http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...11cM&refer=home

Bush Says Dubai Port Deal Should Proceed, Threatens Veto

 

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said a Dubai company's bid to manage six major U.S. ports should go forward, threatening to veto legislation that blocks the transaction because of security concerns.

 

``After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,'' Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from a speech in Golden, Colorado. ``We believe this is a legitimate deal that will not jeopardize the security of the country and at the same time send out a signal that we're willing to treat people fairly.''

 

In response to a question, Bush said he would veto any legislation enacted to block the deal.

 

``I don't view it as a fight, I view it as the right policy,'' he said.

 

The administration's approval of the acquisition of London- based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by a firm controlled by the United Arab Emirates has ignited a storm of protests from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and from governors of the states where the ports are located.

 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined Democrats such as Senator Hillary Clinton of New York in calling on the administration to delay or block the $6.8 billion sale.

 

New York Governor George Pataki and Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, both Republicans, also have announced their opposition.

 

Brookly McLaughlin, a Treasury spokeswoman, has said the administration can begin a new review of the deal only if the companies submitted false or misleading information.

 

Dubai's royal family sent a delegation to the U.S. today to seek meetings with officials to allay concerns about the emirate's control of U.S. ports as part of a takeover of P&O.

 

``This process has been extensively reviewed,'' Bush said. ``I really don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East that our experts are convinced that port security is not an issue,'' he said.

 

P&O's biggest operations in the U.S. are at the Port of Newark, where it has 30-year lease from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to operate the 180-acre terminal, which can handle about 1 million containers a year.

 

The lease is shared by A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S, the largest container-shipping company. P&O also has a 50 percent stake in the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, which handles about 500,000 containers a year at the port in Florida.

 

Dubai beat Singapore's PSA International Pte in the takeover, approved on Feb. 14 in London by P&O shareholders, which more than doubles DP World's terminals to 51, with the capacity to move 33.3 million containers.

 

P&O also operates terminals in Philadelphia and New Orleans.

 

 

I think Cheney has a number of hunting trips to take, starting with Frist. :shifty

Gotta agree with Bush here.

 

I'd like to know the rationale behind blocking the deal.

It's very simple. The country that owns these ports had extensive ties to terrorism. Two of the hijackers came from there, and the majority of the funding for the 9/11 attacks went through this country's banking system. In addition, they acted as an intermediary when Pakistan's nuclear scientists sold that country's nuclear technology on the black market to Iran and N. Korea.

 

Turning over 6 ports, plus apparently 2 military ports to these people would be an extremely dangerous proposition.

 

If Bush vetoes this bill, it looks like it may get overturned.

These people?

 

So first we have to beware of stereotyping Muslims, and then we don't allow them to do business with us because of stereotypes? Because they MIGHT be terrorists? Gimme a break. UAE is no Iraq, Iran or Pakistan. Not only are they strong economically, but they are easily the most open and tolerant of all the countries in the middle East.

Why shouldn't allow the UAE to do this deal when we let the British do the same. Do we tell them, "Sorry, but we just don't trust brown people." Is that really the message we want to convey to the world?

The UAE isn't some far winged regime, bent on destroying us, and for those who claim to be worried about our security. If you are truly afraid of what might happen, why weren't you harping when the brits owned these ports and who implemented laughable security measures. The inspections under the brits, was deplorable. Our ports are extreamly weak, the UAE would be under the gun if this deal would go through. They have a huge interest in their standing in the western world, they would be sure not to mess this up. They would go beyond the call of duty, to ensure that they would not be blackballed from future investements in the US, which the country needs to sustain it's wealth after it's reserves run out.

 

The fear that is being voiced here, is unfounded protectionist fear.

 

I believe the government has to step in somewhat(like in the recent case of the US blocking the chinese buyout of Unocal), but the fears here as I see them, are not that logical. The UAE is not going to survive the lion's den it sits in, if it cannot sustain it's prosperity and cozy relationship with the US government. If they were to screw this deal up, their country would be blackballed, and probably ripe for a good ole far right Islamic uprising.

UAE is no Iraq

 

I agree, Iraq didn't harbor 9/11 terrorists.

Nor did Iraq send nuclear components to North Korea, Lybia, as well as other countries.

Not to mention we suspect them of blue collar worker abuse.

Who cares that they discriminate against Asians? It's not like you'll see Israel on a UAE map either.

And of course their Human Rights record is anything but pristine.

 

I say reward them!

 

I think the major problem here is that DoD people were kept in the dark about this even though they were said to have approved the move.

UAE is no Iraq

 

I agree, Iraq didn't harbor 9/11 terrorists.

Nor did Iraq send nuclear components to North Korea, Lybia, as well as other countries.

Not to mention we suspect them of blue collar worker abuse.

Who cares that they discriminate against Asians? It's not like you'll see Israel on a UAE map either.

And of course their Human Rights record is anything but pristine.

 

I say reward them!

 

I think the major problem here is that DoD people were kept in the dark about this even though they were said to have approved the move.

 

Way to miss my point.

UAE is no Iraq

 

I agree, Iraq didn't harbor 9/11 terrorists.

Nor did Iraq send nuclear components to North Korea, Lybia, as well as other countries.

Not to mention we suspect them of blue collar worker abuse.

Who cares that they discriminate against Asians? It's not like you'll see Israel on a UAE map either.

And of course their Human Rights record is anything but pristine.

 

I say reward them!

 

I think the major problem here is that DoD people were kept in the dark about this even though they were said to have approved the move.

 

Way to miss my point.

 

What point? That we are stereotyping them by pointing out the fact they harbored terrorists?

 

Or that they might only be the bad guys because they send nuclear arsenal material to "evil axis" countries.

 

Or that they are more tolerant than most countries in the area because they only ignore the existence of Israel, but don't say the holocaust never happen and don't openly attack them. I guess we should reward them for only being kinda bad, just not totally bad, right?

 

So what point was it that I missed?

 

Oh that they have money? Yeah good thing too, especially when they helped finance 9/11 terrorists.

My opinion is that we should be operating our own ports. Not another country. I'm not stereotyping muslims as terrorists, but you just never know what ties some of the people working in these companies could have. Ask any person with experience in counter-terrorism, and they will say that the biggest hole in this country's security are the ports. Only 5% of the containers that come into this country yearly are inspected, because it's just not feasible to inspect every single one.

 

Someone made a perfect point writing into CNN on Lou Dobbs' show today. They said: "Do you believe that the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt would turn over their port security to the U.S.'s control? Of course not."

 

I can only think of one person that predicted something like 9/11, and that was the now-deceased chief of security for the World Trade Center. I guess you could say Tom Clancy as well, but I'm not going to count that.

 

I have to laugh at watching Bush fight a solo battle against his own party, it's really funny. The only other person who has not directly opposed this sale in Congress is John McCain, who wants to take a longer look at the sale.

I can only think of one person that predicted something like 9/11, and that was the now-deceased chief of security for the World Trade Center. I guess you could say Tom Clancy as well, but I'm not going to count that.

 

 

Just as a side note:

 

http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html :o

There is no way they shoudl be allowed to control any of our ports.

 

 

Having said that, there is no way the British should be controlling our ports, but they are our puppets so its no big deal essentially...

 

 

This is going to start a war, there are too many that are against it, that Congress cannot just let it pass, its an election year, they cannot afford to simply ignore the masses.

UAE is no Iraq

 

I agree, Iraq didn't harbor 9/11 terrorists.

Nor did Iraq send nuclear components to North Korea, Lybia, as well as other countries.

Not to mention we suspect them of blue collar worker abuse.

Who cares that they discriminate against Asians? It's not like you'll see Israel on a UAE map either.

And of course their Human Rights record is anything but pristine.

 

I say reward them!

 

I think the major problem here is that DoD people were kept in the dark about this even though they were said to have approved the move.

 

Way to miss my point.

 

What point? That we are stereotyping them by pointing out the fact they harbored terrorists?

 

Or that they might only be the bad guys because they send nuclear arsenal material to "evil axis" countries.

 

Or that they are more tolerant than most countries in the area because they only ignore the existence of Israel, but don't say the holocaust never happen and don't openly attack them. I guess we should reward them for only being kinda bad, just not totally bad, right?

 

So what point was it that I missed?

 

Oh that they have money? Yeah good thing too, especially when they helped finance 9/11 terrorists.

 

I was saying that they are more foward than other countries in the region...

I didn't know that UAE has been involved in all these things that you say...or are they involved the same way Iraq had WMD's?

There is a lot of evidence that the UAE helped the 9/11 hijackers and sent nuclear information to Iran and N. Korea.

 

I also see that Bush's head of Maritime Security is the Director of European and Latin American Operations for this Dubai company.... :mischief2

UAE is no Iraq

 

I agree, Iraq didn't harbor 9/11 terrorists.

