+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Bush gets tough on Port Security

    Heard this discussed last night on the Bill Maher Show.

    Port of Entry
    Frank Gaffney | February 13, 2006
    How would you feel if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government had decided to contract out airport security to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country where most of the operational planning and financing of the attacks occurred? My guess is you, like most Americans, would think it a lunatic idea, one that could clear the way for still more terror in this country. You probably would want to know who on earth approved such a plan -- and be determined to prevent it from happening.

    Of course, no such thing occurred after September 11, 2001 . In fact, the job of keeping our planes and the flying public secure was deemed to be so important that the government itself took it over from private contractors seen as insufficiently rigorous in executing that responsibility.

    Now, however, four-and-a-half years later, a secretive government committee has decided to turn over the management of six of the Nation's most important ports -- in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans -- to Dubai Ports World following the UAE company's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which previously had the contract.

    This is not the first time this interagency panel -- called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.

    Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments.

    Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:

    1) America 's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.

    2) Entrusting information about key U.S. ports -- including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so.

    3) At the risk of being politically incorrect, the proposed new management will also complicate the job of assuring that the personnel working in these ports pose no threat to their operations -- or to the rest of us. To the extent that we must remain particularly vigilant about young male Arab nationals as potential terrorists, it makes no sense to provide legitimate grounds for such individuals to be in and around some of this country's most important strategic assets.

    4) Of particular concern must be the implications for energy security as a very large proportion of the Nation's oil imports come through the Atlantic and Gulf State ports that the UAE company hopes to take over. For example, Philadelphia alone handles some 85% of the oil coming into the East Coast; New Orleans is responsible for one-seventh of all of our imported energy.

    Given such considerations, the question occurs: How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?

    Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

    Or is it because the U.S. government views -- and is determined to portray -- the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.

    Whatever the explanation, the Nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets -- including those that have a military or homeland security dimension -- determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.

    Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.
    Copyright 2006 Frank Gaffney.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005

    Re: Bush gets tough on Port Security

    Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal

    Senate Majority Leader Frist Calls for Halt to Deal Giving Arab Firm Control of U.S. Ports
    The Associated Press
    WASHINGTON - Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.

    "The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

  3. #3
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005

    Re: Bush gets tough on Port Security

    I have to wonder how Bush selling out his country he says he'll defend with everything he can, is equated in his mind with getting tough with port security? It boggles the mind how he justifies turning them over to the "enemy".

    Lady Mod

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Re: Bush gets tough on Port Security

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    I have to wonder how Bush selling out his country he says he'll defend with everything he can, is equated in his mind with getting tough with port security? It boggles the mind how he justifies turning them over to the "enemy".

    Lady Mod

    There's far more to this than meets the eye. Why would Rove allow Bush to take this kind of heat? If Bush really decides to butt heads with his own party in Congress, who are scattering like cockroaches to distance themselves from it, this means he's really got his ass in a sling and can't afford to drop trowel .....no matter what.

    It will be quite interesting to see what the UAE has on The Bush Regime. It must be pretty damn juicy.

    Let the games begin.
    Last edited by dante; 02-22-2006 at 03:39 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005

    Re: Bush gets tough on Port Security

    Follow the money, my guess is a friend of the VP will get rich off this deal.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005

    Re: Bush gets tough on Port Security

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    I have to wonder how Bush selling out his country he says he'll defend with everything he can, is equated in his mind with getting tough with port security? It boggles the mind how he justifies turning them over to the "enemy".

    Lady Mod
    We already know in Bush's twisted little mind that there 'good terrists' and 'bad terrists'. The 'bad' ones make the bombs the 'good' ones supply the money to the 'bad' ones who make the bombs. Which explains is why he kisses up to the Saudi's and the Chinese.
    Plus somebody in Bush's inner circle is making money on this deal.
    It churns my stomach to see dubbya making kissy face with the Saudi Royal Family.
    The relation he has with the Saudi's is the same that a degenerate gambler has with his bookie.
    The same might be true with the UAE.

Similar Threads

  1. RETHUGS tough on national security? THINK AGAIN
    By KFIA in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2015, 06:56 AM
  2. Notice how many Bush "tough asses" are not in Iraq
    By California Surfin in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 03:52 PM
  3. Bush and Irag Govt: TOUGH ****, BUSHIE!!!
    By Long Time Austinite in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-31-2007, 07:08 AM
  4. Port Security Won’t Bankrupt Us
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 02:49 PM
  5. Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-22-2006, 04:26 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
2001, 9/11, abc, access, administration, afford, airport, america, approved, arab, ass, ate, attacks, avigation, bad, based, bill, bombs, bring, bush, called, calls, cannot, cargo, caused, cer, chairman, chinese, coming, commit, company, company., con, congressional, continue, contract, contracting, control, correct, country, dam, damn, david, day, deal, decided, decision, defend, department, director, don, double, drop, dubai, early, earth, east, emirates, enemy, energy, error, europe, experts, eye, face, family, feel, fight, financing, find, firm, foreign, free, games, give, good, governors, handles, happening, heads, hey, his, hold, homeland, house, huge, ial, ime, important, include, individuals, information, investment, investments, ion, jersey, job, kind, large, last, lead, leader, legitimate, les, london, long, longer, lunatic, maher, making, male, matter, mea, military, mind, money, more, move, named, nation, national, national security, ner, new jersey, night, number, official, oil, only, operations, orleans, party, person, plan, planes, planning, plans, politically, politics, potential, prevent, private, process, public, quote, rated, record, regime, remain, republican, respect, responsibilities, responsibility, rest, results, review, rich, ripped, risk, role, rove, royal, saudi, sca, secure, security, selling, sense, sensitive, september, simply, states, stop, submit, summer, supply, targets, terror, they, threat, time, tough, trac, transfer, transportation, treasury, trolling, trusted, tuesday, u.s., u.s. government, uae, united, united states, url, vital, white, white house, working, world, worse, writing, years, york, young

View Tag Cloud



Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts