Gamecock wrote:This is all politics on both sides of the aisle. Nothing less, nothing more. Keith Olberman sumed it up last night pretty damn good. This hyperventilation is basically the "Terry Schiavo" of terrorism and port security.
Politicians, you gotta love em.
First time I've ever agreed with Olberman, that's fo' sho'....
I think a Schiavo comparison is pretty inaccurate as that was the government and others getting involved in someone's personal life, where they certainly do not belong, where as this is one branch of the government and concerned citizens questioning the actions of another branch.
I agree a lot of it is politics, it is an election year after all and if someone is up for reelection and can use this to their advantage, you know they will. I don't understand why no one complained when it was a British owned company? I read somewhere yesterday that Chinese owned companies operate US Ports, that is as bad or worse that UAE. I don't think a non american company should be allowed to do this. It is not a matter of race it is a matter of non americans controlling something so vital to national security as a port. Even though security is still under the control of Coast Guard, Customs, et al, it just doesn't seem right. They may be great guys in the UAE and this may work out great, but doesn't seem right. It should be an american company.
The fact that Bush would threaten a veto, something he has never done in 6 years, makes you wonder why is he so adament about it. I think what TSL said is probably the most important truth to the whole issue, "FOLLOW THE MONEY". Someone, somewhere, with Bush connections is going to make a killing on this.