posted on February 21, 2006 01:21:35 PM new
...to his ARAB buddies:
"“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.”
Well, gee-whiz, ya MORON, GREAT BRITAIN has been our FRIEND & ALLY for over 100 YEARS, whereas UAE...HAS NOT!
In other NEWS:
The GHOST of Warren G. Harding has been observed recently DANCING ON HIS GRAVE,yelling to the HEAVENS: "See! I ain't the DUMBEST & MOST INCOMPETANT President in HISTORY!"
"Say, Boo-Boo! Bill O'Reilly just sent me a really cool SPONGE to try -- I'll warsh your back and then you can warsh my back!"
WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.
''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''
The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.
Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.
''This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.
REPUBLICANS WORRIED
Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.
''After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern,'' said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.
Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.
''I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. ``We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches.''
Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a ''rigorous review process.'' His comments came after he was asked if Bush was ''comfortable'' with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.
The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter ``raises issues.''
At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.
Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.
Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.
''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''
PREJUDICE ALLEGED
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''
But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.
''They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.
Miami Herald staff writer Steve Harrison contributed to this report from Miami.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 21, 2006 07:45:41 PM new
Hey DUMBO BUSH,
Its a British company not run by a Government.
Hey DUMBO BUSH, America does not want our Sea Ports run by a company owned by and run by an Arab Country. An Arab country with ties to 9/11 terrorist.
Hey Bear, WHO ARE you going to defend TODAY AND TOMORROW DUMBO BUSH or REPUBLICAN CON-servative lawmakers coming out against DUMBO BUSH? THERE SEEMS TO BE YET ANOTHER SIDE CHOOSING RIFF IN YOUR PARTY OLD BOY!!! LOL
I AM BETTING YOU WON'T OR CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YOUR PARTY HAS YOU BACKED INTO ANOTHER CORNER WITHOUT MUCH TO SAY.
POOR BEAR,IS SO DESPERATE HE'S BEEN REDUCED TO QUOITING PRES.CARTER!!! THOUGHT I'D NEVER SEE THE DAY. LOL
HOLD ON BEAR, IN A DAY OR SO GOOD OLD KARL ROVE WILL COME UP WITH A TALKING POINT YOU CAN BE A PARROT FOR AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT WAS GIVING FULL CONTROL BY MILLIONS OF WELL MEANING AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOW THE SAME CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT HAS BLEW IT WITH THEIR FAILURES FOR THOSE SAME WELL MEANING PEOPLE.
posted on February 21, 2006 08:30:44 PM newSHEEPA, IF YOU GOT A NEW BATTERY FOR YOUR HEARING AID YOU WOULDNT HAVE TO SHOUT
So whats the problem, you cant accept the fact another of your democrat idols is agreeing with Pres Bush????????
How hypricital you are. You defend muslim terrorists then condem them for attempting to buy out a Brit company.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
[ edited by Bear1949 on Feb 21, 2006 08:32 PM ]
posted on February 22, 2006 04:59:38 AM new
Bear,
Who are you going to support now Bush or the Conservative law makers that are coming out against Bush?
Your not going to make me believe your just another Conservative with no answers are ya?
I can't wait to read your answer Bear.
Bear slams Carter, says he was the worst President ever. Now Bear who is stuck for words agrees with Carter. LOL
Bear I do have to give you credit you are a conservative that did say a few words no matter how weak those words are. All the other cowards calling themselves CON-servatives are very quite. I guess they are waiting for Karl Rove to give them a talking point to repeat like parrots over and over and over. LOL
I can't wait to see the next poll on DUMBO will he hit the high 20% soon?
THE CONSERVATIVES ARE SELLING OUT AMERICA.
REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU VOTE IN 2006.
posted on February 22, 2006 05:09:24 AM new
I'm still pretty much speechless over all of this. However, it does strengthens my belief that Bush is in bed with the Arabs. There are some things I don't understand and perhaps someone here can clear them up for me.
Why a FOREIGN company to secure our ports? Are there no US companies capable of doing that? Maybe we should just erect a giant FOR SALE sign on the White House.
And, what kind of reaction did Bush expect? Since 9/11, he's been cramming the threat of terrorism down every American's throat. At ever turn he has used it to get his way. So now American's are just supposed to forget he ever said anything? Is this guy off his rocker, or what?
I do applaud those Repugs in congress who are taking a strong stand against this move. I don't know if they are doing it purely for political reasons (it is an election year) or if they truely believe a potential threat could exist. Whatever the reason may be, I'm glad the Democrats and Republicans are seeing eye-to-eye on thsi one.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on February 22, 2006 05:51:20 AM new Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
New York Daily NewsWASHINGTON -
The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The New York Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day investigation should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the president has until March 2 to trigger that closer look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
"Our port security sucks. The Dubai run ports can hardly be worse than the rest of them."
"I fully understand the dangers the US faces. I’ve favored a strong national defense and a strong offensive capacity as part of that. But the war on terror has distorted the reality and perception of what that means to such a degree that much of the nation is willing to use elephants to crush both mice and ice (the ice of royalists sipping Bloody Americans) while failing to see that the worrisome rodents are the rats calling the shots, and that there are freaking rhinoceroses lurking around that could do far more damage to our national viability than 90% of the terrorists ever could."
"I’m far more concerned with China, Russia and Pakistan than with the 350,000 people our NSA has identified as terrorist threats. Sure, there are some Islamicists like Bin Laden and Zawahiri that are truly dangerous. But I believe we can keep their numbers small with a rational foreign policy instead of the histrionics that have been planned and fanned by anti-humanists like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al."
"Sorry, I’m skipping this anti-Dubai bandwagon, because it plays right into the hands of the rats. The only potential positive I can see in this is that it may finally provide a full discussion of how lousy our port security as a whole is."
"When the day comes that a nuke is detonated from some US port, who do we trust to properly identify its source? China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan could do it today. But if it happened, who would Bush launch a counterstrike against? The real perp? Or some nation dripping in oil wealth that he can divvy up in concert with our real attackers?"
"I’m sure I’ll take heat for suggesting Bush could be that big a traitor. But that’s okay. I’m sure he is."
posted on February 22, 2006 08:58:07 AM new
::Why a FOREIGN company to secure our ports?::
This is the big problem Cheryl. They are not in charge of securing the port. WE are in charge of securing the port. US Homeland Security remains in charge of securing the port. They are the ones in charge of inspections and everything else. If this company really was not to be trusted and had all these nefarious whispered associations... do you think the Brits would have allowed the sale? They have ports whose management will be affected as well.
BTW - Want a twist on why Bush might be for this one? Homeland Security has dropped the ball on port security issues. They don't have alot of the monitoring equipment and such that should be installed in these ports done even now. At least now though they have a fall guy if something gets thru that shouldn't. They don't have to take responsibility for their own failure, it'll be the arabs fault. It's almost as good as having an undated doctors note.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Feb 22, 2006 09:29 AM ]
posted on February 22, 2006 11:10:48 AM new
The part of my question not answered: Are there no US companies capable of doing that?
Why an Arab company? Why not a US company? I think a whole lot of people would feel a whole lot better if an American company would be doing the inspecting. Not a company with ties to 9/11!
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on February 22, 2006 11:22:20 AM new
There are US companies that are capable of port management.
My question is why all the furror about a Saudi company taking over the port management when all the left are so opposed to profiling of arabs/muslims.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 22, 2006 11:43:55 AM new
Because no US company wanted the job? Have you noticed one coming forward with an offer?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
Maureene Dowd pointed out the financial angle today in the New York Times.
excerpt...GOP to W.: You're Nuts!
"One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them."
"Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?"
posted on February 22, 2006 01:05:57 PM newMy question is why all the furror about a Saudi company taking over the port management when all the left are so opposed to profiling of arabs/muslims.
P&O was bought by a United Arab Emirates investment group. That group of emirates is not aligned with the Saudi family, or the territory they control. Please attend a refresher course on Middle-eastern geopolitics.
posted on February 22, 2006 01:15:10 PM new"One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them."
posted on February 22, 2006 03:26:25 PM new
All security operations at our Sea Ports will be shared with the Arab Dubai Ports World company if they take over.
Why don't we bypass the middle man and sell all our Sea Port security operations to Al- Quaida itself.
Now the Arab money is starting to flow. I heard today Bob Dole is now the Arab's payroll. He was hired to lobby lawmakers.
Looks like again the conservative lawmakers will be paid to give the ARABS THE BEST SEA PORT SECURITY INFORMATION ARAB MONEY CAN BUY.
SHAME ON YOU GEORGE BUSH,SHAME ON YOU BOB DOLE. YOU BOTH SHOULD BE WORKING WITH MRS.DOLE TO BRING BACK LOST TEXTILE JOBS TO THE CAROLINAS.
posted on February 22, 2006 03:54:26 PM new
I personally think this is a great idea. Perhaps people don't quite understand the definition of capitalism. Privitization is always beneficial. Greed is good. Unchain the Invisible Hand. Shrink the government until it fits into a bathtub. If you think otherwise, you are a damn pinko commie bastard.
Who cares if the ports are controlled by the same people that finance Al-Qaeda and demand the destruction of Israel? If you think otherwise you are a racist. Don't the Dutch control some of our ports or something? Nobody cares about that. The Dutch are pure evil and everybody knows it.
