posted on February 23, 2006 04:36:20 PM new
I support President Bush, because I actually have some knowledge of how a port conducts its day to day operations.
It will be no different than having British run some of the operations.
People opposed to this please tell me how many US flagged ships actually make a US port of call?
posted on February 23, 2006 04:59:17 PM new
It was a ponderable thought and I expect that everyone here knows what that is.....well everyone except rustypeepa that is.
But nevertheless, it could be percieved as a prejudism by our friends in the middle east if we were to not support this deal. Who knows what rational or even a lack of rational these people in the middle east will use when determining our loyalty to their friendship.
Pi, your responses to my answer seems to all hinge on one fallacy: That this is a politcal war. It's only a political war from the US point of view, the other side sees it as a holy war.
I'm fully aware how the other side sees the war. I do not see our envolovment in it as political and I cannot believe that you really do either, do you?
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and yes, the UAE, and primarily Muslims, and hence at war with the west. Granted, not all of them are active participants, but they have chosen ther teams. It's only a matter of time until they are called on to step up to bat.
This statement suggests to me that you believe there must be a person or group of persons that have control over the governments in the countries that you mentioned and probably a few other countries as well. By your way of thinking and logic it means that because Pakistan is Muslim then eventually they too will be called on to step up to bat and I just don't see that happening. Do you really think this way?
WHich part do you think tipped them off? When we not only cut off funding but even ask for previously lent funds to be repaid by Palestine because didn't like the result of the decratic election process that we keep trying to push on them?
Are you serious? Well here lets look at your question another way. Suppose Alquieda ran for office in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country that we have good relations with and was dully elected in a peaceful, democratic elections process by the peoples in their respective countries. Should we then support their government monetarily? No, I didn't think so. So then why should we support Hamas monetarily in Palestine?
I guarantee you that our friends in the middle east and other countries that have large Muslim populations not only know our rational for not supporting Hamas but they agree with our decision not to support them.
posted on February 23, 2006 05:21:36 PM new
Ron- the point is that after 9/11, Americans with clean backgrounds should be running, working, and protecting our ports, airports, and borders. Our security should be our #1 interest, and part of that is making sure we don't put it into the hands of anyone else. I could care less that a rug from Ikea is made in India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or here in our own country. What I do care about is that we protect ourselves from anyone who's interest is only their own whether it be for power, money, religion, or anything else.
I remember how America pushed in the 70's and 80's to "Buy American". Such a middle America concept. That was for cars, but for your National Security you are willing to leave a gaping loophole for corruption, terrorism, and saving a few bucks so you can pay for your unjust war and an extra box of macaroni.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Feb 23, 2006 05:23 PM ]
posted on February 24, 2006 08:42:30 AM new
Port Problems Said To Dwarf New Fears
By Paul Blustein and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 24, 2006; Page A06
For people who have grown anxious about U.S. port security because a Dubai company may soon manage operations at six container terminals on the East Coast, Kim Petersen suggests that the real grounds for concern lie elsewhere -- such as the fence he saw at a West African port a few months ago.
The newly built fence was a source of pride to the port's officials, who wanted to show that they were protecting their facility against any terrorists seeking to sneak a bomb aboard a U.S.-bound container. But it was a 5 1/2 -foot-tall chain-link fence -- hardly sufficient for the task, said Petersen, president of SeaSecure, a maritime security firm in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
The tale illustrates a point emphasized by many people familiar with security operations at U.S. ports: Among all the reasons to fret about vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks, the nationality of the companies managing the terminals is one of the least worrisome.
"There are many, many problems that we face in maritime security -- and they're not the United Arab Emirates," Petersen said, referring to the Persian Gulf nation of which Dubai is a part.
