Skip to comments.
Chertoff Defends Review of Ports Takeover
Yahoo News ^
| FEB.19, 2006
| WILL LESTER
Posted on 02/19/2006 8:44:08 AM PST by radar101
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-187 next last
To: kenth; Vn_survivor_67-68
Remembering this article is why I asked the question:
Homeland Security Chief nominee has ties to terrorists as defense lawyer; may have enabled attacks
libertarian oday ^ | 1 22 05 | Melissa Johnson and Sander Hicks
Federal Appeals Court Judge Michael Chertoffs ties to the financiers of the Sept. 11 attacks may prevent his confirmation as Homeland Security Chief.
http://freerepublic.info/focus/f-chat/1327033/posts
41
posted on
02/19/2006 9:11:57 AM PST
by
LucyT
(It's 72 white grapes; it never was 72 virgins: http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7)
To: radar101
"Added Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."
Recall this idiot. "Ensure the American people that their security interests are going to be protected?"
Yea, like they did on 911. No way to ensure us on this one senator. You are a dumba$$ and should step aside.
No need to review . Stop the takeover of our ports first and then our country by muslims. Why can't these idiots get it? How many of our govt folk sworn to protect us do the muslims own already?
42
posted on
02/19/2006 9:12:04 AM PST
by
takenoprisoner
(Afterall, American ports run by muslims is a good thing right?)
To: Dante3
Chertnoff is once again wrong. Either he is clueless or . . . ...or he is on the wrong side?
43
posted on
02/19/2006 9:13:01 AM PST
by
eskimo
(Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
To: LibLieSlayer
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)? The President actually can stop the UAE from doing this.
The intent of Exon-Florio is not to discourage FDI generally, but to provide a mechanism to review and, if the President finds necessary, to restrict FDI that threatens the national security.
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)
44
posted on
02/19/2006 9:13:25 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
To: radar101
This is more globalism, and it stinks. The idea, presumably, is to make Arab countries feel as if they have a stake in the west, that we care. It makes as much sense as handing a mugger an AK47.
45
posted on
02/19/2006 9:15:15 AM PST
by
hershey
To: Stellar Dendrite
46
posted on
02/19/2006 9:16:22 AM PST
by
takenoprisoner
(Afterall, American ports run by muslims is a good thing right?)
To: Ed25
Does everyone here realize that this is only a purchase of the contracts?
...................................................
Can you explain further? Thanks
47
posted on
02/19/2006 9:16:23 AM PST
by
eleni121
('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
To: radar101
It has been pointed out that we need better intelligence and better spys in the field that can infiltrate our enemy's circle of influence.
Perhaps this company could be a good start to get that accomplished?
48
posted on
02/19/2006 9:16:49 AM PST
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
To: Lobbyist
Right, Frank Gaffney also wrote about the David Sanborn connection.
Also, I hear rumors that there is a Neil Bush connection in this matter as well. Keep an eye open for incoming... That could be the reason Chucky and Hilly are jumping on this thing, because they know a Bush element is forthcoming.
49
posted on
02/19/2006 9:17:29 AM PST
by
Sally
To: radar101
"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.Most Americans just plain don't like it. Whether the admin. thinks our concerns are warranted or not, they had better be listening. Our borders are a sieve already, and they're not doing much about that. It's as though we're just begging for another attack.
50
posted on
02/19/2006 9:19:47 AM PST
by
Just Lori
(Trying to reason with a liberal is like sucking spaghetti through a straw)
To: radar101
["We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."]
ASSURANCES?
Assurances brought by the same people who wouldn't investigate the three 9-11 al-queda cells which were discovered in 2000?
This is one of the most outrageous decisions yet by the obviously politically tone deaf Bush Administration.
51
posted on
02/19/2006 9:20:07 AM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
To: Just mythoughts
"While I am no fan of the buyer of this 'port' business, seems that port security is already run by foreigners. I do not recall Congress whelping about security before now."
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.
52
posted on
02/19/2006 9:20:08 AM PST
by
takenoprisoner
(Afterall, American ports run by muslims is a good thing right?)
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
53
posted on
02/19/2006 9:21:06 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: LibLieSlayer
"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)?
Stroke of the pen law of the land for idiots. How many times did Clinton exercise this right?
54
posted on
02/19/2006 9:21:50 AM PST
by
takenoprisoner
(Afterall, American ports run by muslims is a good thing right?)
To: Stellar Dendrite
"The Al Qaeda Training Manual discovered in the UK describes recruiting seaport workers as making good recruits: ------ 'TWELFTH LESSON: ESPIONAGE '"
GREATLY informative post!
(Now if only someone in the globalist-obsessed Bush Administration would read it instead of attending to the more "important" business of "Nation Building.")
To: Final Authority
"Are you saying that there can be no distinction or differences between which foreigner one would allow to enter the USA?"
Is there a distinction now or NOT and if NOT why NOT?
"Would a British private company be run a bit different than say, a nationalized company from a nation that denies the right of Israel to exist?"
So you think private companies around the globe are sorting out terrorists from their ranks? Ha
"How about from a nation who supported the destruction of the WTC?"
From where I sit there were plenty of nations that sat idly by and allowed a whole lot of plotting and planning for the WTC destruction. The majority were not known terrorists homelands either.
"I think couching your opinion as saying you are no fan of this transaction seems to say that you actually would support GWB if he decided that nuking Manhattan would be good as long as it appeased the Islamists."
You are free to think whatever you choose to think, my point is that the global village is populated North to South and East to West with those who seek our demise, and why were we already contracting out port security before this deal? Maybe there is a whole lot of things we do not know about globalism and what little agreements made over the years entitle other nations to have access to.
"The USA is fighting for our survival. It is a border war, a cultural war, and the war to maintain our traditions of language and religion. GWB has demonstrated that he is not fighting this war, so which war is he fighting?"
We have a US Congress that passes any legislation to fund and fight any war, where the .ell are they? You want a tighter border allllll that bunch need do is pen the legislation and fund the activity. Instead what we find in Congress is a bunch of touring tourists traveling around this globe keeping their lobbyist fat and happy.
To: LucyT
Isn't Chertoff a clinton hold over? Someone told me he was just one of those CFR Marxist types that envision themselves as socialist administrators of the planet. They seem to surround the presidential caricature no matter what party sign gets tattooed on it's but.
57
posted on
02/19/2006 9:24:10 AM PST
by
eskimo
(Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
To: Ed25
Does everyone here realize that this is only a purchase of the contracts? The UAE wont be involved in the day to day operations at our ports Then why is Eller & Company opposed? They are the stevedor company in partnership with Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. and are based in Miami.
Firm sues to block foreign port takeover
Dubai firm set to take charge of 6 U.S. ports
The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.
58
posted on
02/19/2006 9:24:37 AM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
To: radar101
Uffda! This is just plain wrong. I think it's time to start following the money on this deal. I'm a little afraid to find out where it leads, though.
I am opposed to this entire deal.
59
posted on
02/19/2006 9:24:55 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: Just mythoughts
While I am no fan of the buyer of this 'port' business, seems that port security is already run by foreigners. I do not recall Congress whelping about security before now. You see no difference between a British-owned company running the ports and one owned by Arabs in UAE/Dubai?
I wonder why no US-based firm stepped up? We know a little about logistics.
Port of Los Angeles
60
posted on
02/19/2006 9:27:17 AM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
(A Liberal: One who demands half of your pie, because he didn't bake one.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-187 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson