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 ...
Again, did the anthrax terrorism that paralyzed the nation's capital arrive on a Washington DC dock, or via the US Postal Service?
I may be idiotic, but at least I'm aware of world events over the past five years. More than I can say for you.
Why would knowing who the Akron manager of the post office be important to the President??
Exactly. All shipping containers are locked at the point of departure and unlocked when they arrive at the recipient's location. Not all containers are opened at the ports for security reasons. Believe the percentage is rather low.
Nevermind!!! I see you were being sarcastic!!
Go back to sleep, or watching cartoons.
Dubai loves tourism. I've noticed a lot of promotion on the Travel channel as well as the entertainment networks. Exceedingly rich country.
Rush just made a good point. The UAE airliners fly in and out of our airports everyday! Couldn't they just as easily be infiltrated and fly into buildings instead? The point being that we are never going to be 100% safe. We either trust our security meaasures that are in place or we don't. Apparently, the Coast Guard is stationed in the UAE and inspects the tankers originating from there. I do think that the PR from the WH on this has been terrible and the majority of Americans have no idea how the ports are operated. Perhaps, if they did, this firestorm would never have erupted.
Yes, by changing the law (within the parameters of the Constitution). [insult laugh track here]
Not by demanding access to executive info/processes whenever they feel political heat.
If only it were that simple for W.
It's not as cut-and-dried as you're making it out to be.
including the GOP leaders of both the House and the Senate
I didn't say that House GOPers weren't gullible - merely that we know what the source of this controversy is and it wasn't ginned up by Republicans.
You said:
I agree that a more involved review would have been more politic, and I think that the President threatened a veto because he saw that this is just Democrats trying to gin up a long-burning controversy for their advantage.
How long do you think it will take our President to understand that this is not only the Democrats concerned with this?
At the very least, our President owes the citizens an EXPLANATION of why our ports cannot be operated and managed by United States interests. That is the question I have.
Fantastic analysis!
Someone should ask Rush why he doesn't support the mandatory 45-day review of the transaction as specified by federal law? It's the law.
And, once again, prior to 9-11, did hijackers take planes with the intent of using them as guided missiles against targets, other than in Tom Clancy novels?
You don't just defend against the last attack. You have to work long and hard to prepare for the next one using new techniques. Putting a weapon on a ship docking at a port puts it right next to a large American city.
It's amazing that you have the gall to call anyone else's posts idiotic.
I'll ask another question: how many of the 9/11 hijackers arrived in the US via shipping container?
Make sure you PING me when the White House does something about the borders. This is just another symptom of this administration's inexplicable nonchalance about national security. And none of it adds up. Why commit our forces to Iraq if we won't even protect our own borders? Why let Syria run the Ba'ath insurgency with impunity? Why are we allowing Iran to go nuclear?
It doesn't add up and people are frustrated and the WH has done everything in its power to contradict itself on its stated priorities.
I'm still not understanding the "why". Perhaps you could give us the facts?
Oh, come on. There is a 30-day review and a 45-day review. Can you come up with any rationale, either political or regarding national security concerns, that would justify NOT having the 45-day review, especially when a ME government-owned company is involved?
Amen that that. If wideawake is so concerned about individuals carrying small packages over the border, he/she would be howling at the Bush Admin to seal the borders.
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.