Nonetheless, politicians from both parties continue to pelt the Bush administration with criticism for its decision to allow Dubai Ports World, a fast-growing business owed by the Dubai government, to buy Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British maritime firm that manages terminals in Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans and several other major ports. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, lawmakers acknowledged that the UAE has become an important U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf region but repeatedly cited the UAE's role in recognizing the Taliban before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the lax supervision of its banking system that allowed some of the hijackers to finance their plans.
But such points bypass some crucial questions: What do the companies managing U.S. terminals -- most of which are owned by Asian and European shipping giants -- do that is so important to protecting against terrorist attacks? And how much difference would it make if Dubai Ports World joined their ranks?
Administration officials have asserted in recent days that security at U.S. ports is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the terminal operators responsible for little more than transferring containers from ships to railroad cars and trucks.
That overstates the role government agencies play. "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present," said Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security.
The private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities, although they must submit their security plans to the Coast Guard, which monitors and inspects them. In some cases, the companies X-ray incoming containers to see whether the contents appear to match the manifest, although customs agents are solely responsible for "intrusive" inspections -- that is, opening containers and examining the cargo. That procedure is performed on about 5 percent of containers entering the United States.
The security personnel employed by the terminal companies vary from port to port, but according to several companies, the guards are often supplied by local private security firms.
"The lowest-paying jobs on the waterfront are security people," said Stephen E. Flynn, a ports expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But is that a problem for foreign ownership? No. It's a problem for everybody."
Shifting ownership from Britain's P&O to Dubai Ports World would not affect those arrangements at the terminals in question, company officials said. Consider, for example, the situation at the Philadelphia port, where Dubai Ports World would obtain 50 percent control over a local outfit that runs one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority.
Robert Palaima, who runs the local company, said yesterday that he hires guards from a union that provides security officers and police guards under a security plan approved by the Coast Guard, which carried out a full-day inspection this week.
Cargo loading and unloading is done by work crews supplied by the International Longshoremen's Association, which Palaima described as "the most patriotic of unions." And there would be no changes in the workforce even if the Dubai Ports World takeover goes through, he said, adding: "I am sick and tired of all this uproar. We're patriots and nothing will change."
Much more serious, in the view of Petersen and other experts, are gaps in security that have nothing to do with the Dubai takeover.
"We've spent barely $700 million in federal grants to U.S. ports for security, compared with almost $20 billion for aviation security," Petersen said. "And most important, we are doing an abysmal job in assisting ports in the developing world in improving security to even minimal acceptable standards."
Since 2001, Washington has arranged for customs officials to work in 42 foreign ports with rights to inspect containers before they head for U.S. shores; Dubai was the first in its region. But that covers only 80 percent of the containers entering the United States.
"If you're an al-Qaeda operative, you're going to send a bomb from a developing country where you know those safeguards don't exist," Petersen said. "That's the key flaw. We should be investing now in the countries that pose a real threat to our national security, with more security grants. But many of these ports don't even have adequate fencing or lighting."
posted on February 24, 2006 10:03:08 AM new
"it could be percieved as a prejudism by our friends in the middle east if we were to not support this deal. Who knows what rational or even a lack of rational these people in the middle east will use when determining our loyalty to their friendship."
This is isn't about how the world perceives us, but rather how we choose to secure our country. We wouldn't hire China's military to protect us, why would we hire anyone else to do so? To be quite honest, I was shocked to learn this was already outsourced to Britain. Our National Security should be an American priority, not sold to the cheapest bidder.
Funny how the neocons flap their gums about National Security, a strong military presence, but when it really comes down to it, they could care less. Talk about two-faced hypocrites...
posted on February 24, 2006 10:30:28 AM new
"Funny how the neocons flap their gums about National Security, a strong military presence, but when it really comes down to it, they could care less. Talk about two-faced hypocrites..."
No, the Neocons are not hypocrites. Only Bush himself supports this stupidity, and he has yet to explain why to my satisfaction. The ultimate Neocons, Rush Limbaugh, and his wanna-be sidekick Sean Hannity are both very much against this proposal.
