Who Should Control our Port Operations?

There are two parts to the Port Operation Question:

1.Who should control security at out ports?

2.Who should have administrative control of port traffic?

The answer to this question is according to the administration is that we should have control of security at our ports and that it doesnt matter who has administrative control as long as they have lots of money to fund the traffic operations.

Jimmy Carter and President Bush agree on this policy. Some Republican and Democrats in Congress dont.

(I thought the Mafia controlled our port operations. Where have I been?)

The thought of members of congress is that some angry Arab is going to sneak an H-bomb into New York Harbor and blow the city of New York into New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and parts of New Hampshire.

Be that it may be, we currently have little security at the ports as only a small fraction of cargo is checked by our governments security force. That means a very large amount of cargo is not checked.

This is the Presidents point. He thinks, Heck! We dont have security at our ports anyway.

Jimmy Carter thinks that we should be nice to friendly Arabs. Jimmy Carter thinks we should have nice thoughts about Genghis Khan. He just loves everybody.

Scott McClelland as usual doesnt have the slightest idea of what is going on.

Assuming it is okay for the rich Arabs to take over our ports now, what will it be like in the future? Ill tell you what I think even though you probably dont give a darn about what an old man, a hack writer in Idaho, thinks.

It started before 9/11. It started with the Crusades when rich men sent their sons to Israel to kick the heck out of the Arabs, take all of their belongings, rape their women, and restore religious sites to European control. All though the Crusades are considered to be over by us, they are still going on in the minds of the Arabs. Crusades in our time are Bush War I and Bush War II.

Bush War I was aimed at kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Using extraordinary power, we accomplished that mission. We didnt stick around to nurse the wounds of the Iraqi people. In fact, we put restriction in place that caused the death of many more.

Bush War I was a fairly efficient war that gave Dick Cheney his start at Halliburton.

Bush War II is part of the War on Terrorism. Under the false pretense that Arabs would welcome a coalition force with open arms, we rushed in looking for WMDs that were not there.

Colin Powell suspected that the hype he gave at the United Nations was a bunch of hooey. Looking at the evidence he presented, you knew it was a bunch of hooey.

Anyway, we invaded, did not secure the borders, did not disarm the people, and did not stop terrorist organizations from killing our troops plus a large number of reporters and civilians. We failed to give security to our troops and the Iraqis.

Instead of having our troops achieve these important tasks, we had them passing out toothbrushes to children.

The recent destruction of holy shrines has put the country on the brink of civil war which could place our troops more in jeopardy than they are now.

As I watch the continual changes in the Arab World, I see an increasing amount of belligerence and efficiency. Iran could take sides in an Iraqi Civil War and send more and more terrorist into Iraq to raise havoc.

The Palestinians are showing spunk too. The election of Humus leaders has increased tensions in the area.

I think the point will come when a united Arab front will force all Arab countries to join with them or be placed in internal jeopardy.

So what is my point?

Its this: Things are going to change. They are not going to change for the better. All hell could break lose worldwide! We should take actions now that assume the worst scenarios.

We need to gain complete control over our ports. Osama Bin Laden is still kicking!

The End