Jrine On PrimeTime TV

I wonder if Jurine had ABC to agree not to ask some questions

Yeah I watched it

but this is what wasnt asked

1 why did he need 2 other men to have sex with one woman
2 he was asked if he gave her a date rape drug but wasnt asked if he had the bartender to give it
3 if he had nothing to do with Natalees death why and she was alive why didnt he go back to get his shoes

4 since deepak and satish said they didnt pick him up who did and why?
5 why arent Deepak and Satish and Jurine still friends if Natalee still alive and unharmed.
6 if he was telling the trut or telling the truth now why did Deepak and Satish have to go to his home so many times to get the Story right?

7 Did he call his father
8Did his father pick him up since Deepak and Satish denied the ride home?

9 Did he wake his Dad when he got home?
seedyrum, the angry and recalcitrant skeptic

Bush's Legacy Or Not

Bush doesn't care about his legacy, just lining his pockets and those of his cronies. However, his legacy will live on.

Neil and Jeb Bush hopefully don't have aspirations of holding other public political offices. George Bush's Legacy will be a burden for them to bear.

These two brothers will have to overcome Georges, lateness, tonedeaf, fumbling and Trust Me mantra. Americans won't forgive the Bush family for its sellout of America to foreign entities will ties to terrorism and the failed Iraq War.

Neil has his own ties to Carlyle Group which has ties to Dubai which has ties to terrorism.

Jurine Admits To Lying

NEW YORK, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- A Dutch teenager tells an interviewer that he left Natalee Holloway, the U.S. teenager who disappeared in Aruba, alone on a beach.
Joran van der Sloot told ABC News "Primetime" that he left a bar with Holloway planning to have sex with her on the beach. But he said in the end they "cuddled" because he was not prepared with a condom and then he went home.
"At that moment in time, for me, it wasn't the wrong thing," he said. "It's not something a real man would do. It's not normal. It's not right at all."
The interview airs Thursday night.
Van der Sloot said he left his shoes on the beach not because he was in a panic but because he forgot them until he was in a friend's car. He acknowledged lying about dropping Holloway off at the Holiday Inn, saying that he did not want his father and friends to have a bad opinion of him for leaving her alone on the beach.
Holloway was in Aruba with a high school group celebrating graduation. She was reported missing the next day.

Bush's tech budget favors Homeland Security Dept.

The Department of Homeland Security would receive the biggest boost in technology spending among top-level federal departments under the president's $2.8 trillion budget proposal for 2007.
If Congress ultimately approves the president's request, which he made public earlier this month, the department's slice of the information technology allotment would jump more than 21 percent, to about $4.4 billion. According to a report released Thursday morning by government research firm Input, the additional $772 million proposed for the agency represents nearly half of the overall new IT spending proposed for next year.
The total federal IT budget proposed for government agencies rose by less than 3 percent, to about $64.3 billion for 2007. Spending related to IT security would compose about $5.2 billion of that total.
The Defense Department's allotment remains by far the highest, at some $30.5 billion, though that number represents only about a 3 percent increase from last year. After the Homeland Security Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development would see the second-largest percentage increase in IT spending, at about 15 percent. But at $298 million, its overall share of IT spending would remain only a fraction of the allotments for nearly every other cabinet-level department.
Still, the wide-ranging budget drew praise from the Information Technology Association of America lobbying group. "Today, it makes perfect sense to focus all kinds of investments on defense and homeland security, but we are also pleased to see (that) the president did not leave out crucial civilian IT investments," ITAA President Robert Laurence said in a statement.
But not everyone was so pleased. Five of the 27 agencies included in the budget proposal would experience cuts. They ranged from about 1 percent for the Department of Education to more than 5 percent for NASA.


