‘People don’t need to worry about security’

Well, this is a quote Bush may have trouble living down.

President Bush on Thursday defended his administration’s decision to allow a company from an Arab country to operate six major U.S. ports, saying, “People don’t need to worry about security.”

There are a few presidential critics who disagree. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee published a fairly devastating fact-sheet on port security, the concerns Dems have raised on the issue, and the legislative efforts that have been rejected by some of the same congressional Republicans who are raising questions about the UAE deal now. It further highlights the extent to which this is now a top-tier political issue, whether the White House likes it or not.

Matt Yglesias suggested today that now is a good time “to pivot to the Bush administration’s broadly lamentable record on the question of port security.” I couldn’t agree more. Indeed, like Kevin, I think the one good thing that may come of the ongoing brouhaha is that policy makers will finally take this issue seriously.

In the political collision between the White House and Congress over the $6.8 billion deal that would give a Dubai company management of six American ports, most experts seem to agree on only one major point: The gaping holes in security at American ports have little to do with the nationality of who is running them. […]

The administration’s core problem at the ports, most experts agree, is how long it has taken for the federal government to set and enforce new security standards — and to provide the technology to look inside millions of containers that flow through them.

Only 4 percent or 5 percent of those containers are inspected. There is virtually no standard for how containers are sealed, or for certifying the identities of thousands of drivers who enter and leave the ports to pick them up. If a nuclear weapon is put inside a container — the real fear here — “it will probably happen when some truck driver is paid off to take a long lunch, before he even gets near a terminal,” said [Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations]. […]

“I’m not worried about who is running the New York port,” a senior inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency said, insisting he could not be named because the agency’s work is considered confidential. “I’m worried about what arrives at the New York port.”

And the same morning this report hit doorsteps, Bush insisted, “People don’t need to worry about security.” Like I said, this is one of those quotes that may linger a while.

When are we going to learn that the Emirs aren’t our friends? They’re only our (actually the Bush Crime Family’s) current business partners. As the great French Sociologist Emile Durkheim said: Nothing unites us, and separates us, more quickly than economic exchanges.

Why let anyone but us own our ports?

  • I keep hearing Bush (really) say, “People don’t need to worry about me lying to them.”

    Worry about it!

  • “People don’t need to worry about security, until late October when I raise the threat level and run ads comparing Democrats to Osama and tell you to vote Republican because your life depends on it. Then you should worry about security. But only until December, when you should feel safe to go to crowded malls and spend lots of money to try and salvage the economy I’m ruining. But for now, people don’t need to worry about security.”

    (Consistency is the hobgoblin of small Presidential minds.)

  • The port security issue is what needs to be addressed. The UAE vs Uk issue is a non-event.
    Ed,it’s hard for me to understand with all of the discussion of the last few days how you can think this deal has anything to do with ownership of the ports. All of the ports are owned by the US,30% of the terminals are managed by foreign companies. Port security is a function of Coast Guard and Customs funding along with a set of inspection criteria that make sense.

  • THIS IS IT! The angry mob will be assembling in Lafayette Park by nightfall! Bush has gone too far this time!

    …or not…

    Did anybody hear anything about, oh say, NSC spying, lately? Healthcare? Education? Katrina (mis)management?

    Me either.

    I’m taking a nap until November.

  • I liked the DSCC link, especially on Santorum 😉

    Let’s try to keep this issue focused on the wider topic, port security and the failures of this administration and the Republican congress to secure anything before the horse bolts the barn.

  • Preznit W appointed Dave Sanborn to the post of Maritime Administrator of USDOT MARAD. Here is the stated mission for that agency.

    Here’s a funny part from the site: Vision: A maritime system that serves America with American ships and American labor.

    Dave Sanborn of course, used to work for who? Oh yes…DP World.

    The question is…when did Preznit W know about the deal?? Before or after his apptmt of one of DP World’s senior executives?
    The next question is…Is there any relationship to be drawn from the Preznit appointing someone to head up our Maritime concerns from a foreign company that is looking to operate our port terminals?

    Connect the dots.

  • Re: #4

    I think the problem we all have with it is, would you want to give operations of our ports to Osama bin Laden? Or the Taliban? Of course not, (I hope.) But bear with me. Why, then, are we giving it to some of his supporters?