Don't blame the Neocons. Don't blame the Republicans. This is just Bush, who is about to find himself swinging in the wind all alone.
If Bush doesn't believe this is a bad idea, then he's been lying to us all for four years. It's as simple as that.
I am a Neocon (more or less). I am a Republican. I am also for impeaching Bush if he doesn't reverse his opinion on this VERY soon.
Dr. Arcane, revelator of mystical secrets http://www.drarcane.com
Got questions about the secrets of the universe?
posted on February 24, 2006 01:43:58 PM new
DrArcane said, I am a Neocon (more or less). I am a Republican. I am also for impeaching Bush if he doesn't reverse his opinion on this VERY soon.
Your not a NEOCON in my book if you can say what you said above. You are the kind of Republican America needs NOW. Your not a blind mindless follower.
In my book a NEOCON would be MINDLESS,FOLLOWERS,LIARS like Bear,liar_K,Ron,Colin. Those people are a good example of a NEOCON.
I also would impeach any President no matter what party they belong to if they acted and lead like Bush has.
I BELIEVE THIS BUNCH OF CROOKS IS SELLING AMERICA OUT.
BOB DOLE WAS HIRED BY U.A.E. TO ADVANCE THEIR CAUSE. JUST WATCH HOW CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKERS CHANGE THEIR MINDS ABOUT THE PORTS AS THE ARAB MONEY FLOWS.
posted on February 27, 2006 12:22:50 PM new
Arcane- from what I have read in your postings, you do not qualify as a neocon. You have some sensibility to detach yourself from party politics and understand the realities of what is going on. I cannot say the same for people like Linda, Bear, and Bush. They will stand up for Bush no matter what. In fact, Linda has gone on record stating that she firmly believes President Bush is one of the most honest Presidents in history. I don't see you falling for crap like that.
posted on February 27, 2006 01:11:55 PM new
The latest from DUMBO is he has agreed to a 45 day informational period about the Arab take over of our ports.
The information he is waiting and looking for is how many lawmakers took Arab bribe money.
UNDER BUSH AND HIS CROOKED CONSERVATIVE LAWMAKERS ITS BEEN THE BEST LAWS AND GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY!!!!
posted on February 27, 2006 01:12:29 PM new
And what you on the left fail to acknowledge is the fact that the majority of US ports have never been managed by US owned companies.
Dubai Ports o' Potty
Written by Bob Parks
Monday, February 27, 2006
As I'm seldom subtle, I hope the title of this piece puts to rest my opinion on the United Arab Emirates acquisition of American ports issue. Many have asked my opinion, but I just had to wait and watch the sheer folly of the incident and what it's revealed about the information absorbed by the American people and the ignorance/propaganda spewed once again by our mainstream media.
An acquaintance recently asked me about the deal as he was concerned that a foreign nation was going to be running a bunch of our sea ports. I asked him who owned them now? He had no answer and when I told him the previous owners were a British company that was being bought by a company from the UAE, he confessed he didn't know that.
Here's the problem, folks.
I write for the love of writing, as much as I'd like to do this for a living. There are those among us who are paid handsomely to disseminate the news. In this instance, like many others, our media either deserves an “F” if they really intended to get correct information out, and/or an “A” if they are once again fronting for Democrats. I'd prefer to believe the “F” factor, especially when picking apart the latest Rasmussen poll on the issue:
“February 24, 2006--Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.”
I would bet that those 64% believed that an American company, and not Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) which is a British entity, ran them. According to the P&O website, “The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company has a celebrated history dating back to the 1830s. The initials "P&O" are among the most familiar anywhere, and its house flag, older even than the Company itself, is one of the best known. The history of its first century is encapsulated in the heraldry of its Coat of Arms, granted in 1937, while throughout well over 160 years it has been a premier British shipping company, and in its time the largest and most varied in the world.”
How many of you who bother to watch the mainstream media has heard them say that the UAE company is buying out a British one? Wouldn't you think that's an important part of the story here?
“Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.”
Now, who's fault is that? Editors and news directors all over the country should be in almost total anguish that the American public is so collectively out-to-lunch on this topic. That is, if they even know it.
“From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the president on national security issues.”
I have an easy answer for this as has been attempted for years without success: ask a Democrat for a solution to an issue. In this case, instead of bitching and moaning about President Bush doing this, President Bush not doing that, ask a Democrat what he would do to make this country safer against terrorism, and watch Democratic polling numbers plummet again.
“Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President. It is important to note that the question about trust on national security issues was asked first, before any mention was made of the Dubai Ports issue. The preference for the opposition party is small, but the fact that Democrats are even competitive on the national security front is startling. In Election 2002, the President guided his party to regain control of the Senate based almost exclusively on the national security issue. On Election Day that year, just 23% rated the economy as good or excellent, but the President's Party still emerged victorious.”
I understand that President Bush is busy, especially because his booking office declined an invitation to come and address us Blue State Republicans. With that, I'm not going to pile on and complain that he should have explained this ports thing better. No one can foresee ignorance, that is, without being a liberal. I'm sure the president saw this as a rather routine business transaction not worthy of some half-assed congressional investigation.
“In Election 2004, national security was again the decisive issue as the president won re-election. Voters consistently expressed a preference for George W. Bush over John Kerry when it came to issues surrounding the War on Terror.”
Unless you're a liberal blog reader, you're of the mindset that Bush is not an idiot. As the War on Terror will be the majority of his presidential legacy, why would he allow a hostile nation to obtain ownership of our sea ports if he thought they'd be a gateway for terrorists and their devices of destruction? Mr. Bush knows better, and instead of jumping on the MSM mis-cue, we should use some common sense.
From the Dubai Ports World website,
13 February 2006
DP World to acquire P&O
We are delighted to announce that the shareholders of P&O have approved the sale of shares to DP World. At an EGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) held in London this afternoon, the shareholders voted over 99% in favour of the DP World acquisition. This means that the process of transferring ownership can now begin, and we expect for this to be confirmed by the court on 2nd March 2006.
Now let's see: The Brits had no problems approving this deal. Could it be that their media adequately informed the public? Nah, we have the best news people in the business, right? We can trust Charles Gibson and Wolf Blitzer and Brian Williams and Bob Schiefer, and let's not forget our honored Washington Press Corps.
“Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans do not believe foreign firms should be allowed to buy any companies in the U.S. Fifty-five percent (55%) disagree.”
Those twenty-seven percent are the ignoramuses. They would probably be shocked to actually learn who their own boss' bosses are. They would probably be shocked to learn what would happen to our nation's economy if all those nation's companies decided to stop financing our debt.
I was in Los Angeles during the longshoreman strike. I don't remember anyone squawking over the fact that the Communist Chinese own most of the docks there. Back in 1998, the Clinton administration sold 60 F-16s to the United Arab Emirates, and Bill gave a paid speech in Dubai just last year. All of a sudden, just because Hillary Clinton says so, the UAE are the same as al Qaeda? Who's painting the broad brush here?
The United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. Kuwait delivered a $25 million check to the Red Cross for the Katrina relief fund, the second installment of a donation that will total $500 million.
This current xenophobia surrounding an Arab company owning our ports is not surprising as we are talking about liberals who always see race first. Must be those slavery flashbacks.
“However, even among those who believe foreign ownership should be allowed in general, 61% oppose the Dubai Ports transaction.”
Ignorance is bliss. I've been using that phrase a lot lately.
“Seventy-two percent (72%) of Americans say they have been following news about the Dubai Ports deal somewhat or very closely.”
And if some pollster called you on the phone, you'd admit to being clueless. What a worthless poll question.
Look, the bottom line is this: even though I may be accused of being a blind partisan, common sense should rule here.
The real culprits in this saga are the unions that run the ports and pull the strings of politicians with campaign donations (union dues). The union resistance to modernization that companies like Dubai Ports would eventually introduce are a threat to union fat cats.
In 2004, Douglas Feiden (New York Daily News) published a few telling points about the longshoremen. Not that I begrudge anyone earning an honest wage, but some of these people are earning almost half of what the president earns, and some probably can't spell his last name.
“A longshoreman with full seniority averages $80,479 a year; overtime can ratchet it up to $136,000. Members get 16 paid holidays - including St. Patrick's Day and Good Friday - and up to six weeks vacation. Work on those days is paid at double time.”
I'd invite you to take a gander at his entire piece on the matter. Hopefully Feiden still has his kneecaps.
This isn't a national security issue for anyone except the job security of a bunch of crooks on the docks and the cronies they pay off. Okay, not all dockworkers are improperly overpaid, but I'll say this: to get some of the politicos to scream and holler irrationally over this one issue shows the unions can get their money's worth.
The media has no excuse.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 27, 2006 02:33:13 PM new
WOW, JUST LOOK HOW DESPERATE AND SICK DUMBO HAS MADE BEAR.
BEAR SAID “Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans do not believe foreign firms should be allowed to buy any companies in the U.S. Fifty-five percent (55%) disagree.”
Those twenty-seven percent are the ignoramuses. They would probably be shocked to actually learn who their own boss' bosses are. They would probably be shocked to learn what would happen to our nation's economy if all those nation's companies decided to stop financing our debt.
BEARS WORDS CALL AMERICANS "IGNORAMUSES" IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SELL OUT THEIR COUNTRY.
SORRY BEAR NONE OF US WOULD BE SHOCKED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO AMERICA IF FOREIGN COUNTRIES CALLED IN DUMBO GEORGE BUSH'S RECORD DEBT.
BEAR DIDN'T MENTION THAT DUMBO HAS BORROWED MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF AMERICA'S PRESIDENTS PUT TOGETHER. THAT INCLUDES MONEY FOR WW-1,WW-2,KOREA AND VIET NAM.
posted on February 27, 2006 02:44:16 PM new“Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans do not believe foreign firms should be allowed to buy any companies in the U.S. Fifty-five percent (55%) disagree.”
Who cares? With the USA living it up large on money borrowed from abroad, it'll all belong to us foreigners in a few years time. Compound interest will see to that. Most people don't realize that no country owns a multinational corporation. They often jump country to a new lower tax domicile offshore if things get too hot in their home country.
Maybe one day USAians will wake up that all those "Made in China" products at WalMart have to be paid for in more ways than using their credit card. Same for imported oil.
posted on February 27, 2006 07:45:12 PM new
agitprop your right. Now today we FIND OUT BUSH LIED to America again about the Sea Ports deal. The Coast Guard did have concerns about security. Those concerns should have prompted a automatic 45 day investigation of the Arab owned company.
The investigation didn't happen like so many other investigations haven't happened under Bush and his conservative lawmakers.
UNDER THIS CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT ITS BEEN SECRET DEALS AND THE BEST LAWS AND GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY.
STAY STRONG AMERICA AND DON'T FALL FOR THE G.O.P. BIG LIE AGAIN. ITS ONLY A FEW MONTHS BEFORE WE CAN STRIP BUSH AND HIS GANG OF CROOKS OF THEIR POWER TO BUILD A BETTER AMERICA.
BUSH IS ALREADY A LAME DUCK WE CAN FINISH THE WHOLE GANG SOON. YES!!!
posted on February 28, 2006 07:38:52 PM new
"And what you on the left fail to acknowledge is the fact that the majority of US ports have never been managed by US owned companies."
Boy, that is a great excuse for the Bush Admin's behavior. Let's see... We were attacked on Bush's watch, he pledged National Security, National Security, National Security... Instead of working for American control of National Security, Bush decided to work against it. We now see the US Coast Guard offered plenty of warnings against the Port deal before Bush decided to accept it.
