Pacifist Patriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-18-06 12:58 PM
Original message |
A translation of Administration comments with regard to UAE port control |
|
Edited on Sat Feb-18-06 12:58 PM by Pacifist Patriot
White House NSC spokesman Frederick Jones: the security implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed."
TRANSLATION: Anyone in a position to profit from this transaction made sure their financial gains were going to be secure.
Rep. Peter King, R-NY spoke to WH officials to urge them to review the purchase. He said he believed the White House took the issue "very seriously and will look into it."
TRANSLATION: Bwaahhhaaa!!! That poor schmuck thinks we might actually care what he thinks.
Treasury Department: "Clearly no responsibility of government is more important than protecting the national security."
TRANSLATION: Especially at the expense of civil liberties. Then we can do whatever the hell we want.
James Lewis, worked with U.S. committee at the State and Commerce Departments: "It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well."
TRANSLATION: I mean really, how can they help terrorists pull off a really nifty attack if they don't have the inside on a well run port?
Steven E. Flynn, Council on Foreign Relations: "You're not going to have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks. They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs."
TRANSLATION: The UAE citizens will be too busy running the operation and knowing it's ins and outs to work on the docks. Those longshoreman union pukes who get paid too much will be doing the grunt work.
Cynicism aside for the moment I was gratified to see that of the 7 lawmakers pressing the White House, four are Republican. Now for my last question...why aren't all 535 of them?
|
NVMojo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-18-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message |
1. and was this US company's location at 1 hr from Dubai a tradeoff? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:02 AM
Response to Original message |