For once Bush is right. People are blowing this out of proportion. Who rides in boats anymore, anyway?
Change the Constitution...
Bush/Cheney '08 is what I say!
posted on February 22, 2006 03:56:57 PM newPlease attend a refresher course on Middle-eastern geopolitics.
Reread my statement... furror about a Saudi company taking over the port management when all the left are so opposed to profiling of arabs/muslims.
In other words, to make it sinple for you to understand, the left is being hypocritical in protesting a ARAB OWNED company managing port operations in several US cities, when they are so opposed to profiling of ARABs.
This same company that is buying out P & O already manages port operations in the UAE where the US NAVY refuels and reprovisions their ships.
--------
Port Paranoia: Prudence or Prejudice?
February 22, 2006 01:36 PM EST
The news that a company based in the United Arab Emirates will be operating several seaports in the US has ignited a political firestorm. Democrats, sensing an issue they could turn to their advantage, raced to denounce President Bush even faster (and louder) than usual. However, there's no substance to their attacks. What surprises me is how many Republicans allowed themselves to be stampeded into a sort of knee-jerk, xenophobic isolationism, just to prevent Democrats from getting to the "right" of them on a national security issue in an election year.
Dubai Ports World bought the British company that held a contract to manage six US ports. Many US ports are managed by companies based in foreign countries. DPW doesn't exactly appear to be a front organisation for terrorists, having many Americans among its top leadership. More important, the UAE has been a solid ally in the War on Terror. They have provided vital information to the United States, and allowed us to base troops and planes in their country. The government has worked hard to crack down on terrorist movements and financing.
Dubai is one of the few progressive states in the Middle East, having worked to build a real economic infrastructure not based entirely on oil. It was the first Middle Eastern country to sign up with the Container Security Initiative, which places American customs agents in foreign ports to screen cargo bound for the US. This hasn't made the UAE government very popular with its neighbors, or even with some segments of its own population. The UAE has risked much to be allied with the United States. Yet the demands to block the sale are deafening, and are entirely based on the fact that they are -- gasp! -- Arabs. Is treating allies with fear and suspicion based on race the best way to win friends and influence people in that part of the world? Will that attitude help us win the War on Terror?
The most common misperception seems to be that Dubai Ports World would handle port security. The catchphrase du jour is, "this is like letting the fox guard the henhouse." In fact, no foreign company handles security in any US port, and nothing would change in that regard. Not that port security is anything to crow about now, of course... only between about 2% and 5% of incoming shipping containers are currently being examined. If we actually put known terrorists in direct charge of security, the situation could hardly get worse. Those who bluster about the impact on security should direct their efforts towards building some security to be worried about.
Some argue that terrorists could learn how our ports operate by getting jobs there. Any reasonable person would instantly realise that there is nothing preventing terrorists from getting jobs in those ports now. US regulations require US citizenship or resident alien status, as well as a background check, for jobs with any kind of security access. That, too, will not change. Others fear that terrorists would use the Dubai-managed ports to sneak into the country. Why do that, when they can simply walk across the border from Canada or Mexico, which millions do without hindrance every year?
There is no evidence to indicate that DPW has any ties to terror groups, aside from being based in the Middle East. Critics point to the fact that one of the 9/11 hijackers was born in the UAE. The fact is that you can hardly point to a country that has zero ties to terrorism. For instance, a British company is currently managing the ports in question. Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," was born in London. The terrorists who blew up several trains and a bus on 7 July 2005 were natural-born British citizens. Yet there has been no outcry against British companies managing American transportation assets.
And that's what it comes down to -- a knee-jerk reaction to an Arab company. Funny how the Left is suddenly all in favor of racial profiling, isn't it? Should every company in the Middle East be banned from doing business in the US? Should companies run or owned by Arabs be excluded from the US, or all companies based in Muslim countries? When did we start basing business decisions on racial and religious discrimination? That's not how Americans operate. And that's not the message we need to send the world. Kicking the UAE in the face would damage US credibility at a time and in a place we need it the most.
It would be different if all foreign companies were equally excluded from managing US infrastructure. That would at least be fair to everyone. Maybe we should exclude all government-owned companies... but that would cut out many European and all Chinese companies as well. Economic isolationism will not work, nor is it in our best interests.
Perhaps the best answer would be to invest more than words in transportation and border security, rather than sacrificing needed allies on the altar of paranoia.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 22, 2006 07:22:11 PM new
Bear,
Didn't one of our Navy ships get a hole blown in its side while 11 American Sailors died? Wasn't that in a Mid Eastern country where our ships used to refueled? Whats that country called Yaman or Amen Allah something like that. Isn't that country one of our so called Mid Eastern allies?
Did 20 something Al Qaeda terrorist "escape" from a jail there a couple weeks ago. I wonder who helped them tunnel out of jail into a Mosque?
Now the best you can come up with ABOUT THIS STINKING BUSH PORT DEAL is a copy and paste.
BTW, you still haven't told us if you are still supporting DUMBO Bush or the conservative lawmakers coming out against the Port Deal and DUMBO Bush?
BUSH GOES QUACK,QUACK,QUACK LIKE A VERY LAME WOUNDED DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted on February 22, 2006 07:43:27 PM new
Sheepa, the USS Cole was in Yemen when it was attacked in the harbor. It was not docked. AT THE TIME Heir KLINTON WAS IN OFFICE, not George Bush.
As for the prison escape, I didn't know the UAE port management company had been hired to provide guards for the prison.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on February 22, 2006 07:51:28 PM new
Peepa - if you are going to act like a complete ass, could you at least at like an informed complete ass? The nation you are speaking of is Yemen. Yemen is a southern peninsula nation. If you move north you find Oman, go a litte west and you find UAE which is right next door to Qutar which is the location of our arabian peninsula military headquarters. Not quite sure why you are comparing the two nations other than your obvious negative biase towards anything arab.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 23, 2006 04:20:24 AM new
Point is our NAVY ship got blown up in Yemen a another so called Mid Eastern allie?
Now you want to trust yet another Mid Eastern country to RUN OUR SEA PORTS. YOUR BOTH NUTS JUST LIKE THE AZZ YOU VOTED FOR.
State-owned Dubai Ports World didn't have to keep records on U.S. soil. Records would be out of reach of U.S. Courts.
The Associated Press
By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Under a secretive agreement with the Bush administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
In approving the $6.8 billion purchase, the administration chose not to require state-owned Dubai Ports World to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.
AGAIN YOU BOTH WANT TO SUPPORT THIS STINKING SEA PORTS DEAL GO AHEAD BUT DON'T INCLUDE ME.
posted on February 23, 2006 06:34:59 AM new
One good aspect of this battle is that it will focus attention on the frightening lack of port security in the U.S. Whether the UAE takes over the terminals or not, the gaping hole in port security should be closed.
Since there is no standard for how containers are sealed and only 5% of containers are inspected there is a legitimate fear that a nuclear weapon could be placed in a container. Add to that a company that has been the focus of investigations about being a way station for contraband, some of which is nuclear and you have a disaster waiting to happen.
posted on February 23, 2006 07:10:08 AM new
::Now you want to trust yet another Mid Eastern country to RUN OUR SEA PORTS. YOUR BOTH NUTS JUST LIKE THE AZZ YOU VOTED FOR.::
Peepa - you really need to go see a doctor. Your memory skills are woefully deficient. I've told you at least a dozen times I do not like and did not vote for Bush.
That said, with the possible exception of yourself, I don't believe that anyone is wrong 100% of the time and sometimes he may do something that I actually agree with. It doesn't not mean that I think he is a good president. It simply means that I think he finally got something right.
And BTW - stopping the guy in the inflatable boat full of explosives is nearly impossible and it's not the job of the ports management. It is the job of Port Security which is now and will remain in the hands of the US. Not that that means anything to you. Reality rarely seems to.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 23, 2006 07:16:50 AM new
Who knows Helen - maybe all this furor will give them the kick in the butt they need to get port security up to where it needs to be.
I was watching one of the financial shows on Fox last weekend and one of the women on the show brought up an intersting point. For some reason, national security spending in the US seems to be focused on how to get thru an attack as oppposed to how to avoid one.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
And how unfortunate that it takes a tragedy such as New Orleans to correct the response and recovery system. I hope that it doesn't take an infiltration of the unprotected ports and a nuclear tragedy to focus on security.
I read this morning that only one of the six ports under consideration is equipped with a working radiation-detection system that every cargo container must pass through.
posted on February 23, 2006 08:09:13 AM new
I just do not understand that Helen. Why the hell are we considering putting cameras equiped with facial recognition software on the streets of Denver when we haven't bothered shoring up our ports yet? That seems like such an obvious thing to do. Why is it that all these years later, we still have not installed the detectors at every port?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on February 23, 2006 12:47:53 PM new
The US military and the UAE have co-operated on a massive scale for decades, far more than the lip-service the Saudis give. This co-operation is never mentioned and actively downplayed because the US conducts extensive military operations through UAE with their approval. Bases, refueling, intelligence, on and on.
The reason the cabinet approved the sale was this co-operation as well as the near fanatical way the UAE conducts its OWN port security.
