Malkin ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Michelle Malkin ping list...
Posted on 02/17/2006 9:56:33 AM PST by cgk
***scroll for updates***
Forget about the Cheney accidental shooting. Based on my e-mail and the growing outcry from both sides of the political aisle, this was and is the big story of the week--and it's picking up steam:
[LES KINSOLVING]: The government's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has approved a deal that will put six major ports in the United States under the control of a state-sponsored company based in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. And my question: Knowing, as we do, that the Arab Emirate was tied in many ways to the 9/11 hijackers and their deeds, and knowing the critical nature of port security and protecting the nation, will the President step in and stop this deal from going into effect March 2nd?
[White House Press Secy SCOTT McCLELLAN]: Well, my understanding, Les, is that this went through the national security review process under CFIUS, at the Department of Treasury. That is the agency that is responsible for overseeing such matters. And this includes a number of national security agencies -- the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Justice, among others, and there is a rigorous review that goes on for proposed foreign investments for national security concerns. And in terms of specifics relating to this, Treasury is the chair of this and you should direct those questions to Treasury.
No. The buck stops with the White House. The president has the ultimate authority to stop the deal. And he should.
Yet, as I noted earlier today, the White House is standing by the approval of the $7 billion sale giving United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over significant operations at six major American ports.
You can find background on CFIUS, the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, that makes recommendations on foreign acquisitions, and the Exon-Florio provision, which gives the President broad powers to block certain types of foreign investment, here (pdf file).
Reuters notes:
Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said the 12-agency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow, had reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Snow is a former chairman of freight rail company CSX Corp., which sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow had left the company for the Bush administration.
Stewart Baker, assistant secretary of policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said Dubai Ports World had a solid security record.
"We could not find anything concrete that led us to believe that the transaction ought to be stopped for national security reasons," Baker told Reuters.
Really? They couldn't find anything concrete? The New York Post did:
True, the deal reportedly was approved by the top-secret U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which decided there was no security risk.
But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, we wonder whether this is a wise move.
Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system - considered the commercial center of the Arab world - provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.
And while the Bush folks now consider the UAE a major ally in the war against terror, the Treasury Department has been stonewalled by the emirates, and other Arab countries, in trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts. The new leader of Dubai, one of the seven small countries that make up the UAE, has said all the right things about fighting radical Islam since 9/11. But this remains very much an Islamist nation, where preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited.
Frank Gaffney also warns in the NY Sun:
This is not the first time this interagency panel - called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States - has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.
Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments. Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company. There would certainly appear to be a number of grounds for rejecting this initiative, however:
* America's seaports have long been recognized by homeland security experts as among our most vulnerable targets. Huge quantities of cargo move through them every day, much of it of uncertain character and provenance, nearly all of it inadequately monitored. Matters can only be made worse by port managers who might conspire to bring in dangerous containers, or simply look the other way when they arrive.
* Entrusting information about key U.S. ports - including, presumably, government-approved plans for securing them, to say nothing of the responsibility for controlling physical access to these facilities, to a country known to have been penetrated by terrorists is not just irresponsible. It is recklessly so...
...How could even a stacked deck like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States find it possible to approve the Dubai Ports World's transaction?
Could it have been influenced by the fact that a former senior official of the UAE company, David Sanborn, was recently named the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration? Until recently, Mr. Sanborn was DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.
Or is it because the U.S. government views - and is determined to portray - the United Arab Emirates as a vital ally in this war for the Free World? A similar determination has long caused Washington to treat Saudi Arabia as a valued friend, even as the Saudis continue playing a double game whereby they work simultaneously to repress terrorism at home and abet it abroad.
Whatever the explanation, the nation can simply no longer afford to have the disposition of strategic assets - including those that have a military or homeland security dimension - determined by a Treasury-dominated panel whose deliberations and decisions are made in secret without congressional oversight.
Either the president or Congress should see to it that the United Arab Emirates is not entrusted with the operation of any American ports, and that the Treasury Department is stripped of the lead role in evaluating such dubious foreign investments in the United States.
One of my readers offers a different view:
My husband works in the international transportation industry. In fact, his boss at one time was Dave Sanborn, the man that the White House has appointed to a post within the Maritime Commission. Dave was most recently working for DWI in the Dominican Republic and has worked for them before. DWI is not "buying the American ports" as I see frequently misrepresented in articles about this in the MSM. American ports cannot be bought.
They are buying the port operating division of a London-based, British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. That purchase will include current contracts that P&O ports has with the various ports listed in the stories. There are other port operation companies out there. The port in New York or any of the other ports mentioned could choose to contract with some other company if they do not want DWI being responsible for operating terminals in these ports. As we understand it the same employees who work for P&O currently will still be the employees that work there after the purchase goes through.
I don't think there are suddenly going to be Arabs running all over the ports. Anymore so than there already are. Actually because of regulations and unions, more and more of ocean shipping, port operations and terminal operations in America are being run by non-American companies. Just a heads up...as we read the stories the information is so fact challenged. My husband does think there is room for some clarification, but to have Chucky [Schumer] out there trying to make this into a "the Bush adminstration IS NOT concerned about port security" is just spin.
Well, she makes a few good points about the how and why of the deal. But whether we should do it is the key issue. And my bottom line is that the deal looks bad and smells worse.
I'm with the Washington Times:
The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?
The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
comments@whitehouse.gov
***
FYI, you can find a map of terminal facilities operated around the world by DPI here.
Update: Ed Morrissey digs up concrete concerns abot the UAE in the 9/11 Commission report:
Page 138: "Even after Bin Ladin’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up.The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity.160 On March 7, 1999, [Richard] Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Ladin.Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA." [This involved Clarke blowing a cover on a covert operation.]
Page 167: "In early 2000,Atta, Jarrah, and Binalshibh returned to Hamburg. Jarrah arrived first, on January 31, 2000.97 According to Binalshibh, he and Atta left Kandahar together and proceeded first to Karachi, where they met KSM and were instructed by him on security and on living in the United States. Shehhi apparently had already met with KSM before returning to the UAE.Atta returned to Hamburg in late February, and Binalshibh arrived shortly thereafter. Shehhi’s travels took him to the UAE (where he acquired a new passport and a U.S. visa), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and one or more other destinations."
Page 171: "Bin Ladin relied on the established hawala networks operating in Pakistan, in Dubai, and throughout the Middle East to transfer funds efficiently."
Page 216: "On June 20, Hanjour returned home to Saudi Arabia. He obtained a U.S. student visa on September 25 and told his family he was returning to his job in the UAE. Hanjour did go to the UAE, but to meet facilitator Ali Abdul
Aziz Ali.62"
Page 224: "The Hamburg operatives paid for their flight training primarily with funds wired from Dubai by KSM’s nephew,Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Between June 29 and September 17, 2000,Ali sent Shehhi and Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000."
Page 236: "After training in Afghanistan, the operatives went to a safehouse maintained by KSM in Karachi and stayed there temporarily before being deployed to the United States via the UAE. ... Ali apparently assisted nine
future hijackers between April and June 2001 as they came through Dubai. He helped them with plane tickets, traveler’s checks, and hotel reservations; he also taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food. Dubai, a modern city with easy access to a major airport, travel agencies, hotels, and Western commercial establishments,was an ideal transit point."
Ed concludes: "In fact, many of the 9/11 hijackers transited through the UAE, and a significant amount of al-Qaeda cash came through UAE-based accounts. If they run their own country's borders so poorly, why would we trust them to run ours?"
Exactly.
Update II: Debbie Schlussel has background on Dubai's Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum.
***
Just a sample of letters, blog reax, and news updates coming in on the story that should be headline news...
The New York Sun:
The Bush administration yesterday failed to quell the swelling tide of opposition to the deal that would give a company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates control over six American ports.
The board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey promptly made public their demand to the federal government for information and documents related to the decision in preparation for its own review of the implications of the deal next week...
New York Sen. Charles Schumer won new allies in Congress and the media yesterday in his campaign to raise national security concerns about a planned transfer of port operations in Newark and other key East Coast cities to a company controlled by the government of Dubai...The takeover was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department that can block foreign acquisitions that threaten national security.
But Schumer, who first raised questions Monday, was joined yesterday by an array of six congressmen, including Republicans such as conservative Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in a call for a second look. Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has also raised questions, and The New York Times yesterday editorialized against the deal.
You've got to wonder just how much review was done, when the Port Authority wasn't even involved in the process of screening participants who might take over operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey.
Today is significant. Not just because love is in the air. But because we find ourselves, for once, agreeing fully with Sen. Chuck Schumer. How can this be?
Lucianne.com readers are not happy: Here and here.
Neither are commenters over at Military.com.
