Where are the right wingers on this one?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. Why aren't the local "Patriots" screaming at Bush on this one?

    Chertoff says Dubai port deal includes safeguards
    Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:35 AM ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The homeland security chief said on Sunday a deal for a Dubai-based company to manage major U.S. ports would include security safeguards, but a Republican senator urged a probe and called the Bush administration "tone deaf politically" for approving it.

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the Bush administration had approved the sale of British firm P&O, which manages six U.S. ports including New York, to Dubai Ports World after a classified review and the deal would include safeguards to protect U.S. national security.

    "You can be assured that before a deal is approved we put safeguards in place, assurances in place, that make everybody comfortable that we are where we need to be from a national security viewpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

    But Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said it was a mistake for the administration to approve the sale and called on Congress to investigate it.

    "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

    "I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," he said.

    Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said she would support legislation to block foreign companies from buying port facilities.

    "I'm going to support legislation to say 'No more, No way.' We have to have American companies running our own ports ... Our infrastructure is at risk," she said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

    Last week, Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York, both Democrats, said they would offer legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

    "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government," Menendez said in a statement.

    Some in Congress have expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations.

    The Bush administration, however, considers Dubai and the UAE a solid ally in its campaign against terrorism.

    The UAE company would control management of major ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.

    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not object.

    U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival.

    The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing next week to examine concerns about the P&O sale and the U.S. government review process, a panel spokesman said.
  2. jem


    As I stated on another thread it seems to me that Bush is really trying to cement his place as the worst most dangerous president in history. Carter was bad but Reagan undid his mess.

    Bush is doing some inexcusable things.
  3. Bush is a moron. I truly miss Clinton.
  4. but will vote for the next tax cuts promising right-winger.
  5. As bad as Bush as been regarding border and port security, Clinton was worse.

    So yes, I'd say vote for the guy promising tax cuts. Of course, Clinton did that too, but it was another of his lies. So your only reasonable choice is to vote for the Republican promising tax cuts.
  6. Ah yes, it is clear that your priority is a tax cut before national security.

  7. No, that's not what I said. We know the Democrats are weak and can't be trusted to protect the country. So whatever faults the republicans have, at least they won;t raise our taxes.
  8. "We know the Democrats are weak and can't be trusted to protect the country."

    I see we have another spokesman for the mysterious "we" that I keep hearing so much about.

    Bush does nothing about our borders during a time of war and a focus on national security, and now he wants to outsource security to an Arab based country....and the someone says "we" know the democrats are weak and can't be trusted.....

  9. I did not realize that 9/11, the Iraq quagmire, Katrina disaster, de-facto open border policy with Mexico and outsourcing of port security to an arab country happened on democratic watch.

    That's right, that's what it's all about, all that nonsense about patriotism, personal responsibility, being strong on defense, decisive leadership etc is just a bunch of pompous pathetic excuses to feel good about yourself, to justify and hide pathological selfishness and shortsighted greed.
  10. You got it. Democrats are more concerned about giving terrorists ACLU lawyers, paid for by the government, than uncovering terrorist cells.

    I haven't heard one Democrat criticize Al Gore for his bought and paid for speechin Saudi Arabia where he told traitorous lies about supposed repression of arabs and muslims here.

    The facts of the port contract are that a UK company, P & O, already has the contract to run the ports. Just like a Chinese company has the contract for Long Beach, courtesy of Clinton. the UAE company acquired P & O. After a review, the government approved the deal. Personally, I find it troubling, although not as troubling as having the Chinese run it.
    #10     Feb 20, 2006