“I think the anxiety and the concern [over the ports deal with the United Arab Emirates or UAE] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate.”
That wasn’t a quote from a Democratic Senator… it’s a quote from former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge… who is a republican… and a Bush supporter…
Ridge went on to recommend that the Bush (Whacked) administration needs to go to Capitol Hill to show how America's security will be improved and why national security wouldn't be hurt by the deal that gives a company based in the UAE management of six major U.S. ports.
Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of homeland security he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns and officials would not jeopardize national security and rejected the requests (what's changed since Ridge left the post? Absolutely nothing)
At issue is that earlier this month, shareholders of British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O – which has been running ports in the United States since 1999) approved the company's acquisition by a group owned by Dubai Ports World, which is based in the capital of the United Arab Emirates (BTW, the six affected ports are in New York; New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) While several lawmakers consider the UAE to have possible terrorist ties, the Bush administration says the country is a key ally in the war on terror.
Sunday, several lawmakers (Democrat & Republican) questioned the deal, with two of them calling for a congressional probe.
On Friday, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced a plan to introduce legislation that would essentially ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News on Sunday “We certainly should investigate it. I don't know if we should block it. But it's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, who avows to destroy Israel.”
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) agreed, stating, also on Fox News, “I think we've got to look into this company.”
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) also denounced the deal, saying the UAE has “a sad history with terrorism” and asked for “President” Bush to intervene.
Not surprisingly, Homeland Security Secretary, and Bush Whipping Boy Michael “xx” Chertoff said the sale was reviewed by several federal agencies.
So… we have a former head of DHS (who’s a Republican)… a well-known Republican Senator… and many Democrat Senator’s asking (on Fox News no less) for this plan to, at the very least, be reviewed before it’s put into place. What does administration do? What it always does… ignores all of it, goes to the extreme right of some of it’s own party-members, and sends their latest whipping boy (who’s already been through the ringer this week) onto all the Sunday talkers to praise the plan and hype its safety.
A lot of people drank the kool-aid over this agreement… let’s hope not everyone does…
Monday, February 20, 2006
Any Port in a Storm?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
"Not surprisingly, Homeland Security Secretary, and Bush Whipping Boy Michael “xx” Chertoff said the sale was reviewed by several federal agencies."
Would these be the same guys that reviewed Halliburton's no-bid contract and oversaw Iraq's reconstruction contracts?
Just wondering.
Good post, by the way.
Breaking news. Pentagon official says that Russia was involved in supplying Hussein with WMD's and also helpd Hussein move them to several locations.
Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD
Oh my God Oh my God! What the heck is going on? My administration has allowed an arab run business (or should I say arab gov't run business?) to run six of our ports? My man Dubya had better rectify this and NOW. The UAE actually recognized the taliban as a gov't.....birds of a feather DO flock together. Scott, Kemp, we do agree on this one....
If the administration could definitively prove that there were WMD in Iraq and had been moved, why aren't they burning the midnight oil to get that proof out.
Instead they do nothing except smoke and mirrors.
One persons lecture does not change the facts as they currently stand.
Scott - "why aren't they burning the midnight oil to get that proof out."
Well, I didn't think I would have to explain this to you but two simple reasons come to mind.
1. Finding the evidence would only prove something to Democrats and since when has the Bush administration cared about Democrats?
2. The WMD's were moved into at least two other terrorist countries (Syria and Lebanon). Hmm? Maybe they wouldn't let us into their country without a fight. Hmm? Isn't America's support for war efforts diminishing because of the cost and number of deaths?
This same information was reported by Hussein's second in command as well. Therefore, my question to you is, "Would you approve of the U.S. going into these countries to find and destroy the WMD's?".
Probably Not.
As my esteemed collegue has said before, sarcasm doesn't come across very wll in the written form.
My question of the midnight oil was rhetorical in nature.
There will always be those who will create and procure WMD's, we cannot invade every country on a whim...
Also, the proof would not serve to satisfy Democrats alone, but a true 'majority' of the American people as well as our now hesitant allies.
Proof would be necessary for the administration to keep from further sliding into the abyss of half-truths and outright lies that like it or not, have become perceived if not very real stigma that the Republicans would like to very quickly shake.
this action is retarded, even for the clueless bush administration.
Post a Comment