storm1977 0 #1 March 3, 2006 Personally I have no problem with the Port Deal. Let it happen, this is a freemarket after all, and better to have them investing in the US where it is in their best interest not to have terrorist acts occur. But, I thought this was funny, because how STUPID this could make Hillary look... WASHINGTON -- Bill Clinton coached United Arab Emirates officials on how to handle the Dubai ports controversy two weeks ago - but didn't tell his wife about that conversation, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton disclosed yesterday. The telephone chat, which took place while the former president was traveling in Pakistan last month, ended with him advising state-owned Dubai Ports World to voluntarily submit to a 45-day probe, said people familiar with the exchange. That puts Bill Clinton publicly in line with his wife's position that the ports deal could compromise national security, even though his tight relationship with Dubai officials is proving something of a political embarrassment to New York's junior senator. Yesterday, conservative columnist Bob Novak reported that the ex-president urged the Dubai official to hire former White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart to handle damage control on the ports, despite the fact that Lockhart's consulting firm, the Glover Park Group, is a central part of Sen. Clinton's political operation. When Sen. Clinton was asked yesterday if her husband discussed the conversation with her, she replied, "No," adding, "The president, my husband, supports my position, a position that is rooted in legitimate concerns about security." The former president's Dubai discussion, first reported in yesterday's editions of the Financial Times, underscored the awkward commingling of Hillary Clinton's political aspirations with her husband's personal and financial relationships. The revelation came on a day when Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would "do everything I can to kill the deal," The Associated Press reported. "Dubai cannot be trusted," he said, calling the UAE "a bazaar for terrorist nations." Also yesterday, a British court gave DP World the legal go-ahead to acquire the UK company that operates U.S. port terminals in six East Coast cities, including Newark/New York. Zim, Israel's largest shipping company, sent Sen. Clinton a letter yesterday rebutting congressional claims that DP World barred Israeli cargo vessels from doing business in Dubai. "We are very comfortable calling at DP World's Dubai ports," wrote Zim chairman Idan Ofer. The senator's fundraisers have tried to cash in on the popularity of her anti-DP World stance, sending out a Feb. 27 e-mail listing her recent comments and directing donors to a Web page to make "Friends of Hillary" contributions. That pitch is complicated by the former president's recent actions: He was paid $450,000 for a recent Dubai speech, and the UAE chipped in between $500,000 and $1 million for his presidential library. In November, Clinton referred to the pro-U.S. Dubai government as "a role model" for the Mideast. "Sen. Clinton, the Democrats, they shouldn't try to politicize this," said House Homeland Security chairman Peter King (R-Seaford) http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-port4648092mar03,0,6420466.story?coll=ny-homepage-bigpix2005 ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #2 March 3, 2006 Quite right. I also saw this story on Fox News. For some reason there is nothing about it on CNN.com. I searched, but nothing there... If the UAE wants to bring something dangerous into the USA, they can certainly do in on their state owned airline, it already flies into our country with tons of cargo regularly.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #3 March 3, 2006 It is not only that, but the rules already state that the local management needs to be american. They are running terminals here, not security.... The best was Barbra Boxer bitching about all this, but not even knowing several of the ports in her own state were being run by communist China.... Laughable!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,129 #4 March 3, 2006 QuotePersonally I have no problem with the Port Deal. Let it happen, this is a freemarket after all, and better to have them investing in the US where it is in their best interest not to have terrorist acts occur. I have to ask you this based on that statement. The International Terminal at JFK is operated by a Dutch company. Would you make the same statement if the Dutch company sold that business to a North Korean or Iran state company? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
