win at life. God will make you his right hand man because of you kindness towards people like me.

-The1calledtke

It's funny how you make a veiled attack and then expect no response huh?

What argument? You posted a letter and I posted mine. Perhaps you would benefit from the purchase of a dictionary.

I don't know what winning at life is about. Where was there a lack of kindness. I think if anything I am just confused by your irrelevant and strange posts as well as hurt by the ones that you post to only attack President Bush or Republicans :(.

-Rudey

Yes but my letter dealt with the topic. Your letter was meant to insult/attack me.

Why do you like to insult/attack people and expect people to take it?

Is it because your always right so trying to insult or hurt people makes it right? The person that you insult is suppose to agree with your statement and feel as lowly about themselves as you see them ?