Tuesday, February 28, 2006


I have examined, analyzed, and tried looking at this port deal from all angles and I just can’t figure out for the life of me why President George W. Bush is standing so strong on this idea of turning the operations of 6 US ports; New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia, over to a company that is owned by the United Arab Emirates government. Which is an Islamic government by the way.

Security experts are pretty much in agreement that if, and that is a very likely to happen if, a nuclear device is ever attempted to be smuggled into this country, the weapon will arrive in a container through one of our ports. Maybe, it is just me, but does anyone else see why it might not be a good idea to give control of our ports to an Islamic government?

Let this run through your head for a moment. The so called, peaceful religion of Islam is involved in most of the shooting conflicts around the world today. I do not know the exact numbers but there are approximately 130 shooting conflicts. In about 97% of those conflicts you will find Muslims on one side or another. There is only one major world religion out there that has the goal of world domination. There is only one religion out there that a great majority of it has declared war on our country, and which is dedicated to the goal of killing as many Americans as they possibly can. That religion is Islam.

Many people don't seem to realize it, but like it or not, the Western world now finds itself in the middle of World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism. (Yes, WW IV, World War III was the "Cold War.") So, just how is it that it makes sense to the President of the United States to turn over the operations of six critical American ports to an Islamic government ...especially an Islamic government with established ties to terrorists who have already struck and killed thousands of Americans? I can’t figure it out. We are in a war! This would make just about as much sense as putting the Germans in charge of our ports back during World War II.

So now we have members of congress from both parties talking about not allowing this deal to go through and this is where President Bush wants to use his first veto? Are you kidding me? Please tell me this is a joke? How many budgets has the President signed with no threat of a veto? Six of them? We've seen non-defense government spending go through the roof throughout his administration at record rates, and never once a veto, not even a hint of a veto. So now Bush has finally found something he wants to veto. He wants to veto any bill that would prevent the turnover of six critical ports to a Muslim government. This is just insane!!!! Ronald Reagan must be turning and screaming in disgust in his grave right now.

President Bush has said: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company."

OK ... not a problem, I will give you 5 good reasons right off the top of my head, Before I start though let me just say this the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the British company selling the American ports operations to Dubai Ports World, is a private company. Peninsular is not owned by the government of Great Britain. Dubai Ports world is a state-owned company, in other word it is owned by the government of United Arab Emirates. So, what we have here is a private company selling its rights to operate these six ports in the Untied States to a government ... an Islamic government.

So, to answer Bush's question as to ...why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." let's start with this correction. It's a Middle Eastern government that's being held to a different standard than a British company.

Governments often use deadly force to accomplish their goals. Private companies do not. There, President Bush is your reason numbero uno, and the only reason that I need for a different standard. But I promised 5 so let's move on to compare Great Britain to the UAE.

2. The 9/11 hijackers did not use Great Britain as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States. The 9/11 hijackers DID use the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base for the planning and funding of their attacks on the United States.

3. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from Great Britain. Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates

4. Great Britain did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The Taliban, you may remember, provided the operational base for the operations of Al Qaeda. The United Arab Emirates DID recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

5. Supporters of this move will tell you that there are already foreign companies already running most of American port operations. We're not talking about a foreign company here. We're talking about a foreign government. See reason numbero uno.

There just has to be something going on here that I am not seeing. Something undisclosed. The Bush White House just can't be this blind to the legitimate concerns of the people and of those in Congress who are concerned about this move… can they?

No comments: