The U.S. Ports deal.

[Reddman]

Maybe Dubya did not rubber stamp this one himself but what's most troubling is the friggin' Sec of Treasure John Snow admitted that he found out about the whole deal by reading it in the paper too . The fact the man in charge of overseeing foreign investments here was in the dark does not make any of this easy to swallow.

[Gus The Dagger]

I dont really care about this port thing

[Reddman]

I dont really care about this port thing

You don't but others do as the lawsuits are being filed left and right as of today.

[Felicia Katt]

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were "unable to locate any derogatory information on the company," according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., and others have complained that the intelligence report focused only on information the agencies collected about DP World and did not examine reported links between UAE government officials and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.

Officials from the White House, CIA, departments of State, Treasury, Justices, and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports. "We had the most obvious stake in the process," Baker said.

Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal. "We had the authority to do an audit earlier," Baker said.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said there was no going back on the deal.



America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
George W. Bush

I guess an absence note is different than a permission slip.

There's no bigger task than protecting the homeland of our country.
George W. Bush

But its not big enough that Bush or his cabinet bothered to work on it themselves, not big enough to be bothered to look at the Country that owns the company they did look at, and its not big enough to even finish a security audit of the ports involved. And I guess the money is too big that we won't look at reconsidering the deal.

FK

[TrueBeauty TS]

Homeland Security Objected to Ports Deal
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer


President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.
FK

Who is running this country??? It's like Indiana Jones opening the cockpit door and seeing there is no one flying the plane.

This administration has only one policy... everything is for sale. Our culture, our land, our weapons, our secrets, our busineses, our values, our jobs, our people, our future and now even our security. If you can sell it and make money, then that's "good for America!". Osama is doing it the hard way. He doesn't have to go to war with us, he could just save up some money and buy us outright. (Just like China is doing.)

If this were any other time in history, the people in this administration would be arrested and tried on charges of treason against the United States.

It seems nowadays, treason is just another word for Capitalism.

[shemalejunky]

Folks, what's at issue? I cannot see anything wrong with this transaction. The company being taken over is British, not American. These port operations have been in its hands for years. As well, they are only a portion of the operations at any one port, not the entirety. Safety is the responsibility of the government. Some posters in other forums have gone to the point of stating that jobs will be lost due to the fact that this company, being Arab, will import Arab workers! My lord. There is a lot of misunderstanding here, but more or less, just an inability to divulge the facts.

[chefmike]

[lmw222001]

I Was Watching Rudy Guliani Being Interviewed The Other Night And He Said That,"Americans Should Be Running Our Ports And No One Else."
He's Positively Right. Our Seaports,Airports,Borders And Any Points Of Entry Into Our Country Need To Be Managed,Built,Patrolled And Maintained By Americans.
Why We Would Even Consider Letting An Arab Company Have The Contract For This (Managing) Just Leaves Me Fucking Speechless.
Let's Get Our Shit Together Here.
Put It Out To Bid In The US. To Be Bid On Only By A US Company.

[tubgirl]

Folks, what's at issue? I cannot see anything wrong with this transaction. The company being taken over is British, not American. These port operations have been in its hands for years. As well, they are only a portion of the operations at any one port, not the entirety. Safety is the responsibility of the government. Some posters in other forums have gone to the point of stating that jobs will be lost due to the fact that this company, being Arab, will import Arab workers! My lord. There is a lot of misunderstanding here, but more or less, just an inability to divulge the facts.

i don't see it as a worker issue so much as a security issue. we need someone who has the same world values that we do (or at least close) running our ports. you are correct, the company being taken over is british, but it is a company. we are talking about giving power of the ports over to, literally, another country. the new company is owned bt the UAE, who have had direct ties to al-queda

[Reddman]

Folks, what's at issue? I cannot see anything wrong with this transaction. The company being taken over is British, not American. These port operations have been in its hands for years. As well, they are only a portion of the operations at any one port, not the entirety. Safety is the responsibility of the government. Some posters in other forums have gone to the point of stating that jobs will be lost due to the fact that this company, being Arab, will import Arab workers! My lord. There is a lot of misunderstanding here, but more or less, just an inability to divulge the facts.

i don't see it as a worker issue so much as a security issue. we need someone who has the same world values that we do (or at least close) running our ports. you are correct, the company being taken over is british, but it is a company. we are talking about giving power of the ports over to, literally, another country. the new company is owned bt the UAE, who have had direct ties to al-queda

Exactly. Hey imagine if in the midst of the Cold War era that the government approved and granted the same deal to the Soviet Union. Heads would have rolled.