Congressional Democrats decried several of the tech-related cuts in their latest budget analysis (click for PDF), expressing concern that the elimination of certain technology education programs would undermine America's competitiveness in science in technology.
"The elimination of this funding--which allows all children access to technology and the Internet, helps train teachers how to use and integrate technology into the curriculum, and provides funding and support for core curricular content--runs completely counter to the goals and vision outlined by the president," said Sheryl Abshire, who heads the Consortium for Education Technology, an advocacy group.
Overall, the multitrillion-dollar budget includes a record-high $439.3 billion proposal for defense-related spending and calls for $65 billion in cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare over the next five years.

Bush: DP World Deal, What Was Left Out and Why?

A new government agency created in October reviewed the DP World deal, a senior administration official told FOX News, but documents surfaced late Wednesday that showed approval of the transaction excluded some routine requirements.
Last Monday, the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) signed off on the deal for DP World to purchase the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates terminals in the major U.S. ports of Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
The deal required the UAE-owned DP World to cooperate with future U.S. investigations, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. To win permission of the $6.8 billion purchase, DP World had to agree to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The government asked DP World to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible."
However, the papers show CFIUS did not require DP World to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts.
"There is a very serious question as to why the records are not going to be maintained on American soil subject to American jurisdiction," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and a leading critic of the sale.
A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive.
Another detail revealed in the documents shows the administration required DP World to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify citizenship of that individual. Several of the company's top executives are Americans while others are Arab, Dutch and Indian.
Administration: We Won't Outsource Security
Administration officials say the company has made available sensitive trade secrets, documents and other concessions as part of the deal.
DP World promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Department of Homeland Security in any security questions that arose, and pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on her way from Riyadh to Beirut Thursday, said while scrutiny has increased over who America deals with since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the system is not set up to prevent a country in the Middle East from doing business with the United States. Rice repeated that the deal was thoroughly vetted and the UAE is a strong ally in the War on Terror.
Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security, told FOX News that not one federal agency raised an objection to the deal when it was going through the review process, therefore, it is not unusual for the president to not know about such deals until it was complete.
"Rarely do these wind up on the president's desk and that's only after there has been an investigation and there is some disagreement," Townsend said. "This didn't get there because none of the agencies who reviewed it had any objection and any security concerns the Department of Homeland Security addressed in a security agreement with DP world.
She stressed that the United States is not outsourcing port security, only some port operations.
"Port security will continue to be in the very capable hands of the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Patrol," Townsend said. "This is really a commercial deal. There are commercial deals in U.S. ports around the country with other companies, other foreign companies and we address those commercial concerns and the security arrangements because we continue to control security. Security arrangements in U.S. ports won't change regardless of whether this deal goes through or not."
DHS issued a release of port security activities it conducts independently of terminal operators that noted that funding for port security has increased by more than 700 percent since September 11, 2001, from $259 million in 2001 to about $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2005.
But Congress is still fuming about the still-emerging details of the deal.
"Current law dealing with approval of foreign investment needs to be revised. Right now, it's a 12-member committee headed by the Treasury secretary," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, adding, "Congress is really cut out of the loop."
