On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:


The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely
profitably) involved
in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests

While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I
question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership
is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by
British based P&O for years.

If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald
of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O
with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O
possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies
hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port
"security". God help us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company

P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities.
The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the
foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a
major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one
paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased
to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the
administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over
the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put
$235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it.


Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port
operations.

Thanks, Bill.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************