Major Problem at Our Ports
How can the White House even consider allowing an Arab nation control our major shipping ports? Do they remember anything? They invoke 9/11 and national security threats constantly in speeches. You might think that the people of this nation might view this as a major threat to our national security.
Especially a country that was involved in funding the 9/11 hijackers. The United Arab Emirates are not, I repeat not, our allies. They declined helping to look for Osama Bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers received money that was passed to them through UAE banks. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. And they are involved in selling nuclear weapons materials to Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. Does that sound like someone that we want to do business with in a post 9/11 world?
If they are in control of our major ports will they install the proper radiation machines that will notify us of any potentially dangerous containers? No. Why would they? Our own government hasn't even made sure our ports are equipped with these devices.
That's right, our own government has done nothing to make sure our ports are protected. The cost of these devices? $88,000. But this administration would rather spend the money elsewhere, like Iraq. The cost of 10 days of this war would be equal to the cost of installing these devices and protecting our ports from being used to bring nuclear material into this country.
Why was a Chinese company wanting to acquire an oil company in the U.S. a national security issue, but this isn't? It's only a security concern when it involves oil and money. Their friends money.
Don't be fooled by any of the words coming from the White House, this is paying back a friend. Allowing this deal to go through is absolute hypocrisy. The White House's position on this issue just shows how hollow their words are when they talk about "national security."
What about the story that the "President" did not know about the deal until after it was finalized? That's what Scott McClellan said in a press conference yesterday. When asked if the "President" found out of the deal from watching the news on TV, he said yes.
Bush today said the deal is not a security threat, saying "people don't need to worry about security." Now we don't need to worry about security?! What a major contradiction. This guy didn't even know the deal was happening till he watched it on TV. How does he know if it is a security risk? If they didn't tell him about the deal, why would they share the details of it?
Especially a country that was involved in funding the 9/11 hijackers. The United Arab Emirates are not, I repeat not, our allies. They declined helping to look for Osama Bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers received money that was passed to them through UAE banks. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. And they are involved in selling nuclear weapons materials to Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. Does that sound like someone that we want to do business with in a post 9/11 world?
If they are in control of our major ports will they install the proper radiation machines that will notify us of any potentially dangerous containers? No. Why would they? Our own government hasn't even made sure our ports are equipped with these devices.
That's right, our own government has done nothing to make sure our ports are protected. The cost of these devices? $88,000. But this administration would rather spend the money elsewhere, like Iraq. The cost of 10 days of this war would be equal to the cost of installing these devices and protecting our ports from being used to bring nuclear material into this country.
Why was a Chinese company wanting to acquire an oil company in the U.S. a national security issue, but this isn't? It's only a security concern when it involves oil and money. Their friends money.
Don't be fooled by any of the words coming from the White House, this is paying back a friend. Allowing this deal to go through is absolute hypocrisy. The White House's position on this issue just shows how hollow their words are when they talk about "national security."
What about the story that the "President" did not know about the deal until after it was finalized? That's what Scott McClellan said in a press conference yesterday. When asked if the "President" found out of the deal from watching the news on TV, he said yes.
Bush today said the deal is not a security threat, saying "people don't need to worry about security." Now we don't need to worry about security?! What a major contradiction. This guy didn't even know the deal was happening till he watched it on TV. How does he know if it is a security risk? If they didn't tell him about the deal, why would they share the details of it?
posted by Truthseeker37 at 6:19 PM
0 comments
