Taken Directly from Democrats.org

The following Article was posted today on Democrats.org
This is the first piece on my blog that isn't my original work; opinion or listing of facts as I know them. The information contained herein is clear documentation of how the Democrats do have a strong plan for National Security but the republicans won't let them make us safe. The next time you hear some neocon falsely claim that the Democrats don't stand for anything, refer them to this article/document.

The article covers things from Bush lying about there being no security concerns from any agency/group prior to the Port deal with the U.A.E. which should have started a 45 day review, to actual legislation the Democrats introduced in Congress only to have the republicans shoot them down like the 911 hijackers planes would have been if we actually had a President that cared about National Security.

The article from Democrats.org follows and is in green text. I have added some comments which will be in black text.

As more details emerge about President Bush's bungling of a deal to allow a foreign government-owned company to run some of our nation's largest seaports, his failure to protect our homeland becomes clearer. This deal also turns the spotlight on the Republican Congress's repeated moves to block funds needed for vital homeland security projects since 9/11, including Democratic efforts to close gaps in port security.

According to an internal report released yesterday, the Coast Guard "warned before Dubai Ports World was given clearance to take over five US port terminals that 'intelligence gaps' about the company made it impossible to assess whether the deal posed any threats to national security." [Financial Times, 2/28/06] The report contradicts statements by the Bush Administration officials that no concerns were raised about the deal prior to its approval by federal officials.

Monday February 27, 2006 when this story of Bush selling our Ports to a Terrorist Nation and before he knew of these potential intelligence gaps which could put our National Security at risk, Bush arrogantly stated that he would Veto any attempt by Congress to nix the deal.

Also, four years after 9/11, "the maritime industry is still waiting for the federal government to deliver on its promise of an identity card for port workers." The program is two years behind schedule and won't be ready until Spring 2007 – or later. [Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/28/06]
"The failure of the Republican Congress and the Bush Administration to secure our homeland becomes clearer every day," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda. "With their inability to secure our ports and their repeated broken promises four years after 9/11, the American people know that the Republican Congress and President Bush are not taking America's security seriously."

Speaking of the Maritime....follow the money like sharks follow the fishes.
Recently President Bush appointed David Sandborne as Head of U.S. Maritime. David Sandborne was a Chief Officer for Dubai Ports World in charge of overseas U.S. Port Operations.
Dubai Ports World is owned by the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates was home to 2 of the 911 hijackers, laundered all of the money used to fund the 911 attacks, refused to help the United States government shortly after 911 and through their ports allowed the illegal shipment of nuclear proliferations to Libya, North Korea and Iran. The Emirs and their families were at a "gathering/cookout" with Osama bin laden on a day that we planned to bomb/take out Osama bin laden. Because of the political repercussions (from a nation of only 5 million) from killing half the royal families of the Emirs, Bush opted not to bomb. I posit that the "political repercussions" were more likely financial repercussions. After all, the Port deal is worth $6 billion.

Republicans In the House Vote Against Securing America's Ports
Republicans Killed A Vote On An Amendment That Would Have Added $250 Million For Port Security Grants. Republicans killed the vote on the Obey, D-Wis., amendment that would add $2.5 billion for homeland security, including $800 million for first responder grants, $250 million for port security grants, and $150 million for research to develop capabilities against chemical weapons. [HR 1559, Vote #104, 4/3/03] NOTE: Every Republican present voted to kill this amendment.

The 911 Commission found that with better communications from first responders many lives would have been saved.
Our Ports are very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Less than 5% of all cargo is inspected.
Chemical Weapons is what they said Sadam was about to use against us. You know the imminent threat Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice lied about. Chemical Weapons and Nuclear Weapons brought through our ports is a likely scenario for terrorists. Yet as you can see from the above actions taken by the republicans to squash the Democrats plan to secure the ports, that threat is more likely to happen.
Cranes remove the cargo from the freightliners. Funds requested by the Democrats for R&D capabilities against chemical weapons could have been used to create detection devices that could be attached to the cranes so that each cargo container would be inspected.

Republicans Voted Against $400 million Increase in Port Security. In 2005, Republicans voted against an alternative Homeland Security Authorization proposal that would commit $41 billion to securing the nation from terrorist threats - $6.9 billion more than the President's budget. The proposal called for an additional $400 million in funding for port security, including $13 million to double the number of new overseas port inspectors provided for in the President's budget. The proposal addressed the holes in securing the nation's ports by requiring DHS to develop container security standards, integrate container security pilot projects, and examine ways to integrate container inspection equipment and data. [HR 1817, Roll Call #187, 5/18/05]

Republicans In The Senate Vote Against Securing America's Ports
Republicans Voted Against Restoring Homeland Security Funding For Ports. In 2005, Washington Republicans voted against an amendment to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.[ S.Amdt. 220 to S.Con.Res. 18]

Republicans Voted Against $150 Million In Additional Funding For Port Security. In September 2004, Republicans voted against a bill which would appropriate an additional $150,000,000 for port security research and development grants. [S.Amdt. 3580 to H.R. 4567]


Bush and the republicans were in control on 911.
Bush and the republicans were in control before, during and since Katrina.
We are still not protected.
We are still not safe.
Which party is strong on National Security?
I think it is obvious.
Democrats are stronger on National Security.
It is time for new leadership.