Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Dubai Finesse ("This Contract Should Have Been Stopped at an Earlier Stage...")
Washington Post ^ | 02/24/2006 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

*SNIP*

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.

That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.

*SNIP*

This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allowcontract; charleskrauthammer; dubai; krauthammer; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last

1 posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:34 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alouette; SJackson; veronica; Slings and Arrows

Ping


2 posted on 02/24/2006 3:09:27 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

He's a traitor...put him on the list!!!!


/sarcasm


3 posted on 02/24/2006 3:09:59 AM PST by chasio649
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types."

Charles, I usually enjoy your writing but are you aware that the Saudi's already operate a commercial port facility in this country?

4 posted on 02/24/2006 3:11:37 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584576/posts


5 posted on 02/24/2006 3:11:53 AM PST by cabojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I guess he didn't know about this Here
6 posted on 02/24/2006 3:13:31 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held;

They'll be about as effective as UN inspectors in Iraq.

7 posted on 02/24/2006 3:15:16 AM PST by gotribe (Hillary: Accessory to Rape)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

"UAE-based firms have operated in Houston long time" thats the new headlines hows does this square with his thinking?


8 posted on 02/24/2006 3:15:59 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
I guess he didn't know about this Here

Oh, what kneejerk horsecrap. Krauthammer plainly states:

"Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling, too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)"

You patently didn't even bother to read the article, before posting. Try again.

9 posted on 02/24/2006 3:16:09 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Sometimes I think our president isn't too savey. Then he goes out and wins.


10 posted on 02/24/2006 3:17:43 AM PST by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I posted that in response to

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.

That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one

11 posted on 02/24/2006 3:21:11 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states."


Don't kook now, but the spinmiesters are stepping back from the abyss.

It is still (President) Bush's fault, but we must make the best of it now.






12 posted on 02/24/2006 3:22:27 AM PST by G.Mason (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
I usually enjoy your writing but are you aware that the Saudi's already operate a commercial port facility in this country?

Already helping the enemy? Oh well, can't stop now. Let's support them some more. (sarc)
13 posted on 02/24/2006 3:22:45 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
I posted that in response to

You stated "I guess he didn't know about this," and then linked to an article entitled "UAE-based firms have operated in Houston long time." As Krauthammer's plainly, lucidly demonstrates: your Pavlovian, drive-by assumption was not only absurd, but demonstrably false.

Again: read, first... then post.

14 posted on 02/24/2006 3:25:07 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The good news, and where Charles makes a common mistake, is we're not allowing them to run any U.S. ports.


15 posted on 02/24/2006 3:26:11 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Kuwait also runs terminals in NJ


16 posted on 02/24/2006 3:26:49 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

And the money goes where?


17 posted on 02/24/2006 3:26:58 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The same place it goes now, to a foreign concern operating the facility, into local taxes and services and to local workers.


18 posted on 02/24/2006 3:28:17 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

And Kuwait being a middle eastern country already running terminals in Newark, NJ is also false huh? Give it up Kent


19 posted on 02/24/2006 3:29:18 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

And it goes into building mosques, madrassas, and into training and armming terrorists. Personally I don't like paying them to kill our soldiers.


20 posted on 02/24/2006 3:30:33 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason

"but we must make the best of it now."


too bad that wasn't thought of sooner.


21 posted on 02/24/2006 3:33:33 AM PST by Kimberly GG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
LOL! Do you mean the people who are providing port services for the logistic support of our soldiers. The people who are providing more port services for our U.S. Navy combat ships then any other organization outside the U.S. The people who General Tommy Franks and Colonel Ollie North say are providing us excellent service?

I don't have any problem with that at all.

22 posted on 02/24/2006 3:33:51 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
What's the purpose of that link with regard to this article?

A UAE company performs shipping services in Houston; they don't manage any terminals, which they will in other major US ports if/when this deal goes through. There's quite a difference, and Krauthammer is making a reasonable point that when a company/government is that deeply involved in port operations, they will necessarily become privvy to security operations/tactics. He's even suggesting a solution (something Dems never do).

Clouding the issue by comparing apples to oranges doesn't help.

23 posted on 02/24/2006 3:34:12 AM PST by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
And Kuwait being a middle eastern country already running terminals in Newark, NJ is also false huh? Give it up Kent

What on earth are you gibbering about, and what (please) does any of it have to do with the fact that: a.) Krauthammer's own words plainly demonstrated that he demonstrably DID know what you foolishly claimed he did not; and b.) that you were righteously busted for posting without having read the article in question?

