What the H*LL is he thinking?

To get back to the original post, you might want to get your information from places other than Fox News or National Public Radio. Don't expect valid information from the far right or the far left.

The issue of port security has very little to do with the leasing of space to logistic companies. To say that the media has put a little "spin" on this laughable!!!
Bill

I really hate political discussion among friends!

Diseases don't, but quality of care is definitely a class issue. And it took the government a good 5 years to fund any research into HIV/AIDS back in the 80's.

I wonder if governments have learned ANYTHING from the great influenza. BTW, that is also a book about the influenza pandemic of 1917. Scared the CRAP out of me. Unfortunately, we may be finding out shortly whether or not governments have learned the lessons of 1917-1918.

I'm thinking about adopting a puppy.

lol, stoner, thats not nice Funny, but not nice...

Personally I can't fathom why the country even came close to voting the man back in office, and as this last term limps along, he seems to be getting more and more brazen about things. Sabre, I agree that Americans tend to take for granted their freedoms, and that we do have to be very careful to fight for those rights as needed... but do you (or anyone else here for that matter) really think this war was a smart decision? Who's freedom are we fighting for? It's not just the far left that is grumbling about the rhetoric at the beginnings of the war being a snow job on Bush's part. Prime Minister Blair already got sacked for HIS part in the whole mess. Even if he didn't out and out lie, Bush certainly spun it for all it was worth to get people to go along with him. In fact, he made it political suicide for members of either party to do otherwise at the time.

Supposedly this war was going to be about eliminating terrorism from one of the more significant threats as perceived by the President. Now I will set aside my misgivings about it even being possible to attack a sovereign country to squelch an underground terrorist organization, and just ask the simple question of do you think we are safer from terrorism now than before? I find it very hard to believe anyone can say yes to that. If it were true, we wouldn't be hearing about an escalation of deaths and bombings in Iraq as they struggle to form any kind of government. We have done nothing with this war about stopping the funding of Al Queda or any other organization like it, and have made it much easier for them to recruit new members, even as we "catch" their VIPs. Therefore it seems to me that this war was a complete failure as far as terrorism is concerned.

Neither am I particularly happy with the precedent this sets of giving the US (or any country for that matter) the right to unilaterally invade another country to specifically topple their leader. Who are we to judge? If the precedent stands, who is next? Iran is currently lead by a man just as outspokenly anti-american as Saddam. How about North Korea? Do we really want to get on that tread mill? Can we afford it? Politically or economically... Or put another way, what if the Arab Nations decide that Bush is the terrorist dictator... do they have the right to invade Washington DC and kidnap or kill Bush for his crimes against humanity? I can only imagine what the far right conservatives of our fine nation would have to say about that, yet be totally clueless how hypocritical it is for us to say that about the leaders of these "Axis of Evil" nations.

And at the same time this war has the singular shame of taking our federal government from a former administration's hard won balanced budget to one of extreme deficit- higher than it has ever been, in fact. What a wonderful gift Mr. Bush has given our country- increased hostility from an already uneasy region of the world ready to hate us anyway, and fiscal irresponsibilty that makes our ability to handle even large natural disasters in our own country that much more difficult.

I agree that the media has spun this Port thing way out of control, and the democrats should get their knuckles rapped for taking advantage of this for political gain when in reality it likely is not that big of a deal. But am I the only one that finds it more than a little unsetting that foreign companies are even asked to do this kind of work? This is in American ports on American soil. Politics aside, there is no reason an American company should not be able to do this work. So why aren't they? Sabre mentioned the pressure businesses have now to constantly push their costs lower and lower in another thread. This may be a good strategy for a company that has to sqeeze as much profit from every dollar as they can... but is it good for the country? Wallmart be damned, letting good jobs of any type go to foreign companies and in foreign countries is, IMHO a stupid thing to do. Pretty soon the only ones who are going to be able to afford all those wonderful luxuries this country is known for is going to be the rich. Everyone else is going to be scrabbling for the few jobs the big companies haven't shipped off over seas. America's prosperity is slowly bleeding itself to death as our jobs and materials are shipped off to other nations perfectly willing to soak up our money and resources.

It all seems so short sighted to me.

Aren't there any AMERICAN companies that can do the job? I know, I know, yes, but not as cheaply...there are days I HATE the almighty buck....

It's a Sam Walton kind of world out there Xena!! A double edged sword for sure. Add to it that whoever is in charge of our country, from local elected officials all the way to the top, march to the orders of the political machines that got them there. So complex I don't really think there is anything close to being a simple answer to any of it. If they only knew the power of the rocks......

Well the American companies are doing the job in enough terminals in enough ports to serve the very limited number of American flag vessels.

I was a bit alarmed when I first heard the news, but I soon (and easily) came to understand it was not like it sounded. Try listening to Jim Lehrer New Hour, or NPR, or other level-headed and in-depth coverage. Now I am mostly frustrated by the raw underside of ignorance and reactionism this is showing most Americans to have.

It is important to note that this may be more similar to airlines of various nationalities getting terminal/gate leases in airports. The US customs, US Marshals, local police and other levels of government agencies are all still involved. Most of the employees - e.g., mechanics, handlers are all local US citizens.

Take the port of Seattle where there is an American, a South Korean, and a half-Chinese company. Each operates some terminals.

Should we tell Indonesian Airlines that they cannot have any more airport terminal leases because their country has terrorists who have blown up nightclubs? Would it be racist to say that no Asian country can have a lease because some Asian countries have domestic terrorists?

This is not a security fiasco, rather it is a public information and education fiasco. I am no fan of Bush, but all I can fault him for is a political tin ear and for nt addressing the real security issues. Most of the public don't understand how ports operate and don't understand how vulnerable we are to containers - not to container terminal operators.

People seem to see this like we are turning over the management of subways and trains to foreign governments. Or hiring a foreign government to handle airport inspections. This is not the correct model. We are turning over a lease to operate one or more terminals within port areas in six cities. This is about schedules and cargo - not so much about security of the port.

Foreign companies are getting terminal leases because it is their goods on their ships traveling to Americans who are EAGERLY waiting for all these material goods most of them don't really need or which could be made in America for just a bit more. They want terminal leases so they can operate the business of getting their goods off of their ships onto the American trucks and trains more efficiently.

American companies might also be more interested in terminal leases in foreign ports where they can cut through local flack to turn their ships around faster. Having a terminal lease is a matter of company efficiency.

If some weaponized material is placed in a container and shipped here it may not matter too much the nationality of the terminal operator because 95% of these containers are NEVER inspected - no matter who operates the terminal. What is needed is more inspection of containers where they are loaded - just like passengers on a plane are searchd when they board, not when they debark. (Customs inspections are about taxes not about secuirty.) This will require good partnerships with a lot of foreign partners, so lets not piss them off with uninformed reactions.

The $$ does natter as Xena bemoaned, but not in the way she suggested. It is the fact that nobody is willing to tolorate the enormous slowdown or price hike if all of the foreign goods pouring into this country through containers were individually inspected. Our leaders have not gone there because as soon as we would go to WalMart and find no widgets on the shelf we would scream for heads to roll. Americans want security, but most have not really thought deeply about what they are willing to pay for security. It is becoming a world of multi-national corporations and serious thought needs to be given to the integrity and security of nations when they are so porous to the multinationals. We can't even tell what the majority nationality of some of these companies is, and it changes as stock and whole subsidiaries are bought and sold. Are we willing to tell greedy stockholders that profit will take a backseat to security? Are we willing to have less variety of goods on our shelves? Are we willing to pay 40% more for American made goods? Are we willing to have the domestic pollution that all this increased US manufacturing would bring?

Rather we would like to kick the Arab owner out of his lease, put in some US corporation that is likely half owned by Toyota or some other foreign holding company anyway, and then stick out fat greedy materialistic heads back into the blissful sands of ignorance and false security. Get out of my way I've got to get to the mall my kids need $200 jeans.

The uproar has been appropriate to the extent that folks did not understand and were surprised. By now congress had been briefd and should understand, so I can only conclude much of their continued rhetoric is political posturing and popularist pandering. After several days of studying the matter, I think most folks need to learn a little more and stop painting all Arabs, all Muslims, or all mid-East governments with the same brush.

More transparency is needed. More calm, more information and education. Less prejudice. More attention to the real security vulnerabilities and less descent into mid-east xenophobia.

That was Deb193, Daniel, that did that Xena. Very nicely written Daniel!!! The nail has been HIT on the head!! Thank you!

Xena, now what are thinking girl!! Don't be throwin good rocks at bad apples!! That's just wrong no matter how you look at it. Throw chunks of wood or something. Rocks are good, polititions are bad. You got that girl??? Hee hee!!! Bill