Where are the right wingers on this one?

HEY, I FORGOT ABOUT HILLARY INTRODUCED BILL THAT STOPPED COCK FIGHTING IN NEW YORK.............WHO CAN STAND IN HER WAY IF SHE OPPOSES UAE DEAL?

 

Posted by: Tim Newman | Feb 20, 2006 1:45:03 PM

“Fly the Fiendly Skies: Al Qaeda To Run U.S. Airport Security”

Security in U.S. airports will be managed by Al Qaeda, FEMA announced yesterday.

“As the organization that planned the 9-11 airline hijackings,” said Sammy Sieve, acting director of the Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency, “no other group has a more intimate knowledge of airport security and its deficiencies – or how to better address those defects.”

The terrorist group will administer various airports: LA’s LAX, Logan in Boston, Edwards Air Force Base, the home of Air Force One – as well as an airport and flight training school in Florida.

Al Qaeda will replace the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), widely criticized for obese, sleepy-eyed baggage checkers seeking an easy gig and a guaranteed government check. “In contrast,” said Sieve, “Al Qaeda employees have lean and hungry looks.”

In Washington, the decision was finalized while the Homeland Security Director was testifying, the Defense Secretary was visiting Iraq, the Vice-President was out hunting – and the President was out to lunch. The only national security official at his desk was the CIA intern who signed off on the deal.

The decision was approved by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States (SISSY-US). SISSY-US is a Las Vegas-based Treasury Department agency, which makes its decisions according to rolls of the dice and spins of the roulette wheel.

Al Qaeda will perform the airport security job for far less money than American workers. In a tape played on the Arab network al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden stated: “Heck, we’d do it for free, God willing.”

Since 9-11, check-in lines at airports have plagued passengers, but bin Laden pledged improvement. “For the vast majority, there’ll be no screening at all,” he asserted. “Just walk right in!”

“However, and though I realize this is a sensitive topic,” said the mass murderer, “I will insist on racial profiling at airports.

“For Irish nuns, U.S. soldiers -- and Danish cartoonists.

“After all, why should the many have to suffer in line for the threat posed by a few?”

The Saudi sheik, brandishing an automatic rifle, praised the recent TSA decision to allow screwdrivers and scissors onto planes. “Our organization will let anything on board – box cutters, aerial bombs, air-to-air rockets. Sure, I’ve had my differences with Great Satan, but I’m actually a big fan of its Second Amendment.”

The tall terrorist downplayed notions that lax baggage rules would lead to more terror. “Take the big flap over shoe bombs. It was a myth. All my employees will wear sandals, and the lining of sandals is far too thin to contain explosives.”

Certainly, al Qaeda-run airports will cut down on security checkers’ abuse of women. Many females have complained of being groped by TSA workers, and of having to undress during a “weapons search.” Al Qaeda, in contrast, will ask female passengers to clothe themselves from head to foot.

Al Qaeda ownership should also improve the movies shown on planes: action-packed terrorist training videos will be replace the dry current fare. The airlines’ notoriously bad cuisine will get a lift from dietary prohibitions on alcohol or artery-clogging pork. (Passengers in First Class will be allowed to drink liquor and manhandle stewardesses before steering their flights into buildings.)

If the new airport security scheme works out, it’s expected that London’s mullahs will take over security for the New York City subway.

And the Mexican army will run security along the Rio Grande.

And Iran will manage security for America’s nuclear weapons plants.

Some in congress have questioned the Al Qaeda acquisition. However, noted Mr. Sieve, “Miracles happen. Look, this issue has made even a peacenik like Hillary Clinton seem tough on national security. So maybe Al Qaeda COULD manage our airport security!”

Copyright © February 2006 by Edward P. Moser

 

This should convince the right wingers that Bush is wrong

________________________


Posted on Tue, Feb. 21, 2006

U.S. SECURITY
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
lclark@MiamiHerald.com

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.

 

Say no more, you got me here.

I'm with the dems on this one. With the borders wide open, with the UAE in charge of port security, there is no war on terror, or if there is, the Bush Admin is on the wrong side :eek:

 

OK, ZZZ, you're right. If Carter is for it, Bush has to take another look at it.

Actually, the political stupidity of thisis mindboggling. If something ever were to happne, whether or not this port company or its many employees were responsible, the fallout would be horrendous for Bush and the Republicans. On the other side however, they no doubt got enormous pressure from Tony Blair and the UK to approve the deal.

 

Right on !! Perfect conclusion.....

 

W aides' biz ties to Arab firm

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Breaking news update: Top Republican leader against ports deal

WASHINGTON - 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 agency 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 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 9/11 hijackers.

"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Chuck 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-S.I.) said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe 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 harder look.

"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.

 

Just released from Drudge:

Bush called the pool back at about 2.30 to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... On port deal he said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the united states was sending "mixed signals" by going after a company from the middle east when nothing was said when a british company was in charge. Lawmakers, he said, must "step up and explain why a middle eastern company is held to a different standard." Bush, sporting the air force one fight jacket and a tie, was very forceful when he delivered the statement... I don't view it as a political fight," Bush said. MORE...

I have to say I'm a right wing texas neocon hick who thinks Bush is dead wrong. At the very least he needs to postpone the approval.

 

I am a right winger too and f...... tired of that idiot.
So U.S. ports will be protected by company owned by foreign power(Arabic!!!!) (not even private company).
Are they out of their freaking minds?

 

Over/under for "next 9/11" is 2 years. Place your bets.