Posted on 02/22/2006 8:31:23 AM PST by Kaslin
WASHINGTON — President Bush was unaware that a controversial deal to sell shipping operations at six major U.S. seaportsto a United Arab Emirates-owned firm was in the works until it was approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.
After Bush repeatedly
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I've had no problems refuting your emotionally-charged, baseless arguments. Perhaps visit the thread called Growing criticism puzzles many in shipping industry"
Nahhh, that wouldn't be any fun. Hardly any Nervous Nellies have shown up there. Wonder why? LOL
There are two things we should be concerned about, in my opinion: dangerous individuals and small but deadly packages.
Both are extremely unlikely to arrive via shipping container while they can still arrive by plane or truck.
A 20 year old terrorist of Jordanian extraction with a Spanish passport and no criminal record coming on a work visa is far more likely to arrive on a plane than to be packed into a shipping conmtainer for weeks with a carefully concealed water and food supply and air-conditioning source, the connivance of a number of crewmen, the bribing or deceiving of multiple harbormasters, forging of inventories, etc. at the enormous personal and financial risk of dozens of individuals and multiple corporations.
A small and dangerous package is less likely to enter the US via a port, with police and inspectors and receiving managers and dogs and metal/radiation detectors than it is to arrive in the dead of night over the Canadian or Mexican border in the trunk of a used Honda.
Terrorists, like anyone else, are risk averse and avoid overly complicated scenarios with numerous risky steps.
The UAE is cosmopolitan. This is the London of the Middle East. We don't have rioters here. Dubai is about making money. You don't know what you are talking about. I live here.
"President Bush was unaware that a controversial deal to sell shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a United Arab Emirates-owned firm was in the works until it was approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.
After Bush repeatedly defended the deal in recent days and threatened to use his veto power against any congressional legislation aimed at stalling it,"
He didn't know about it but he was going to veto its defeat? Huh?
Just wait and see what a ball the Democrats have with this. I've said all I am going to say about the subject. When Hillery marches into the White House, oh, never mind.
I doubt he will, honestly, although I'd love to see him take a stand. But this fight isn't worth it. He has threatened to veto any legislation put forth to block this deal. Which will NOT occur if the deal goes through Congressional review - because then everyone will realize how foolish this argument has been.
Concerning the November election results, they will have absolutely nothing to do with who is educated about this matter and who is not. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter!
And then, after assurances that the deal has been thoroughly reviewed for security implications, we found it that it is CONTINGENT upon not having a second, more exhaustive review. So the Bush Admin has not been straight with us.
They need to make their case - clearly and without a threat of a veto. IMO they would be lucky to get 25 percent of the vote on an override if it happened today - this matter is drawing that much bipartisan concern.
And I'm sure I'll get a fresh round of attacks. I'm beyond caring what the knee-jerk defenders think of me any longer.
Oh, well now you've convinced me with your profound, point-by-point analysis!
Can you please tell me why a deal handing over the payroll, financial and logistical operations of 7 ports is a serious concern for you?
But Bush insists this deal is well-scrutinized (like Harriet Miers?) and he is ready to pull out his veto pen for the first time, to defend it?
I fear this is going to get really, really nasty, and I don't mean just here at FR.
Are you refering to your post about the president not being aware of all decisions under him?
Of course he can't be, however 2 things. 1. That is why he has people like Rove working for him to see the political implications of actions. And this was not a postmaster of akron decision, this one has huge security implications that his cabinet should have realized. My bet is they did realize but thought they could get it under the radar.
2. To have him defend a decision that he now says he was not aware of at the time of approval and then saying he will veto it when he hasn't vetoed anything before congress is ignoring the very people you put into office. THAT my friend is a HUGE HUGE mistake.
cave in as soon as the see a "greenback dollar" <<< LOL!!
Nobody has seen one since the privately owned Federal Reserve hi-jacked Art 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution...as somebody once said....Follow the money!...or as the magician says...Watch my left hand...pay close attention..
(Hell,..even Greenspan understood the process...http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html no doublespeak there!..compare that to his last speeches where it takes 8-10 talking heads to explain what he said)
Let's calculate your risk. We lose all our allies in the ME because we can't trust ANY of them and they join together to come at us full force. Bright long term view.
Next the Dems win the '08 election because the Pubs are lying hypocritical so and so's who SAID they are in the ME to "help" Muslims but can't trust the counties that let us launch our base of operations to conduct said war.
Talk about Micheal Moore material...this will make him look like a genius, and that takes some doing.
Long term effect of the Dems winning '08...kiss your security goodbye.
Slight difference between knowiung the postmaster of Akron and knowing that six ports are being sold to Arab nations.
Your point is idiotic.
If they're going to turn against us over one business deal that gets understandably turned down then they're not very good allies to begin with.
This "Need them onboard" excuse is weak, and I hear it used far too often to explain away why we're doing something that makes no sense as regards them.
If they're really our allies then they can be glad about all their other business deals with us and forget about this one.
I disagree. A dirty bomb or a large-scale chemical weapon explosion would be far more devastating than anything that could be carried by hand. And a large number of security experts believe that if such a weapon does make it here, it would arrive by shipborne-container. It would not even need to be offloaded to be set off. And IMO it would only take a couple of al Qaeda sympathizers being involved with the management of the company to help that happen.
Throw in the fact that the deal is contingent upon not having the second, more rigorous 45-day review and this just doesn't come across right without a far better review and a better defense from the Bush Admin other than the first use of the veto pen.
My little brother, a two-tour Iraq veteran, says that Dubai was far and away the American-friendliest place he visited in the ME.
Makes sense to me.
Bush: "What's all this crap about some Dem press release and Arabs running our ports?"
Aide: "It's a deal recently approved by CFIUS."
Bush: "Get me Sec. Snow on the phone... Johnny, Dubya here. Any security concerns over this Dubai firm? No? Did you run it past DoD and the Homeland Security folks? Oh, that's right, they're on that committee you chair. Good work, and keep that economy humming!"
Bush: "Anyone know how to spell "veto?"
Three words. Manifests. Security procedures.
If al Qaeda sympathizers in management tell al Qaeda where the security holes are, it increases the chances they will be able to make sure a weapon hidden in a container will not be one of the five percent that is inspected. And if they can alter manifests (logistical operations), that would help hide a suspect container from the Coast Guard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.