<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d8902050\x26blogName\x3dDaily+Dissent\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://dissent.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://dissent.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d828381949394443668', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt


Questions, comments, tips? Send me an Email.

Windows Media Player for Mac Users

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Even Homeland Security Opposed Ports Deal

Amazing isn't it? DHS, run by Bush pocket puppet Chertoff, actually opposed this deal made by the Bushies to hand over our ports operations to the UAE. I didn't think Chertoff would oppose anything Bush wanted to do - but then the fact that DHS rolled over on this one sort of proves I'm right about that.
The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.
-x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x-
The administration approved the ports deal on Jan. 17 after DP World agreed during secret negotiations to cooperate with law enforcement investigations in the future and make other concessions.

Some lawmakers have challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment crucial to assuring the administration that the deal was proper. The report was assembled during four weeks in November by analysts working for the director of national intelligence.

The report concluded that U.S. spy agencies were "unable to locate any derogatory information on the company," according to a person familiar with the document. This person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the report was classified.

Secret negotiations? Of course they were secret. Bush was hoping to slide this one thru - selling our security to the enemies home team. Like everything else he wants to keep secret - it's a dirty deal for America, made by Bush, so it's "classified".

And since when is national security handed out merely because you couldn't locate any bad information about a company? Like it couldn't be a shell company? Like they would have claimed corporate responsibility for 9-11? As if they would put out an annual report with picutres of terrorists on the board? Crikey! Is anybody running this shop, or is it looters selling it all off to anybody for any price?

Return to the main page.


Take what you want, leave what you don't.

© 2005 Daily Dissent

Powered by Blogger