A Different Perspective
This rarely happens, but I will have to disagree with Jim a little on this port deal business. First off, I think as more information is learned, the deal makes more sense. More about that below. Secondly, I think if anyone has earned our trust regarding national security, it is George W. Bush. He is not stupid, and I am sure he has looked at this closely. Would he really expend the resources he has expended in the Middle East fighting terrorism and then give them an open invitation through our ports? The more I read about this, the more I think there has been quite a knee-jerk reaction. Lastly...do you really want to agree with Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer? That alone should raise a red flag. Of course they're pandering to the unions, that goes without saying. As Ann Coulter says, the Democrats all of a sudden pretending to care about national security is a joke.
Rush Limbaugh has a good roundup on his web site regarding this question. Here are some excerpts:
Nuance 1: Osama bin Laden didn't have to buy the World Trade Center to blow it up. Why would anybody throw away 6.8 to 8 billion, whatever this deal is? Why would anybody throw away $8 billion for the purposes of blowing it up when you don't have to? All they'd have to do -- they own so many other ports -- is just load a container with something's going to blow up when it gets here and send it on its way, and then buy what's left on the cheap.
Nuance 2: The 'tsunami' loses sight of what's being sold! The business is not a port inspection business. It is a container port loading and unloading business!
Nuance 3: The largest company in this business is Hong Kong's Hutchinson Ports. They refuse to invest in the United States. They don't want to buy our ports. You know why? Because they don't want to mess with the unions, and they don't want to mess with the political land mines that go along with it. The second largest in this business is Denmark's APM Terminals, (whispering) and those are white European foreigners and you know what those white European foreigners did to the Indians, and you know what they did to women, and you know what they did to animals, and you know what they did to the land. And the second biggest company is Denmark's APM Terminals, white European foreigners. The next largest is Singapore PSA, owned by Singapore. (whispering) That's Asians, 'yellow people.' You know about them. And then, of course, Dubai World Ports, that would move them into fourth with this deal. And you know about them. (whispering) Arabs. Bombs! Blown-up ports! So we got the Hong Kong people, (whispering) the communist Chinese! Everybody knows the commies, the ChiComs, run Hong Kong.
Nuance 4: These foreign companies are not only foreign, but they are modernizing their ports all over the world, making container loading and unloading faster, safer, and more efficient, and I should say with less union assistance, which is, let me just cut to the chase, that's why Hillary and Schumer oppose the deal because they have heard from the AFL-CIO about it. That's why. Stand by, folks.
Nuance 5: It's an election year. The left is so vulnerable on national defense that they are having to track as far to the right of the Republicans as they can on this port issue. They've been praying for an opportunity that they could see an enemy somewhere and they finally had it shown up in the United Arab Emirates.
Nuance 6: The left is pulling a John Kerry. Note, they're not demanding to 'Stop the sale!' and there's some Republicans in on this, too, I know. They're not demanding to stop it. They're demanding to stall it. 'They want to be able to investigate it, sailor! Need a moratorium to look into what really happened.' Then we find out that Bush didn't even know as we pointed out yesterday until after it was a done deal, yet he is standing by it. They want to be able to stall the deal, the Democrats do, so they can look the voters in the eye and say,'I opposed this sale before I supported it,' or 'I support this sale before I opposed it,' whichever it turns out to be.
I think he makes some good points. The same people who are loading and unloading cargo now will be loading and unloading cargo after the sale is completed. Not that much will change, from what I understand. Here is what Bush said about it:
BUSH: If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security, the security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and the customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative on the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis. I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port.
And Rush's observation:
RUSH: He went on to say after this that if Congress passes a law preventing the sale that he'll deal with it with a veto. So I have to ask you another question. Those of you who have stuck with the president even though he wandered off the path when it comes to spending and some of these other, you know, straight-down-the-middle conservative issues, you've stuck with him primarily because of the security threat, the war on terror, and up against the Democrats, he has appeared deadly serious about not letting another attack like 9/11 happen. You have to just throw all that out if you think that this deal is bad. If you think Bush can be snookered like this, then he hasn't been worth supporting on any of this national security stuff up to now -- and yet I see people doing that.
Look, I also wondered what was going on when I first read about this, but I didn't post anything until I read more about it. As I said before, the more I read, the more I understand that it is not what the Democrats and a few Republicans are making it out to be. Again, one thing I trust Bush implicitly on is national security. I have no doubt that he has scrutinized this deal and he has obviously found it acceptable. That coupled with what I've learned in the past few days has eased my mind about it.
