Posted on 02/23/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by ARCADIA
NEW YORK -- The Port Authority said Thursday it will file suit to block a Dubai-based firm from taking over operations at a Port Newark container terminal, saying the federal government has not given them assurances about security issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Bottom line is that this deal is a black eye for the admin. no matter what (and I hate to say this). You can call the american public stupid, ignorant, whatever, but the polls are overwhelming against this deal. From a politcal standpoint...the deal is bad news. I don't know why the admin didn't forsee this backlash...
But the law wasn't followed; the Secretary of the Treasury is supposed to chair the panel, various other cabinet officers are on the panel, and none of them apparently participated in the meeting. A bunch of underlings decided there were no security issues, and didn't inform their bosses until the deal was approved in their bosses' names. Anybody in that group that honestly considered that there was no concern about security worthy of informing their superiors should be fired.
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060223:MTFH34018_2006-02-23_19-10-57_N23265870:1
http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/
I'm not so sure they're "anti Bush", I'm not. I've backed him explicitly on most issues, I voted for him, I persuaded others to vote for him. But this deal is like the snow job we're getting from him about our southern borders, amnesty, etc. He's wrong about the UAE and port security; it's a real national security risk that the WH is apparently willing to accept in return for some 'favors' from the UAE in the war on terror.
But these skeiks and jihadis are not as stupid as they look; there's probably a lot of high-fiving going on about this deal in the al Queada circles. All they need to do is get one of their people working in a high capacity for P & O, just one. He'll soon know how the Coast Guard operates security procedures, how cargo is inspected, what gets inspected and what doesn't. He'll make friends with key workers at port security, and he'll generally find out a whole lot about our port security, Customs and CG operations, a real gold mine for al Queada.
Why take this risk while we are at war with islamic terrorists, and our seaports are presently the weakest chink in our armor?
That seems like rather useless speculation. I suppose almost anything could happen in the future. Especially when you are dealing with dictators.
If you remember back a few years, there was a time when Iran was considered a strong ally in the Middle East. Given the way that alliance went south, I'm sure glad they don't have a long term contract to operate a bunch of US Ports.
When you deal with Middle East dictators almost anything can happen. Much like UAE, the Shah was considered a relatively enlightened ruler who was trying to uplift his country and his people. It didn't work out too well and we are hated for our role in supporting his regime.
A lot of the problems we are having in the Middle East now result from our support of dictator regimes there in the past. I believe even the President has acknowledged that truth. I'm not anxious to keep repeating that mistake.
Excellent post.
bttt
Why would our enemies go to so much trouble to infiltrate a UAE company when there are Saudi concerns already performing the same operations here in the U.S.?
DANE: islamofascists attack us in Lebanon, Reagan runs away, while Bush takes out their main base of operation in Afghanistan.
In other words, yes, Dane is equating the two. Two entirely different sets of circumstances, but let's add Reagan-bashing to list of what Bush's defenders will resort to for the sake of this issue.
If they do P&O can probably sue the port for breach of contract. I would imagine P&O has the right to sell their lease.
Interesting. Well, I understood PSA of Singapore didn't want to get involved with the deal and the unions that work these ports.
Keep in mind that Dubia has already had their man appointed to Administer the US Maritime Administration. His appointment was announced on January 26th, 2006. There is more on the betting table the these six ports.
Not twenty minutes ago I made a post with a similar observation. I've never seen so many FReepers defend "moderate" islam before. It's almost comical. In fact, until this port scandal came up I don't think a single FReeper believed that any muslim could be a 'moderate'. Even President Bush is throwing out the liberal tactic of calling the Senate "biased" against muslims. LOL This is getting funny, people are becoming liberal so they can defend a conservative policy.
Because no such company exists, that's why.
The point is that the "All Muslims are terrorists" argument is exactly what the Left wants to hear from us. During the 1960's there were plenty of left-wing terrorists blowing up college campuses; the KKK are terrorists. There are also many Muslims living in this country who came here to escape from that part of the world, and who are very proud to be Americans, particularly Iranians.
DPW out bid another firm to obtain B&O assets. What sweetheart deal?
I guess their perfect solution would be to federalize the ports and Amtrak them.
My $.02... Let the deal go through. Let Congress hold Public debate and hearings to determine that the security functions of the ports will remain under U.S. control.
Move on nothing more to see here.
Bump!
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.