US port security will be turned over to the UAE, if current plans go through. (Hat tip: AOW, 6th, IBA) According to the New York Sun, opposition “is gathering steam” in Congress among both Republicans and Democrats (with Charles Schumer, D NY, prominent among the opposition group.) Time to write to your reps!
Critics include NYC Council member, James Oddo (“f—insanity”), Rachel Ehrenfeld (“boggles the mind”), Ali Al-Ahmed (the UAE “has been fueling the insurgency in Iraq”), and Morris Amitay (“fox in the henhouse”). Bin Sulayem responded on behalf of the UAE company by dismissing all criticism as “stereotyping.”
3 comments:
"official opposition" instead of just ours? I'm truly shocked.
I am against it because of two reasons: 1) our port security in the hands of Muslims? No way 2) during the future world war, all these entangled financial relations will be a disaster.
Yeah I see a world war coming, maybe 5 years, maybe 10, maybe 20, but this war is like a comet, nothing is going to change its direction.
Let's see. . . Hmmmm. The Panama Canal is no longer under our control, the borders are essentially non-existent, and now the management and security of our ports are to be turned over to Dubai Ports World, a Muslim company in a country with a strong al-Qaeda presence and from which two of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists came, a reputation for corruption, money-laundering, in a deal made secretly with a committee that has not done a full investigation of who the people are in the company, what the company's tactics are, what their hiring procedures are. . . Hmmm.
What's wrong with this picture?
And then to my serious disappointment, Tony Snow says to "trust" the President; he reassures us by asking if we really think that he would so something that could harm this country.
Well. . . Yeah, I do. Like, maybe, he could fail to secure the borders, he could turn over the ports to Muslims, and he could have Grover Norquist pissing in his ear all the time.
Post a Comment