You're just spiraling into hysteria, now. Try breathing into a paper bag or something.

24 posted on 02/24/2006 3:34:28 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Check this out:

Link Description

Apparently UAE, along with Somalia is one of the 2 biggest hotbeds for Al Qaeda. UAE has also been squabbling for some time with Iran.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html "because the treaties have not been made public, the exact alignment of the boundary with Saudi Arabia is still unknown; boundary agreement was signed and ratified with Oman in 2003 for entire border, including Oman's Musandam Peninsula and Al Madhah enclaves, but contents of the agreement and maps showing the alignment have not been published; UAE engage in direct talks and solicit Arab League support to resolve disputes over Iran's occupation of Lesser and Greater Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island"

I think the argument that they might close the base if we don't let the deal go through is a little weak. We're the only thing keeping them from getting chewed-on by the big dogs.

25 posted on 02/24/2006 3:36:38 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Ahh, what about Texas? Arab companies have been involved with operating docks since the early 90s.


26 posted on 02/24/2006 3:38:33 AM PST by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

Strange how both General Tommy Franks and Colonel Ollie North differ with you on that. But what do Franks and North know about national security, the middle east and the terrorists.


27 posted on 02/24/2006 3:39:13 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

I think you know exactly what I'm talking about and simply don't want to admit that you've screwed yourself into a corner and don't see any choice but to keep paying the enemy.


28 posted on 02/24/2006 3:39:35 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570
Arab companies have been involved with operating docks since the early 90s.

Make that TWO people posting without having read the article first.

29 posted on 02/24/2006 3:39:44 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

Apologies to all...

New to HTML. Should have previewed B4 posting.

The first link is the US Treasury Dept list of Corporations who've had their assets frozen for Al Qaeda links.

The second is the CIA's world fact sheet on UAE.


30 posted on 02/24/2006 3:39:46 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I'll leave the art of screwing yourself into a corner to you...I could never compete with your mastery of the subject.


31 posted on 02/24/2006 3:40:43 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

What im saying is they already know about our security, because they already work here!


32 posted on 02/24/2006 3:46:14 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I wonder if Charles feels the same way about Saudi Arabia running some of our ports, which they already do.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584235/posts


33 posted on 02/24/2006 3:49:00 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
they already work here

... which he (obviously) already knows, and acknowledges. AGAIN: "But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries [...]"

On this point, you and Krauthammer are already as one. You're howling in protest of a position he (plainly) has not taken; nor given you any rational reason to assume otherwise.

Again: kneejerking.

34 posted on 02/24/2006 3:53:23 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I wonder if Charles feels the same way about Saudi Arabia running some of our ports, which they already do.

Make that THREE people posting without having read the article in question first.

35 posted on 02/24/2006 3:54:23 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

IS he counting the USA? They work in Houston, and Kuwait has terminals in New Jersey, if some shady muslim wanted to know about our security they would already know it.


36 posted on 02/24/2006 3:57:27 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
IS he counting the USA?

Any particular reason to assume he isn't? Not to be intentionally insulting -- honestly; I mean that -- but: if you know about it... I imagine the widely-read Krauthammer might just conceivably have some remote inkling, as well.

37 posted on 02/24/2006 4:01:23 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Wrong. Maybe you didn't read the straddle that Charles has so nicely done in the article.


38 posted on 02/24/2006 4:02:43 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I dont think so, both are articles that will be printed today.


39 posted on 02/24/2006 4:06:13 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Maybe you didn't read the straddle that Charles has so nicely done in the article.

More kneejerk huffing and puffing. No "straddle" whatsoever, plainly; he states, in language transparent enough for any intellectually honest individual to readily grasp -- well: let's amend that to "almost any," in this particular instance -- that the port deal, in his estimation, should go through.

NOT "I don't know."

NOT "maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't."

"1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee."

Only someone well and truly in the grip of intellectual hysteria could possibly attempt to alchemize the above paragraph as a "straddle."

Make a cold compress. Go lie down, or something.

40 posted on 02/24/2006 4:11:39 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
both are articles that will be printed today.

???? WHAT are "both articles that will be printed today?" You're carrying on at least 50% of this conversation within your own head, said confines to which I (sadly) am not privy. Flesh it out, please.

