Dean: America's Security Should Be America's Business

[madfloridian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060307/pl_usnw/dean__america_s_security_should_be_america_s_business__chertoff_statement_is_example_of_administration_s_incompetence_on_securi

The following was released today by the Democratic National Committee:

In an article published today in the Wall Street Journal, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the outrageous claim that the controversial deal to allow a foreign government- owned company to manage six of our nation's largest ports would actually enhance America's security. Chertoff's statement raises new questions about the ports deal and why the U.S. government has to negotiate with a foreign company in order to thoroughly scrutinize operations on American soil. These comments come as Americans are learning that "overseas-based companies operate as many as 80 percent of American terminals." (Bloomberg, 2/28/06)

According to the article, "federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies have been trying to get inside information about global shipping operations" since September 11, 2001, and Chertoff argues that turning over the management of some of our nation's busiest seaports would give the government "a deep look into" the practices of the foreign government-owned company's operations at "the U.S. ports." (Wall Street Journal, 3/7/06)

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

"America's security should be America's business. The unbelievable claim that we need this deal to gain better insight into what happens at our own ports is not only laughable but another example of the Republican leadership's failure to keep us safe. The Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security shouldn't be waiting for public outrage before looking at potential threats to the American people. Gaining allies in the war on terror shouldn't require the outsourcing of America's ports nor handing over the security of the American people to foreign governments. Five years after 9/11, Republicans in Washington have done nothing to make our ports less vulnerable and have thwarted Democrats' efforts to increase funds for port security. Democrats will continue to fight to close the gaps in our nation's port security, and ensure that those responsible for keeping America safe are doing their jobs."

[msongs]

1. follow the $$ - which bushco's are making $$ & how much off this

deal?

who gains? how much? under what circumstances? what are the quid pro quos?

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
shirts and mugs

[madfloridian]

2. All about money.

I saw another press release earlier, another media service. When I clicked on the link it was not there.

I can not believe Chertoff said that. We are in such a mess.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. But somehow it wasn't an issue at all when it was a British company?

Bravo, Dr. Dean. Nice to see you won't let the Democrats lag behind in pathetic displays of hypocrisy and pandering to latent xenophobia. After all, we're Americans, too...why not act like it?

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

4. I think he said he was not aware of all the foreign ownership of ports

and I think a lot of people were not. I know I wasn't aware. He said on CNN that he had not known that the Chinese government owned companies owned the ports in CA.

I am not sure whether you were sarcastic. It really does not matter.

When the port deal came out to the public, I heard from relatives in CA who left the Republican Party over it. They did not know it.

I take what he said as sincere. Not sure how you are taking it. I have not been overwhelmed by our Democrats talking about it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Well..

none of the world's major container freight shipping companies are based in the US. As a result, these same non-US based companies have greater experience and expertise in handling the logistics of large-scale freight terminal operations. Unless he or anyone else has some serious suggestion as to how one changes this basic economic fact, and how US-based companies are to obtain the same expertise and economies of scale as the foreign corporations who are doing it now, these are just so many empty words.

(And yes, I was being sarcastic in my original response.)

[madfloridian]

7. CFIUS makes decisions on this without oversight, though.

I am waiting for the next shoe to drop, because I think much more of our country has been sold off...and we just don't know it. I think seaports are only part of it.

And most people are just not aware, and I will bet most of congress is not aware of all that has gone on the last few years.

[hootinholler]

6. Not only that but the deal doesn't require business documents

to be maintained on US soil and therefore subject to subpoena.

-Hoot