Ya just gotta wait of it!!

[scoutingagain]

So I suppose we shouldn't let any British companies work for us either, given the British citizens that have been identified as terrorists. We should probably ask them the leave Iraq.

 

I suppose we should return the $100 million dollars the UAE sent for Katrina relief. It's probably blood money. (Although I can only take the President's word that's how much they gave. Probably counted by the same accountants that figured out how much the drug benefit would cost.)

 

I agree with the President in principal. We can't arbitrarily choose to not do business with a country that over all has been generally supportive of our efforts in the middle east just because some of their citizens have engaged in terrorism. Heck, given all the countries that have citizens that don't like us, that would leave us with darn few countries we can do business with. It would leave out most of Europe, SE Asia, Canada, Mexico, South America, N. Korea, the Middle East....The big question is, not can we trust the UAE, but can we trust this administration to properly review the bid from a security standpoint.

 

Apparently both the Senate and House Republican leadership don't think so.

 

SA

[GernBlansten]

OGE, I don't know if you can compare the Panama Canal to this. Although it is strategic to the US, it really does belong to Panama.

 

What bugs me is the perceived need to have a foriegn nation control something that we have admitted is a security problem for us. It would be akin to outsourcing air traffic control to a Saudi Arabian company, or nuclear storage to Iranian interests. I am also offended that some think Americans can't or won't perform this duty because we can't make enough profit. Well, obviously the UAE thinks they can make enough profit.

 

I think what it really comes down to is the UAE had well placed lobbyists who convinced this administration that it would be fine if they took over the contract that the British firm held. The administration didn't even flinch at it and were caught with their hand in the cookie jar when the public got wind of it. It exposed yet again that well funded lobbying can get you everywhere with in DC, no matter who you are.

[John-in-KC]

Three comments:

 

First, in the game "battle of the budget" I honestly believe three agencies need to be funded to their requirements:

 

Coast Guard.

US Customs Service

FEMA

 

Second, I buy into Lisa's political analysis of what happened. This is the kind of decision you consult on with the leadership on both sides in the Congress, as well as the:

- H/S Foreign Relations Committee

- H/S Commerce Committee

- H/S Intelligence Committee.

 

The current political polarization in the "DC Bubble" is the very antithesis of "cooperate and graduate." I see in in Democratic/Republican relationships, as well as Executive/Legislative relationships.

 

Last, loyalty is a virtue ... it's the second point of the Scout law. TOO MUCH loyalty is not necessarily a good thing: It seems to me that too many career staffers in the Executive branch are being told to "just say yes."

[SemperParatus]

It looks like my tax dollars will be going to rebuild a mosque in Iraq now.

 

I feel for the poor churches in Alabama that have burned to the ground.

[Backpacker]

Why the big deal over the ports when for the last 25years over 70% of all the American farmland have been sold to Arab and Japanese corporations driving the family farmers out of business, did anyone cry out then, heck no. So now these corporations will have ports to ship all the food they grow in our country to their homelands, and ship in whatever weapons they wish. Now Bush is saying he didn't even know about the purchase till it was already approved, talk about having his head buried in the sand. To all you fine people who voted for this guy twice in a row , you got exactly what you deserve. It was just a matter of time before he made a fatal mistake, which he has made several times now, so now it is the security of our ports. All the terrorist experts have said that the next attack would probably be at one of our ports and your beloved president has just made it even easier for them, what a great and helpful guy he is.(This message has been edited by Backpacker)

[dan]

Backpacker

Are you saying that 70% of the farmland that has been sold has been sold to Arab and Japanese corporations or are you saying that only 30% of farmland left is owned by american farmers?

And please tell me where I can verfiy these numbers.

[Lisabob]

Backpacker you appear to be relying on some factual errors. The port management is changing hands, but the rules and regulations passed by Congress and the various states, governing how the ports work and what may or may not be transported through them, have not changed. Further, the company in question (Dubai Ports World) is a major international corporation that has a long record of running ports in many countries around the world without mishap. Further, many of America's ports have been run by foreign-owned companies in the past (hailing from Singapore, South Korea, and Japan as well as Britain, and probably others too).

 

There are good reasons to oppose this current deal. Frankly I can understand people who call for a re-examination of our port management policy, based on fact and sober analysis. Congress has the authority to change the rules if they want to and despite his claim to the contrary, I really doubt President Bush could make a veto stick on this issue right now. And I certainly agree that the political side of this recent deal has been poorly handled.

 

However, I do not understand knee jerk reactions with no basis in fact. I feel it is incumbent on all of us to resist such reactions, as they serve no purpose and certainly don't set good examples for our scouts to follow.

 

I'm no supporter of the Bush administration, never have been. But regardless of whether I voted for him, he's my president too - and yours, if you are a US citizen, even if you dislike him to the extreme. We're all in the same boat. I don't understand where your comments come from when you suggest that Bush is president of those who voted for him only.

 

Lisa'bob

[Backpacker]

Dan - to answer your question on the farmland there are many good books, but you can go directly to the USDA website and get all the facts and figures for yourself.

 

Lisabob- first of all this topic has nothing to do with scouting and is not brought up at meetings. Secondly, this president has repeatedly now violated Constitutional law to push ahead his own personal agendas, anyone who has as little respect for the law of the land as this man does not deserve my or anyone elses respect who truly love this country and what it stands for. There has been no accountability demanded for this administrations actions that run contrary to the best interests of this country.

