Why do so many Dems think the Port deal is not so bad?

I don't get it.

First Jimmy Carter tells us, he's "sure" that the administration has checked out any security concerns about the deal and we have nothing to worry about. We should "trust them."

Then, I hear several dems (some here on DU) saying things like "I've read all about it and I'm don't think it's a big deal really. The only reason I like the port deal being discussed is because it makes Bush look bad."

I just don't get it.

We're not talking about a company. We're talking about a foreign goverment, who has connections to BinLaden and some of the 9/11 hijackers. Is there any logical reason we should even consider giving control of our ports to any foreign power, let alone this one?

Ports are our first line of defense. They are the place where people and goods enter the country. If it's OK to sell of our port security, why don't we just sell off our Coast Guard?

It's not just that it makes Bush LOOK bad. It IS a bad idea, regardless of who thought of it.

The fact that some of our ports are already in foreign hands is no reason to continue this stupid idea.

The dems should push this hard, because it shows the Republicans are bad on security. And it's not just that it LOOKS LIKE they are bad on security. They ARE bad on security. This doesn't just LOOK LIKE a stupid idea. It IS a stupid idea.

The republicans are always talking about the "pre-9/11" and the "post-9/11" frame of mind. Isn't it obvious? This deal is "pre-911" any way you look at it.

So tell me, am I exaggerating the idea that a lot of Dems don't think this is a big deal?

Or did I just happen to run into a misrepresented sample and in fact most people, including Dems, realize how stupid this is.

Either way, I hope them Dems are not so stupid as to not take this to the Nth degree. This is the stake in Bush's heart. It makes him look hypocritical every time he waves the 9/11 security flag.

But I am going to trust Jimmy Carter on this and assume it won't be that bad if it really happens.

their way to leak some truth, even though it's supposedly been disputed.
I haven't heard a Dem lately who thinks it's a good idea, including Big Dawg.

I haven't heard a Dem lately who thinks it's a good idea, including Big Dawg.

how about Jimmy Carter?

be having second thoughts.
Seriously, anyone else? Perhaps Lieberman, but besides him?:shrug:

I was bringing this up a few days ago and someone said:

" saw what he (Carter) said about the ports and agree. the only reason i oppose the port deal is cause it makes bush look bad."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=515822&mesg_id=515831

what did you think? I have tons of respect for President Carter, and think his Habitat for H. org. is one of the very best!
The ports deal definitely makes the blivet look bad, and I relish the facts coming out, the outrage felt, and the poll numbers.

1) The company was given a "pass" on complying with U.S. law (which I don't think ANY co. should get); and
2) Our own citizens are suffering from un/deremployment and declining quality of life so I am tired of money ALWAYS being a priority over ALL ELSE; and
3) BushCO and cronies have close global economic ties to UAE, engaging in egregious exploitation of many peoples.

The security issue bothers me ONLY because the BushCO/neoconsters are in charge and I do NOT trust them to protect us from jack shit!!!

run the ports and Bush just smiling about it .

Sorry to shout, but I can't help it. The ports will be shut down by union brothers and sisters if anyone dared to think about that. First of all, if there were a chance of that happening we would have seen it already. Second, people are well-sensitized to the port security issue now. Your average Joshua and Mackenzie Doe and their moms and pops will smell that rat right away.

Besides DPS, only the Chinese and Singapore have companies capable of handling ports of this size. Wrong coasts for them.

MAERSK (Holland) just is not up to the task.

And that is the reality of it.

Come Thursday, it's a done deal.

why do you assume it has to be a foreign power? I don't get it.

Clinton was just saying we should do our own ports.

Why are you buying this BS that it has to be a foreign power?

what is. And if we don't have the expertise to do it now, let's develop it immediately. It's odd though that there was no issue when it was the Brits doing the work, but Arabs need not apply. Is this profiling at the international level?

this makes absolutely no sense.

I didn't and my husband sure didn't. I have heard many people here say they did not know. It is very hard to rail against something you have no idea existed.

A few weeks ago I would have bet you $1,000 that no one ran our ports except for us. To me, that is just common sense. Now I want them ALL out. I do not care if it is London, Canada (where I am from, by the way) or China. I do not care who it is when we are only checking 5% of the cargo coming in then we need to at least have our own companies running the show.

Mind you, I HATE the thought of foreign government-owned entities running our ports but, unfortunately, we do not have any domestic companies with the capability to do it.

There is absolutely no reason to 'insource' this stuff..

I don't like it.

<>
COTP - New Orleans (Industrial Canal)

Semper Par

Fair winds and following seas (I've had my howling gales).

The Carter Center
One Copenhill
453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, Ga. 30307
Phone: 404-420-5100
E-mail address: carterweb@emory.edu

I've worked for a company that had suppliers from the UAE. I've met the sales reps. They were good guys.

My problem with this port deal goes beyond wether the people of the UAE are good or not. Some aren't, but then some Americans aren't either! It's that there were connections with the Talliban, hate for Israel, and that dirty money laundering thing.

There MAY be no problem with this deal, but also there could be.

WHY TAKE THE CHANCE? If our dear Pres really does demand security for the American people, he shouldn't be willing to take the chance there MIGHT be a problem.

i'm not saying that Bush is deliberately selling it to someone who is going to attack us (although, perhaps he is, but that's not my point).

the point is, when there is a question, you should ere on the side of being safe. When in doubt, keep it safe. this is a stupid decision. it is putting control of one of our key lines of defense into a foreign power. there's a reason they're supposed to investigate stuff like this for 45 days.

but it doesn't take 45 days to figure out, this is a bad idea.

by this administration, or anyone in the Federal Government anywhere?

Hell, I've been told for years that women don't use common sense, only emotion, and that's why there aren't more women in our government rulers. Well, I've been a woman for a whole lot of years, and my common sense out does those leaders ALL THE DAMN TIME!

Why can't we get back to reality????

that Bush was on the up-and-up with all those terror alerts we had before the 2004 election?

(Typo edit)

look at it this way.

if they were putting our Coast Guard under the control of a foreign power, would you care?

How is this any different than the coast guard? These people are supposed to be protecting us, it is as if they are our military defending us, and we're supposed to let a foreign power do it for us?

it just doesn't make any sense.

i'm sure it comes down to money somehow but it can't be that expensive to control our own ports. make the importers pay for it.

Plus it's a way for the republicans to distance themselves from Bush. :\

we'll see what happens. from what i hear it's expected to pass.