Sunday, February 19, 2006

King: Port Deal Lacks Sufficient Security

The ground is swelling. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) sounds like he is on board for taking a second look at this bad deal.

I know he tap dances around, as many in the government are now doing. Most politicians do when they are looking for an out, in order to save some face. It's their egos.

Now, I have heard almost every argument as to why this should be allowed to proceed. But for the life of me, I cannot see there is ANY good reason, whatsoever. What is amazing to me is how politically deaf the Administration has become, in this matter. This is like buying a state of the art home security system, then leaving home without turning it on and leaving the doors unlocked.

Here, we spend countless dollars trying to track down al-Qaeda, we beef up airport security, we start up and develop a new cabinet department, and we allow the sale of a company that provides port security, to a company from a nation that had ties to 9/11. I mean, just how damned hard can this Homeland Security thing be, that we even have to have this debate, in the first place?

7 comments:

SuperFrenchie said...

Peter King has been a long time supporter of Sinn Fein terrorist Gerry Adams. In 1996, he moved mountains to get him a visa to the US despite being opposed by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). King said that Adams had done more for peace in Ireland than Pat Moynihan has ever dreamed of.

In 2000, he said on the House floor:
"Sinn Fein's officials have been attacked, they have been shot, murdered, wounded, and maimed; and yet nothing is done at all to protect them, and all we hear about are the guns of the IRA."

King again assisted Gerry Adams in 2001 when he had a photo op with him on the U.S. Capitol steps.

Outrageously Adams shook President Bush's hand and walked down the U.S. Capitol steps with him, leaving an elected leader, the visiting Northern Irish Prime Minister David Trimble unescorted at the top of the Capitol steps and absent from the photo op.

Besides being a friend to terrorists, King is also a bigot and a hate monger. Here is what he has said about France and the French:

"While many might be comfortable ignoring and even allowing France’s anti-American rants and maneuvers to continue, the reality is that this is a time of survival—and quite frankly I am tired of the United States being a punching bag to a second-rate country."

"Anything we can do to hurt them without hurting us, I will support."

"I assume that the french would be capable of going with us into Iraq so that they can be there to instruct the Iraqis on how to surrender"


Defending terrorists and spiting on the tombs of the dead soldiers of an allied country, that's Peter King for you!

LASunsett said...

I do not know him. He doesn't represent me. But on this issue, I welcome his stance just as I have Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, and a host of other liberal Democrats, of which I disagree with 90% of the time.

This is too important of an issue to play politics with.

A.C. said...

LA, I share your concern, and as stated it's a head-scratching political move. Guess they thought nobody was watching. And it's surprising the left hasn't tried to tie it to the Cheney shooting yet.

Yet there remains a level of misinformation. DP World would only be running port loading/unloading ops. Their workers would be unionized Americans, and the port itself would still be under the control of the various local Port Authorities. So it's not as if we're turning over security to AQ. Besides, we already allow the Canadian railroads to own and operate trackage in this country, and Canada has hardly been helpful in the WoT. Add to that foreign airlines have staff located in US airports, and well..

I think we need hearings to determine the feasibility of allowing foreign owned companies control over any US interstate commerce infrastructure. Let it force a vote in Congress, and maybe that will flush out the lobbyists underneath the surface of this.

LASunsett said...

//Yet there remains a level of misinformation. DP World would only be running port loading/unloading ops. Their workers would be unionized Americans, and the port itself would still be under the control of the various local Port Authorities. So it's not as if we're turning over security to AQ.//


I understand what you are saying.

The issue with me is the upper echelon of the company's management (who will be citizens of the UAE) will have access to all security plans and procedures. And, I don't care how much you delve into any of these people's backgrounds during the security checks, a clean background does not clear them from future acts. A clean background is not a safe enough of an indicator, of future acts. And with so much on the line, it just does not make sense to chance it.

A.C. said...

I agree with your concerns, and it wouldn't break my heart if they scuttle the deal.

But it will come up again. We need legislation or debate on how much the free market can apply to our critical transportation assets.

I'd also like to hear the appalled left explain why they're now xenophobic--the UAE government didn't attack us on 9-11 any more than Germany did..

Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
we need hearings to determine the feasibility of allowing foreign owned companies control over any US interstate commerce infrastructure. Let it force a vote in Congress, and maybe that will flush out the lobbyists underneath the surface of this.

Absolutely! And I want to know the details of the money and lobbyist trails. To be exact, I want to know what Grover Norquist's position is.

A.C. said...

Absolutely! And I want to know the details of the money and lobbyist trails. To be exact, I want to know what Grover Norquist's position is.

The trails might lead to the Secretary of Treasury's office. If he was part of the contract approval process, he probably should've recused himself based on his former line of work.