It's A Sad Day When I Find Myself Agreeing With Schumer

[Annie]

Why---it only takes one terrorist to infiltrate the network no matter who owns it--has anyone found a an American firm that can even do the job?

Be that as it may, we should be working the odds, including as you later posted, by profiling.

 

[dilloduck]

Be that as it may, we should be working the odds, including as you later posted, by profiling.

Which is REALLY the issue here! IF we are going to profile, then let's get with it and do it everywhere. The company is not being assailed on it's record---only for its' nation's actions and rhetoric but lets not pretend that another company will be any better.

 

[Annie]

Which is REALLY the issue here! IF we are going to profile, then let's get with it and do it everywhere. The company is not being assailed on it's record---only for its' nation's actions and rhetoric but lets not pretend that another company will be any better.

Let me be real clear, I think that the United States of America should make it a policy that they will only have American citizens working for American companies, in positions that have direct bearing on the security of the US. This would include: ports, airports, US Mail, defense production, water treatment plants, energy plants of any type, etc. Legal immigrants would be welcomed after passing citizenship test.

Bidding for sensitive defense contracts, should be limited to US companies, 'sensitive' meaning not 'standard' such as 'smart bombs', stealth technology, etc.

I've thought since 9/11 that profiling was a no brainer, unfortunately PC still rules even with an administration that claims, "You're either with us or against us." How would they know? CIA? Able Danger anyone?

Other than those and related, no problem. Clear enough?

 

[Annie]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html

House GOP Leaders Line Up Against UAE Port Deal

Monday, February 20, 2006

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

"We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security," one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: "Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction."

On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether.

"I'm strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold," King said. "This contract should not be allowed to go forward until there is a full and complete investigation. And there has not been a full investigation of this company nor of its roots in the United Arab Emirates."

King said UAE-owned Dubai Ports World won approval without thorough administration vetting.

"There have been allegations of weapons parts going through that port to Iran," King said of that country's own territory. "There's been allegations of corruption about that port. None of these have ever been investigated by our government."

King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republican Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

Late Monday, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on the president to intervene immediately.

"We have 10 days to stop this transaction, a transaction that we think is not in the national security of the united states, and that needs to be stopped by the president," Menendez said...