UAE Port LTTE, please proof before I send

[usregimechange]

There has been much commotion nationally about the Bush Administration’s policy of allowing a foreign government to take over US port operations. I see three parts to this controversy. One is the basic question of whether we want any foreign government to have such a role at our ports. Second is the question of whether the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has distanced itself sufficiently from ties with terrorists and those who support them to have that much control at our ports. Third, this highlights the consistently poor national security leadership of our current leaders as it relates to maritime security.

UAE was one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban (who harbored Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden) as legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. After Sept. 11th the UAE did some things to change its ways but clearly any approval of their takeover of US ports should have included greater congressional oversight and public debate. What reason can you think of for that not being the case?

Congress has not appropriated the level of funding required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. According to the Coast Guard about 5.4 billion over 10 years is needed to implement these security enhancements but Bush only requested 46 million for last year. That level of funding, over those 10 years, would leave us about 5 billion short.

By weight of comparison we spend more in Iraq in a month than is needed to fund these improvements to our national security over 10 years. I think the American people deserve as much attention as the Iraqis get in a month.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. To help the flow a bit....

Your three points in the first paragraph are good, but the phrasing of the third point doesn't flow with the other two:

To quote:

One is the basic question....

Second is the question.....

Third, this highlights the consistantly....

Perhaps you may wish to phrase it along these lines: Third is the question of whether our current leadership have done more than a poor job when it comes to maritime security.

I'm sure you can improve on my suggestion-but relating all three to the word "question" I believe will help with the flow.

[usregimechange]

2. Thank you, changed it to:

Third is the question of whether our current leaders have done poorly when it comes to maritime security.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. That is good

and now the text flows together.

[tom swift]

4. Ports Deal

I'm afraid that you may have been listening to Sen. Clinton. The UAE won't even be the first foreign government to operate port terminals in the US. The others I'm aware of are China (COSCO) and Saudi Arabia (National Shipping Company of Saudia Arabia )NSCSA).
I actually think that Bush,Rumsfeld,and Snow NOT knowing of the deal is a positve. The people from 12 government agencies reviewed this deal and might well have been able to do the job without interference from the top.
Do you think that the people responsible for assessing the incremental risk of this transaction would cavalierly throw your security away knowing that they'd be throwing their own families' security away as well?
Isn't it likely (in fact the publicity proves the case) that with that background,Customs and the Coast Guard might just have been tougher on these guys than on potential other applicants? The things you point out are hardy revelations are they?
I also have to say that I find it incongrous that as corrupt a Congress as this one is Congress is probably the last people I'd want reviewing this case. It would be just another political football of larger proportions than currently.
Funding requests are absolutely necessary to be increased and there's no doubt it needs to happen soon. I wonder where that money might come from. Think since ports are in states,it must be a states issue,therefore Congress cuts more funding from say Medicaid and school lunch programs.

[usregimechange]

5. I never said there was no other government doing this but

that the UAE may not be the one we want doing it due to their not too distant history and the idea that we may want to look at the wisdom of giving any foreign government this type of role.

[tom swift]

9. Ports

Not to sound too petulant(ok a little) but did you even bother to read what I wrote? Doesn't seem so since I was trying to respond to that point about their past.
Do you think that the people who work for the government who reviewed this deal:
A) are unaware of the recent past of the UAE?
B) would ignore those issues in their review?
C) would deliberately understate the security issues thereby jeopardizing you?
D) would realize that your security is also their security?
E) are spineless supporters of GWB and even though they would jeopardize their own security approved the deal because they knew Bush would want them to?

You don't have to answer,just think about it in the context of this deal,that's what else I've been thinking of in trying to come to a conclusion about this.Good luck with the letter.

[usregimechange]

10. a, perhaps not as well as they should have been, b, possibly

why would they do that? Loyality, pressure, and $.

[usregimechange]

11. more on this...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A review of a United Arab Emirates-owned company's plan to take over operations at key U.S. ports never looked into whether the company had ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, a key Republican lawmaker told CNN on Wednesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/01/port.security/index.html

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. Quite the task to edit using HTML..hope this helps :-)

Have used bold to highlight suggested changes and/or missing parts such as $ and commas.

Have used strike outs for unnecessary words, and italics to ask a question, or to suggest other sentence structure.

These are only suggestions. It IS your LTTE, and you should send it as is most comfortable for you :hi:


Your LTTE:
(with editing)

There has been an uproar nationally about the Bush Administration’s policy of which will allow a foreign government to take over US port operations.

I see three parts to this controversy. First, is the basic question of America wanting any foreign government to have a role regarding control of our ports is very important to consider. Second, is the concern in regard to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having distanced itself sufficiently from ties with terrorists, as well as those who support them, to have any control of our ports. Third, this particular issue highlights the consistently poor national security oversight by our current leaders as it relates to maritime security.

UAE has been one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban, who also is known to have harbored Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. After September 11th, the UAE did some things to improve its global image, but clearly any consideration of one of their national companies taking over of US ports should also have included greater congressional oversight, as well as union and public debate. What reason can you think of for that not being the case? Striking this only to ask you, who are you debating or challenging with this question? Is LTTE in response to an already published LTTE? If not, then it's not needed in your LTTE.

Congress has not appropriated the level of funding required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act...for what? Incomplete sentence. Better sentence To date, Congress has not appropriated the necessary level of funding as required by the Maritime Transportation Act of enter date of Act. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, approximately $5.4 billion over a period of ten years is needed to implement these security enhancements. {b]Yet, Bush has only requested $46 million for this over the last year. This amount of funding over the ensuing ten years would leave us about $5 billion short of what is really needed.

By weight of comparison, we spend more on the war in Iraq over one month than we would be funding in terms of improvements to our national security over ten years. I think the American people deserve as much attention as the Iraqis get in a month.
Maybe a stronger ending such as,
I believe the United States and its people deserve credible attention and dutiful care to national security above all else. There is a war on, thanks to Bush, and it is costing us dearly in terms of money and the toll of human life. Yet, there seems to be little care for the people for whom he is being paid to work and represent.



As suggested from above, your edited LTTE:
(with paragraph breaks)

There has been an uproar nationally about the Bush Administration’s policy which will allow a foreign government to take over US port operations.

I see three parts to this controversy. First, the basic question of America wanting any foreign government to have a role regarding control of our ports is very important to consider. Second, is the concern in regard to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having distanced itself sufficiently from ties with terrorists, as well as those who support them, to have any control of our ports. Third, this particular issue highlights the consistently poor national security oversight by our current leaders as it relates to maritime security.

UAE has been one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban, who also is known to have harbored Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan. After September 11th, the UAE did some things to improve its global image, but clearly any consideration of one of their national companies taking over of US ports should also include greater congressional oversight, as well as union and public debate.

Congress has not appropriated the necessary level of funding as required by the Maritime Transportation Act of (enter date of Act). According to the U.S. Coast Guard, approximately $5.4 billion over a period of ten years is needed to implement these security enhancements. Yet, Bush has only requested $46 million for this over the last year. This amount of funding over the ensuing ten years would leave us about $5 billion short of what is really needed.

By weight of comparison, we spend more on the war in Iraq over one month than we would be funding in terms of improvements to our national security over ten years.

I believe the United States and its people deserve much more credible attention and dutiful care to national security above all else. There is a war on, thanks to Bush, and it is costing us dearly in terms of money and the toll of human life. Yet, there seems to be little care for the people for whom he is being paid to work and represent.


Hope this is helpful. You've written a great LTTE that makes for a great and important point.

[usregimechange]

7. Wow! Thank you, making changes... except that would put me

over my 300 word limit. :-) Thanks...

[Whoa_Nelly]

8. Wow! Wasn't aware there was a word limit

In the little POS newspaper where I live, there is no limit. You should see some of the long LTTEs they publish.