How to keep America's ports safe from terrorism? Bush's answer: Hire Arabs

[Mr-Blonde]

Lawmakers urges White House to review Arab port takeover

Critics contend deal could affect national security

source: CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. lawmakers formally asked the Bush administration Thursday to reconsider its approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

The lawmakers, including four senators and three House members, sharply criticized the UAE as inconsistent in its support of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

They also said the country was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only three nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

The Bush administration defended its approval of the sale. A spokesman for the White House National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said Thursday that security implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed."

The Associated Press reported Saturday that government-owned Dubai Ports World had won approval for the $6.8 billion deal from a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

Since then, a growing faction in Congress wants the White House to reconsider its approval of DP World's purchase of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which British shareholders approved Monday.

The British firm, the world's fourth-largest ports company, runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed the transaction and did not object. The committee, run by the Treasury Department, also includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Although it declined to comment on the committee's decision last week, the Treasury Department said Thursday the consensus of the panel's 12 members was that the sale did not present national security problems. The review included an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies, the department said.

"Clearly no responsibility of government is more important than protecting the national security," the department said in a statement.

Critics have complained that control over port operations by DP World could endanger U.S. security. They cite the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington.

The lawmakers pressing the White House on Thursday included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Reps. Chris Shays, R-Connecticut, Vito Fossella, R-New York, and Mark Foley, R-Florida.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said he spoke to senior White House officials, whom he declined to identify, and urged them to review the purchase. King said he believed the White House took the issue "very seriously and will look into it."

Treasury Secretary John Snow, asked during a budget hearing Wednesday about the committee's approval, said he was not permitted to discuss specific transactions the panel considers.
-------------

This is another example of why I cannot take the war on terrorism seriously. Bush claims that the reason he is eroding our civil liberties and trying to rewrite the Constitution is to protect Americans from terrorism. So who do they want to hire to manage our vunerable ports and harbors? A company from the United Arab Emirates which last I checked was chock full of Muslim extremist groups.

Welcome to the New World Order-- where corporate schmucks who pose as leaders pretend to be worried about our safety but are actually more worried about the bottom line.

[Lynn7]

I don't think it will matter who runs the ports ultimately.Where there is a will, there is a way.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't think it will matter who runs the ports ultimately.Where there is a will, there is a way.

That's a pre-9/11 attitude.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Where there is a will, there is a way.

John Ritter is just rolling at that phrase right now.

If what you said is true, then perhaps we should quit investing billions into a pseudo-war, don't you think?

[someguy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't think it will matter who runs the ports ultimately.Where there is a will, there is a way.

Then let's give Iran those nukes, If there's a will there's a way

[BubbaStrangelove]

Well, we did find a way to invade Iraq.

[EVILxxx]

This is incredibly stupid.
What ports are these exactly? What cities are they near? What the fuck is Bush thinking?

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
This is incredibly stupid.
What ports are these exactly? What cities are they near? What the fuck is Bush thinking?

Outsourcing for profit, what else.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't think it will matter who runs the ports ultimately.Where there is a will, there is a way.

Are you completely insane? You must be to say something like that.

Keep drinking that Bush kool aid.

[Mr-Blonde]

Bush Shrugs Off Objections to Port Deal

source: AP

WASHINGTON - Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

The president on Tuesday defended his administration's earlier approval of the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World, despite concerns in Congress it could increase the possibility of terrorism at American ports.

The sale - expected to be finalized in early March - would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said Tuesday it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned government. "In that sense this is a new layer of controls," he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."

Bush sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York's two senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port on Tuesday, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

They say a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., and Democrat Schumer said Tuesday they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the government "cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter."

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bush's veto threat didn't stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey's governor, Jon S. Corzine, said Tuesday the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take."

A company at the Port of Miami, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., sued last week to block the deal in a Florida state court. It said that under the sale, it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

Frist said Congress should have veto authority over such foreign sales, which are reviewed by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The panel includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
----------

Doesn't look like the administration gives a shit that most of its political allies and opponents are completley against this move. The Dubai company's responsibilites when taking over the port management is not nearly as benign as they'd like us to think. The company which could be easily infiltrated by any number of Muslim extremist groups will have complete and total access to near every manifest and be aware of any security procedures in six of America's major ports.

Why is it that Bush seeks to scare the American public about terrorism but yet doesn't care if a UAE Company manages the ports? Because this is a company he's made a "deal" with? My question is why Bush is being so completely rigid and threatening to veto on this even though the American public is overwhemingly against the aquisition of our ports by a company based out of a terrorism-laden nation? Bush does not care what anyone else thinks about this because it's a "done deal".

Conservatives-- do you still consider that Bush has any conservative values or is really just a free spending deal globalist after a one-world economy? Our Federal debt is off the chart. Our trade deficet is insane. Bush and his cronies globalist policies has raped most of the labor jobs that were left in America. The auto industry is next.

[Vong]

A tribute to the man.
Clicky!

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Are you completely insane? You must be to say something like that.

Keep drinking that Bush kool aid.

Actually, there was a meeting the other day where experts were sharing information about how there have been hundreds of hours of Saddam Hussein speaking in meetings about his bioglogical weapon programs and he says that it will be so easy to load up a car and have bio weapons (germ warfare etc) and blow up the car in downtown Washington DC and a hundred thousand could be killed. He said that he wouldn't do it but there were "others' that would.


I was listening to a radio program today where conservatives are rearing up against President Bush on this issue and there was a man from the Emirates who called up and said that he is outraged that people are assuming that becasue a person is Arabic that means that they are all terrorists. He said that most people who are Arabic hate the terrorists and what they stand for and it is an outrage to judge all of them based on the terrorists. He mentioned Timothy McVeigh and said does the fact that he and otherAmericans practice terrorism mean that all Americans are for terrorism?

The difficult thing about this issue is that it has an impact on the issue of racial profiling- you are judging people who havne't done anything as being guilty through association by means of race. How are the Democrats going to deal with the duality in this issue- should be interesting....

By the way, the Arab groups are outraged today about this issue and the discrimination involved. Looks like the President is the politically correct one here, lol!

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Actually, there was a meeting the other day where experts were sharing information about how there have been hundreds of hours of Saddam Hussein speaking in meetings about his bioglogical weapon programs and he says that it will be so easy to load up a car and have bio weapons (germ warfare etc) and blow up the car in downtown Washington DC and a hundred thousand could be killed. He said that he wouldn't do it but there were "others' that would.

What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? Are we talking about the alleged WMDs in Iraq or port security?

Lynn-- quit with the BS racial profiling allegations because this is matter of national security. Bush racially profiles the countries he invades. You'll never see him invade a white nation will you?

With the current tense geopolitical climate in the world do you think it is really in our best interest to hire an Arabic company to manage our ports and harbors? Am I the only one who understands how insane that sounds if one was to believe Bush's incessant terrorism hyping and steady revising of the Constitution to the Department of Homeland Security's standards.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Lynn7


I was listening to a radio program today where conservatives are rearing up against President Bush on this issue and there was a man from the Emirates who called up and said that he is outraged that people are assuming that becasue a person is Arabic that means that they are all terrorists. He said that most people who are Arabic hate the terrorists and what they stand for and it is an outrage to judge all of them based on the terrorists. He mentioned Timothy McVeigh and said does the fact that he and otherAmericans practice terrorism mean that all Americans are for terrorism?

The difficult thing about this issue is that it has an impact on the issue of racial profiling- you are judging people who havne't done anything as being guilty through association by means of race. How are the Democrats going to deal with the duality in this issue- should be interesting....

By the way, the Arab groups are outraged today about this issue and the discrimination involved. Looks like the President is the politically correct one here, lol!

Lynn a company from a foreign country does not have our security in their best interst. In fact I was pissed to learn that a London based company was in charge before this one.
Screw the Arab outrage America's national security should be handled by Americans. If they want to sell us oil they are more than welcome.

[Lynn7]

Well, let's be consistent here- if we are to stop someone from another country from running our ports then let us also start to search people from other countries who are flying on our airplanes.And let us stop wth the concern about montitoring phone calls made by people who are associating with terrorists. I have no problem with ruling against foreigners running our ports. But it should be equally applied. A British company has been running it and they are the ones selling to the AE. Let's just resrtict it altogether to people who are from the US.

But let's not kid ourselves. The terrorists are most likely going to strike at us from their postions within the US in one of the ways Sadaam Hussein mentioned. It sounds like this stuff has been planned for an awfully long time since those tapes are pretty old.

But although I don't think this is going to fly, I think Bush is smart to take this position becasue it will help his relations with the Arabs because he has placed his trust in them. They will appreciate it- some of them will anyway.

[Joshmo]

Spoken like a well trained Stepford.

Its extreme radical right wing progamming like Lynn's that has cause me to steer away from this section. My anger is too great to deal with this illness. America is under attack from within at the highest levels and what Curious George the chimp has just done is indefensible.

This is nothing short of domestic terrorism.......


I GUARAN-DAM-FUCKING-TEE that if Curious George wasnt against legalized abortion and gay marriage, 95% of christians would jump ship to the Democrats without the need of the Dems to change their stance on these two issues as well!

You people fuckinng KNOW this guy is crazy but you hang on with some sick christian zealotry that this President is a man of God....its fucking sickening.

This is no offense to Christians as I am one. But I am an enemy to zealotry and radical fundaMENTALism.

[ElectricPeanut]

I guess Michael Moore wasn't so crazy after all.

[Lynn7]

So you guys are against the things the Dems have been preaching- about racial profiling etc. That is basically what it all comes down to doesn't it? And though you want to say I am a right wing zealot i have said that I prefer to have our ports owned and operated by Americans but I do not think that will ultimately keep us safe since only a small fraction of incoming cargo is inspected and the terrorists have shown they can adapt to any situation and will do that. We are all just waiting for the next strike and it probably won't be from the ports but from downtown anywhere USA.

[Mr-Blonde]

Whoever said I was a Democrat?

[BubbaStrangelove]

Yeah Lynn - I agree, let's be consistant.

What Bush supports is outsourcing, and I don't like that. He wants to help create jobs for Americans, the least he can do is stop giving the jobs we already have to other countries.

[BorderEevilIII]

hearing bout this makes sooooooo much safer....
its time to clean up the politicians again this coming november folks

[<3mekthx]

Big mistake. This doesn't make a bit of sense from a security standpoint or a political one. I can't see how this administration would think that people would be ok with this.

I don't see this sticking, especially with November in the not-so-distant future.

Its extreme radical right wing progamming like Lynn's that has cause me to steer away from this section.

There's like one person that you could possibly put into that category that posts here(imo). It's not running rampant. Come on.

[Tai Mai Jew]

I think this is a bad move, but nothing more then that, really... I don't believe that if the UAE takes control of operations on few ports, that all of the sudden Americans will die and all hell will break loose. I think thats unrealistic. But I do believe that there are better, or more worthy, people to put in charge of those ports, and thats who should get the job.

[The Heart Collector]

haha this is some funny ass shit. Cheyney shoots someone, Bush hires arabs to work the ports. Man oh man.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah Lynn - I agree, let's be consistant.

What Bush supports is outsourcing, and I don't like that. He wants to help create jobs for Americans, the least he can do is stop giving the jobs we already have to other countries.

Well technically the job was already outsourced because a London based company was in charge previously.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Well technically the job was already outsourced because a London based company was in charge previously.

Well, that's different, they're not Arabs.

Just kidding.

Like you, I was also pissed learning about the London thing. It really makes very little sense -- no, I'm exaggerating, it makes perfect sense in the name of an international market place. I just disagree with it.

[<3mekthx]

USA Today had a nice article on this UAE deal yesterday.

Companies from Denmark and Singapore also 'operate' some of the U.S ports. Didn't mention anything about them being state owned.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Hm. On second thought, this could be a good way to keep the drug supply rich in The States.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Joshmo
Spoken like a well trained Stepford.

Its extreme radical right wing progamming like Lynn's that has cause me to steer away from this section. My anger is too great to deal with this illness. America is under attack from within at the highest levels and what Curious George the chimp has just done is indefensible.

This is nothing short of domestic terrorism.......


I GUARAN-DAM-FUCKING-TEE that if Curious George wasnt against legalized abortion and gay marriage, 95% of christians would jump ship to the Democrats without the need of the Dems to change their stance on these two issues as well!

You people fuckinng KNOW this guy is crazy but you hang on with some sick christian zealotry that this President is a man of God....its fucking sickening.

This is no offense to Christians as I am one. But I am an enemy to zealotry and radical fundaMENTALism.

to that first line: SNAPS!!!

and...i agree.



~darchangel~

[Tai Mai Jew]

I still find it really funny (and hard to believe) that you guys think that Lynn is a "radical extremist of the right wing party", or whatever it is you said.

If this is what you believe, you need to get out more.

Though I don't really agree with her statements, what Lynn says actually has a hint of reality to it, and it actually makes sense, where as an "extreme right wing" individual wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever, and the argument would be so completely bizarre and untrue you’d wonder why so many people actually believe it.

[Lynn7]

The problem is that everyone reacts to the media in an emotional way without any degree of knowledge of the situation. The ports were already foreign owned. The securtiy and the workers are American and will remain American.

It's funny, when people say things like "Stepford" that can work both ways. I could say that you guys are being Stepford because you toe the party line on the other side. I would rather debate the issue and stick to the facts involved- if you think there is a problem then say what it is and discuss it- saying it is wrong to have foreigners run our ports is OK but let's lay down the rules. Which countires are allowed to run the ports and should we assume that just because a country is a friend (like England) that that will guarantee our safety? Maybe our guard will be down as some terrorist infiltrates this Englsih country's business. Just a thought.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I still find it really funny (and hard to believe) that you guys think that Lynn is a "radical extremist of the right wing party", or whatever it is you said.

If this is what you believe, you need to get out more.

Though I don't really agree with her statements, what Lynn says actually has a hint of reality to it, and it actually makes sense, where as an "extreme right wing" individual wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever, and the argument would be so completely bizarre and untrue you’d wonder why so many people actually believe it.

Thanks Tai,
Which of my statements don't you agree with, if I might ask

[Jon Lyrik]

Doesn't the UAE recognize the Taliban? I would say freezing assets would be a good idea if that was so, but so much money is tied up in the Middle East...

...but then again, could this all be the government's way of distracting us? Talking about bullshit "issues" to get votes (Jesus, guns, abortion, gays, social programs). There's got to be a greater evil at work here.

[Tai Mai Jew]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Thanks Tai,
Which of my statements don't you agree with, if I might ask

Well, I guess in all truth, I agree with what you’re saying... but not the way you supported your argument (the “lets be equal” bit). If that makes any sense.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Well, I guess in all truth, I agree with what you’re saying... but not the way you supported your argument (the “lets be equal” bit). If that makes any sense.

The let's be equal in applying the rule you mean? i just think (as I said before) that it is the same as racial profiling. No one has a problem with letting Arabs go through at an airport security check while Grandma is strip searched in the name of equality. I guess I just think we need to take control of all of our ports but if we can't then we need to make sure that we are always in charge of securtiy and that our security processes are always guarded from any internationals. It sounds like this is what is happenning here unless there is some other information out there which we do not know about.

[jeo4]

Any hope I had of the American economy improving has just flown out the window. And didn't the UAE provide a safe haven and financial support for 9/11 hijackers so they could carry out their plans? Way to win that war on terror, Mr. President. At this rate, he'll ruin the economy and let third world nations take us over in no time flat. Any shred of hope I had for this idiot has evaporated completely.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I still find it really funny (and hard to believe) that you guys think that Lynn is a "radical extremist of the right wing party", or whatever it is you said.

If this is what you believe, you need to get out more.

Though I don't really agree with her statements, what Lynn says actually has a hint of reality to it, and it actually makes sense, where as an "extreme right wing" individual wouldn’t make any sense whatsoever, and the argument would be so completely bizarre and untrue you’d wonder why so many people actually believe it.

What hint of reality is that, exactly? The reality in which she constantly takes up for Dick Cheney and his organ grinder monkey regardless of the double talk they spout, or the reality in which she always finds a reason to bring up Bill Clinton's mistakes, regardless of what we're currently discussing?

I don't think Lynn's an extremist; just a religious republican who would rather listen to Ann Coulter's parakeet-esque squawking than Hilary Clinton telling us that outsourcing the ports is a bad fucking idea.

Bush and Cheney have been supposedly rabid about national security, yet they outsource our port authority to other countries. I think it's a bad idea simply because of all the countries we've been pissing off in the last four years.

Lynn says it's doesn't matter who owns the ports, the terrorists will get us anyway. Then why the fuck are we allowing wire taps on civilian phone lines, doing racial profiling and passing the fucking Patriot Act? If we're looking at it that way, we might as well kick back, grab a Heineken and make big signs that say "Bomb away, boys!"

It proves that our leaders care deeply about national security...almost as much as the almighty dollar. I personally don't think any amount of money is worth someone's life, but I'm just a liberal...and we all know we only speak to liberals (if we must).


~darchangel~

[<3mekthx]

About 80 percent of American ports are already run by foreign companies.

Should we do anything about the ones already being run by foreign companies?

Or just the ones that have came under foreign control during this administration? Or just the ones that are partially state-owned?

just a religious republican who would rather listen to Ann Coulter's parakeet-esque squawking than Hilary Clinton telling us that outsourcing the ports is a bad fucking idea.

Would she?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel

Lynn says it's doesn't matter who owns the ports, the terrorists will get us anyway. Then why the fuck are we allowing wire taps on civilian phone lines, doing racial profiling and passing the fucking Patriot Act? If we're looking at it that way, we might as well kick back, grab a Heineken and make big signs that say "Bomb away, boys!"

It proves that our leaders care deeply about national security...almost as much as the almighty dollar. I personally don't think any amount of money is worth someone's life, but I'm just a liberal...and we all know we only speak to liberals (if we must).


~darchangel~

I didn't say it doens' matter who runs our ports I said I would prefer it if they were run by Americans but since they are already foreign run then we have to make some hard decisions. The reason I defend Bush and Cheney has to do with the fact that I agree with much of the Republican philosophy- the reason I don't agree with the Clintons is becasuse I do not share their philosophy- what is so strange about that? It is the same as how you guys are. I can't remember hearing too many negative comments from you guys about the Clintons. Or positive ones about Bush.

As far as Hillary goes, if she was getting money from Dubai she would sell us out in a second. She is totally money and power driven. Name one thing she has ever done that has not profitted her in some way. She is a very canny person and I don't beleive she has too much integrity.