Posted on 02/20/2006 9:53:21 AM PST by Stellar Dendrite
House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King racheted up the rhetoric Monday morning on the Bush administration's decision to permit Dubai Ports World to control six major U.S. ports, saying the company is based in "the heartland of al Qaeda."
"By having a company right out of the heartland of al Qaeda managing those ports without being properly cleared or investigated, to me is madness," Rep. King told ABC News.
King cited "a number of reports about the port of Dubai itself, about weapons going through that port, to Iran, about corruption, and again about an al Qaeda presence. And I know there was no real investigation done on this matter."
King said he intends to ask President Bush to "freeze the contract [on the ports takeover], put it on hold, take no action till a full and complete investigation is done."
The Dubai company's ports takeover was approved last month by the Committee on Foreign Investment, headed by Treasury Secretary John Snow.
Over the weekend, both Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted that the Dubai ports deal had been thoroughly reviewed posed no threat to national security.
During an appearance on ABC's "This Week," however, Chertoff said he couldn't discuss details of the review because they were classified.
Rep. King said approval of the controversial deal was granted because "bureaucrats" had applied pre-9/11 standards.
"This is a classic situation, I think, of bureaucrats who just missed the boat here," he explained. "This went through. They were applying business as usual [rules] and they forgot it was post-9/11."
Unless President Bush intervenes, the Dubai ports takeover is set to commence on March 1.
Are we going to GROUP THINK this one too??
No. He said that in the view of global economics, it's a sweetheart deal. But in view of 9/11, it's a disaster. He believes that there's too much opposition in the Beltway for it to go through.
Where was the outrage when China took over the san pedro port in California?
Yeah it gave the US 8 years of the clintons.
the "global economics" to benefit whom? the corporations involved? I could care less about that. if some saudi company popped up with some great economic deal to redevelop the WTC site, would NYC allow it? no.
Are you suggesting because there was no outrage when we allowed Communist China a port in the U.S. that now we should allow an Arab country control of six U.S. ports?
I don't follow the logic.
He was speaking of pure economics without any politics. He stated the deal shouldn't go through.
..unknown?, not to some families , 41 , 43, hike!
He shoots, he scores!
"Where was the outrage when China took over the san pedro port in California?
"
Why, it was right here on Free Republic.
yep, I 'spect so...
Clinton and the demoncrats had little opposition from the repubs about the port or the missile info transfer. How times have changed. Do we not have US port managing companies?
You'd be surprised at how much prime NYC real estate the UAE, the Saudis and the Kuwaitis own.
Is that your justification for allowing this deal? Just exactly what is your point?
I see China as a much greater threat to the US.I do not believe that any foreign nation should manage our transportation (ports or airports)!
They may be a threat but 9/11 is fait accompli.
I do not believe that any foreign nation should manage our transportation (ports or airports)!
I second that but the Clintons were their own terror organisation and there was no stopping them.
Question. Why would a successful economic concern allow, say, a dirty bomb into a port for the purposes of destroying that port and thus their money maker?
Both the CIA and State Dept have given them, Dubai, high marks for backing us on war on terror.
While it's true that they may have missed and allowed contraband through their ports, we have massive amounts coming across our souther borders every day.
The guy overseeing the operation is an American as I understand it.
Not saying yes or no, but not kneejerking either.
A certain irony here - hoist by their own petard could be said. People have been conditioned to see Arabs as terrorists. The people now believe something the Administration does not believe by approving deals like this. The Administration is out on a limb and the limb is being cut.
I would withdraw my objections if I was certain that the interests of the United States were truly being considered and that there was no opportunity for even indirect aid to terrorists. However, I see a screen of a "country" called UAE which has an emerite called Dubai, run by qan individual, who has family tied back to the 1890s that has run DUbai, and we are seeing shell corporations claimed to be the owners. But it all comes down to the ruling family in Dubai and we are not hearing anything about him.
If you want my support, then disclose enough infomration to get behind you and to satisfy my concerns for the security of the United States.
Don't tell me it is merely a dim talking point, don't tell me that our government checked it out and all is well, and don't tell me the administration is relying on some kind of technical analysis of whether they have grounds to stop this sale. Tell me who is buying this and what it means for me and my children.
Hyperbole will not helop me...give me solid information! Why should I have to research this? Why will the administration not tell the public without a prior protest?
If the president wants support, the public information better be there.
The best way to stop conspiracy theories is to give the information out right away...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.