Nor did Iraq send nuclear components to North Korea, Lybia, as well as other countries.

Not to mention we suspect them of blue collar worker abuse.

Who cares that they discriminate against Asians? It's not like you'll see Israel on a UAE map either.

And of course their Human Rights record is anything but pristine.

 

I say reward them!

 

I think the major problem here is that DoD people were kept in the dark about this even though they were said to have approved the move.

 

Way to miss my point.

 

What point? That we are stereotyping them by pointing out the fact they harbored terrorists?

 

Or that they might only be the bad guys because they send nuclear arsenal material to "evil axis" countries.

 

Or that they are more tolerant than most countries in the area because they only ignore the existence of Israel, but don't say the holocaust never happen and don't openly attack them. I guess we should reward them for only being kinda bad, just not totally bad, right?

 

So what point was it that I missed?

 

Oh that they have money? Yeah good thing too, especially when they helped finance 9/11 terrorists.

 

I was saying that they are more foward than other countries in the region...

I didn't know that UAE has been involved in all these things that you say...or are they involved the same way Iraq had WMD's?

 

But just because they are more forward than other countries in the region doesn't make them good, they are just the lesser of a number of evils.

 

The UAE openly says they do not recognize Israel. There have been a number of Human Rights hawks zone in on them leading to a number of reports. It is common knowledge now that 9/11 terrorists came from UAE. It is also known that the UAE dealt with terrorists, financially and otherwise, but cut ties in the months after 9/11. So did they know what was going to happen? I would say probably not, but they did deal with terrorists, so it wouldn't be crazy to think they are turning a blind eye towards them in their own country now. Also, their government does not openly deal nuclear materials, but they have been the mid-point for a lot of illegal wheelings and dealings.

Not that I agree with this decision BUT it is worth noting that Port of Miami's security is handled by Miami-Dade Police, the Coast Guard and Customs. Source: 7 News.

 

Not sure about other American ports.

Port security would still be up to US agencies.

I don't know where I'm at on this issue. :confused

Bush defended this today on the NBC Nightly News and he said that security at ports will be managed by the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs... NOT the company from UAE.

 

The company would be responsible only for "port cargo operations" (whatever that means) and nothing else. I don't like the idea of a muslim nation having anything to do with our ports, but the security will still be handled by American's.

From what I heard, this company would be involved in all of the operations that have to do with the port, and the U.S. would take care of external security.

Today our shipping ports, tomorrow our airports?

 

Dubai sets up $15 dollar aerospace facility

AFP, DUBAI

 

Feb 21: The booming Gulf emirate of Dubai is to set up a 15-billion-dollar aerospace enterprise aimed mainly at providing worldwide maintenance services, the civil aviation chief said recently.

 

The new facility will provide aircraft maintenance at world airports and lease planes, as well as set up an aviation academy, said Sheikh Ahmad bin Saeed al-Maktoum, who is also chairman of Dubai's flagship carrier Emirates. Announcing the formation of Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE), Sheikh Ahmad said that "within 10 years, DAE will become an integral part of the global aerospace industry".

 

"Here in the UAE we are right at the heart of the most dynamic developments in the industry.

 

"This region is in a position to shape the trends that will decide the future of the global industry," he told an audience led by Dubai's ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashed al-Maktoum, the driving force behind the emirate's ambitious projects.

 

DAE's operations will be divided between six subsidiaries, the first of which is "Airport Development and Operations". It will focus on developing and extending existing airport infrastructure and target the rapidly emerging markets of China and India, DAE said in a statement.

Independent Bangladesh

 

I have a huge problem with a foreign government, which supported the Taliban and it's harboring of Al Qaeda, is financially linked to the recent strengthening of the Taliban forces in Pakistan and Afganistan, which does not recognize Israel, which served as a financial and operational base for the 9/11 attacks, provided 2 of the hijackers, etc. having anything to do with our ports. They will be in full control over which cargo loads are serviced and when, who has access, all maintenance, opening and closing the ports, and the security policies under which our Coast Guard and policing agencies operate.

 

The only reasons I can see for this, and it is not legitimate, is the money trail. The article is dated Dec 12, and states that the bond issue would be listed in two months, about the same time as this stupidity. It's may be the start of the money trail that lead to this secret assignment. I wonder if somebody has interest in the sukuk that will convert to equity at the time of the IPO that is set for PCFC. With control over the world's most important port, somebody stands to make billions.

