Chertoff Defends Review of Ports Takeover

Yahoo News ^ | FEB.19, 2006 | WILL LESTER

[DJ MacWoW]

See post 44.

The quote is from the CFIUS page and Bush has the power to block this.

[skip_intro]

How is the Bush administration supposed to stop two NON-AMERICAN owned companies from consumating this business transaction (in which America holds no legal authority)?

So in your view, even though they're our ports, we have no say when it comes to who runs them.

Better hope bin Laden doesn't buy a controlling interest in DPW, then.

[LibLieSlayer]

Well after reading your links, and reading some on what investigations have taken place, I can see why Presidential powers have NOT been used to stop this transaction. I can see foreign companies ceasing to do business (inside of the US) over this. buchanan would be thrilled, but our economy would shrink to that of a Luxembourg.

No, what needs to be done is that if security threats occur due to this transaction, we need these 6 American ports to find new companies to run them. Contracts can be modified or canceled. This is the proper course of action, not one in which legitimate foreign investment is threatened (by the FED). That is the Cuban/Soviet model!

LLS

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

We should not have anybody named "Mohammed" running these ports. Has Bush lost his mind?

[Just mythoughts]

"The issue is whether or not our ports should be run by muslims who hate us and intend to destroy us. And this not all muslims crap won't fly anymore. We don't want any muslims claiming to be moderate BS running our ports period."


We are NOT assured that any foreign private company will not hire (your word) 'muslims' my word is terrorists either.

[reasonisfaith]

Letting UAE “take over” our ports appears to be a huge mistake. But look at who is coming out on this story. Hillary, Schumer, Graham. My question is: how much of this is a real story and how much is political maneuvering?

[Rapscallion]

I am trying to be polite here too.

No foreign country should be protecting our border or operating any US port. Talk about taking a risk. Chertoff ought to go. ASAP!

[Marius3188]

It would be interesting if a “a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates” is considered a “foreign power”.

“If” the Ports are owned by the States then our little Constitution could get in the globalists way again.

Article 1 Section 10

No state shall, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any AGREEMENT or compact with another state, or with a FOREIGN POWER, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Looks like another Harriet Myers debacle.

Harriet Myers wasn't in a position to nuke NY City. The Arabs desperately want to do so.

[LibLieSlayer]

See my post #63. Who are you calling an idiot?

LLS

[takenoprisoner]

thank you

[Cagey]

This is the proper course of action, not one in which legitimate foreign investment is threatened (by the FED).

You seem to have forgotten that we are at war.

During war, the course of action should be to do what is in the best interest of our National Security. Having Port contracts, and/or operations, run by a foreign country is not in our best interest.

[no-to-illegals]

our elected are only trying to give new methods to the 'enemy at the gates' play book game plan.

[navyguy]

Chertoff needs to learn 2 words he will be hearing more of in the future...

ALLAHU AKBAR!

[Let's Roll]

I remember when he was introduced as the new head of HS, my first thought was ... "Are they kidding with this apppointment?"

[LibLieSlayer]

Please read my post #63. Why do you assume I am in favor of this newly merged company running port operations?

BTW, NO ONE is taking over OUR ports! Become informed. You are on the right side of the argument (concerned about security), but you need to KNOW the facts to argue correctly. Contracts may need to be cancelled, and an AMERICAN company chosen to run port operations. What we have no business doing, is stopping what appears to be a legitimate International business deal. We just DO NOT have to do business with them, if security is threatened.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

"No foreign country should be protecting our border or operating any US port".

The BRITISH have been running these ports for many years. Why is it NOW that you find yourself concerned about "foreign" companies running our ports (dims and the media attention)? It has been this way for many years.

NO, I am NOT in favor of letting this newly merged company continue to run these ports. We need to find out more about the actual situation first. Then if needed, we cancel contracts and reissue to American companies.

LLS

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

...or he is on the wrong side?

I'll say it.....everything he has done and not done indicates that he has some other interest with a greater priority that the well-being of America.

[no-to-illegals]

ever notice when we do roll....the first thing yelled at this blog is 'you're trash'

[LibLieSlayer]

I know this! After thorough review, if we find security concerns with this DUTCH/UAE company merger, we should reissue these contracts to American companies.

What we should NOT do, is inject the US into what appears to be a legitimate INTERNATIONAL business deal. We DO NOT have to do business with them if we decide that it is NOT in OUR best interest. This is the way the "free market" system should work.

LLS