Bush Threatens Veto To Ensure Arabs

[rexbo 104]

I don't not buy foreign made goods. If it is foreign made and I need it, I make one instead. Tool and Die. Made in the U.S. of A.

You make your own clothes and shoes? Better that, then us having a vision of Bottomfeeder walking around naked.

[quietfan 233]

Back on topic, let's just say once you spend 10 minutes reading about this issue, or listening to a more detailed radio or TV report, it is not NEAR as scary or bad as you would think be reading headlines, or listening to Hillary. 

221443[/snapback]

Perhaps I’m not reading the right wire services, but I haven’t actually read any comments from Sen. Clinton on the issue. I’m sure someone will waste no time in enlightening me, though. I have seen comments from a few others, such as:

http://today.reuters.com/investing/finance...57-15_N219976:1

Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist: “If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until … a more thorough review. These deals could have a major impact on America's security…”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11517474/

Rep. Jim Saxton, Republican from New Jersey: “This deal doesn't pass the national security test, …I think it's a mistake”.

Rep. Vito Fosella, Republican from New York: “I think somebody dropped the ball.”

Rep. Sue Myrick, Republican from North Carolina: “Dear Mr. President: ….not just NO — but HELL NO!”

[quietfan 233]

Just to update in the interest of honesty: As of Wednesday when I made the previous post, I had not seen any comments from Hillary. This morning (Friday) I have read some:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522460/

WASHINGTON - At a Senate Armed Services Committee briefing Thursday on whether a Dubai-based company should be allowed to acquire leases of terminal facilities at six U.S. ports, both Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., a critic of the deal, and committee chairman Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who is not opposed to it, pointed to a compromise that might avoid a confrontation with President Bush.

The possible way to defuse the conflict: a new 45-day re-investigation by the inter-agency group, the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) to re-examine the national security implications of the deal. “That may be the first step in trying to resolve this matter,” Clinton said.

and:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/...0224&ID=5532303

Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democrat from New York, said she would propose legislation on Monday that had support from Republicans and that would formally delay the deal and force the administration to re-open its investigation.

Republican Senator John Warner agreed with some issues Sen Clinton raised at a hearing - including legal questions about whether the administration was required to review the deal for 45-days because DP World is state-owned - but said he believed a resolution could be found.

I've also been reading something of the U.A.E.'s history with terrorism. It's a mixed bag with some good as well as some bad:

http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=35669

In its report last year, the Nine-Eleven Commission raised concerns that as recently as seven years ago, officials from the United Arab Emirates were associating directly with Osama bin Laden.

Bush administration officials are hearing references to the commission's report today on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are questioning the handover of major operations at six ports to a U-A-E company.

...U-A-E officials are mentioned in the September Eleventh report's reference to a U-S missile strike planned on bin Laden in 1999. The report says U-S intelligence believed bin Laden regularly moved back and forth between a camp in the Afghan desert and an adjacent hunting camp used by officials from Dubai.

And:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11522460/page/2/

2001:  Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, believed to be Osama bin Laden’s financial manager, received a Dubai bank transfer of $15,000 two days before the Sept. 11 attacks and then left the United Arab Emirates for Pakistan, where he was arrested in 2003. [bAD]

2002: Emirati authorities arrested and turned over to the United States Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors. UAE officials said he had planned to attack economic targets in the Emirates and inflict high casualties. He was sentenced to death in absentia by a Yemeni court. Al-Nashiri was also suspected of helping direct the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. [GOOD]

2004: Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a Pakistani suspected of training thousands of al-Qaida fighters, was arrested in the UAE and turned over to officials in his homeland. [GOOD]

A report from the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks found that 11 Saudi hijackers had traveled to the United States via the airport in Dubai. [bAD]

The father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The head of U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the UAE was among more than 20 countries with a role in the nuclear black market. [VERY BAD]

[channonc 466]

9/11 report cited possible bin Laden, U.A.E. ties

CIA was ‘irate’ over how ally handled incident at hunting camp

The Associated Press

Updated: 2:57 p.m. ET Feb. 23, 2006

WASHINGTON - The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission’s report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaida leader.

Republicans and Democrats alike are raising concerns this week about the Bush administration’s decision to let a U.A.E.-operated company take over operations at six American ports, in part citing ties the Sept. 11 hijackers had to the Persian Gulf country.

President Bush has called the U.A.E. a close partner on the war on terror since Sept. 11, and his aides have listed numerous examples of the country’s help.

The Sept. 11 commission’s report released last year also raised concerns U.A.E. officials were directly associating with bin Laden as recently as 1999.

Hunting camp cited

The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by U.A.E. officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated “bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emirates,” the report said.

“National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely,” the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke “called a U.A.E. official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden,” the report said.

Anger at CIA

CIA officials hoped to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.

But “imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled and the site was deserted,” the report said.

CIA officials were “irate” and “thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission’s assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents “a persistent counterterrorism problem” for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal “looked very carefully” at information from the intelligence community.

“Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in,” Kimmitt said, “the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company.”

“Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission,” Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Link

[channonc 466]

From 9/11 Commission Report...

The Desert Camp, February 1999

Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar.At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.151

Reporting from the CIA’s assets provided a detailed description of the hunting

camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin Ladin’s smaller, adjacent camp.152 Because this was not in an urban area, missiles

launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage. On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike.153 The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely.154The CIA did its best to answer a host of questions about the larger camp and its residents and about Bin Ladin’s daily schedule and routines to support military contingency planning.

According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis;the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155 Clarke wrote to Berger’s deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.157

No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot.158 According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by.Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to Clarke as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America’s best counterterror-ism ally in the Gulf.The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable;the Bin Ladin unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.159

Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area,CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity.160 On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin.Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA.161When the former Bin Ladin unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance.162 Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted.163 CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt,were irate.“Mike”thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Ladin.164

The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem.From 1999 through early 2001,the United States,and President Clinton personally,pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan.165 These efforts achieved little before 9/11.

In July 1999, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin.166 The Taliban did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to “Iranian dangers” in the region, but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.167

An important footnote reads:

"Days before overhead imagery confirmed the location of the hunting camp, Clarke had returned from a visit to the UAE, where he had been working on counterterrorism cooperation and following up on a May 1998 UAE agreement to buy F-16 aircraft from the United States. His visit included one-on-one meetings with Army Chief of

Staff bin Zayid, as well as talks with Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai. Both agreed to try to work with the United States in their efforts against Bin Ladin. NSC memo, Clarke to Berger,Trip Report, Feb. 8, 1999;

Theodore Kattouf interview (Apr.21,2004).On February 10,as the United States considered striking the camp,Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan.NSC email,Clarke to Kerrick,UBL update,Feb. 10,1999.Subsequent reporting,however, suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp. CIA memo, “Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan,”Feb.19,1999.General Shelton also told us that his UAE counterpart said he had been hunting at a desert

camp in Afghanistan at about this time. Hugh Shelton interview (Feb. 5, 2004)."

9.11 Commission Report

[Wishbone 0]

Mexico is already in charge of guarding our borders. Go take a look at the average BP agent sometime.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view....23-051657-4981r

[channonc 466]

Actually they are going to buy 21 terminals in 6 ports.... a big difference. This article is a little bit inaccurate.

Also, our committee is having a hearing on this issue tomorrow (2/28). I have reviewed quite a bit of documentation regarding this sale, however, the big underlying issue here is, how come we as a nation, have not done enough with port security.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I am not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, like someone mentioned above, to be a PR blunder of the highest caliber. But that leads to the "On the other hand..."

On the other hand, if all of the members of this Administration are as they appear to be and are on board with having National Security as their #1 priority, then don't you think that they truly did examine every aspect of this deal for problems? It's not like someone just woke up one day and said "HEY! I know! Let's turn over operational control of our ports to a Middle Eastern government!! Hmm, what about UAE! Great idea!!" Instead, this whole thing came about because of the purchase of that British company that was already running the ports.

The part about work stoppage, etc., is a valid point, but if international relations ever reached that high degree of breakdown, i imagine the US government would take drastic steps, and nationalize things to prevent disruption in shipping.

I don't think security is an issue. From what I have been able to gather in the little bit of research I have done, a large number of the containers are inspected and certified before reaching a US port - the whole point being to have the US as a LAST point of inspection rather than a first. The Container Security Initiative is a Customs program:

CBP’s goal is to have 50 operational CSI ports by the end of fiscal year 2006.  At that time, approximately 90 percent of all transatlantic and transpacific cargo imported into the United States will be subjected to prescreening. 

