I’m sure everyone’s aware of the fact that a company from the United Arab Emirates has been awarded a contract to guard some of our nations most vulnerable ports. Aside from the fact that 9/11 money was funneled through that country, it does seem odd that we’d outsource homeland security work as critical as port security.
All kinds of things can be moved into the country in canisters, to include: drugs, weapons, human beings, stolen merchandise and dangerous chemicals. Checks are done randomly by port security, and like all things in life, a bribe to the right person can ensure a safe delivery of just about anything.
Does anyone think that the Arabs are above aiding criminal activity? With that in mind, what exactally takes place on the continent of Africa or in the Middle East that convinces our high-level leaders to award a contract like this to one of those governments? Who owed who a favor, and for what?
Here’s what Chertoff, our Homeland Security Chief in President Bush’s Cabinet, had to say about it:
The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…As far as my agency is concerned, port security really rests principally with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection.
So hey, it’s out of our hands, and people like you and I need to just trust that everyone involved knows what they’re doing. To me, his words here sound a lot to me like what was being said after Katrina hit. I’m not buying it. Neither should anyone else. President Bush can nix this deal if he wanted to, but unfortunately for us, the motivations and decisionmaking process of our elected leaders has been ‘none of yer business’ since these people took over.
27 Year Vet-SgtMajor’s take on this story:
As of today 2,273 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and 16,653 have been wounded and maimed. Today I read this article and grew ill with contempt. I would like to ask Mr. Bush this question. Have these Americans died and sacrificed their lives and limbs so that you can turn the control of American ports over to an Arab country that, unlike Iraq, has been directly linked to terrorists.
SGT MAJOR MYERS’s diary :: ::
Mr. Bush I served my country for 27 years. I did this freely and without reservation, just as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have done through out history and are doing today and will do tomorrow but, I must tell you this Mr. Bush. We have not sacrificed so that you may continue to make a mockery of being Commander in Chief. At what point do you or will you begin to have a drop of shame, remorse, or courage? How can you look the mother, father, sister, or brother of a soldier in the face?
I will not go into the details in this post because I have enumerated and listed your gross transgressions and incompetence’s in many of my past post but you Mr. Bush have shepherded a never ending string of catastrophes that are destroying the American military and you have done absolutely nothing to make this nations safer and now you would outsource control of our ports in such a reckless manner.
I am too furious to express my contempt for you George W. Bush but I pray that America will wake up and do something to remove you and your neocon cohorts in the Senate and Congress from office. I promise you that I will do all in my power to motivate and move as many of the citizens of this nation to vote you and all of your cronies from office.
God help us all and protect us from your insane idiocy.
Those Are The Sergeant Majors Extremely Distressed Thoughts On That.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/19/155624/903
What would a guy like this know about the milatary. Everyone knows the place to learn about milatary strategy is in the Texas Air national gaurd, or on a hunting ranch. Speaking of hunting ranches at least Cheney bagged something that could shoot back this last time.
I do not favor allowing a UAE company to guard any of our ports! I live in a port city so this may impact me directly ! Why can’t Americans do this vital job??
Paul: “WE HATE UNIONS” is the motto of the Bush presidency.
Incidentally, none of the jerks deciding these things have ever been a dockworker.
Go figure…
Chris how do you know that the motto of the Bush administration is “We hate unions” ? Please let me see your basis in fact for this statement.
Paul – just think about it. Why would the government look to outsource security services for the ports rather than continue to have Americans do the job? Every port I know of is staffed by union dockworkers, secured by union security personell, and backed up by union police and firefighters.
What’s the motivation for outsourcing this work other than the bottom line? United Arab Emirates deals with their workforce how they see fit, whereas American workers performing that work are guaranteed health insurance, retirement benefits and a fair wage negotiated by union officials in periodic negotiations with the government.
Has the administration come out with a statement that Arabs are better at providing security than Americans? I haven’t heard anything of the sort from these people. The reports and statements I’ve seen have had to do with money and the fact that the negotiations are classified…ie: none of our business.
The upside to doing this…if it doesn’t have to do with money paid to workers, then what?
Aside from that, Bush hasn’t moved to raise the minimum wage to account for inflation, and the Republican party champions organizations like WalMart, who rely on the government to provide health insurance for their employees.
Both of those facts indicate a preference for management over workers…and management’s worst nightmare, regardless of the industry, is a strong union.
I’m extremely pro-worker. Unfortunately, our leaders are pro-management first. Their philosophy is altruistic to a fault. Which is typical of aristocracies throughout history.
I am pro-worker too and have been in four unions. I can think of other reasons ( mostly bad ones) why the UAE folks were brought in besides the President being anti – union.
Aside from the fact that 9/11 money was funneled through that country, it does seem odd that we’d outsource homeland security work as critical as port security.
First of all, only a part of the money for 9/11 went through UAE, 2 of the hijackers were from UAE and the deal, as I understand it, is for port operations and security will still be American. American longshoremen will also be the labor.
Even so, I still woundn’t want a company with any Islamic ties at all, though this is very difficult nowadays. With the size of conglomerates these days you don’t really know who owns or controls what. The former British company could have been a UAE company already and we wouldn’t know it.
I understand why Republicans are all against this and may liberals can get some points by opposing this as well. Of course, this could mean Haliburton takes over….
More info:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.
Bush, who has yet to veto a bill during his administration, warned that the United States is sending “mixed signals” by attacking a Middle Eastern company after the American ports were run by a British firm for several years.
Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to “step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard,” he said.
More on the outsourcing of US ports from Washingtonmonthly.com:
DEAD MAN WALKING….This whole controversy over “Portgate” — a decision by the Bush administration to allow the operations of six big U.S. ports to be managed by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates — is fascinating. Not so much for the substantive issues it raises, which are disturbing but a bit murky, but for what it says about the waning political power of the Bush White House.
What it shows is that Bush still doesn’t understand how much influence he’s recently lost with his conservative base. In the brave new post-Harriet, post-Katrina world, outrage over the port deal has been driven equally by both liberal critics and conservatives like Michelle Malkin and administration uber-stalwart Hugh Hewitt, who are no longer willing to simply take Bush’s word for it that they should trust him on this issue. For today’s chastened conservatives, it’s “trust but verify” when it comes to the Bush administration.
This is a fairly stunning turnaround for a White House that has made the care and feeding of its base practically the Eleventh Commandment. Conservatives in Congress have recently held Bush’s feet to the fire over his handling of Katrina — a first for the 108th/109th Congress — and have also been disturbingly unwilling to simply roll over and play dead on the NSA wiretap issue. Bush is a dead man walking these days, and the UAE port deal shows that he still doesn’t quite get this. He better figure it out fast.