Ports would have been safer under Dubai: Chertoff
I Hate to flog a dead horse, but this one just floored me. It's one thing to claim there is no increased threat by allowing Dubai PW to run the ports, but to claim it would have been safer? Pray tell...From the Secratary of Homeland Security no less.
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.
Could this be a dhimmi-like fear of reprisal?
He did not explain the security measures.
I bet. I've yet to hear anyone who can.
Chertoff regretted the political opposition and said similar events in the future would jeopardize the U.S. economy, not security.
So, it won't jepardize security if we reject Dubai-like deals in the future, but we are less safe now because of just such a deal?
"It's clear to me from a public messaging standpoint, we dropped the ball," Chertoff said. "It may be that it was a classic case of people who knew the facts weren't paying enough attention to the perception of the facts."
This is a classic example of failure to recognize the enemy. Clinton, couldn't kill OBL because he was hanging out with UAE princes. No doubt they were discussing something of no importance. I say we allow UAE to do business here as sonn as they allow Jews to run businesses in ther UAE.