Port Securty
Posted February 23rd, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click image to enlarge.
This cartoon was inspired by a Peggy Noonan column in the Wall Street Journal. She is annoyed by airport security and its insistence on strip searching grandmas to prove it doesn't do profiling. Are we safer because we make everyone in line miserable while TSA scans babushka bombers?
Here we have a moderate Islamic country that accepts civilized western values, like quarterly earnings expectations. It just happens to be replacing a company from a country full of mad mullahs, namely Britain. Tony Blair has proved he's tough on terror but England supports some of the most radical Islamo-whatever-you-like-to-call-them I've ever heard of. So I'm beginning to think why not United Arab Emirates. UAE sounds like a big American union and probably isn't any more dangerous.
February 24th, 2006 at 12:41 am
C'mon Chip get it straight. Niether England nor Dubai have anything to do with security, just carge handling. The USA already has resonsibility for security with the Coast Guard having the primary responsibility.
February 24th, 2006 at 4:57 am
Auggie, Scott McClellen said that President Bush found out about
the port deal from the media. Does that concern you at all ?
February 24th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Gee, Bok hates America . . . who knew?
February 24th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
so, if security has nothing to do with it, then objection to the Saudi company is just racist hysteria, yes?
February 25th, 2006 at 1:55 am
"Auggie, Scott McClellen said that President Bush found out about
the port deal from the media. Does that concern you at all ?"
Not at all. The treasury Dept did what it was supposed to do by law.
When will you libs stop bad mouthing the President, as you have since the 2000 election, and come up with a solution of your own. What do you propose the USA do about the management of cargo handling at the 6 ports since the sale of the London company to a Dubai company?
February 25th, 2006 at 6:52 am
"Libs bad-mouthing the President…." You mean those chablis
drinkin', Volvo drivin', Michael Moore lovin' guys Frist and
Hastert ?
Is what you're saying that in the greatest economy on earth, we can't come up with an American company to run these ports? Apparenty we're dependent on foreign toil as well.
Auggie, FOLLOW THE MONEY. WHO BENEFITS ?
February 25th, 2006 at 8:43 am
The port thing isn't new. This has been going on a for a long time. Decades.
Take China for instance, they operate a LOT of stateside ports.
I don't trust China. Do you?
This is a media stunt of some sort that is causing this controversy.
I just don't know who actually wanted to start it.
The democrats or the media. Maybe both.
later…
February 27th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Mencken said:Auggie, FOLLOW THE MONEY. WHO BENEFITS ?
Ok I'll play your silly game. Who? But if you say the Bush adminisration, I'll regurgitate
February 27th, 2006 at 7:01 am
Auggie: Read the following and you tell me who benefits and why Bush immediately threatened to veto any congressional
oversight of the deal.
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
February 27th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Cite your source if you want to be credible.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:15 am
"Cite your source if you want to be credible."
Start with Department of Defense Press Briefings.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:05 am
mencken, from your own beloved NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/business/worldbusiness/25terminal.html
February 28th, 2006 at 5:44 am
Uh Auggie, I'm quoting the Department of Defense and you're quoting the NY Times? Has the universe turned upside down?
That Times article cites the opinions of foreign port operators …. what would you expect them to say ?
Irony is the driving force here. That Bush, who has done nothing but play the fear factor and the security issue in the last four years clumsily gets caught passionately defending something he was completely unaware of only days earlier is just reactionary and sloppy on his part.
All the opposition is saying (on both sides of the aisle) is to take a look at this deal a little more closely before making a decision. If it were up to guys like you, the Dubai deal would have been just waved through without a second thought. I just don't know how we're well served by that attitude. And by the way, now that you consider the Times a valid news source, that can and will be used against you in the future.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:27 am
bare feet
hot legs beautiful feet sexy feet spread legs face sitting long legs