 

Published: 12/12/2005 12:00 AM (UAE)

World's largest sukuk to list on new bourse

By Saifur Rahman, Staff Reporter

 

Dubai: World's biggest-ever Islamic bond, the Dh10.27 billion ($2.8 billion) sukuk for Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCFC), is likely to be listed on the Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX) in two months, a senior official said.

 

"We plan to list a Dh10 billion sukuk on DIFX within the next two months," Fadi Ghosaini, head of business development at DIFX, told a meeting hosted by Dubai Property Group on Sunday.

 

He, however, did not reveal the identity of the issuer.

 

Currently PCFC's Dh10.27 billion sukuk is the only Islamic instrument of that size that is being offered for subscription.

 

The listing of the sukuk would boost the profile of Dubai's newest exchange which witnessed less than expected trading during the initial weeks of its launch.

 

"This will be followed by the listing of a major real estate investment trust fund on the exchange," he said. "We expect between three to five initial public offerings (IPOs) within the next few months with a combined capital offering of more than Dh3.67 billion."

 

As many as 15 further IPOs are planned by the end of 2006, he said.

 

PCFC's sukuk has been launched to finance a ?3.3 billion acquisition by its international port management arm, Dubai Ports World, of British ports, ferries and property group, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O).

 

Ghosaini said, DIFX has identified the property sector as one of the major growth areas for the exchange.

 

"Dubai's real estate boom has attracted local, regional and international investors into the burgeoning property market," said Ghosaini.

 

"The DIFX will provide a perfect platform for developers and real estate investors to raise capital by utilising a multitude of fund raising tools currently available. Such tools, which include debt and equity products, can help real estate companies expand their operations or finance projects in a more effective manner," he added.

 

The size of the region's Islamic bond market is valued less than Dh10 billion.

 

"If we can tap at least 25 per cent of the $300 billion Swiss funds that are looking for Islamic instruments, it will fetch us $75 billion worth of Islamic funds," he said, explaining the opportunities available in the market.

 

The DIFX opened on September 26 this year with five listed securities. These are structured products issued by Deutsche Bank, which cover the US S&P 500, the German DAX 30, the Japanese Nikkei 225, the EuroStoxx 50 and the Stoxx 50.

 

Expectation

Issue likely to be oversubscribed

 

The Dh10.27billion sukuk for Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCFC), lead-managed by Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB) and Barclays Capital (BC), has received an excellent response, and is likely to be oversubscribed by at least 50 to 75 per cent, with an expected book size of between $4 billion to $5 billion, officials said.

 

Dr. Mohammad Khalfan Bin Kharbash, UAE Minister of State for Finance and Industry and Chairman of Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB), said, "DIB will break its own previously-held record of lead managing the world's largest sukuk.

 

"The PCFC sukuk is the largest and also the first-ever convertible sukuk issue. It is convertible to 30 per cent equity shares of the PCFC entities when they go for the IPO within the next three years."

 

"The unique structure of the sukuk, with its convertible element, along with the attractive potential yield ranging from 7.25 per cent to 8.25 per cent per annum have made this a highly sought after instrument. If the IPO does not happen, then the yield of the Sukuk will become over 10 per cent per annum," he added.

Gulf News

Also, UAE may likely to undermine any sanctions against Iran. These aren't the guys we need controlling our ports.

 

Business Economy

Published: 02/22/2006 12:00 AM (UAE)

Iranians pin hopes on UAE

By Faisal Masudi, Staff Reporter

 

Dubai: Visiting Iranian companies say they will survive a possible UN-sponsored economic boycott, partly due to healthy trade relations with the UAE.

 

All trade with Iran may be blocked by most countries if it is formally referred next month to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear energy programme, which Iran insists is for civilian purposes only.

 

The Iranian companies say they have "considered all possibilities" in their nation's diplomatic row with the West, and expect business as usual because it will still be possible to indirectly import goods through tax-free havens like Dubai.

 

They are also banking on strong domestic demand for their products to see them through a potential ban on Iranian exports.

 

The export manager for Gasso, a maker of kitchen equipment, was confident he would be able to maintain relations with his European suppliers, be it on a different level.

 

"We can still import indirectly through other countries if Italy, France and Germany are asked to stop sending us [machine parts]. They can be imported and even re-exported through Dubai without tax," said B. Azad.

 

"I don't think Dubai can afford to support [sanctions on us] there are too many [iranian] government companies here and private investors' money, both in Dubai and passing through."

 

Another manufacturer of food-processing machines, Omidi Industrial Machinery, does not expect a possible ban to apply to its main market, the CIS, or Commonwealth of Independent States.

 

Omidi Industrial Machinery's marketing manager Shabnam Omidi said: "Close to half of our international market is the CIS. I don't believe that area will be affected. In any case, we can re-route [machines] through free zones here."

 

An Iranian sweets seller, Oghab Halva, is not worried about the future. Its export manager, Elham Talebian, said, "We have our own markets now. Domestic demand is high. We're not worried about it."

 

"Sanctions of any kind can happen anytime but when you're a merchant, you have to do your job and find a way to continue. We are self-sufficient with 60 per cent of the business concentrated in Iran. We currently export to the US, Canada, Germany and Iraq."

 

Their comments were made at the Gulfood 2006 exhibition in Dubai. There was no national pavilion for Iran and the firms denied there were any political reasons for the low turnout.

 

"We are businessmen, not politicians," Azad said.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog auditing Iran's nuclear ambitions, will submit on March 6 a report that may place the controversy in the Security Council's hands.

 

Economic sanctions are a possible outcome if Iran defies calls to halt the programme.

Gulf News

THESE ARE U.S. PORTS, THEY NEED TO BE RUN BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND PROTECTED BY AMERICANS!!!

 

I am a stong Bush supporter and I voted for him in 2004 but if this deal goes thorugh then Impeachment should be considered.

 

Even if the Arab nations just do "port cargo operations" that means that they handle millions of cargo containersp; of which 4 to 5% are ever inspected. It would be easy to get a WMD into the United States thorugh this means; just as they did in The Sum Of All Fears and 24. Once it is in the U.S. it is too late.

 

You have to prevent something before it happens.

Some how this story doesn't surprise me.

 

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp..._0206arab_ports

 

Bush Unaware of Ports Deal Before Approval

 

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

 

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

 

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

 

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, about the deal that would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

 

While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

 

``He became aware of it over the last several days,'' McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, ``That's correct.'' He said the matter did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.

 

``The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process,'' the spokesman said. ``He made sure to check with them - even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made.''

 

``And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved,'' he said.

 

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez, told The Associated Press in an interview: ``They are not in charge of security. We are not turning over the security of our ports. When people make statements like that you get an instant emotional reaction.''

 

Treasury Secretary John Snow said failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas.

 

``The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome,'' Snow told reporters Wednesday following a speech in Connecticut to a fuel cell manufacturer. ``That sends a terrible message.''

 

The sale's harshest critics were not appeased.

 

``I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,'' said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

 

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush - in his sixth year in office - has never done. ``We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people.''

 

McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.

 

``My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company,'' McClellan added.

 

``In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise,'' the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

 

Earlier, several lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale said they would not be deterred by Bush's veto threat.

 

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated ``a lack of confidence in the administration'' on both sides. ``Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in,'' Biden said on ABC's ``Good Morning America.''

 

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

 

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

 

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised ``serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

 

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.

 

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

 

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Will Lester, Terence Hunt, and Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this report.

I think a good degree of the fear arises from racist views of brown people handling our ports. But it requires more investigation on a front beyond administration officials. The right language being thrown around these days is "dont rush to judgement, lets make sure their is no security threat." Um...what was being said about Iraq?

 

But this just continues to show how incomptetent this administration is when it comes to certain matters. I love how yesterday Bush was threatening to use his first ever veto on this deal but then today he says he didnt even know the deal was approved until after it was approved. Nor did his secretary of defense even know much about the deal. Explain to me how the administration that could make out with Osama Bin Laden on tv and would still recieve the presumption of terror fighters continues to be treated with kid gloves? Our own leader and his secretary of defense...yes defense..had no input, for lack of a better term, on a deal that potentially puts our ports at risk.

 

Also, more of the administration ignoring those pesky laws that require an investigation:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legall...-investigation/

 

And does anyone remember past clamoring for solidying the security of our ports? Yeah, I wonder where that came from. But no, democrats are weak girly men who love to sympathize with terrorists.

 

I apologize ahead of time for making this political. It just pissed me off how much Bush and republicans get away with but still are considered stronger on security. Blindly throwing around security doesnt necessarily mean valid security.

 

I am a stong Bush supporter and I voted for him in 2004 but if this deal goes thorugh then Impeachment should be considered.

 

Good to know the zaniness can be bi-partisan on occasion.