Here is a novel idea... Instead of continuing the history of other foreign entities supposedly securing our ports, we could actually hire many of those Americans still on unemployment to begin securing our ports ourselves. Oh wait... The neocons don't care about America. They just want to sell everything off. So anti-american of you Bear.
posted on February 28, 2006 08:15:24 PM new
I watched Colen Powel on Cnn last night and he was for the Arab deal. I can see lots of reasons not to support it and I would be called a racist for it but that has nothing to do with it at all. It is just plain common sense to not invite trouble. They could be our friends now but what about tomorrow the next day. TOO iffy. You can rip me all you want for my opinion and that is everyone's right here in our free democratic country.
Sure other countries have holdings over here and more Arab holding than most are aware of. But no matter what the USA does it will not be what all people, countries or sects will approve of. Our government owes the US people loyalty first but I am in doubts that can be done either, as there are too many different opinions in our own country among our own citizens.
I see all the riots and protest over there over the cartoon thing and they are blaming the USA for what we didn't do. There is absolutely nothing the USA can do that the Muslems or 99.9% of them will not make a "Big" deal out of it: even if we bent over to kiss their a%%es they would hate us. They were born learning to despise the infidale and that is us or anyone not of their faith. I for one am not falling for any of the nice to your face we get out of some of the people in question. These people were raised for many many generations to despise us and destroy what ever does not conform to their way of thinking. We would be fools to ever believe any of them are our friends, or are going to change their way of life. No one has in over 2000 plus years. Just as we will not change them , they will not change us. Works both ways.
**************
Without my ignorance, your Knowledge would be meaningless.
posted on March 1, 2006 09:23:07 AM new
It should be about bringing American control over our National Security, not continuing the trend of selling it out.
posted on March 1, 2006 11:02:32 AM new
Bear, please just ignore the 'crazy' ones here. There are some of us who DO appreciate your informative articles/posts.
And I got a laugh the other day...can't remember if they were talking about barbara boxer or nancy pelosi. But it was mentioned how SUPRISED she was while going on and on about these 'ports' being run by Arabs'....to have someone INFORM HER that HER OWN CA ports were run by Communist China.
ROFLOL God that was priceless.
Most of them didn't have a clue...were just using this a more political fodder.....trying to get on the 'right' of President Bush. Like hillary's doing on our war efforts.
posted on March 1, 2006 11:37:44 AM new
So what is your excuse for the Republicans that act the exact same way Linda? get off the high horse Linda. It's not just democrats that are beating this horse for all the mileage they can get gete or did you forget that Frist is a republican leader that jumped on the bandwagon without having any info?
And how is it that you are reconciling all of your insistance that arabs all hate the US and are just biding their time to destroy us with your need to support Bush on everything he does.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Mar 1, 2006 12:02 PM ]
posted on March 1, 2006 12:01:36 PM newNow let's see: The Brits had no problems approving this deal. Could it be that their media adequately informed the public? Nah, we have the best news people in the business, right? We can trust Charles Gibson and Wolf Blitzer and Brian Williams and Bob Schiefer, and let's not forget our honored Washington Press Corps.
The ironic part about the above paragraph is that, despite the fact that the article talks about full disclosure and honesty, it fails to mention even a single one of the many Fox reporters that were all over this the first couple days. Paranoia and hysteria spreading ruled the roost at Fox as well for the first few days so lets not try to rewrite history.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on March 1, 2006 12:37:56 PM new
TODAY 100,000 march and chant death to the U.S. and Bush. ALL THIS IN YET ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT IS A SUPPOSEDLY ALLIED WITH US.
SINCE GEORGE BUSH HAS BEEN THE BEST RECRUITER EVER FOR TERRORIST. TODAY 3/1/06 THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT A FOREIGN COUNTRY RUNNING OUR PORTS.