    The UAE has been an operational and financial center for al Qaeda terrorism in the past, has been a patron of OBL who has associated with them (by them I mean the UAE government, who owns this port company,) and a supporter of the Taliban, one of only three governments to recognize them in Afghanistan. Now aren’t those some serious concerns that should have been publically debated and discussed by the American people before it was decided on? And then, as it turns out, apparantly the law requires a lengthy investigation that didn’t happen. Why not? Did it conflict with the Commander in Chief’s war powers?

    The UAE vs the UK issue is THE issue, not a non-event. The UK is an ally who we know shares our values. The UAE, while ostensibly our ally, does not share our values.

    Alternatively, and as an honest conservative, (I’m assuming by your sentiments you are a conservative, I could be wrong,) think of it this way – would you want Iran or China in charge of our ports?

  • I should clarify (or maybe I’m being redundant.)

    The UAE vs the UK issue is THE issue, not a non-event. The UK is an ally who we know shares our values. The UAE, while ostensibly our ally, does not share our values. The problem is, from a lot of their actions, the UAE appears to share the values of the Taliban and OBL, and what’s more, have given them material support. Is it really in our security interests to trust them at their word when we hand them the keys to our ports? This isn’t a race issue, this is a security issue.

  • The UAE has documented close ties to and support of terrorists and OBL in particular, much more than Saddam Hussein/Iraq ever did. We would not have handed control of the ports to an Iraqi company–instead we bombed the snot out Iraq. Why should we hand this control over to the UAE? Maybe Orrin Hatch can tell us?

  • Yeah, that quote will stick around just like “I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden any more” or “I’ll fire anyone who outed an undercover agent”.

    The piece-of-$hit will just lie about ever having said it and NO ONE WILL BOTHER TO CALL HIM ON IT.

  • Tighter, effective, and enforceable security measures are necessary no matter who handles our ports’ traffic. We should not hand over port management to a state-owned management company whose state aids and abets our enemies who are terrorists as has been reported.

    Americans should definitely be concerned and worried about the effectiveness of security within our borders. For the president to say otherwise is irresponsible. Congress should enact tighter, effective, and enforceable security measures and, after careful and thorough review, have a say in who manages our ports.

    We must have an effective system of checks and balances and make our government representatives held accountable for misdeeds and mismanagement.

  • Don’t worry Be happy

    Bush sounds like he’s grooving on the popular song of the same title.
    I think he must have taken up smoking weed!. Our newly carefree president has suddenly changed his tune from all that 9-11 terrorist red alert hysteria about evil doers hating us for being free.
    Now it’s:
    “People don’t need to worry about security.”

    A sudden change from so up tight to laid back could only mean George has rediscovered drugs.

  • And the latest news is Rover-boy is over at Congress, telling them Duh Preznit might not have any problem with pending legislation.

    So, the circus is over.

    On a Friday, the news comes out that we’re letting Dubai run the ports; by Monday the news comes out about which members of the Bush Gang profited from the idea; on Tuesday the Preznit digs in his heels and gets pissed off like the spoiled brat he is that anyone would doubt him; on Wednesday it’s announced he was “out of the loop” (as usual) and people get angrier; on Thursday Karl waves the white flag and Duh Preznit announces he’s opposed to the bad idea too, and always was. On Friday it’s announced the deal is dead because the Preznit takes his responsibility ta pertect Amurrikuh serious don’t’cha know?

    @#$%$#@ers.

    Standard Bush Operating procedure – nothing to see here, folks, move long.

  • Ed Stephan,you seem unaware of the fact that everytime you open a bank account you are entering into the precise relationship which is the basis for your bon mot. The bank does manage your money but you do “own” it.
    I’ll just suppose that since bank failures haven’t been in the news lately,you have forgotten your outrage over those dastardly villains of yesteryear.
    Who would have thought,2 comments,both inaccurate. Go,man,you’re on a roll.

  • Lots of scrubbing going on of that quote, and the headlines related to it.

    For example:

    the headline Bush on port security: ‘People don’t need to worry’ (Houston Chronicle)

    changed to:

    Dubai company agrees to delay U.S. ports takeover

    And the CNN article that CB linked to… well…

    the quote “People don’t need to worry about security.” is gone.

    Poof. The memory hole strikes again.

  • Comments are closed.