Others contend that the review process at the administration level was incomplete, especially because the panel did not use the entire 45 days allotted to review the sale.
"Outsourcing the ownership of this critical homeland security priority to Dubai Ports World without a thorough review makes no sense at all," added Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
On Thursday, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, wrote to the Government Accountability Office asking it to look into the decision-making process of CFIUS, which Thompson claimed suffered from conflicts of interest and a lax view of what a national security threat is.
"The GAO found that the Department of Treasury, which chairs CFUIS, has a limited view of the definition of a national security threat. For example, sales that threaten critical infrastructure protection, including port security, may not be considered a national security threat. In the Department of Treasury's view, a national security threat does not exist unless threatening intelligence is reported about the parties involved or an acquisition affects export-control technologies or classified contracts," Thompson wrote to GAO Comptroller General David Walker.
The vice chairman pointed to the prior relationship between Treasury Secretary John Snow and DP World, which bought port operations previously owned by CSX Corporatin, of which Snow used to be CEO.
"I would like the GAO's investigation to answer the following questions 1) Did the Secretary of Treasury recuse himself from the review of this sale? If not, what role did he have in the review?" Thompson wrote.
The deal also stinks to several lawmakers who say the UAE's past linkages to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers and other international relationships are suspect.
Critics argue the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist. The UAE also refuses to recognize Israel and considers the Taliban the rightful government in Afghanistan.
"The wisdom of the American people should be taken into account here. ... It is not as I have seen reported in some corners some form of Islamophobia. That entire description would indicate some sort of irrational fear," said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz.
"The bottom line is this: When in doubt, cut it out," Hayworth said.
"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO, but HELL NO!" Rep Sue Myrick, R-N.C., wrote to Bush in a letter posted on her Web site.
'The UAE is a Very Solid Friend'
Officials counter that the U.S.-UAE alliance goes far deeper than this port deal as part of ongoing reforms in the intelligence services. DHS argued that the UAE gives U.S. and coalition forces "unprecedented access" to its ports and territory, overflight clearances and other logistical assistance.
DHS also submitted that the UAE has frozen accounts of suspected groups linked to terrorists and has enacted aggressive anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws. The country allows Customs and Border Protection agents in its ports in Dubai, where they inspect cargo departing for the United States.
Former Central Command chief Tommy Franks told FOX News that not only is the UAE a great ally in the War on Terror, but more American Navy ships are in Dubai's port than any other in the world. He also said the port is run in excellent fashion.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., agreed that the U.S.-UAE relationship is a decent one but added, "They have been an ally but just as the Colombian government has been an ally with us in terms of fighting narcotics. We wouldn't put the Colombian government in charge of a border control spot. They are an ally, they should be treated fairly. [But] it looks like commerce has been put in front of security."
He added: "If the president pushes this, the Congress will stop it."
Many lawmakers say they have enough support to override a presidential veto, which Bush has promised if a bill passes trying to halt the deal.
DP World is the seventh largest terminal operator in the world, operating 23 facilities in 13 countries. It has terminal contracts in countries that are allies of the United States, including Germany, Australia, India and South Korea as well as nations such as China, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
If it does win U.S. approval for the deal, the company will own the contracts for terminals now run in the United States by P&O.
Outside of cruise ship terminals in those ports, operations include two of the 14 terminals in Baltimore's port, one of three terminals in the Miami port, one of five terminals in Newark, two of five terminals in New Orleans, one of five terminals in Philadelphia. DHS officials also note that the deal lets DP World run four of 12 terminals in Houston and allows it to be involved in stevedoring for all five terminals in Norfolk, though DP World would not manage any specific terminal.
The company's retiring chief operating officer, American Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."

Bush: Ports Deal Nothing to Worry About

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday said Americans shouldn't fret over the controversial ports deal involving a United Arab Emirates-owned company that has taken Washington and state lawmakers by storm.
"People don't need to worry about security," Bush said after meeting with his Cabinet about a White House report issued Thursday regarding the national response to Hurricane Katrina.
"We wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America," the president added.
The president's comments come on the heels of a firestorm of criticism over a deal that would allow the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World to take over operations at six U.S. ports. The deal has lawmakers from both sides of the aisle screaming for a more thorough review of the deal and arguing that the deal with threaten port security in the United States that already is lacking. Bush has vowed to veto any bill aimed at halting the commercial transaction.
"The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and improved by my government, the more they'll be comforted that our ports will be secure," Bush said, adding that port security will still be run by U.S. Customs and the Coast Guard. "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the War on Terror. A lot of goods are shipped from ports to the United States managed by this company."

Noting that British companies already manage the ports in question, Bush added: "I also want to remind folks that it's really important we not send mixed messages to friends and allies around the world as we combine, put together, a coalition to fight this War on Terror. So we'll continue to talk to people in Congress and explain clearly why the decision was made."
Speaking to FOX News Radio, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove called Dubai a "great military asset" and "vital to our security." Rove said as far as Dubai's cooperating with Customs and Border Protection and the Container Security Initiative, the UAE is one of the "best and eager partners in safety."
Rove said that briefings were going on with both Republican and Democratic staffers to inform them on the deal. Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday was holding a hearing on the deal as lawmakers questioned why the administration didn't give a more thorough scrutiny to the deal. They're calling for more time to probe the transaction before it goes through.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and chairman of the committee, emphasized UAE's cooperation in the War on Terror, and echoed the Department of Homeland Security's notation that DP World provides support for U.S. Navy ships that dock in Jebel Ali and Fujairah, both in the UAE and managed by DP World, and for the U.S. Air Force at Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE
Warner said the UAE is a "valuable ally" and he has seen nothing to indicate the administration didn't do a "careful and thorough job."
That was a claim reinforced by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt at the briefing.
"We're not aware of a single national security concern raised recently that was not part of" the multiagency, three-month review of the deal, Kimmitt.
Added Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England: "This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not casual. Rather, it was in-depth and comprehensive."
But opponents of the plan were not appeased. Committee Ranking Member Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., repeated charges raised in the Sept. 11 commission report that the UAE backed the Taliban and allowed financial support for Al Qaeda.
"America's port security is too critical to be subjected to this kind of casual approach," said Sen. Carl Levin, adding the administration has taken a too lax approach to this in dealing with a country with "an uneven record with combating terrorism."
He asked how many members of the briefing had discussed the deal with the Sept. 11 commission. None raised a hand.
"The events of 9/11 demonstrate America is entitled to total confidence that a country allowed to acquire assets key to our security is as committed as we are to combating terrorism," added the Michigan Democrat.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to deny foreign governments permission to run port operations. At the briefing, she called the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several of our critical ports would be turned over to foreign country.
She and Levin also argued that the statute that defines the job of the panel that reviews the acquisition requires a 45-day review. Warner said he would ask Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for an official interpretation of the statute.
England echoed Bush's comments about how in order to be successful and united in the global War on Terror, the United States cannot discriminate when it comes to who it partners with.
"In this war, this very long war, it is very important we strengthen the bonds of friendship and security with our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Arab world," England said, adding that it's the terrorists' goal to help sever U.S. ties with other countries and to create more friction. "My view is, we can't allow this to happen, it has to be the opposite," he said.
Whereas White House spokesman Scott McClellan said this week that Bush didn't know about the deal until a few days ago — after it was completed. But Rove said Thursday that Bush did in fact know about it "before the preff kerfuffle."

Bush Comes Late Always: Outsourcing His Responsibilities as President

Bush doesn't read much by his own admission. Bush came late to 9/11. Bush came late to Katrina Disaster. Bush came late to Cheney shotting someon in the face. Bush came to late to the UAS buying our Ports.

Why does Bush always come LATE on important matters? He has outsource his responsibility. Bush thinks because he is a Bush, a Republican, and he is President, the country will follow him and just Trust his lateness.

Bush trying to distanced himself from the port deal by saying he JUST found out about the deal after it was signed, sealed and delivered but yet a day earler he vowed to veto any bill that stops this deal. ( the first and only veto of his administatrtion)

Bush countinues to tell the American public to TRUST him. Does he think we are all illiterate and fools? He doesn't think we read?

Bush is lining his pockets and those of his cronies with OUR MONEY. Perhaps, Bush should go and live in Dubai since he loves and TRUST them so much.

Bush says, Trust Me

President George W Bush has again sought to ease security fears over a deal that gives an Arab company control of six major US ports.
"This wouldn't be going forward if we were not certain that our ports would be secure," he said.
Some lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, fear the deal will make the US more vulnerable to terrorism.
The deal will put six of the largest ports in the hands of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates.
'Sense of calm'
After a cabinet meeting on Thursday, President Bush said: "People don't need to worry about security".
The president again stressed the UAE was an important partner in the US-led war on terrorism.
"The more people learn about the transaction, the more they'll be comforted that the ports will be secure",
George W Bush said.
He said briefings with Congressmen were "bringing a sense of calm to this issue".
The Associated Press said on Thursday it had obtained documents that showed Dubai Ports World had promised to cooperate with any US investigations as a condition of the takeover.
The ports involved are New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.
They are currently run by British ports and shipping firm P&O but it has agreed a $6.8bn (£3.9bn) takeover by DP World.
The deal has angered senior lawmakers.
Bill Frist, leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, said he would introduce a law to block the deal if the government did not delay the deal so that an investigation could be held.


That led President Bush to say he would use the first veto in his six-year tenure to stop such a law.
On Wednesday the White House revealed the president had not known about the deal until a few days ago - after it was concluded.
It also sought to soothe the row by admitting it should have briefed Congress sooner.
Correspondents say senior Republicans believe Mr Bush should have paid more attention to the way the deal would be perceived in the US.
Critics fear an increased risk of terrorist attacks, pointing out that the UAE was the home of two of the hijackers involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks.
The president of the Arab American Institute, James Zogby, has described some of the language being used against the deal as "shameful and irresponsible".
The media in Dubai itself has also condemned the US criticism of the deal as " Islamophobia".
The US administration has rejected the concerns of critics of the deal.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

Abramoff Tentacles Touches Three More

WASHINGTON - Three members of Congress have been linked to efforts by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a former General Services Administration official to secure leases of government property for Abramoff's clients, according to court filings by federal prosecutors on Friday.

The filings in U.S. District Court do not allege any wrongdoing by the elected officials but list them in documents portraying David Safavian, a former GSA chief of staff, as an active adviser to Abramoff, giving the lobbyists tips on how to use members of Congress to navigate the agency's bureaucracy.
Abramoff is cooperating with federal investigators in a wide-ranging probe of corruption on Capitol Hill that threatens several powerful members of Congress and their staff members. Last month, he pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.
Safavian is charged with lying to a GSA ethics officer when he said Abramoff was not seeking business with the agency at the time the lobbyist paid for Safavian and several others to go on a golf outing to Scotland in August 2002.
At the time of the trip, prosecutors said, Abramoff was trying to get GSA approval for leases of the Old Post Office Pavilion in Washington for an Indian tribe to develop and for federal property in Silver Spring, Md., for use by a Jewish school.
Two of the elected officials referred to in Friday's filings have been identified in published reports as Reps. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, and Don Young, R-Alaska. According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, the two representatives wrote to the GSA in September 2002, urging the agency to give preferential treatment to groups such as Indian tribes when evaluating development proposals for the Old Post Office.
LaTourette maintains he did nothing improper by advocating special opportunities for certain small businesses in areas known as HUBzones, or Historically Underutilized Business zones. His spokeswoman, Deborah Setliff, said that the letter was reviewed by Young's chief of staff and counsel and that it did not advocate any particular business over another.
A spokesman for Young did not return telephone calls.
Friday's filings by prosecutors refer to a third member of Congress, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va. Her name appears in e-mails that suggest she was trying to help Abramoff secure a GSA lease for land in Silver Spring for a religious school.
Capito claims to know nothing about the effort. "The action taken by her former chief of staff was done without her knowledge, approval or consent," said her spokesman, Joel Brubaker. "She was not aware of any contact with GSA of any type on this matter."
Mark Johnson, Capito's former chief of staff, said he did not bring the issue to Capito's attention. He said he was contacted by Neil Volz, a colleague of Abramoff's and a former chief of staff for Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.
Johnson said Volz asked him to check on the status of a project involving the GSA. Johnson said he believes he called a friend at the GSA but doesn't recall the outcome.
Prosecutors included the e-mails in documents filed in response to a request by Safavian's lawyers to dismiss the indictment against him. Safavian's lawyers want a federal judge to throw out the charges on grounds there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
In their filing, prosecutors laid out a series of contacts between Abramoff and Safavian that show the former GSA official gave inside information and advice to the lobbyist.
Safavian used his personal e-mail during business hours to communicate with Abramoff several times, according to prosecutors. He also edited the draft of a letter that was probably sent under LaTourette and Young's names.
And Safavian advised Abramoff to tell his wife to use her maiden name during a meeting with GSA officials so she wouldn't draw attention to her politically connected husband's involvement in the project.
In a July 23, 2002, e-mail to a GSA official, Safavian discussed getting information about the Silver Spring site to Capito's office. But Volz discovered a complication the next day.
Volz told Abramoff that someone at the GSA wanted the congresswoman to put her request in writing. "We can't ask the most vulnerable Republican incumbent member of Congress in the House to put something in writing that can be made public," Volz wrote. "The congresswoman's office has already put the request in and you would think that would be enough!!!"

UAE Port Deal

Ships in the water are under the jurisdiction of the US Coast gaurds.

Once shops are docked at the ports and unloading ccurs, US Customs' jurisdiction takes place.

Once the goods are unloaded its up to the terminal operator. The operator will be privy to classified information on the blueprints of the ports.

Impeach Bush and his Administration

Republicans Split With Bush on Ports

Faced with an unprecedented Republican revolt over national security, the White House disclosed yesterday that President Bush was unaware of a Middle Eastern company's planned takeover of operations at six U.S. seaports until recent days and promised to brief members of Congress more fully on the pending deal.
One day after threatening to veto any attempt by Congress to scuttle the controversial $6.8 billion deal, Bush sounded a more conciliatory tone by saying lawmakers should have been given more details about a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates purchasing some terminal operations in Baltimore and five other U.S. cities.

"This is one where we probably should have consulted with or briefed Congress on sooner," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
But congressional Republicans renewed their vow to prevent the sale from being finalized next month and warned Bush, sometimes in taunting terms, that an overwhelming majority of lawmakers will oppose the sale on national security grounds. "Dear Mr President: In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO but HELL NO!" Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) wrote to Bush in a one-sentence letter.
The administration on Jan. 17 approved the sale of a London-based company that manages terminals at the U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates.

The U.S. government reviews business transactions with national security implications and decided after a 23-day review by mid-level officials that Dubai Ports World posed no threat . McClellan said Bush learned about the sale in recent days, after it had been widely reported.
In seeking to assuage critics, administration officials noted that the local or state ports authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard would be responsible for security at the six ports -- not Dubai Ports World, which would be responsible for running terminal facilities and loading and unloading ships and storing the containers they transport.
All dock workers are union members who must undergo background checks, officials stressed. Bush said that those attacking the sale were holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than the British port operator that is being acquired by Dubai Ports World.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) rejected Bush's call to allow the sale to go through early next month and they remain committed to delaying it, their spokesmen said yesterday.
Republican lawmakers have been flooded with phone calls and letters from constituents encouraging them to fight Bush over the port deal, even at the expense of GOP unity on combating terrorism -- possibly their best political issue. As a result, Bush and Republicans are divided over a national security issue as never before and bracing for a possible showdown that could force Bush to either delay the sale or veto a Republican bill against it, according to congressional and White House officials.
With the president's ratings mired around 40 percent approval, some Republican lawmakers who face tough reelection bids in November have been looking for ways to distance themselves from Bush without appearing to be soft on terrorism. The president, who once enjoyed near unanimous support from GOP allies on Capitol Hill, has seen a steady rise in Republican criticism over Iraq, Iran, warrantless domestic spying and now the port deal.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) said political pressure from constituents is driving the debate. Lawmakers, he said, are "responding to incredible local political pressure."


read more here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html?