Saturday, February 25, 2006

Senator Kenny made me proud, and Senator Boxer pissed me off.

I'd never thought I'd be complimenting a Liberal Canadian politician over American lawmakers when it comes to the issue of anti-terrorism measures, but I guess there's a first time for everything.

Sen. Colin Kenny, a Liberal Party member and chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defense, basicaly repeats what I stated a few days on the matter of the Ports Deal which is turning the U.S. political scene upside down at the moment.

And get this!!! He praises Bush!

"I don't think we have a better and more staunch ally in the war on terrorism than the UAE, and I think that's why we're seeing President Bush draw a line in the sand," said Kenny.

And finishes off with a good dose of common sense:

Kenny said Americans should be more concerned about criminal involvement in longshoremen unions in North America and what he termed the "very low standards" of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, which must be followed at all sea ports.

Which is more than what I can say for the for certain Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California):

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, told CBS' "Face the Nation": "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

A nation that had ties to 9/11?! Because two of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens automatically renders the whole nation as a significant player to the disaster?

Using this hag's logic, the United States has "ties" to every single criminal activity done by its citizens in Foreign countries.


Be warned the U.S. lawmakers are not doing themselves any favors here, if this is enough to piss a guy like me off, I can't imagine how it will play among the naïve folks back in the Middle East. Turning whatever allies you have left in the Middle East as enemies is a big price to pay for score some cheap political gain in an election year.


At Saturday, 25 February, 2006, Anonymous Jess said...

For me, the issue is transparency. The media is somewhat at fault because they sat on this story and chose to go after the Cheney shooting accident instead. However, more details come out daily, and it gets more confusing. I don't think it is necessarily a threat to national security, but I'm not inclined to think it's a great deal because it appears that the President waived the company, Dubai Ports Worldwide, from certain investigations in exchange for cooperation in the War on Terror before the deal was to go through. If they want to be cooperative, why would they require they be waived from responsibilities other companies might have to fulfill? And as much as I loathe labour unions, this company is not required to hire the longshoremen who are already there at the ports. They can bring in their own people. Any other company most likely would be required to hire the longshoremen.
I'm troubled by the 9/11 connections, too, but I wouldn't be so much if there were more transparency with this deal. I think that might be more what Boxer was trying to say, but her inner Democrat bitch took over and made it come out quite differently. I really just want to know exactly which types of investigations were waived and what is the benefit to the U.S., and the White House has yet to say.

At Saturday, 25 February, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said... this whole issue reeks of politicking. Either Democrats trying to look "tough", or Republicans trying to distance themselves from an unpopular president. Believe me, if the House elections weren't so close, they wouldn't be raising such a big storm over this issue. I'm not one to draw a race card, but it disturbs even me how easy some of these people are drawing a straight line between UAE and al Qaeda. I think the relationship is a little more complicated than that...

At Saturday, 25 February, 2006, Blogger PGP said...

The real deal here is the politics of the upcoming elections in the US.

Bush's administration had this ports management contract out for months and nobody was making it an issue. The claims of the deal being made in secret is complete BS.

One thing that commenter Jess has right is the aspect of union busting.This is probably one of the reasons the UAE bid won...low wages = low costs of operation. US law would mandate that if the unions can organize the contractors, then they do it as in any other situation.

But I've never heard any convincing argument for an employer to be forced to hire union labour sans a (labour) contract in place.In any case there is no reason to think that having the longshoremen there would improve security.

Now, with all of that being said, I do not agree that the UAE company should be given this work as a plum for its home nations support of policy. Further I am surprised that no US company has been named as having been a contender.
That is information that should be forthcoming before this deal is put into action.

At Saturday, 25 February, 2006, Anonymous Joe B. said...

T.A.K., read your bio; love your politics!
I'm with Larry Kudlow on this one.

At Saturday, 25 February, 2006, Anonymous Jess said...

PGP- Trust me, I don't think anyone should have to hire union labour, but any other company most likely would be forced to make a contract with the International Longshoremen to take up this contract.

At Sunday, 26 February, 2006, Blogger Shameer Ravji said...

Senator Kenny is more hawkish on defence and national security issues so it's not much of a surprise he said what he said. I hope Kenny keeps his chairmanship of the Senate Defence Committee because under his chairmanship the committee has come out with a lot of good reports on the issue of defence and national security. His views on those issues aren't that different from the Conservative Party.

At Thursday, 15 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

借貸 借錢 票貼


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home