OT White House Taking A Gamble; Tone Deaf on Port Security

[transcript: cite:
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1573900.htm][/url]

ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
company to run six major US ports.

Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give
the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over
the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably
tone deaf".

The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational
and a financial base.

But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE
company before approving the deal.
[color=blue]
>From Washington, John Shovelan reports.[/color]

Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which
will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to
intervene.

[MAYOR]MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing
another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican
or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to
take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the
decision is out of touch.

[SEN]LINDSAY GRAHAM: 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.

So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made.
Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company
from this region now?

[/end cite]

does 60s surf music really come from the middle east?

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140439445.554808.113240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> [transcript: cite:
> [url]http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1573900.htm][/url]
>
> ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
> Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
> company to run six major US ports.
>
> Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give
> the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over
> the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably
> tone deaf".
>
> The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational
> and a financial base.
>
> But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE
> company before approving the deal.
>[color=green]
>>From Washington, John Shovelan reports.[/color]
>
> Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which
> will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to
> intervene.
>
> [MAYOR]MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing
> another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican
> or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to
> take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake.
>
> JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the
> decision is out of touch.
>
> [SEN]LINDSAY GRAHAM: 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.
>
> So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made.
> Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company
> from this region now?
>
> [/end cite]
>
> does 60s surf music really come from the middle east?
>[/color]


Does seem to be a discontect between the Adminisration and Rep./Dem. members
of Congress.

Posted on Mon, Feb. 20, 2006
Lawmakers assail deal giving Dubai firm control of ports BY MICHAEL MCAULIFF
New York Daily

News WASHINGTON - The Bush administration gave control of six crucial ports
to a Sept. 11-linked Arab nation after a flimsy investigation and with weak
guarantees the company in charge can stop Osama bin Laden from infiltrating,
the House homeland security chairman said.
"There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it's all
procedural and relies entirely on good faith," Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., told
the New York Daily News. "There's nothing those conditions ... nothing that
assures us they're not hiring someone with bin Laden."

The firm, Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, cut
a $6.8 billion deal last week to buy control of the ports - including
Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark, N.J.'s, giant container port -
from a British firm.

A source with knowledge of the purchase echoed the chairman, telling The
News that while Department of Homeland Security administrators
rubber-stamped it, senior analysts at the agency were never told, and they
don't like it now. News of the sale, approved by a secretive multi-agency
panel headed by the Treasury Department, has sparked a growing outcry from
both political parties.

"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, (which) vows to destroy Israel," Sen. Lindsey
Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday."

Hearings on the deal have been called for this week in Congress, and Sens.
Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y, and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., have proposed a law to ban
such takeovers.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded that President Bush personally
intervene.
"The president must act," he said at a news conference with New York Harbor
as a backdrop. "Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country
with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting
to happen."

But the administration is defending the port transfer, pointing out that
even though Dubai was an important base for the Sept. 11 plot, the emirate
is now an American ally.
"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," Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff told ABC's "This Week."

But King, who was briefed on the deal by top officials last week, disagreed.
"Our investigation was very superficial," he said. "We're talking 20 to 25
days of work, and that includes all the financial aspects and everything
else."

King said a huge blind spot was the identity of the firm's employees.
"All we know are principals and people at the top level," he said. "We don't
even know the midlevel guys, who are the ones who will be doing the work,
really running things."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Daily News correspondent Jimmy Vielkind contributed to this report
from New York.

Bush is a traitor. How else can our invasion of Iraq be explained? He let
Bin Laden get away. It is all Bush/Cheney plan to get even richer.



"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140439445.554808.113240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> [transcript: cite:
> [url]http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1573900.htm][/url]
>
> ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
> Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
> company to run six major US ports.
>
> Senior Republican Senator, Lindsay Graham, says the decision to give
> the United Arab Emirates' government-owned ports company control over
> the operations of major ports in the United States was "unbelievably
> tone deaf".
>
> The UAE was used by some of the 9/11 terrorists as both an operational
> and a financial base.
>
> But administration officials say they did impose conditions on the UAE
> company before approving the deal.
>[color=green]
>>From Washington, John Shovelan reports.[/color]
>
> Martin O'Malley, the Mayor of Baltimore - one of the major ports which
> will now be operated by the Arab company - called for the President to
> intervene.
>
> [MAYOR]MARTIN O'MALLEY: Can we, as a country, take a gamble by allowing
> another country to be in charge of our security? This is not Republican
> or Democrat. This is about the safety of our country. We're going to
> take this as far as we can, because our national security is at stake.
>
> JOHN SHOVELAN: Respected Republican Senator Lindsay Graham says the
> decision is out of touch.
>
> [SEN]LINDSAY GRAHAM: 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.
>
> So I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could've made.
> Most Americans are scratching their head, wondering why this company
> from this region now?
>
> [/end cite]
>
> does 60s surf music really come from the middle east?
>[/color]

Art, 2/20/2006,2:36:31 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Bush is a traitor. How else can our invasion of Iraq be explained?
> He let Bin Laden get away. It is all Bush/Cheney plan to get even
> richer.[/color]

How does letting Bin Laden get away make Bush and Cheney richer?

--
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are
the president." ~ Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of
subpoenaed documents.

On 20 Feb 2006 19:51:56 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Art, 2/20/2006,2:36:31 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Bush is a traitor. How else can our invasion of Iraq be explained?
>> He let Bin Laden get away. It is all Bush/Cheney plan to get even
>> richer.[/color]
>
>How does letting Bin Laden get away make Bush and Cheney richer?[/color]

LOL.....

They really are fun when they speak out and look silly....aren't they?

--

Scott in Florida

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:57:48 -0500, Scott in Florida
<MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On 20 Feb 2006 19:51:56 GMT, "badgolferman"
><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Art, 2/20/2006,2:36:31 PM, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Bush is a traitor. How else can our invasion of Iraq be explained?
>>> He let Bin Laden get away. It is all Bush/Cheney plan to get even
>>> richer.[/color]
>>
>>How does letting Bin Laden get away make Bush and Cheney richer?[/color][/color]

Simple. By letting him get away and spending more time and effort in
other places Haliburton and Oil Companies make more money which
directly effects Bush and Cheney.[color=blue]
>
>LOL.....
>
>They really are fun when they speak out and look silly....aren't they?[/color]

Laugh away, neocon. Deep down inside you know it's true.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140439445.554808.113240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> [transcript: cite:
> [url]http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1573900.htm][/url]
>
> ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
> Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
> company to run six major US ports.
>[/color]


What you fail to realize is that the same company already runs many of the
ports where the cargo containers originate from.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9cSdnaZQ55ODqmfeRVn-gA@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140439445.554808.113240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> [transcript: cite:
>> [url]http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1573900.htm][/url]
>>
>> ELEANOR HALL: The Bush administration is facing criticism from
>> Republicans and Democrats alike over its decision to allow an Arab
>> company to run six major US ports.
>>[/color]
>
>
> What you fail to realize is that the same company already runs many of the
> ports where the cargo containers originate from.
>
>[/color]

Lovely...and your point is what?

In article <do7kv1d2spf7faegi3dj6sah2beo8mc2h1@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <MoveOn@outa.here> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 20 Feb 2006 19:51:56 GMT, "badgolferman"
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Art, 2/20/2006,2:36:31 PM, wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Bush is a traitor. How else can our invasion of Iraq be explained?
> >> He let Bin Laden get away. It is all Bush/Cheney plan to get even
> >> richer.[/color]
> >
> >How does letting Bin Laden get away make Bush and Cheney richer?[/color]
>
> LOL.....
>
> They really are fun when they speak out and look silly....aren't they?[/color]

Pitiful, but I am laughing.
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore

Gary L. Burnore, 2/20/2006,4:26:51 PM, wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > How does letting Bin Laden get away make Bush and Cheney richer?[/color][/color]
>
> Simple. By letting him get away and spending more time and effort in
> other places Haliburton and Oil Companies make more money which
> directly effects Bush and Cheney.[/color]

What a conspiracy theorist!!! You should be writing B movies.

Could you imagine the reaction if this was a Democrat President?
I guess blow jobs and War protestors scare these hypocritical
goons more than an incompetent administration that sees no
problem in placing our security in the hands of an Arab nation
and misleads the nation into war.

ToMh, 2/21/2006, 12:03:21 PM,
<1140541401.170607.173340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Could you imagine the reaction if this was a Democrat President?
> I guess blow jobs and War protestors scare these hypocritical
> goons more than an incompetent administration that sees no
> problem in placing our security in the hands of an Arab nation
> and misleads the nation into war.[/color]

I don't think you will find anyone in this group who doesn't see
something wrong with this situation. I suspect the Administration is
trying to find a face-saving way out of this public blowup.

The difficult thing will be avoiding offending the UAE. They are an
American ally in the Middle East and host one of our military bases
there. Hopefully Congress will give them the excuse to get out of it
gracefully.

--
“Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything.” ~
Frank Dane

"ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140541401.170607.173340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Could you imagine the reaction if this was a Democrat President?
> I guess blow jobs and War protestors scare these hypocritical
> goons more than an incompetent administration that sees no
> problem in placing our security in the hands of an Arab nation
> and misleads the nation into war.[/color]


You DEMONrats are the epitome of Arab terrorist lovers. Hypocrites.


[color=blue]
>[/color]

Another post void of thought brought to you by "Babbling Idiots for
Bush"
and the "White Supremist Survivalist Groups of Alberta". Where we're
proud to be racist fascists.

In article <1140541401.170607.173340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Could you imagine the reaction if this was a Democrat President?
> I guess blow jobs and War protestors scare these hypocritical
> goons more than an incompetent administration that sees no
> problem in placing our security in the hands of an Arab nation
> and misleads the nation into war.[/color]

You exhibit poor self discipline if you think clintoons love affair in
the WH was nothing to be concerned about.
--
"Welcome to President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, and my fellow astronauts."

Al Gore