You at least do realize by this point, of course, that you ARE debating Krauthammer on a position he neither advances nor holds... yes? :)

41 posted on 02/24/2006 4:16:34 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Why are you being so ugly? Nice cherry picking on your part. Charles admits readily that there could be problems:

On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right. There is a problem. And the problem is not just the obvious one that an Arab-run company, heavily staffed with Arab employees, is more likely to be infiltrated by terrorists who might want to smuggle an awful weapon into our ports. But that would probably require some cooperation from the operating company. And neither the company nor the government of the UAE, which has been pro-American and a reasonably good ally in the war on terrorism, has any such record. (That paragraph is considered showing the good AND the dangerous aspects of the deal).

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types. (That paragraph shows the danger of the deal)

That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.

There's more, but you get the point. Now I suggest you stop making yourself seem silly. My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that Saudi Arabia already manages some of our terminals.

I'll wait while you tell how it is you have come to the 100% wrong conclusion that I'm in the grip of some intellectual hysteria. Read my posts in the forum. I'll wait. And then expect an apology.


42 posted on 02/24/2006 4:18:34 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

you make me wonder why i defended the seahawks so strongly after losing the super bowl. go bears


43 posted on 02/24/2006 4:20:35 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

I have plenty of respect for Franks and North.

I also think our idea that Islamic fascists will quit being fascists if we keep feeding them money is a little bizarre. We've been doing that for decades.

Don't think this is so much a NS problem as one of appeasing a nation that we really don't need to appease. We obviously need to keep a presence in UAE as a launch-point into Iran, and to keep the Straight of Hormuz open. I don't see how UAE could possibly ask us to close our base, given their place in the region.

Did you visit the links?

UAE and Somali companies, mostly. Is it because UAE is helping us to root them out, or is it because we busted them on our own? If they are helping us root the terrorists out, is it because they have a genuine desire to do so as a country? Or is it just for the protection and money while privately wishing us dead? I feel that's a pretty valid question given the topic. If you have some information, or views to share, I would appreciate it.

Have any of our other allies in that area really stood with us in any meaningful way other than letting us operate bases, and turning over a few of the worst offenders in exchange for keeping them out of hot water?

Turkey wouldn't even let us operate off of their soil when we went in to Iraq. I agree that we have and need military bases in that part of the world. Are these folks really our friends, though?


44 posted on 02/24/2006 4:26:29 AM PST by CowboyJay (Rough Riders! Tancredo '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

Considering that we trust Dubai and DP World to manage the port most critical to the logistic support of our troops in the War on Terror, and that we trust them to a greater amount of support for our surface combat vessels then any other nation, I'd say that the conclusions of General Franks and Colonel North are based on sound principle, not hysterics.


45 posted on 02/24/2006 4:28:49 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Why are you being so ugly?

No, muffin: "ugly" would be to accuse you either of intellectual inadequacy (in not being swift enough to grasp what is plainly written), or else lying outright (in intentionally misrepresenting same).

Granting the possibility that you may simply be in hysterics, on the other hand, spares you from being tarred as either a mope or a fraud. You're entirely welcome, of course.

Charles admits readily that there could be problems

As there very well might be, obviously. Obviously didn't change one jot or tittle of his final analysis, however, did it? Hmmmmmmmmm...?

My original post stands - would Charles write exactly the same article if he knew that

Your original "point," such as it is, is bucktoothed. He already does know, as the article has long since rendered concrete.

Read my posts in the forum.

You'll be waiting a good, long-ish while before stumbling across anyone caring less about your other postings hereabout than I, kiddo... and: they're wildly irrelevant, in any case. It's within this thread that you've plainly decided to have your little tantrum, after all.

I'll wait. And then expect an apology.

Make certain to move your legs, every few hours. It'll help prevent cobwebs.

46 posted on 02/24/2006 4:28:58 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Hey Dip wad;

I did read the article. I based my comments on the last two paragraphs.

Make another post about something you know about. Not about something I did read.


47 posted on 02/24/2006 4:29:04 AM PST by PeteB570 (Guns, what real men want for Christmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
you make me wonder why i defended the seahawks so strongly after losing the super bowl. go bears

[::shrugs::] I sleep soundly tonight whether you're coherent or not, either way.

48 posted on 02/24/2006 4:30:41 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Can't be bothered to read my posts to see how intellectual dishonest you are that I'm hardly in the grip of hysteria? Good to know what kind of poster you are. Not wanting to be bothered with the facts is usually a Democrat tactic.


49 posted on 02/24/2006 4:30:55 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570
I did read the article.

Then what you posted was (charitably) babble.

50 posted on 02/24/2006 4:31:53 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("It'sTime for Republicans to Start Toeing the Conservative Line, NOT the Other Way Around!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson