The Coast Guard and the ports.....

Yesterday, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Times, "At no point during this entire process is a private company responsiblefor our nation's port security. Our Coast Guard and Customs and BorderProtection agents are always in charge of the all-important security responsibility."

This, again, seems to be in direct contradiction to what the Coast Guard is saying. (see posts below on the subject...) Certainly, the Coast Guard reviews the security plan, submitted by the company that runs the ports in question. And there are surprise inspections every once in a while, etc. And I suppose if that means that the security is "run by the Coast Guard", then we have two very different definitions of what it means to "run" a security program.

Even if the Coast Guard is in charge of the whole shootin' match, and the Administration is just horribly misunderstood on this point, the Washington Times today did little to sooth the majority of America's fears. Lead article, front page, top of the fold read, "US Coast Guard officials warned that 'many intelligence gaps' prevented them from providing the Bush Administration with an accurate assessment of the threat posed by the sale of operation rights at key US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates..........(snip) Areas of concern for Coast Guard officials include operations, personnel and foreign influence."

That does not give great comfort. "Operations, personnel and foreign influence" are "areas of concern"? That's pretty much the whole shootin' match, isn't it?

FoxNews Channel just flashed across the screen a poll number that shows President Bush at an all-time low approval rating at 34%. Neil Cavuto said that the President had significantly higher ratings during the Supreme Court fights. :)

Granted, we have military bases in UAE. But does that mean that it is safer? We have military bases in Iraq too and I don't consider those vacation destinations at this point.

The question was posed again by the President -- he simply does not understand the difference between the UK and the UAE managing our ports. (Question was answered the first time in a earlier posting) I'm not thrilled with either, to be frank. Whether it is UAE, China, Saudi Arabia, whatever foreign country is managing our ports, it is not the first choice of many Americans.

There are those who are voicing their concerns that perhaps this is a huge setup by the Democrats. Maybe so. Would love to see the proof of that, just as I'd like to see the proof that this port deal is "nothing to be worried about."