Just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'll get a few dollar's worth of opinion from Jim. :-)
JASmius adds: Does Jen really want to agree with Jimmy Carter on this port stuff? If that's not a red flag, then I'm Brad Pitt.
More later.
Rush Limbaugh has a good roundup on his web site regarding this question. Here are some excerpts:
Nuance 1: Osama bin Laden didn't have to buy the World Trade Center to blow it up. Why would anybody throw away 6.8 to 8 billion, whatever this deal is? Why would anybody throw away $8 billion for the purposes of blowing it up when you don't have to? All they'd have to do -- they own so many other ports -- is just load a container with something's going to blow up when it gets here and send it on its way, and then buy what's left on the cheap.
Nuance 2: The 'tsunami' loses sight of what's being sold! The business is not a port inspection business. It is a container port loading and unloading business!
Nuance 3: The largest company in this business is Hong Kong's Hutchinson Ports. They refuse to invest in the United States. They don't want to buy our ports. You know why? Because they don't want to mess with the unions, and they don't want to mess with the political land mines that go along with it. The second largest in this business is Denmark's APM Terminals, (whispering) and those are white European foreigners and you know what those white European foreigners did to the Indians, and you know what they did to women, and you know what they did to animals, and you know what they did to the land. And the second biggest company is Denmark's APM Terminals, white European foreigners. The next largest is Singapore PSA, owned by Singapore. (whispering) That's Asians, 'yellow people.' You know about them. And then, of course, Dubai World Ports, that would move them into fourth with this deal. And you know about them. (whispering) Arabs. Bombs! Blown-up ports! So we got the Hong Kong people, (whispering) the communist Chinese! Everybody knows the commies, the ChiComs, run Hong Kong.
Nuance 4: These foreign companies are not only foreign, but they are modernizing their ports all over the world, making container loading and unloading faster, safer, and more efficient, and I should say with less union assistance, which is, let me just cut to the chase, that's why Hillary and Schumer oppose the deal because they have heard from the AFL-CIO about it. That's why. Stand by, folks.
Nuance 5: It's an election year. The left is so vulnerable on national defense that they are having to track as far to the right of the Republicans as they can on this port issue. They've been praying for an opportunity that they could see an enemy somewhere and they finally had it shown up in the United Arab Emirates.
Nuance 6: The left is pulling a John Kerry. Note, they're not demanding to 'Stop the sale!' and there's some Republicans in on this, too, I know. They're not demanding to stop it. They're demanding to stall it. 'They want to be able to investigate it, sailor! Need a moratorium to look into what really happened.' Then we find out that Bush didn't even know as we pointed out yesterday until after it was a done deal, yet he is standing by it. They want to be able to stall the deal, the Democrats do, so they can look the voters in the eye and say,'I opposed this sale before I supported it,' or 'I support this sale before I opposed it,' whichever it turns out to be.
I think he makes some good points. The same people who are loading and unloading cargo now will be loading and unloading cargo after the sale is completed. Not that much will change, from what I understand. Here is what Bush said about it:
BUSH: If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security, the security of our ports will be -- continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and the customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative on the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis. I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port.
And Rush's observation:
RUSH: He went on to say after this that if Congress passes a law preventing the sale that he'll deal with it with a veto. So I have to ask you another question. Those of you who have stuck with the president even though he wandered off the path when it comes to spending and some of these other, you know, straight-down-the-middle conservative issues, you've stuck with him primarily because of the security threat, the war on terror, and up against the Democrats, he has appeared deadly serious about not letting another attack like 9/11 happen. You have to just throw all that out if you think that this deal is bad. If you think Bush can be snookered like this, then he hasn't been worth supporting on any of this national security stuff up to now -- and yet I see people doing that.
Look, I also wondered what was going on when I first read about this, but I didn't post anything until I read more about it. As I said before, the more I read, the more I understand that it is not what the Democrats and a few Republicans are making it out to be. Again, one thing I trust Bush implicitly on is national security. I have no doubt that he has scrutinized this deal and he has obviously found it acceptable. That coupled with what I've learned in the past few days has eased my mind about it.
Just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'll get a few dollar's worth of opinion from Jim. :-)
JASmius adds: Does Jen really want to agree with Jimmy Carter on this port stuff? If that's not a red flag, then I'm Brad Pitt.
More later.
posted by Jennifer at 2:56 AM
<<< Home