Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paul Ross
Mr. Kane refers to the failed DPW deal as a "bipartisan embarassment." It was. Had the deal gone through, security at the terminals in question would have improved, as part of the security proposals that DPW itself submitted. Frankly, it's not a very effective argument to claim that the DPW deal should have failed because the U.S. is failing to provide national security elsewhere. And that was the gist of my comment. Howling "national security" when it is not implicated diminishes the concern when it actually is, as the reports you post point out.
9 posted on 04/19/2006 2:32:35 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: 1rudeboy
Had the deal gone through, security at the terminals in question would have improved.

Although I was willing to be persuaded on that issue, the slandering of the American people made that a tough sell. And the ones who reached so swiftly for that approach to argument made them unlikely salesmen. And it cast doubt on the strrength and legitimacy of any solid arguments in their position...which by then had been obfuscated by their defamatory shenanigans.

They had impeached themselves in effect.

Improved security according to who precisely? Treasury Secretary Snow? His former deputy at the Maritime Admin. and former DPW executive? The Commerce Secretary? I don't think these folks are going to win any prizes for popular credibility.

And keep in mind...there were very serious internal objections which someone in Treasury went way, way out of their way to conceal. It took Senate hearings and testimony to drag the existence of these objections out of the personnel. Meanwhile the proponents in the press had been trumpeting how it had been unanimously approved without dissent in CFIUS. Rather misleading, eh? It wasn't just the Coast Guard which objected (but was overruled) and could not vet the company. Homeland Security also objected, but also got overruled...based on the same paper 'assurances' apparently. Not a procedural fix with a U.S. subsidiary or some such approach. And Dubai was demanding waivers of our standard, routine requirements. A U.S. officer for legal purposes, etc. And someone in Treasury was-all-too-eager to give it to them. And Sec. Snow claims not to have known about the deal... No. It never passed the smell test.

And as we know, the DOD was conflicted and held hostage...not wanting to offend their host in Dubai.

Any security assurances or measures DPW 'agreed' to would have only given a false sense of security.

CFIUS was exposed to the public for what it was. Corrupt. CFIUS rejected only one of the roughly 1500 transactions submitted for its approval, per a 2005 government report. That’s not just a “bias to approve;” it’s a rubber stamp.

And the proponents decisively and definitively proved my point...they howled "protectionist" playing the 'free trade' card when all that was ever at issue was precisely that of national security. Your's is the side crying wolf. Or that the sky will fall.

The traders have destroyed the President's credibility, not just his popularity...and they have no one to blame but themselves. They had the entire President's staff reading Thomas Friedman's stupid book "The Earth is Flat"...which preaches nothing but magical thinking on national security.

Strange. Pot, meet kettle.

10 posted on 04/19/2006 3:19:23 PM PDT by Paul Ross (We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson