Ports would have been safer under Dubai: Chertoff

[kpete]

Ports would have been safer under Dubai: Chertoff
Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:50 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. ports would have been safer with an Arab company running the terminals than they will be now that a political firestorm killed the deal, the chief of U.S. homeland security said on Thursday.

Dubai Ports World of United Arab Emirates was about to take over terminals at six major U.S. ports but decided earlier this month to transfer those operations to a U.S. entity after bipartisan opposition from the U.S. Congress.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff dismissed the security concerns raised by opponents of the deal all along and went a step further on Thursday in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

"The irony of this is, that had the deal gone forward, we would have had greater ability to impose a security regime worldwide on the company than we have now," Chertoff said.

He did not explain the security measures.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-03-23T215031Z_01_N23530_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CHERTOFF.xml

[blm]

1. Ports would have been safer under Gore or Kerry: HartRudman Report

.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. The Ports would be safer

If the job of Homeland Security had gone to an expert on security instead of a GOP crony.

[TomInTib]

3. DPW will end up with the deal, just under the guise of a US "entity"

And that's the way it is, folks.

[MadMaddie]

4. Of course he didn't explain the security measures...

because he has none...

I am convinced more than ever they want our country attacked!!

Why would he say this publicly?...something is very, very wrong with this picture!!

[BlueManDude]

5. Quick DNC - buy some free airtime for Chertoff. n/t

[tandot]

6. What an insult to America, our companies, and our workers

He is saying that Americans would have done a lousier job than Dubai. Thanks for offending us, Chertoff.