PORT OF SHAME
Here is the question of the day, WHAT IN THE HELL IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING ON THIS PORT SITUATION? Yes, some of you liberals are enjoying the day when conservatives are pissed at Bush. Too bad, this particular act could hurt the whole country.
Here's why the port idea is bad news.
1. Handing over our commerce to a foreign power- would anyone in their right mind hand over their ports and entry points of imports and exit points of exports to a foreign power with dubious credentials? Better yet, would you hand over your golden goose to a guy who frequently deals with your enemy? No. However, common sense is dead. We're handing over our economic standing to fair weather friends. The United Arab Emirates could be as close if not closer to jihad and civil war as Iraq and Saudi Arabia or even Egypt. If we'd handed over our ports to Iran in 1975, and then found ourselves without materiale in 1979 due to anti-American mullahs cutting off our commerce, wouldn't that be an act of war? If you think a few million barrels of oil is bad, try billions of tons in commerce every year.
2. No inspection zones- as you know some port terminus and areas are free trade and inspection free zones. Good for some sending tons of commerce and wanting to cut the red tape. Bad, as drug dealers and terrorists can import their own mayhem and chemicals into the US. How would you know? They'd never be inspected, they'd be allowed to do whatever, and they'd be in their legal right, as our port became their soil. Smart move, not.
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction- yeah this sounds like 24, Tom Clancy territory, but wouldn't it be a tactical move by a terrorist to ship a nuke, biological, or chemical weapon to the US and set it off? Or better yet, ship the components to various ports, assemble them under the cloak of darkness, transport them through our porous borders, and then light them off? Wow, that would suck. Well, that could be reality if this measure passes. And some of you say we ought not do surveillance, shame on you.
Well, the port deal is crap, W needs to get his head out of his arse, and America needs to remember that 9/11 was the tip of the iceberg. The terrorists could plan worse. Take Houston or LA or even Miami. Nice big southern ports, population centers, and industry. Set off a nuke, at an unguarded, terrorist friendly port, and you cripple part of the US. Hit all the ports, you have collapse and anarchy. Hit Texas, and its miles and miles of ship channel, oil, chemical, and industrial facilities, that will make the Gulf Coast Katrina incapacity look like kid's play. The storm was not determined and hellbent on killing us. Terrorists are. George, think about that, for once!
Here's why the port idea is bad news.
1. Handing over our commerce to a foreign power- would anyone in their right mind hand over their ports and entry points of imports and exit points of exports to a foreign power with dubious credentials? Better yet, would you hand over your golden goose to a guy who frequently deals with your enemy? No. However, common sense is dead. We're handing over our economic standing to fair weather friends. The United Arab Emirates could be as close if not closer to jihad and civil war as Iraq and Saudi Arabia or even Egypt. If we'd handed over our ports to Iran in 1975, and then found ourselves without materiale in 1979 due to anti-American mullahs cutting off our commerce, wouldn't that be an act of war? If you think a few million barrels of oil is bad, try billions of tons in commerce every year.
2. No inspection zones- as you know some port terminus and areas are free trade and inspection free zones. Good for some sending tons of commerce and wanting to cut the red tape. Bad, as drug dealers and terrorists can import their own mayhem and chemicals into the US. How would you know? They'd never be inspected, they'd be allowed to do whatever, and they'd be in their legal right, as our port became their soil. Smart move, not.
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction- yeah this sounds like 24, Tom Clancy territory, but wouldn't it be a tactical move by a terrorist to ship a nuke, biological, or chemical weapon to the US and set it off? Or better yet, ship the components to various ports, assemble them under the cloak of darkness, transport them through our porous borders, and then light them off? Wow, that would suck. Well, that could be reality if this measure passes. And some of you say we ought not do surveillance, shame on you.
Well, the port deal is crap, W needs to get his head out of his arse, and America needs to remember that 9/11 was the tip of the iceberg. The terrorists could plan worse. Take Houston or LA or even Miami. Nice big southern ports, population centers, and industry. Set off a nuke, at an unguarded, terrorist friendly port, and you cripple part of the US. Hit all the ports, you have collapse and anarchy. Hit Texas, and its miles and miles of ship channel, oil, chemical, and industrial facilities, that will make the Gulf Coast Katrina incapacity look like kid's play. The storm was not determined and hellbent on killing us. Terrorists are. George, think about that, for once!
posted by NDwalters @ 6:19 PM
2 Comments:
At 3:19 PM,
NDwalters said…
Kevin, didn't Clinton have his own sly dog grin? Up to no good, gee, funny how no one cared about Occidental Oil being handed over to North Korea courtesy of Gore and Albright, or Carter handing over the Panama Canal. This port deal sucks, of course, but no one seemed to care back then. So why the righteous indignance now?
Terrorist scare? Are you snide enough to compare terrorism to the red scare. Hate to tell you this but the terrorist threat is as real now, as the USSR was a threat back then.
For some of you libs, Denial is more than a river.
At 10:24 AM,
crallspace said…
About time you WAKE UP.
We have been telling you how bad Bush is for America forever! So, this is what it takes to prove that indeed, the Bush Crime Family hates America.
As a forgiving person, I forbgive you for your past promotions of a fascist and disgusting regime of rich, corrupt assucks.
Post a Comment
<< Home