Arab control of Seaports

[PastaJoe]

I get the feeling that this is being overly hyped by all sides: The Republican Congressmen who want to show they can be independent and oppose Bush in an election year, the Democrats who want to point out the hypocracies of Bush's policies about protecting our borders, and Bush who wants to show that he can be tough and stand up to political pressure. He wouldn't veto anything else, but he'll threaten to veto Congressional opposition.

 

And this is not a racist issue, it's a geo-political issue. The Middle East is the most unstable region in the world, that's a political reality.

 

When Scott McClellen said today that the administration should have done a better job of explaining the issue to Congress and the public, and that Bush learned of the issue from the news stories last week, it once again pointed out that they don't learn from their mistakes. We just went through the same lack of communication last week with Cheney.

[Ghost of BiB]

I get the feeling that this is being overly hyped by all sides: The Republican Congressmen who want to show they can be independent and oppose Bush in an election year, the Democrats who want to point out the hypocracies of Bush's policies about protecting our borders, and Bush who wants to show that he can be tough and stand up to political pressure.  He wouldn't veto anything else, but he'll threaten to veto Congressional opposition. 

 

And this is not a racist issue, it's a geo-political issue.  The Middle East is the most unstable region in the world, that's a political reality. 

 

When Scott McClellen said today that the administration should have done a better job of explaining the issue to Congress and the public, and that Bush learned of the issue from the news stories last week, it once again pointed out that they don't learn from their mistakes.  We just went through the same lack of communication last week with Cheney.

609013[/snapback]

 

As CTM says, they suck at marketing. They keep getting into these self induced dilemas by not anticipating the potential reactions. On the reality level, this port thing is actually pretty routine and mundane. I'm not surprised Bush knew nothing about it, because through the vetting process, why does he need to? The problem lies that someone in the administration should have enough sense to know how this could look, and pointed this particular issue out to him, plus devise a communications strategy for it. The Bush WH keeps handing this stuff over on a silver platter.

 

It would all be amusing save for the fact that people here cast their votes based on their understanding of issues as presented to them. This admin doesn't present jack sh--. So, the only side to a story told is by their, for lack of a better word, adversaries. Maybe they don't care, as they aren't getting elected again. But they should, as they have some good policies in many areas and if those policies are going to go forward in the next administration someone should PR them.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Again....no American companies that can handle this?

 

608435[/snapback]

 

I just checked their website and apparently Halibuton does not do port security. So the answer to your question is NO.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Impressive company, at least.

 

The one thing that jumps out from that site is how many ports they manage that generate traffic incoming to the US.  If they're a threat to national security, it's not going to be because they manage US ports. 

 

Or is that too complicated for the knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering crowd?

608451[/snapback]

 

The administration has no one to blame except themselves for the knee jerk reaction folks are having. They only spent the last 5 years demonizing the whole middle east region and now they expect americans to be cool with this? Okey dokey.

[Ghost of BiB]

I just checked their website and apparently Halibuton does not do port security. So the answer to your question is NO.

609037[/snapback]

 

When we set up the operation to dispose of the chemical weapons in Iraq, KBR was hiring Wackenhutt to provide our security. We were prohibited from having any weapons (yeah, right...that lasted about all of 15 seconds)

 

Gee, thanks Halliburton.

 

BTW, another marketing faux pas. Their national strategies for security and terror highlight regional partnerships.

[Alaska Darin]

Methinks you are liking the use of the !@#$ word too much.  I understand the context, but enough already please.

608952[/snapback]

So he should be more niggardly with the word?

[Ghost of BiB]

So he should be more niggardly with the word?

609043[/snapback]

 

You must now resign.

[BigAL]

Actually, I find it disgustingly racist.

 

Which is why I'm using it.  It fits - perfectly - the topic.  For people (not you - I don't recall seeing your opinion either way on this subject) to B word at the use of the vocabulary "sand !@#$" in describing Arabs while simultaneously treating Arabs like "!@#$s" is hypocritical in the extreme. 

 

I'm sorry you find it offensive...so do I, honestly.  But as long as people maintain the racist attitude, we may as well use the proper vocabulary to go along with it.

609000[/snapback]

Fair enough. For the record, my initial reaction is, god forbid, similar to Alaska Darin's in that it does not feel right or pass the smell test. I would be less apprehensive if it were not a government owned company. On face value, it would seem easier to me for someone with an agenda in a government owned company to infiltrate sensitive areas for "terrorist" activities. For that rason, I would not want a Pakistani government owned company to manage the ports. There are factions in that government that would rather help Bin laden than help us. Would you be okay with a Taliban owned company managing the ports? It would certainly give me pause.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As CTM says, they suck at marketing. They keep getting into these self induced dilemas by not anticipating the potential reactions. On the reality level, this port thing is actually pretty routine and mundane. I'm not surprised Bush knew nothing about it, because through the vetting process, why does he need to? The problem lies that someone in the administration should have enough sense to know how this could look, and pointed this particular issue out to him, plus devise a communications strategy for it. The Bush WH keeps handing this stuff over on a silver platter.

 

It would all be amusing save for the fact that people here cast their votes based on their understanding of issues as presented to them. This admin doesn't present jack sh--. So, the only side to a story told is by their, for lack of a better word, adversaries. Maybe they don't care, as they aren't getting elected again. But they should, as they have some good policies in many areas and if those policies are  going to go forward in the next administration someone should PR them.

609031[/snapback]

 

Was I really the first one to clue in to this? Are we still the only two to figure this out?

 

I mean, it seemed pretty obvious the moment one idiot was saying "Iraq is a UN problem, we can't do it alone" the same time another idiot was saying "Iraq is a national security problem, we don't need the UN" way back in late 2002. That was a pretty good clue that, right or wrong, they couldn't explain themselves for sh--...

[X. Benedict]

Was I really the first one to clue in to this?  Are we still the only two to figure this out? 

 

I mean, it seemed pretty obvious the moment one idiot was saying "Iraq is a UN problem, we can't do it alone" the same time another idiot was saying "Iraq is a national security problem, we don't need the UN" way back in late 2002.  That was a pretty good clue that, right or wrong, they couldn't explain themselves for sh--...

609077[/snapback]

 

The Bush Administration's handling of the press is the most inept in recent memory. Because they have avoided press conferences and have treated the media as a hostile camp altogether, they have missed any chance to convey or market any message by transitional means of stadard network coverage or major newsprint. What they have relied on: the conservative outlets, talk radio, punditry, and weeklies, has proved to be an unreliable medium as well. If the president is off message, these are not necessarily the most open minded sources for a debate of national interest with full disclosure of facts. The administration's failure to engage the media has so hamstrung their agenda that there is no reliable vehicle to transmit their message.

 

They have screwed themselves. I am no Bush supporter. But, I do believe this inability has become bad for the country.

[SilverNRed]

I think it is clear that she is a terrorist sympathizer.  The UAE are allies in the GWOT thus anyone who is against them is for the terrorists and by extension, against our troops.  I think that, in the end, that makes her a traitor, right?  Time for another quail hunt.

 

I'm getting the hang of this new republithink.

608897[/snapback]

...WHAT?

[SilverNRed]

They have screwed themselves. I am no Bush supporter. But, I do believe this inability has become bad for the country.

609089[/snapback]

I think it's remarkable just how bad that inability is hurting the country's image.

 

I could see this kind of crap happening if this were their first year in the WH but this is Year Six. Get with the program, people.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think it's remarkable just how bad that inability is hurting the country's image.

 

I could see this kind of crap happening if this were their first year in the WH but this is Year Six.  Get with the program, people.

609096[/snapback]

 

This IS the program. The White House purposely alienates the media, on the principle that they don't represent the interests of the people as they weren't elected by the people.

 

And, as is typical with this administration...while I agree with the principle, I'm amazed at the utter incompetence of the execution.

[Ghost of BiB]

Bush, IMO as far as Presidents go, is an idiot.

 

But, they have a good staff in many respects. There are some real bright initiatives out there.

 

I just hope they don't get lost in the shuffle.

[X. Benedict]

This IS the program.  The White House purposely alienates the media, on the principle that they don't represent the interests of the people as they weren't elected by the people.