[Prairie_Scouter]

According to some commentators I've read, the port issue isn't getting all this "action" on its own merits, although there should rightly be concerns over it. It appears that this has become one of those "straw that broke the camels" back situations. This administration has defied the Congress enough now that even the Republicans are starting to revolt. You can only say "trust me" so often before somebody finally stands up and says "why?".

 

On the port issue specifically, everything I've read leads me to believe that management of ports is pretty closely scrutinized, at least to the level allowed by current funding. However, it's also true that the Administration hasn't really pushed it as a priority, although it should obviously be a high priority item (a natural gas tanker detonated in any harbor would have the same affect as a low yield nuclear device, for example). And now they come along with the Dubai deal, and seemingly were clueless as to why people would be concerned about it. And rather than say "ok, here's what we did and why so, that you understand", they once again stonewall and threaten vetos (which he probably couldn't sustain anyway at this point).

 

I suspect that even the Republicans are tiring of having to support a president who's administration seems to feel that they have to answer to no one.

[John-in-KC]

Lisa,

 

Lest we forget, IIRC the port of Long Beach, CA is run by the a "firm" wholly owned in the People's Republic of China.

 

I agree with all you say.

 

For others: He is The President of The United States of America. The last time I checked, there was not a Democratic United States of America and a Republican United States of America. We are a UNION. We can disagree, and have plenty of conversation. We are a UNION.

 

Backpacker: If you truly believe President Bush is as far outside the law as you state in your posts, then I trust you are advocating your Congresscritter to introduce a Bill of Impeachment into the House.

[Rooster7]

John, youre wasting your breath. This thread is a case study for mob mentality. Whenever theres cause for concern (real or imagined, great or small) or a possibility to misinterpret events (which is quite possible for the truly well informed, much less those who chase headlines) the disgruntled and disillusioned always seek their prey. At the end of the day, they must have their pound of flesh. If respect for the truth, much less for ones leader, be a casualty - do you really think it matters to them?

[Backpacker]

Rooster, when you talk about mob mentality I can't help but be reminded of your own religious intolerance of others who believe differently from you which you display constantly in this forum, your Christian far right mob mentality which has caused more harm than good in our society, especially these last ten years.You see the world only through your own version of the truth, which is rarely the reality of the situation. Maybe one should practice what they preach Rooster.

 

John, as far as Bush is concerned, I have great respect for the office of the president, however they too must be held accountable for their actions, all of their actions as president. This port issue has finally united the Democrats and Republicans for the first time in six years and I am sure the legislature will take the appropriate action, just as they did with Clinton and Nixon.

[packsaddle]

Maybe a little perspective is in order.

We have conquered an inferior country for a lie.

We have run the debt beyond anyone's dreams and plan to continue to do so.

We have turned our backs on our own liberties with the Patriot Act.

We are supporting an occupation that has destroyed many thousands of American families. And the end is not in sight.

It seems incongruous that as a nation we support the administration in all of the above, but not in a decision to have new management for a few ports. Huh?

This is kind of like fighting hard to gain legal recognition as a private club...and then objecting to the legal requirements of being a private club. We asked for it. We got it. Time to suck it up.

[Kahuna]

Maybe a little perspective is in order. Perspective or propaganda?

 

We have conquered an inferior country for a lie. We haven't conquered Iraq, we liberated them from a demonic government. You may believe that the stated reasons were a lie, but others have a different analysis.

 

We have run the debt beyond anyone's dreams and plan to continue to do so. Yes, and Bush hasn't vetoed or used his influence against spending, but Congress holds the purse strings.

 

We have turned our backs on our own liberties with the Patriot Act. We have given up few liberties with the Patriot Act. We gave up much more liberty in the legislation (confiscation of money and property without judicial review) in the war on drugs. Supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses.

 

We are supporting an occupation that has destroyed many thousands of American families. And the end is not in sight. And, regardless of whether you think we should be there, who has presented a reasonable alternative?

 

It seems incongruous that as a nation we support the administration in all of the above, but not in a decision to have new management for a few ports. Huh? I'm not at all sure that we as a nation do not support the administration in the management of the ports. All the rhetoric seems to be coming from politicians and pundits.

 

This is kind of like fighting hard to gain legal recognition as a private club...and then objecting to the legal requirements of being a private club. We asked for it. We got it. Time to suck it up. Yes, we did, and there are valid legal arguments that can be made for our right to "have it both ways." I, for one, don't feel guilty at all about it.

 

[SR540Beaver]

So Rooster, one can only assume that you'd be fine with it if you were to read in tomorrow morning's newspaper that the BSA will begin wholeheartedly acceptting gays and atheists as Scoutmasters? I can't help but think that you might be part of the "mob mentality" who would question the wisdom of the change in policy. It is this admin that has repeatedly told us that 9/11 changed everything, to be vigilant, to stay the course in the war on terrorism. People who dare to raise a question are labeled as traitors. Now the admin says that the American people don't need to worry about security. The mob mentality against this kind of thing was fashioned by this admin. If they wonder why people are reacting the way they are, perhaps they should take a close look in the mirror. It is unbelievable that they are this far out of touch with the American people. The question now is, just who has forgotten 9/11. I don't think it is John Doe, but GWB.