Info for contacting the WH to express anger at port deal

whitehouse.gov/contact/

Call and email ! :mad:

Jennifer,

The president’s decision was not based on politics, I don’t think letter writing will change his mind.

He said the UAE are allies (and good allies) in the war on terrorism. The only reason to exclude them and allow the British would be racism: that is because they are Arabs. If I am wrong, please let me know.

[quote=gilliam]Jennifer,

The president’s decision was not based on politics, I don’t think letter writing will change his mind.

[/quote]

Gilliam-
Everything is political in DC. But we agree on one thing here, Bush won’t change his mind.

[quote=Jennifer123]Gilliam-
Everything is political in DC. But we agree on one thing here, Bush won’t change his mind.
[/quote]

This is supporting a principle. A principle that says countries are with us or against us. If they are allies, you treat them as such. The UAE is an ally. He sees past the racism, it looks like others cannot get themselves to see beyond.

[quote=gilliam]This is supporting a principle. A principle that says countries are with us or against us. If they are allies, you treat them as such. The UAE is an ally. He sees past the racism, it looks like others cannot get themselves to see beyond.
[/quote]

Now I really know we are in trouble when the only offense is the racism defense. :rolleyes:

I had the pleasure of working in the transportation industry in Dubai for almost 5 years in the late 90’s. I am currently based on the US West Coast. Given my choice of depending on Dubai World Ports or the ILWU (the longshoremen’s union that has the entire West Coast transportation system held hostage to its demands) to provide better port security, my money’s on Dubai. What security measures are in place now at these East Coast ports, regarding the hiring of people for sensitive positions, that are going to be REMOVED by the folks at Dubai Ports World? Do they even have any SAY over those measures? Somehow, I would think that the US would retain rights to approving employees at certain positions after security checks on their background.

Besides, if the UAE were intent on getting something nasty into the US, I think they would just put it on one of the Airbus 340’s that fly directly from Dubai to NY twice a day. Pop a nuke at 35.000 feet, and you get the added bonus of an EMP that would make the East Coast power outage of a few years back look like a nothing more than a tripped fuze.

corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_19_corner-archive.asp#090531

nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S.”

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

“The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security,” Fossella said.

[quote=Jennifer123]nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet.
[/quote]

So this connection really isn’t a connection after all

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.

OK, why would it give concern linked to hijacking??? That doesn’t make sense.

Talk about making a leap of logic.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase “could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S.”

They may have something here but I am wondering if it isn’t simply being dug up to satisfy those who are afraid of arabs.

OK, why would it give concern linked to hijacking??? That doesn’t make sense.

Shows that there may be some sort of conflict of interest at the very least.

They may have something here but I am wondering if it isn’t simply being dug up to satisfy those who are afraid of arabs.

Like I’ve stated before, I’m tired of this labelling and personally I think I deserve more credit as an American conservative.

OK, why would it give concern linked to hijacking??? That doesn’t make sense.

Shows that there may be some sort of conflict of interest at the very least.

Has nothing to do with hijacking if there is one. Which is dubious.

They may have something here but I am wondering if it isn’t simply being dug up to satisfy those who are afraid of arabs

***Like I’ve stated before, I’m tired of this labelling and personally I think I deserve more credit as an American conservative.**.

Your searching for a reason to ban an arab company, that you know very little about, from managing an american port terminal simply because they are Arabs. We are not at war with all arabs. The UAE is an ally. I realize a lot of people today are afraid of arabs. And a lot of people are afraid of Muslims, but we are not at war with all arabs and all Muslims. And believe it or not, a lot of them are helping us win this thing. The UAE is one arab country that is helping us and I see no reason to tick them off, and loose an ally (and possibly others) because people are afraid and some people (not you) are prejudiced.

If we go to war with Iran over nukes, we are going to need the UAE on our side.

For petes sake. Whatever, seriously.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.