Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/20/2006 8:08:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 8:19:22 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html

Thank God some members of the Republican Party still remember what it means be an American!

I can't wait... I bet Hastert & Boehner will be branded "sellouts" & "Bush bashers" by some of the true believers around here.

Sad really...


WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

"We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security," one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: "Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction."

On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether.

"I'm strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold," King said. "This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates."

King said UAE-owned Dubai Ports World won approval without thorough administration vetting.

"There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran," King said of that country's own territory. "There's been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government."

King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.

"We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president," Menendez said.

Under federal law, the president has until March 2 to overrule approval granted by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for DP World to purchase the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which has been running the commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

The multi-agency task force headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow and comprised of members of the departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security reviewed the transaction and said it posed no national security threat.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told FOX News on Monday that congressional questions will persist until more is learned about the administration review process.

"It's very difficult without total transparency and I'm not saying I should necessarily have it but members of congress who have expressed concern should be given a look at the agreement to see who ultimately has operational responsibility and what kind of information is going to be shared with whom once the transaction is completed," Ridge said.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan defended the process that approved the $6.8 billion deal.

McClellan said the process of review was followed. He did not, however, defend the decision to approve the transaction or rule out the president's future involvement.

Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland have also voiced doubts about the sale.

"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," said Pataki, who is still in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy.

"We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security," Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

The state of Maryland is considering its options, up to and including voiding the contract for the Port of Baltimore, Ehrlich said, adding: "We have a lot of discretion in the contract."

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:19:36 PM EDT
WOW, good news for once

doubt wit will help though
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:32:48 PM EDT
Good.
Damn good.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:33:40 PM EDT
I sure hope so. I felt so dirty today after agreeing with Chuck Schumer on something.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:34:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By moparman71:
I sure hope so. I felt so dirty today after agreeing with Chuck Schumer on something.


or Fienstein on the USS IOWA thing
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:50:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 9:11:29 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
Another "Bush basher" chimes in...

www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/port.security/index.html


Ridge: 'Legitimate' concerns'

Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and the Pentagon.

"We look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security," Chertoff said on CNN.

Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, pounced on Chertoff, who is already under fire for his agency's response to Hurricane Katrina.

"You can't just simply tell us, 'Trust us,' " Menendez told reporters. "We trusted the government response to Hurricane Katrina -- and the people of the Gulf were largely left on their own."

Menendez has proposed a new law prohibiting the sale of operations at U.S. ports to companies owned by international governments, noting 95 percent of cargo reaching U.S. ports is not inspected.

Chertoff's predecessor, Tom Ridge, said that during his tenure as secretary from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns, and that he believes U.S. officials would not jeopardize national security.

But he also told CNN, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."


But Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security.

"So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."



Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:56:50 PM EDT
two state goveners are threeatening to completely close any ports taken over by UAE

the bovine feces is going to hit the rotating blades soon enough over this.

bump
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:01:35 PM EDT
Spine? The Republicans aren't supposed to have a spine? What gives?

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:01:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By santanatwo:
two state goveners are threeatening to completely close any ports taken over by UAE

the bovine feces is going to hit the rotating blades soon enough over this.

bump



at least a few politicians still have their balls...
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:13:18 PM EDT
What a second....


WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.


So we are going from one FOREIGN control to another?????? WTF!!!!!!

Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:17:24 PM EDT
yep, you'd be surprised what forgin countries own what, here in the good ol' U S of A
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:18:01 PM EDT
"Cousin Achmed, could I store a small shipping container, the most trivial of things, in your port in New York City?"
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:19:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 10:28:11 PM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By Scollins:
What a second....


WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.


So we are going from one FOREIGN control to another?????? WTF!!!!!!




I agree... I would prefer to see a U.S. company run our ports, but if you can't see a HUGE difference between the Brits & Muslim/Arabs in a post 9/11 world then I don't know what to tell you.

I'd take the English running our ports till the end of days before I would accept the avowed enemy of Western civilization running them for even one damn second.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:22:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:


I agree... I would prefer to see a U.S. company run our ports, but if you can't see a HUGE difference between the Brits & Muslim/Arabs in a post 9/11 world then I don't know what to tell you.



I can see the difference, but both options are fucked in my opinion. One is far more fucked than the other, but still....
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:30:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By moparman71:
I sure hope so. I felt so dirty today after agreeing with Chuck Schumer on something.



+1
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:30:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scollins:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:


I agree... I would prefer to see a U.S. company run our ports, but if you can't see a HUGE difference between the Brits & Muslim/Arabs in a post 9/11 world then I don't know what to tell you.



I can see the difference, but both options are fucked in my opinion. One is far more fucked than the other, but still....



I agree they were talking about this on hannity and combs
if it was anyone but a middle eastern country it would not be a issue IE Japan Australia Demark
hell i would prefer the chinese to any mid east country
they may not like us but they are not suicidal and batshit crazy
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:24:07 AM EDT
Breaking: Senate Majority Leader Frist is also on board with at least delaying this deal pending a more complete review of the facts.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:26:50 AM EDT
I have to side with them, The Bush administration has really f*cked this one up. It seems like they are trying to destroy this country by force feeding us their disturbing agenda.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:28:59 AM EDT
The UAE is the biggest US ally in the Gulf region.

So why screw them over??

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:30:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 8:31:18 AM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By CRC:
The UAE is the biggest US ally in the Gulf region.

So why screw them over??




Wow... just wow.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:33:42 AM EDT
From the other thread:


Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Well, I was listening to Tony Snow this morning and he helped put thing into perspective. First, the problem with making sure that the company overseeing port operations is an American company is that the are no American companies in this business. Worldwide, there are three large enough to handle this kind of an operation. One in the U.A.E, one in Singapore and one in Hong Kong. So basically, our choices are the U.A.E. or China.

Second, under the terms of the contract, the management structure from the the British company will stay in place (the British company apparently is going out of business or has be bought up.) They will simply be getting their paychecks from the U.A.E. insted of England.

I'm still not crazy about this deal, but it seems the Bush administration is doing the best they can with the cards that they have been dealt. Maybe Halliburton should get into the port-management business. That would solve the problem and piss off the Dems.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:35:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 8:39:13 AM EDT by Combatvet]

Originally Posted By CRC:
The UAE is the biggest US ally in the Gulf region.

So why screw them over??




Nevermind that they have funded terrorist cells.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:37:12 AM EDT
So, what do you people want Bush to do?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:56:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Scollins:
What a second....
So we are going from one FOREIGN control to another?????? WTF!!!!!!



As an example, Indianapolis airport, although not actually owned by them, has been run by BAA since 1997.

It has been a common practise to outsource the management of large facilities for some time, allowing ownership is a giant step beyond this and as such should not be viewed in the same way.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:00:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
From the other thread:


Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
Well, I was listening to Tony Snow this morning and he helped put thing into perspective. First, the problem with making sure that the company overseeing port operations is an American company is that the are no American companies in this business. Worldwide, there are three large enough to handle this kind of an operation. One in the U.A.E, one in Singapore and one in Hong Kong. So basically, our choices are the U.A.E. or China.

Second, under the terms of the contract, the management structure from the the British company will stay in place (the British company apparently is going out of business or has be bought up.) They will simply be getting their paychecks from the U.A.E. insted of England.

I'm still not crazy about this deal, but it seems the Bush administration is doing the best they can with the cards that they have been dealt. Maybe Halliburton should get into the port-management business. That would solve the problem and piss off the Dems.




Thanks for the posting the real deal.

And maybe this deal will lead to greater ties to the UAE and make them a stronger ally.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 3:12:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

Originally Posted By CRC:
The UAE is the biggest US ally in the Gulf region.

So why screw them over??




Wow... just wow.


so are the saudis
Top Top