Xanax. Buying xanax with mastercard….

IRIS Blog discusses how an “Army of Davids” in the blogverse (see this item from Instapundit to learn more) has helped to raise an outcry against the US government’s deal to hand seaports over to the United Arab Emirates

Color me more confused as time goes on. Has White House bungling and Democratic misdirection created a major kerfuffle where there’s no need for one? From the New York Sun: On the Waterfront Somehow, it doesn’t add up. Senators Menendez,

The more this UAE port management story is being reported, examined, and discussed in the MSM, as well as on opinion pages and in the blogosphere, the more I find myself believing that the issue has bas been overhyped unecessarily. Even with saying …

Thanks anyway.

Not only is O’Reilly correct on the cultural implications of denying the UAE business, but he also alludes to the unspoken benefit — our intelligence agencies will be given the opportunity, directly and indirectly, to tap into the UAE network.

What… have you not been paying attention? Stop listening to the “No Intelligence Zone” for a minute and think about the implications of this deal. An “unspoken benefit” of tapping into some network… like the Emir is going to suddenly stop saying and doing things like giving aid and comfort to 9/11-style hijackers because we hand over our ports to him! This is the UAE gaining access to our networks and granting them an almost free pass to bring anything they want into this country.

Let me spell it out. The general manager of the Port of New Jersey wants a certain cargo ship to pass through inspections without any special attention or note. As the manager, he’s privy to the comings and goings of every ship, when it will be unloaded, who is going to unload it, when — and if — it will be inspected, etc. So, he tells the captain to sail on in at the precise moment when the inspectors are busy looking at that cargo container from elsewhere, and violà, the cargo is unloaded, offloaded to another mode of transportation, away from the port within minutes, and close enough to tens of millions of innocent people to cause some real damage. Get the picture?

It’s about elections and winning credibility on the issue of homeland security.

You’re right, it is. But, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (as my grandmother would say). How quickly did Bush mention 9/11 in this year’s State of the Union address? Oh yeah, it was only 3 and a half minutes into the address. And he used the word “terror” 21 times during the speach. I guess it’s okay for a Republican to pander to our worst fears, but if a Democrat brings up national security, well, its “Politics, of course. To put President Bush on the defensive (once again), turn his allies against him (once again), build up the negative press and, perhaps most cunningly, polish the Democrats’ image regarding terrorism.” Oh, poor Bush.

And finally,

Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port “security” to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense.

No, it’s much more sinister. Coming from the AP this evening:

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

So, not only did Bush know about the plans (contrary to what he said earlier today), there were secret negotiations taking place! Negotiations that appear to exempt the UAE from some routine inspections. Why am not I surprised? This is de riguer for this administration.

All praise the almightly dollar. Get ready, the attack is on the way… it’s not a question of if, just when.

There seems to be some anger that a Company based in the United Arab Ererates will be Operating some Ports in the US. This is a perfect example of how people today go running off their mouth without knowing any facts about a situation.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml

Well, I don’t know what to think anymore on this story, but after considering Buster’s thoughts on it and reading news reports and blogs, I am officially unjerking the knee and deciding that we need to hear more from the President on the i…

I can certainly see why there’s some political controversy about a firm owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates helping to run ports on the Eastern seaboard — but after reading this Christian Science Monitor story by Alexandra…

Rescind Mr. President. Faith is a misplaced emotion in the long war on terror, and the assurance that U.S. ports will be secure when they are managed by a firm owned by a government in one of the most volatile parts of the world, is worthless.

Dick Meyer of CBS News races to the defense of the proposed deal to allow six major American ports to be operated by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates with In Defense of Dubai. Meyer makes a good effort to lay out the best case for the ports