Port Chill

I haven't commented too much on the "Port Issue". But I do know a little about what has gone into this decision and quite frankly, don't see what all the fuss is about. Yet I do realize the concerns - but some of the commentary has been a little on the hysterical side. AJ Strata writes:

"Folks, it is best to research a subject before going off in a panic of ineundo and incorrect information (which leads to wild conclusions).

Port Operations are not security or ownership. It is traffic control, trash and clean up, etc. Security and the law are handled by the Coast Guard as part of Homeland Defense and normal law enforcement (local, state and Federal)."


Correct.

I also agree with former head of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge:

"Ridge, appearing on CNN's "American Morning," said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."

Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of homeland security from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns and officials would not jeopardize national security.

"The bottom line is I think we need a little more transparency here," he said. "There are legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing and security measures -- added technology in these ports that we need to upgrade our security."


Most of the hysteria is ill informed. "Arab Emirates", doesn't denote "Al Qaeda". Although the AE long standing anti-Semitic stance is a big area of concern. Still, I just don't see anything at this point that gives me the "bumps" at this point.

But for the sake of clarity, everything needs to get out on the table so that all with concerns can see just what it's all about. I believe once people see the facts- while some will still have reservations - by and large people will see it's not the 'boogie-man" they think it is.





0 comments

Support our Vets!



Macsmind - Official Blog of The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio