Political allegiances aside, what do YOU think?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Couldn't agree more.  Americans in this country need to wake up!!  The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes.  We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security.  These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

I agree. Why doesn't your favorite Senator take the lead and propose some legislation to help correct the situation?

[channonc 466]

Couldn't agree more.  Americans in this country need to wake up!!  The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes.  We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security.  These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

I agree. Why doesn't your favorite Senator take the lead and propose some legislation to help correct the situation?

223141[/snapback]

Its clear you all do not follow transportation security. My boss, along with Sen. Steven "formally" introduced s.1052 last May. I say "formally" only b/c it was basically a committee orignal bill that was written in January 2005. The bill was passed out of Committee in November, and recently was placed on the calendar b/c of heat over the ports deal.

Previously, our Committee has passed MTSA (in 2002) which also addressed port security, which has some reporting requirements that have still not been met by DHS more than 4 years later. Along with that several measures have been placed in the Coast Guard Authorization Bills over the years.

On rail security, this year Sen. Lott introduced S. 1516, which again, was introduced in July of this year and has passed out of committee and is on the calendar, having no floor time currently scheduled.

Sen. Stevens also introduced s. 1567, which focuses on HAZMAT and truck security. This bill also has been reported out and has no floor time currently scheduled.

These are some of the examples of action that has happened at a smaller level, but floor time is rarely able to be scheuled b/c the Majority Leader feels there are more important bills that should be debated.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Politics aside, I hope one good thing comes of "portsgate".  By shining the spotlight on port security, maybe this will result in serious improvements in our port security efforts, which lag dangerously behind what we've done in airports.  Regardless of who runs the ports, we need to do better than inspecting only 5% or less of all the containers coming into our ports.  The way things are now, it would not be too hard to smuggle a suitcase nuke or drums of nerve gas into any of our major ports.  And that is a problem that should be immediately addressed regardless of who is running the port, or who sits in the White House, or who controls Congress.

222874[/snapback]

Couldn't agree more. Americans in this country need to wake up!! The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes. We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security. These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

Agreed. We, citizens AND politicians, need to form a united front against the enemy. We, as a country, are a long way from that.....and the enemy knows it. We need to beef up all of our security measures.

IMO, too much light has been shined on the port deal now for them to be used by the terrorists. There is a much easier method of attack for the terrorists and this way would leave a more lasting impression on the country than 9/11.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Couldn't agree more.  Americans in this country need to wake up!!  The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes.  We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security.  These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

I agree. Why doesn't your favorite Senator take the lead and propose some legislation to help correct the situation?

223141[/snapback]

Its clear you all do not follow transportation security. My boss, along with Sen. Steven "formally" introduced s.1052 last May. I say "formally" only b/c it was basically a committee orignal bill that was written in January 2005. The bill was passed out of Committee in November, and recently was placed on the calendar b/c of heat over the ports deal.

Previously, our Committee has passed MTSA (in 2002) which also addressed port security, which has some reporting requirements that have still not been met by DHS more than 4 years later. Along with that several measures have been placed in the Coast Guard Authorization Bills over the years.

On rail security, this year Sen. Lott introduced S. 1516, which again, was introduced in July of this year and has passed out of committee and is on the calendar, having no floor time currently scheduled.

Sen. Stevens also introduced s. 1567, which focuses on HAZMAT and truck security. This bill also has been reported out and has no floor time currently scheduled.

These are some of the examples of action that has happened at a smaller level, but floor time is rarely able to be scheuled b/c the Majority Leader feels there are more important bills that should be debated.

223164[/snapback]

That is a lot of "introducing" with no results. Surely there's enough interest in security in the Senate that sufficient bipartisan pressure can be put on Frist to bring something to the floor. This is assuming Frist is the problem as you say.

It just comes across to me that Congress just isn't doing the job. Everyone is too busy criticizing everyone else and getting little done.

[Tigermike 3,051]

That is a lot of "introducing" with no results. Surely there's enough interest in security in the Senate that sufficient bipartisan pressure can be put on Frist to bring something to the floor. This is assuming Frist is the problem as you say.

It just comes across to me that Congress just isn't doing the job. Everyone is too busy criticizing everyone else and getting little done.

223266[/snapback]

Now there is a statement worthy of bipartisan support.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Other than chiming in to bash the President (shock ), attacking TigerMike, and pasting some BS article; you have yet to bring forth your own opinion on the DPW deal. Where do you stand? I've got a pretty good idea....the same place you always stand; directly across from this administration. Nice robot!

223043[/snapback]

What is robotic is your standard claim that every post is a "Bush Bash" and that a straightforward, factual article is "BS," without refuting a single point in it. No thinking required for your posts. Funny, Tigermike says Bush has lost his mind, which I've never said, and yet you think I'm the one being so harsh to your King.

I've pretty much said where I stand. In short, it was handled surprisingly badly, it has been mischaracterized by many in the media and both parties and thus overplayed, but, nonetheless, does raise some concerns I think are legitimate. A pretty evenhanded, balanced view, actually. Which is probably why you missed it.

223065[/snapback]

Once again it is obvious you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course. I never said that and I think you know it. In the future if you can not understand what is said and how it is meant, don't try to twist things to fit your agenda.

PS - I can provide the exact quote if you need it.

223096[/snapback]

I posted the exact quote upthread. Here it is again:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

Don't go all Cheney on me and claim you didn't say it. And don't worry about having said it. It was your gut reaction. It was your friends in the industry's reaction. It was alot of people's gut reaction-- Republican as well as Democrat and Independent. Maybe you've tempered your view with more information. Nothing wrong with that. My point in pointing it out was that no matter what I say, no matter how balanced it is, folks like you and a few others disregard it and characterize it as being extreme. That, I think, is what frustrated LegalEagle the other day. Real discourse on this forum is exceedingly rare these days. It has never been abundant. I've never ranted about this port deal. You've expressed as at least as much concern as I have, arguably in stronger terms.

I think it warrants a meaningful review. In fact, the law requires a more meaningful review. Unfortunately, more and more, the law is treated as an inconvenience these days.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Other than chiming in to bash the President (shock ), attacking TigerMike, and pasting some BS article; you have yet to bring forth your own opinion on the DPW deal. Where do you stand? I've got a pretty good idea....the same place you always stand; directly across from this administration. Nice robot!

223043[/snapback]

What is robotic is your standard claim that every post is a "Bush Bash" and that a straightforward, factual article is "BS," without refuting a single point in it. No thinking required for your posts. Funny, Tigermike says Bush has lost his mind, which I've never said, and yet you think I'm the one being so harsh to your King.

I've pretty much said where I stand. In short, it was handled surprisingly badly, it has been mischaracterized by many in the media and both parties and thus overplayed, but, nonetheless, does raise some concerns I think are legitimate. A pretty evenhanded, balanced view, actually. Which is probably why you missed it.

223065[/snapback]

Once again it is obvious you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course. I never said that and I think you know it. In the future if you can not understand what is said and how it is meant, don't try to twist things to fit your agenda.

PS - I can provide the exact quote if you need it.

223096[/snapback]

I posted the exact quote upthread. Here it is again:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

Don't go all Cheney on me and claim you didn't say it. And don't worry about having said it. It was your gut reaction. It was your friends in the industry's reaction. It was alot of people's gut reaction-- Republican as well as Democrat and Independent. Maybe you've tempered your view with more information. Nothing wrong with that. My point in pointing it out was that no matter what I say, no matter how balanced it is, folks like you and a few others disregard it and characterize it as being extreme. That, I think, is what frustrated LegalEagle the other day. Real discourse on this forum is exceedingly rare these days. It has never been abundant. I've never ranted about this port deal. You've expressed as at least as much concern as I have, arguably in stronger terms.

I think it warrants a meaningful review. In fact, the law requires a more meaningful review. Unfortunately, more and more, the law is treated as an inconvenience these days.

223369[/snapback]

Tex you can't even post my direct quote and understand what was said. Since you seem to be somewhat inclined to interpret what is said differently than the intent, I will provide help. "Wondering" is very different than saying "he has". "Wondering" in the context it was written, pertains only to the subject at hand. Unlike saying "he has" which is not and was not my intent. You knew that but tried to make it fit your agenda anyway. A good example is this; I was fortunate one time to talk to Coach Pat Dye (the spring after Bo went the wrong way). I made the statement that at the time we thought he had lost his mind. He laughed and said he thought they had all lost their mind. That is much different than saying "Have you lost your ()*(*%$ mind?"

Discussion is fine, indeed great. Why do you think I post all the damn articles? Merely for posting practice? No to generate discussion. As for "folks like me" disregarding what you post. The problem is that you are usually the first to launch personal attacks and then say it is someone else who started it. That also is pretty much true of democrats. They will launch attacks then loudly denounce the republican attack machine.

As far as the ports deal goes, it may or may not be good, that remains to be seen. But the truth of the matter is the dems were and are using it in a deceitful, demagoguing and totally hypocritical manner. With that being said, it in no way overlooks the legitimate concerns of all concerned. Port security should be high on everyone's radar. Border security should be high on everyone's radar. National security should be high on everyone's radar.

Why would the dems scream so loud over the ports deal (security) the way they have but took the exact opposite view over the NSA and overseas calls to known terrorists?

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Other than chiming in to bash the President (shock ), attacking TigerMike, and pasting some BS article; you have yet to bring forth your own opinion on the DPW deal. Where do you stand? I've got a pretty good idea....the same place you always stand; directly across from this administration. Nice robot!

223043[/snapback]

What is robotic is your standard claim that every post is a "Bush Bash" and that a straightforward, factual article is "BS," without refuting a single point in it. No thinking required for your posts. Funny, Tigermike says Bush has lost his mind, which I've never said, and yet you think I'm the one being so harsh to your King.

I've pretty much said where I stand. In short, it was handled surprisingly badly, it has been mischaracterized by many in the media and both parties and thus overplayed, but, nonetheless, does raise some concerns I think are legitimate. A pretty evenhanded, balanced view, actually. Which is probably why you missed it.

223065[/snapback]

Once again it is obvious you need to take a remedial reading comprehension course. I never said that and I think you know it. In the future if you can not understand what is said and how it is meant, don't try to twist things to fit your agenda.

PS - I can provide the exact quote if you need it.

223096[/snapback]

I posted the exact quote upthread. Here it is again:

I can't speak for anyone but myself and I am wondering if Bush has lost his mind. Friends I have spoken to in the shipping and maritime industry are not in favor of this either.

Don't go all Cheney on me and claim you didn't say it. And don't worry about having said it. It was your gut reaction. It was your friends in the industry's reaction. It was alot of people's gut reaction-- Republican as well as Democrat and Independent. Maybe you've tempered your view with more information. Nothing wrong with that. My point in pointing it out was that no matter what I say, no matter how balanced it is, folks like you and a few others disregard it and characterize it as being extreme. That, I think, is what frustrated LegalEagle the other day. Real discourse on this forum is exceedingly rare these days. It has never been abundant. I've never ranted about this port deal. You've expressed as at least as much concern as I have, arguably in stronger terms.

I think it warrants a meaningful review. In fact, the law requires a more meaningful review. Unfortunately, more and more, the law is treated as an inconvenience these days.

223369[/snapback]

Tex you can't even post my direct quote and understand what was said. Since you seem to be somewhat inclined to interpret what is said differently than the intent, I will provide help. "Wondering" is very different than saying "he has". "Wondering" in the context it was written, pertains only to the subject at hand. Unlike saying "he has" which is not and was not my intent. You knew that but tried to make it fit your agenda anyway. A good example is this; I was fortunate one time to talk to Coach Pat Dye (the spring after Bo went the wrong way). I made the statement that at the time we thought he had lost his mind. He laughed and said he thought they had all lost their mind. That is much different than saying "Have you lost your ()*(*%$ mind?"

Discussion is fine, indeed great. Why do you think I post all the damn articles? Merely for posting practice? No to generate discussion. As for "folks like me" disregarding what you post. The problem is that you are usually the first to launch personal attacks and then say it is someone else who started it. That also is pretty much true of democrats. They will launch attacks then loudly denounce the republican attack machine.

As far as the ports deal goes, it may or may not be good, that remains to be seen. But the truth of the matter is the dems were and are using it in a deceitful, demagoguing and totally hypocritical manner. With that being said, it in no way overlooks the legitimate concerns of all concerned. Port security should be high on everyone's radar. Border security should be high on everyone's radar. National security should be high on everyone's radar.

Why would the dems scream so loud over the ports deal (security) the way they have but took the exact opposite view over the NSA and overseas calls to known terrorists?

223370[/snapback]

These are the kind of broadsides that I often respond to with what you call "attacks."

That also is pretty much true of democrats. They will launch attacks then loudly denounce the republican attack machine.

You and others frequently make broad, unsubstantiated statements that have more to do with attacking those who dare question the President than adding to debate. As in this case, I pointed out how bipartisan the attack on this deal has been. In fact, some of the strongest language has come from Republicans. Yet on this thread, your post zeroed in on broadside attacks on Dems rather than the subject at hand, despite Raptors request to keep political allegiances out of this thread.

Why would the dems scream so loud over the ports deal (security) the way they have but took the exact opposite view over the NSA and overseas calls to known terrorists?

Why would Republicans who are willing to give Bush a blank check on the NSA issue be concerned about this issue? Beyond that, you consistently mischaracterize the NSA issue. You claim it only involves known terrorists. We don't know who it involves. We only know what Bush tells us. Too much unfettered power in one branch is the issue on the NSA question, not a lack of concern over security.

[Tigermike 3,051]

I zeroed in on democrats because of their obvious hypocrisy. Who is that wants to claim the "high ground" when it comes to profiling? democrats. When it comes to the ports deal they are all profiling, but it is the democrats who are hypocrites because the republicans don't ride that horse.

I may not be the best judge of international contracts and the language in them. But I am a pretty good judge of American politicians. They are all opportunists, both sides of the aisle.

If Chuck Schumer, Gov. Jon Corzine and others who have so relentlessly stoked the anti-deal fires are really concerned with national security or if they are merely stoking the bash Bush fires remains to be learned.

Schumer and others simply and transparently invented, stoked and exploited this issue, and did so masterfully. Their behavior may be contemptible, especially if it has damaged America's capacity to make common cause with moderate Muslim states. But you can't help admiring their political skills or their motives.

They've done so well with it — in fact, it's the first national-security issue Democrats have dominated since 9/11 — that there's little chance they're going to let it go just because, hey, it might be better for the country.

As far as they're concerned, it will be far better for the country if they take control of the House and Senate in November — so if our relations with Dubai have to be injured in pursuit of that cause, so be it. So don't give me any of your bipartisan BS.

It's unquestionably the case that if roles were reversed, Republicans on Capitol Hill would be doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to do exactly the same thing — they're me-tooing Schumer & Co. in an effort to limit the damage the issue might do to them.

What this means is simple: There will be no ports deal. The delay is perfectly timed to allow the Democrats to raise it all anew in a couple of months, and if necessary to go toe-to-toe with George W. Bush should he hold firm on his determination to veto any congressional attempt to block the port deal.

A couple of months from now is a couple of months closer to the election. They'll just ride a second wave, and unless polls shift dramatically, the president will remain all alone out there.

Mark my words, There will be no ports deal. The wise men are wrong. The "phony phonies" have convinced the "real phonies," and there's no going back.

Jonathan Gurwitz:

True meaning of security drowned in port uproar

Web Posted: 02/26/2006 12:00 AM CST

San Antonio Express-News

When Hillary Clinton tries to outdo Pat Buchanan as a xenophobic protectionist and Jimmy Carter comes to the multicultural defense of George W. Bush, you know something is terribly wrong in the world.

The problem is not only that a company owned by Dubai's ruling family is set to take over operation of some of America's largest ports. The bigger problem is that the race to pile on the Bush administration and condemn the Dubai Ports World deal reveals how utterly capricious our elected leaders' commitment to national security actually is.

The words "national security" are routinely dismissed as the vocabulary of fear-mongers, the passwords of a secret state and the motto of an administration bent on creating a Fourth Reich in America. No Internet indictment of George W. Bush is worth its ethereal weight unless it contains some reference to Nazism and fascist crimes committed in the name of national security.

But look who's invoking national security now to blast the decision, not of Bush, but of the 12-member, multiagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to approve the transfer of one foreign company to another foreign company.

What are the security implications of that transfer? Port owners across the United States contract with businesses to manage operations at their shipping terminals. Twenty-four of the world's 25 largest terminal operators are foreign, including Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased.

Irrespective of the national home of the terminal operator, the Department of Homeland Security - through the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection Immigration and Customs Enforcement - is responsible for security at American ports. Dubai Ports World's buyout of P&O doesn't change that fact.

Yes, two 9-11 hijackers and more than a few jihadists have come from the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part. And the Emirates have served as a haven for financial transactions in support of terrorist groups.

But shoe-bomber Richard Reid came from Britain. And Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who served as his spiritual leader and that of so-called 20th hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui, preached his message of hate and violence at London's Finsbury Park mosque.

Where have the port protectors been for the past four years?

Arab American interest groups that, unfortunately, too often act as apologists for Arab extremism have a valid point with regard to Dubai Ports World. No one on Capitol Hill cared who ran American ports, had heard of P&O or gave a whit about its security record until Arab money got involved. Some of the same leaders who routinely object to any national security policy that might remotely resemble ethnic or religious profiling of airline passengers are leading the attack against Arab ownership.

And they're also some of the same folks who are decrying the surveillance of communications with known terrorists. They condemn Bush for allegedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to advance national security, and in the next breath assail him for allegedly compromising national security by respecting the legal process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Sure, let's have a debate about the laws pertaining to foreign ownership of U.S. assets and the process that scrutinizes it. Let's criticize the White House for its bad instincts with regard to secrecy and its miserable job of informing Congress and explaining to the American people the issues involved with Dubai Ports World.

Let's even flog Bush for not making an elementary distinction between a publicly traded company responsible to its shareholders for making decisions that maximize profits and a privately held concern whose complete list of owners is unknown and whose guiding principle may be something very different from the profit motive.

But for God's sake, the fickle defenders of freedom need to decide which is more important: the right not to be profiled, not to be snooped upon if you call a foreign terrorist and to live free from the intrusions of government on individuals and businesses or national security.

jgurwitz@express-news.net

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/storie...n.6103d040.html

[TexasTiger 13,003]

I zeroed in on democrats because of their obvious hypocrisy.  Who is that wants to claim the "high ground" when it comes to profiling?  democrats.  When it comes to the ports deal they are all profiling, but it is the democrats who are hypocrites because the republicans don't ride that horse. 

I may not be the best judge of international contracts and the language in them. But I am a pretty good judge of American politicians.  They are all opportunists, both sides of the aisle.

If Chuck Schumer, Gov. Jon Corzine and others who have so relentlessly stoked the anti-deal fires are really concerned with national security or if they are merely stoking the bash Bush fires remains to be learned.

Schumer and others simply and transparently invented, stoked and exploited this issue, and did so masterfully. Their behavior may be contemptible, especially if it has damaged America's capacity to make common cause with moderate Muslim states. But you can't help admiring their political skills or their motives.

They've done so well with it — in fact, it's the first national-security issue Democrats have dominated since 9/11 — that there's little chance they're going to let it go just because, hey, it might be better for the country.

As far as they're concerned, it will be far better for the country if they take control of the House and Senate in November — so if our relations with Dubai have to be injured in pursuit of that cause, so be it.  So don't give me any of your bipartisan BS.

It's unquestionably the case that if roles were reversed, Republicans on Capitol Hill would be doing exactly the same thing. Indeed, Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to do exactly the same thing — they're me-tooing Schumer & Co. in an effort to limit the damage the issue might do to them.

What this means is simple: There will be no ports deal. The delay is perfectly timed to allow the Democrats to raise it all anew in a couple of months, and if necessary to go toe-to-toe with George W. Bush should he hold firm on his determination to veto any congressional attempt to block the port deal.

A couple of months from now is a couple of months closer to the election. They'll just ride a second wave, and unless polls shift dramatically, the president will remain all alone out there.

Mark my words, There will be no ports deal. The wise men are wrong. The "phony phonies" have convinced the "real phonies," and there's no going back.

Jonathan Gurwitz:

True meaning of security drowned in port uproar

Web Posted: 02/26/2006 12:00 AM CST

San Antonio Express-News

When Hillary Clinton tries to outdo Pat Buchanan as a xenophobic protectionist and Jimmy Carter comes to the multicultural defense of George W. Bush, you know something is terribly wrong in the world.

The problem is not only that a company owned by Dubai's ruling family is set to take over operation of some of America's largest ports. The bigger problem is that the race to pile on the Bush administration and condemn the Dubai Ports World deal reveals how utterly capricious our elected leaders' commitment to national security actually is.

The words "national security" are routinely dismissed as the vocabulary of fear-mongers, the passwords of a secret state and the motto of an administration bent on creating a Fourth Reich in America. No Internet indictment of George W. Bush is worth its ethereal weight unless it contains some reference to Nazism and fascist crimes committed in the name of national security.

But look who's invoking national security now to blast the decision, not of Bush, but of the 12-member, multiagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to approve the transfer of one foreign company to another foreign company.

What are the security implications of that transfer? Port owners across the United States contract with businesses to manage operations at their shipping terminals. Twenty-four of the world's 25 largest terminal operators are foreign, including Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased.

Irrespective of the national home of the terminal operator, the Department of Homeland Security - through the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection Immigration and Customs Enforcement - is responsible for security at American ports. Dubai Ports World's buyout of P&O doesn't change that fact.

Yes, two 9-11 hijackers and more than a few jihadists have come from the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part. And the Emirates have served as a haven for financial transactions in support of terrorist groups.

But shoe-bomber Richard Reid came from Britain. And Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who served as his spiritual leader and that of so-called 20th hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui, preached his message of hate and violence at London's Finsbury Park mosque.

Where have the port protectors been for the past four years?

Arab American interest groups that, unfortunately, too often act as apologists for Arab extremism have a valid point with regard to Dubai Ports World. No one on Capitol Hill cared who ran American ports, had heard of P&O or gave a whit about its security record until Arab money got involved. Some of the same leaders who routinely object to any national security policy that might remotely resemble ethnic or religious profiling of airline passengers are leading the attack against Arab ownership.

And they're also some of the same folks who are decrying the surveillance of communications with known terrorists. They condemn Bush for allegedly violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to advance national security, and in the next breath assail him for allegedly compromising national security by respecting the legal process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Sure, let's have a debate about the laws pertaining to foreign ownership of U.S. assets and the process that scrutinizes it. Let's criticize the White House for its bad instincts with regard to secrecy and its miserable job of informing Congress and explaining to the American people the issues involved with Dubai Ports World.

Let's even flog Bush for not making an elementary distinction between a publicly traded company responsible to its shareholders for making decisions that maximize profits and a privately held concern whose complete list of owners is unknown and whose guiding principle may be something very different from the profit motive.

But for God's sake, the fickle defenders of freedom need to decide which is more important: the right not to be profiled, not to be snooped upon if you call a foreign terrorist and to live free from the intrusions of government on individuals and businesses or national security.

jgurwitz@express-news.net

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/storie...n.6103d040.html

223376[/snapback]

You "zero in on Democrats" on most threads. Fine. You're free to choose your focus. Look back at my post you deemed an "attack" on this thread. This thread was supposed to be on the merits of the deal, politics aside. Your making this thread partisan is what I pointed out.

[Tigermike 3,051]

And you have done gone out of your way to keep this thread on “merits of the deal” haven’t you. Your making personal attacks are what I pointed out and what you have tried to get around for the past two pages. If you can’t take, don’t dish it out. As far as this thread goes, it was doomed and flawed from the beginning. Are any posters here qualified to comment only on the merits of the deal? I’m surely not qualified to comment on the legal merits of the ports deal are you? I have no experience in negotiating international deals with the United States government or any other country, do you? If so you sure have not bothered to post anything other than articles saying who is against the deal. So get your head out of your sanctimonious ass and provide facts. The one thing you have been short on. You want to take issue with me for pointing out democrat hypocrisy but you offer NO evidence that there is anything other than that going on.

You took issue earlier when I said the dems could have read it in the paper for months. It has been reported for months you know. But there is evidence those same dems also KNEW of the deal long before they started running their dog and pony show. There is also speculation that Al Gore made his anti America rant to the Saudis in preparation of the dems attacks on this deal. There are also many people who think Bill and Hillary took seemingly opposite sides on this situation strictly to help her in the next presidential election. Try as hard as you wish, partisan politics cannot be kept out of the discussion.

BTW – Yes I do zero in on Democrats on most threads, because for the most part, on the whole in general they are hypocritical lying beeches who at every turn put political opportunism above national security.

[channonc 466]

Couldn't agree more.  Americans in this country need to wake up!!  The airports are the only place that transportation security money goes.  We have little port security and almost no rail, pipeline or HAZMAT security.  These are the ways in which we WILL be attacked next.

223107[/snapback]

I agree. Why doesn't your favorite Senator take the lead and propose some legislation to help correct the situation?

223141[/snapback]

Its clear you all do not follow transportation security. My boss, along with Sen. Steven "formally" introduced s.1052 last May. I say "formally" only b/c it was basically a committee orignal bill that was written in January 2005. The bill was passed out of Committee in November, and recently was placed on the calendar b/c of heat over the ports deal.

Previously, our Committee has passed MTSA (in 2002) which also addressed port security, which has some reporting requirements that have still not been met by DHS more than 4 years later. Along with that several measures have been placed in the Coast Guard Authorization Bills over the years.

On rail security, this year Sen. Lott introduced S. 1516, which again, was introduced in July of this year and has passed out of committee and is on the calendar, having no floor time currently scheduled.

Sen. Stevens also introduced s. 1567, which focuses on HAZMAT and truck security. This bill also has been reported out and has no floor time currently scheduled.

These are some of the examples of action that has happened at a smaller level, but floor time is rarely able to be scheuled b/c the Majority Leader feels there are more important bills that should be debated.

223164[/snapback]

That is a lot of "introducing" with no results. Surely there's enough interest in security in the Senate that sufficient bipartisan pressure can be put on Frist to bring something to the floor. This is assuming Frist is the problem as you say.

It just comes across to me that Congress just isn't doing the job. Everyone is too busy criticizing everyone else and getting little done.

223266[/snapback]

These bills have been passed out of Committee, not just introduced, and there has been plenty of bipartisan heat on Frist to take up these issues, but so far we have gotten no response.

[TexasTiger 13,003]

Damn obstructionist Dems:

White House Effort to Block Challenge to Ports Deal Collapses

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 8, 2006;

Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) will attach legislation to block the port deal today to a must-pass emergency spending bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A House vote on the measure next week will set up a direct confrontation with President Bush, who sternly vowed to veto any bill delaying or stopping Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Co.