Port Deal Debated
This morning's Post article on President Bush's threat to veto any attempts to ban a deal the administration struck allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to manage several U.S. ports brought swift response from post.com readers.
"Are we so incompetant as a nation that we can't manage our own infrastructure anymore?" asks Pmarvel.
Ettadems smells corporate collusion, alleging that the deal reeks of payback, though she thinks the media wont make an effort to suss out the cat's cradle of business relationships that she thinks are so obvious in this case.
TruthDr argues that turning back on the deal would sour relations with the UAE and send the wrong signal to the Arab and Islamic worlds on America's attitude to growing Mideast democracy and trade relations.
No, private enterprise wins over national security, claims True_message saying "...the best interests of the United States comes second to profits. You can never rule out a breach in security and the potential for it in this case is enormous."
How the deal went down concerns Toolman28. "I think it comes down to Bush saying the details are clasified and 'just trust me - I know best.' As soon as he fights against any over sight it raises red flags."
While 40Acres believes that the U.S. must reach out fairly to Mideast countries and companies in order to avoid any appearance of discrimination, he remains cautious when it comes to a deal in such a particularly sensitive area. "...he who holds the keys to the facility can generally let in who he wants. I think the odds are low, but they are probably higher with a company from this area that obviously has had supporters of terrorists (both financially and in personnel) in the past and is more than likely to still have them. It would be (IMO) easier for someone with that mindset to infiltrate to a position of consequence there than say...the UK."
Whatever the case, the issue sure has readers talking, with almost 200 contributions since this morning. What are your thoughts on the port deal?
By Lindsay Howerton |
February 22, 2006; 1:03 PM ET
| Category:
Politics
Previous: Traffic Woes |
Next: More Port Fallout
Posted by: TERRIROBSON | March 6, 2006 12:54 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
The debate on ports should not be looking at Dubai; the need for journalists to tell everyone that it is a homegrown problem. The company that owns P & O is actually CSX, this was formed from " SEA-LINK " based in Charlotte N.C. Who is on the board of this company???? Who are the major shareholder???
That is the information needed.