And these aren't locals doing the checks:

Under the CSI program, a team of officers is deployed to work with host nation counterparts to target all containers that pose a potential threat.

You really should read about this: LINK TO CSI FACT SHEET

That makes sense to me - better to have them checked BEFORE the boat pulls into the Houston Ship Channel - if a nuclear device goes off once it's in port, all the inspections in the world won't do any good. I don't know if the CSI program has met its goal or not - perhaps channonc can enlighten us. But between their stated goals, and the presence of the US Navy doing things we may not always know about, I don't think security is as bad an issue as it seems. But of course, there will always be politicians who will want to blow an issue out of proportion. Surprise.

Also as mentioned, foreign companies operate other ports and there has never been an outcry. This is a global economy, and business has no boundaries. Baker Hughes, an American company, conducts oilfield services in 30+ countries - including work on the huge oil pipeline in Kazakstan. What if the US got pissed off at Kazakstan and quit work - oh, no, the world's oil supply would be shut down! Eeek! Schlumberger is a French oilfield services company doing TONS of work in the Gulf of Mexico. Big deal. There are lots of US business working in other countries and lots of other countries doing serious work in the US.

Yes, I know that SLB is not run by the French government, and that they do not have a company credo that envisions the total destruction of Israel and death to all infidels. But again, if security is an issue, my largest concerns are with the people on the OTHER end of the crates who load them onto boats bound for Houston or New York or Miami - once they are here, security is not a concern... it would be too late.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The real issue is a company owned by a foreign government will have control of the ports. A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT controlling our ports?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The real issue is a company owned by a foreign government will have control of the ports. A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT controlling our ports?

222363[/snapback]

Controlling out ports? Just plain not true.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

The real issue is a company owned by a foreign government will have control of the ports. A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT controlling our ports?

222363[/snapback]

Unsurprisingly, you are flat wrong. A foreign government will have control of the loading and unloading of cargo at AMERICAN ports. We are not ceding the land to a foreign government. We are not allowing a foreign government to plant their flag on our soil. They will NOT have control of the ports.

[channonc 466]

CSI is a great start, however, CBP has not been able to accurately manage the program. It is a volunteer program that currentlyl exists in 42 foreign ports in 22 countries. Once CBP flags a container for inspection, it is up to the foreign countries customs officials to do the inspection. Currently, there are no minimum standards for the use and installation of NII (non-intrusive inspection) equipment. This equipment cost is totally borne by the foreign government, which is costly. All of these factors lead to reliablity problems. Additionally, CBP has not put forth its effort in recruiting new CBP agents to be at these foreign ports. The program looks for 3-5 agents at all ports, currently they have not reached that staffing number.

There are several other problems for which I really can't disclose on a public forum, but this should give you an idea that CSI definately has its problems.

[channonc 466]

Link

March 1, 2006

New Concerns on Port Deal Are Raised in Congress

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Lawmakers raised new objections on Tuesday to the proposed takeover of some terminal operations at six United States ports by a Dubai company, demonstrating that the administration-backed plan still faced significant obstacles despite an agreement for a more extensive review of any security risks posed by the change in control.

Senate Democrats seized on a report that the parent company of state-owned Dubai Ports World honors an Arab boycott of Israel, saying the United States should not be rewarding companies tied to discrimination against a major ally.

"This boycott not only violates at least the spirit of U.S. law," said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, "it is inconsistent with everything we believe in as Americans."

A company official appearing at a Senate hearing acknowledged the boycott but said the firm worked with all customers at its facilities around the world.

After a Coast Guard intelligence memorandum made public on Monday showed that the agency had initial security concerns about the deal, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, joined on Tuesday with Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, in urging the Department of Homeland Security to reveal whether other agencies under its umbrella had raised questions.

In the House, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said he would proceed with legislation giving Congress the right to reject the proposed takeover if it was sanctioned by the president after the 45-day review.

Mr. King, who said he had already attracted more than 60 co-sponsors of both parties, said he worried that the administration was viewing the 45 days more as a chance to lobby Congress than to investigate security concerns.

"The administration has to educate itself," he said. "They have to conduct a full and thorough investigation."

President Bush reiterated his support for the deal on Tuesday and urged lawmakers and the public to withhold judgment until the new review, sought by the company, was completed.

"Let me just make something clear to the American people," Mr. Bush told reporters. "If there was any doubt in my mind, or people in my administration's mind, that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward."

On Capitol Hill, administration officials said they were confident that they had weighed the possibility of a security breach and found no cause for alarm.

"We assessed the threat to U.S. national security posed by D. P. World to be low," John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "In other words, we didn't see any red flags come up during the course of our inquiry."

At a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, Edward H. Bilkey, the chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, was pressed by several Democrats about Dubai's position on the Arab boycott of Israel, following up on a report in The Jerusalem Post that said the holding company that controls Dubai Ports participated in the boycott.

Mr. Bilkey first said the company was not involved in matters of state-to-state policy. Under questioning, he conceded that he believed the boycott was in force at company ports in Dubai.

However, he added later: "The largest Israeli shipping company is one of our largest clients. We serve everyone in many of our terminals around the world."

Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican and chairman of the Commerce Committee, said that while he deplored Dubai's stance on Israel, "I greatly admire what this country has done to assist us following the great difficulty that we had in finding a secure port in that region."

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and one of the lawmakers who raised the boycott issue, said the company's stance was just one more reason for her to oppose a port deal that she portrayed as ill-advised.

"It adds more fuel to the fire," Ms. Boxer said.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Good Lord, if the NY Times says the Port deal is bad then it must be bad!

"This [Dubai Ports World] transaction needs a long, careful look. It doesn't need stone-throwing from opportunists who would be better advised to check their own glass houses. And it doesn't need bully-pulpit demagoguery." — Andrew McCarthy

"Other justifications for the sale appear to be reasonable—not least that Dubai Ports World is reputedly competent at managing ports—and might be convincing if only someone bearing the title President of the United States would articulate those reasons in a spirit of respect rather than as a dismissive parent managing an impudent child." — Kathleen Parker

[channonc 466]

Here are some additional links.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

[Tigermike 3,051]

March 1, 2006

Democrats Revel in “Portsmas”

By Tom Bevan

Six months ago Democrats were so excited about the potential damage to the Bush administration caused by the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, they began counting down the number of days until “Fitzmas” – the day special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald publicly announced his findings. As it turned out, “Fitzmas” was a total bust. But “Portsmas” - a moniker that describes the ongoing blow up over the Dubai Ports World controversy - is turning into the sort of extended political holiday that just keeps on giving to Democrats.

After five years of being beaten silly by Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular, Democrats have finally stumbled into the position of getting to the right of Bush on the issue of national security. Last Friday Rasmussen Reports released a poll - albeit conducted at the height of the initial, emotional frenzy of the port deal - showing only 17% of respondents in favor of Dubai Ports World acquiring operational rights to six major U.S. ports. Perhaps more importantly, Democrats in Congress outpolled President Bush (43%-41%) on the question of who voters trusted more on matters of national security.

This is no small event. The Democratic Party has been chasing its tail on national security and foreign policy since early 2002, lurching from one incoherent position to another trying simultaneously to project strength to the American public and to satisfy a virulently antiwar base. Needless to say, the Democrats' act hasn’t been very convincing – until “Portsmas” arrived, that is, courtesy of an administration once again caught politically flat-footed and tone deaf.

Politicians from both parties were quick to posture over the legitimate security concerns raised by the ports deal, but while some prominent Republicans have pulled back and called for a calm, thoughtful review after learning more details about the transaction, Democrats continue to press ahead, trying to squeeze maximum political gain out of an issue that has clearly struck a chord with the public.

One lesson of the last two weeks is that political opportunism knows no ideological boundaries. In the wake of “Portsmas,” Democrats have been quick to shed any inhibitions about ethnic profiling or concerns about our role in the “international community” to pounce on the political advantages presented by the DPW deal. As a result, some on the left are now sounding and acting an awful lot like Pat Buchanan and the reactionary right.

Hillary Clinton, for example, rushed to co-sponsor legislation with fellow Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey to ban all corporations owned by foreign governments from operating ports across the nation. This proposal, which may sound good to the average American in the current context of the DPW deal, flies in the face of the reality that eighty percent of our current port operations are conducted by foreign-owned corporations (many of which have ties to government) and that there are currently no U.S. companies large enough to assume the responsibilities of port operations even if we wanted them to. The practical application of Clinton’s legislation is that the U.S. economy would be brought to a screeching halt.

Also, last Saturday Jon Corzine, the Democratic governor of New Jersey, stoked fears about the DPW deal by saying in a radio address that “dangerous men, tainted blood money and nuclear technology have moved across UAE borders." What Corzine said is technically true, though it discounts the UAE’s significant cooperation in the war on terror since September 11, 2001 and also the fact that most of the Governor’s ominous language could be applied to virtually every Arab country in the world and half the countries of Western Europe, including Britain and Germany.

Port security is a serious issue, and there is a chance, albeit a small one, that Democrats will so vastly overplay their hand the public will react negatively to displays of such rank hypocrisy. But with the Bush administration standing strong on its support of the deal and Congress initiating a 45-day review of the DPW deal, it doesn’t look like “Portsmas” will be ending anytime soon.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...1_06_Bevan.html

[channonc 466]

Tigermike, I am well aware of the percentage of port TERMINALS that are operated by foreign companies. That is not the issue for me. The larger issue is the Administration's view on port security. They have consistently given more money to airline security than to any other transportation security mode.

The issue of port security has been completely ignored by DHS, they have consistently missed deadlines on reports regarding port security programs, and several import reports they have yet to file with Congress, as required by law. This issue only brings to light how quickly the Administration passes over this issue. DHS Dep. Sec. Jackson admitted in our hearing that he was unaware of the USCG concerns until after they had been made public at an earlier hearing.

This has been an issue for many years, especially on Capitol Hill, but is just now catching wind with the public.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Fair enough channonc, and I have stated before that I have concerns over the ports deal. But let me ask you this. With so many in Congress thundering ominously over the "unitary executive" and the administration's alleged overstepping into congressional prerogatives on security matters, isn't this uproar a blatant example of Congress' own overstepping its authority into purely executive matters. I have seen and heard some congressmen/women propose voiding a policy that was set by the executive branch in full accordance with the law. Was the Bush Administration in full accordance with the law when they signed off on this deal?

All these congress people had to do was read the newspapers. If they had, they would have known that Dubai Ports World, along with a Singapore company, was in the hunt for P&O. They didn't need big brother in the White House to tell them, so they have no cause to be acting like they were denied information that everyone else had. They should hold hearings into why so many congressmen are so stupid.

[channonc 466]

I disagree, those in Congress should not have to read in the newspaper about this deal happening. In fact, when I spoke to people on Banking Committee (who actually have jurisdiction over the CFIUS process) have said they were disappointed to hear that they too had learned of this deal through the newspapers. Generally, the Committees of jurisdiction are notified when these types of things happen. They should not have read it in the newspaper.

Again, for me the biggest issue is the President's lack of action when it comes to port security in general. We can't have a fork on an airplane, but we don't care who or what is in containers coming in and out of our ports.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Agreed, there are many who have said for years that our ports and borders NEED to be controlled and protected much more efficiently than they are now. Many of those screaming the loudest about this deal have been the biggest whiners about control of the borders and actually doing something about illegal immigration.

When I brought up the point of reading it in the newspapers, it was more of a jab than a thought of how things should work. The point is that the deal has been in the works for months. I first heard of it (two months ago) from a friend in the maritime industry who currently lives in Africa. It would seem logical that anyone working on Capitol Hill would have much more access to information than all of us peons out here in the hinterlands.

I have a simple outlook on this whole controversy. If the ports deal is good for the country, fine do it. If it is not, then don't do it. Further I think that all concerned should back off from the political rhetoric and quit trying to make political points and think ONLY of what is right for the country.

[CCTAU 3,341]

Ships don't fly into buildings. And they move pretty slow. Therefore the greater importance has been placed on planes. We KNOW they can be used as a weapon. This is all just another thing for politicians to stir up and make it look like they are actually doing something.

[quietfan 233]

Ships don't fly into buildings. And they move pretty slow. Therefore the greater importance has been placed on planes. We KNOW they can be used as a weapon. This is all just another thing for politicians to stir up and make it look like they are actually doing something.

223416[/snapback]

True, but it's harder to smuggle a WMD (nuke, large quantities of gas, etc.)onto a plane.

[channonc 466]

Ships don't fly into buildings. And they move pretty slow. Therefore the greater importance has been placed on planes. We KNOW they can be used as a weapon. This is all just another thing for politicians to stir up and make it look like they are actually doing something.

223416[/snapback]

A land side attack on a port would be detrimental to this country, and the highest probablitity for the next terrorist attack.