Location: Granite Falls, North Carolina, United States

I'm an ordained United Methodist minister no longer pastoring churches, a former media producer with skills ten years out of date, a writer trying to sell my first novel, and a sales associate keeping body and soul together working for the People's Republic of Corporate America. I'm married to the most wonderful woman in the world, who was my best friend for 17 years before we married.

Friday, February 24, 2006

America's Ports

During the 2004 campaign John Kerry made the point (not strongly enough) that America's ports are vulnerable to the smuggling in of horrendous weapons, and the Bush Administration's response has been to cut funding for port inspections. He could have made this part of a strong case about the Bush Administration being totally incompetent when it comes to making America safer and stronger. Instead he kept wimping out.

Water over the bridge.

Now, the British company that has had control of America's six most important ports has sold this control to a company owned by the royal family of the United Arab Emirates.

Aside from the question as to why any foreign company should own control of America's ports, especially in these times of trouble over terrorism (they call it a war), the question rises, why this company?

In 1999, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA failed to take out Osama bin Laden because they didn't want to hit his guests: Members of the royal family of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Later when they contacted the UAE rulers about staying away from bin Laden so they could get bin Laden, the UAE folks tipped him off, instead.

According to the indictment against Zacharias Moussaui, the UAE was the locus of the funding for the 9/11 hijackers.

So, please tell me, why do we want to turn over our vulnerable ports to a company owned by the buddies of bin Laden who financed 9/11?

I a Democratic adminstration did that, wouldn't the talking heads be screaming "treason"?


Post a Comment

<< Home