Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
From his hospital bed, Governor Pataki has joined other politicians in opposing Dubai World Ports from taking over P&O Ports holdings in the U.S. Specifically the ports which serve New York and New Jersey. Senators Schumer and Clinton had been against the deal, along with Representative Peter King (Long Island, Republican) and NJ Senator Menendez, given the history of terrorist ties with the United Arab Emirates. But the Bush administration claimed "favorable" relations with the UAE and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that the takeover was okay in terms of national security - though there aren't any specific reasons why. What Governor Pataki has done is to let the Port Authority look over the lease with P&O; while the Port Authority can't really stop the deal (because it's just one company assuming the lease of another), unless any provision of the lease seems violated, according to the NY Times. The Democrats seem to be leading the charge against this deal, but with the Governor on board as well, given his presidential dreams (waning, perhaps?) it could be very interesting, though we suspect the deal will go through.
Anti-UAE-Owned Port Sentiment Grows
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (15) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
It's the same media that NEVER mentioned Muslims' hatred of Israel as a possible motive for 9/11.
[more]
Anti-UAE Sentiment = Bigotry
These things are ussually about $$$. Wonder who's getting paid to get the UAE the contract?
Bigotry? Hardly.
Think of the UAE as a class bully. You don't discriminate against the kid or treat him differently than the other kids. You DO monitor his behavior, based on the fact that the bully has beat the crap out of other kids in the past...but then again you monitor everyone's behavior.
You DON'T, however, give the bully control of the hall passes, no matter how much money his parents make!
Let's keep the control of our ports in the hands of the mob where it belongs!!!
Why would any nation give control of it's Ports to another Sovereign nation?
Didn't make sense to me when Panama gave the Canal Contract to China either (or to the US)...
question: will i still be treated as if i were a potential terrorist if i want to take a picture of the ports?
question: will i still be treated as if i were a potential terrorist if i want to take a picture of the ports?
Depends on how ignorant of the law the Guards are (And if there are any signs banning, of Course)
isn't it a UAE COMPANY that would take control of the port, not a NATION?
Big whiff of bigotry to me. I guess it would be okay if this was a French company all the early hoo-ha over iraq notwithstanding? plus tons of foriegn companies control large sectors of certain us industries.
don't get me started on all the other reasons this is lame pseudo-national security logic. blah blah blah.
pretty sure the uae has state controlled industries. so the country would be controlling the port. but would still have to meet the standards of us maritime law.
what's wrong with bigotry?
Amusing thought:
Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
Wonder what else comes to light?
The thing is:
1. If we let them run it and we are attacked: we are complete morons
2. If we complain (but still let them run it) and nothing happens: we are bigots
"I guess it would be okay if this was a French company all the early hoo-ha over iraq notwithstanding?" Not if the French had (as many) ties to terrorist groups it wouldn't.
If someone I know has a friend who tries to attack me, I don't give their friend a key to my house. Know what I mean? Regardless of who they are or where they are from. Just self-preservation.
I'm really surprised at the politically correct defense of UAE. In the name of national security, innocent U.S. citizens and immigrants are undergoing extraordinary rendition and torture at worst, surveillance at best; but when it comes to rich corporations, they couldn't possibly be a threat? And bigotry against foreign corporations is somehow on the same scale as bigotry toward actual (brown, Muslim) people with families and small businesses?
For anyone that's amazed that the US would let another country control its ports, keep in mind that these ports were *already* controlled by a foreign nation. P&O was a UK corporation, now it's a wholly owned subsidiary of a UAE corporation.
Even more horrible, most ships are held by corporations incorporated in foreign countries. They're not even flying American flags, shocking!
This is not news, nor should it be. It's bald-faced bigotry. Port security will be no more at risk than before the change of control.
Thank you k and MDB for calling it as it is! This is nothing but CNN/MSNBC-induced mass hysteria...