 

And, as is typical with this administration...while I agree with the principle, I'm amazed at the utter incompetence of the execution.

609099[/snapback]

 

How beautifully pithy and sad is that first sentence. There is a reason why nearly every second term president has brought in David Gergen - Bush has needed him or someone like him for some time now.

[Mickey]

This one of those "quoting things people never said" that you accused me of doing but never do yourself, right?

608924[/snapback]

I'm not quoting anyone.

 

I just think that anyone who is critical of the President is a friend to his enemies and his enemies are terrorists therefore, all who are critical of the President are terrorist sympathizers. I learned this kind of Republithink from Hannity and O'Reilly. What, you don't think the logic is sound?

[TheMadCap]

I have no opinion at all on the port thing, no idea if it is good, bad or indifferent.  Regardless, the letter from Republican Congresswoman Susan Myrick (NC) to the President on the issue is classic:

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just

NO----but HELL NO!

 

Sincerely,

 

Susan Myrick

Member of Congress

 

thumbnail at thumbnail

608841[/snapback]

 

 

She was the idiot mayor of Charlotte in the late 80's. I see she is still setting trends...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm not quoting anyone. 

 

I just think that anyone who is critical of the President is a friend to his enemies and his enemies are terrorists therefore, all who are critical of the President are terrorist sympathizers.  I learned this kind of Republithink from Hannity and O'Reilly.  What, you don't think the logic is sound?

609141[/snapback]

 

Point out where I ever implied anything other than the lack of soundness of that argument.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Don't worry, the government rarely loses an A-76.  They cheat to high heaven on those things.

608426[/snapback]

 

Actually it is the other way around... Times have changed... The government wants to get out of the operations end of things.

 

Why they want to pay a middle-man and contract out is beyond me... The government is still responsible for all the maintenance and repairs (see Chicago Harbor Lock)... And the contractor will only do what is in the contract... No more, no less. Like I said before, in my job description I have "All duties as assigned" written into it... That means anything and everything.

 

Outsourcing (especially within the gov) in the long run is more expensive... For years the Corps has been doing everything themselves and believe it or not SAVING money... Look at even our vehicles... In the old days, the Corps purchased and maintained them themselves... Now the have to use GSA things are a lot more expensive. Even if they choose to contract out, who do you think is gonna maintain all of our machines, vessels and other overhead at the facility? It ain't gonna be the contractor... We will be lucky if we can get them to change the oil in our tractors.

 

As much as people knock the Corps (even myself)... We still have the ability to do everything and anything... Which we do. I see other aspects of government finding fault with that... They just don't like the old-school way of doing things. The Army is changing.

 

They just lost on the Red River... Explain that... Actually, political pressure was the reason. Things, like I said are different today.

 

But anyway, I have been expecting this for sometime since I first got RIFed back in Buffalo. I am not worried, I have been saving up the kazoo and have always saved at least 25% of my pay (and invested) for the last 15 years... I am prepared to cash out and move on.

 

It can only be a win-win situation for me.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Without contractors, the government would grind to a halt quickly. The only alternative is to make the government three times the size it is now in order to accomodate the workload. "Corporations" are and have been "in charge" of our safety for a long time. There are a lot of people on this board who work for the government through one private company or another. How can one live in a global economy by making limitations to what is global? I once spent some time forming a Hong Kong LTD company in China representing an American company that was owned by another company in Belgium. I think that might be more the norm in this day and age than the exception.

 

And bringing the unions into it as motivation isn't right. The dockworkers and their unions aren't going anywhere, and don't have anything to do with this. Anyone who tries to get the Longshoreman out of the ports had better be prepared to not ship anything for a long, long time.

608431[/snapback]

 

My job in Corps would not grind to a halt... We are totally self-sufficient. I can't think of one thing that we have had a contractor do... Maybe the security upgrade (fence and gate) and that is FUBARed beyond belief... Finally our in-house IT guy is straightening out the wiring and electronics... We could have easily had the "bull crew" on the fence...

 

From our in house floating plants to maintain all the heavy machinary and what not... To the day to day operations of the field site...

 

Again... We do everything.

 

Something most in the government don't like. We are still old school Army here along the river.

 

Hoo RAH!