Reader Brad R.:
The government's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has approved a deal that will put six major ports in the United States under the control of a state-sponsored company based in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.This is unbelievable. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al-Qaeda.
I don't think our ports should even be operated by a country-sponsored company of our closest ally. I am a conservative and I would even raise taxes for this type of issue (but I would rather the funding come from sound fiscal policy).
How can this decision be good for our National Security? How can this be good policy? Mr President, please do not let this Port-deal happen. The Buck Stops at the White House and the President's Desk!
Reader Brian B. sends his letter to the White House:
Dear President Bush:
I am not alone in my perplexed anger that the United States government would permit an Arab and Islamic country to gain control of several US ports. It is incomprehensible to me why we would assume such a risk in this day and age of increasing Islamist tendencies and capacities.
With several subsets of the Islamic nation possessing or seeking nuclear weapons, we have comforted ourselves with the notion that they yet lag in ballistic missile capability, therefore we only need worry about a primitive oversize atom-bomb being brought to the US via shipping containers through US ports. And now you expect Americans to rest easy with a lukewarm anti-terror ally that has hosted and benefited the architects of 9/11 taking control of vital major US ports?
Islamists crow about their ability to turn our technology into weapons against us, and now we are going to hand them access to some of the most crucial security vulnerabilities in our strong but civilization-dependent economy? This is madness.
Amongst the many failures of Democratic Presidents Carter and Clinton, I believe that history will judge most harshly their myopic sell-out of the Panama Canal to Pamana, and failing to thwart it's transfer once it was clear that the Chinese had managed to gain control of the ports on both oceans. The consequences of that will come down the road, but they will come. Assuredly, Islamists will not rest until they have identified and succeeded in exploiting the openings created by cavalierly permitting an Islamic country to gain control of our major ports, and history will hold the present administration responsible for such acts and the resultant tragedies.
...As a US president in wartime, operating under an Authorization For the Use of Military Force, you have rightly claimed the right to conduct intelligence surveillance of enemy communications, within and without our borders. You also possess the right under that authorization to block the bestowal of American assets or contracts that make our country vulnerable. To deny that is disengenious at best, it's Clintonian in nature; and every American can see right through the farce that is the current White House defense of this action.
I insist that you consider this action long and hard while recognizing the complete lack of credibility of the approval process that has permitted this travesty to progress to this point; and that you exhibit the fortitude necessary to oppose and prevent it. I strongly believe that you have underestimated the resolve of the American people to see their nation preserved, as well as their willingness and capacity to recognize a sellout for what it is. I will join hands with my inspirations in the blogosphere and elsewhere to fight this idiocy with all my energy.
Isn't it enough already that our Northern and Southern border defenses are pathetically ineffective? Must we create new vulnerabilities with such obvious potential dangers?
BUMP
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Michelle Malkin ping list...
This cannot stand. I dont want an investigation into how it happened. It just cannot stand. Period. Bush apprears clueless on this one as well. If he kiboshed it in a press conference my faith would be restored.
Over-reaction, IMO
ping
ping
swings and drives one into deep center
this one is going... going... gone!
The little lady hits another one outta the park!
One has to wonder why the government that would do this just doesn't fire the Border Patrol, do away with the Immigration Department and just give the Southern Border Security contract to the Mexicans and be done with it? We've been sold out - cheap.
He should but he won't. Like the Harriet Miers nomination he'll have to be forced to.
Give them time, they're working on it.
Isn't that the truth! Who is going to protect us now, from our own government?
What justification is there for approving this deal?
We the people need to flood the White House with emails, calls and faxes.
bttt
This is an outrage and incredibly foolish. I am tired of the foolishness on the part of our leaders.
Dubai is arab. Right now, we're buds. But their religion rules their lives. You really want to take the chance? Our friend today may not be our friend tomorrow. And lets not forget that the Qu'ran says they don't have to be honest in their dealings with infidels. I was rather naive right up until 9/11.
HEY GOP: NO MORE "MODERATE" OLD FAMILY CANDIDATES-- WE'RE SICK OF THAT ILK!
One of my readers offers a different view . . .
DWI is not "buying the American ports" as I see frequently misrepresented in articles about this in the MSM. American ports cannot be bought. They are buying the port operating division of a London-based, British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. That purchase will include current contracts that P&O ports has with the various ports listed in the stories. There are other port operation companies out there. The port in New York or any of the other ports mentioned could choose to contract with some other company if they do not want DWI being responsible for operating terminals in these ports.
Variations of this story have been posted dozens of times over the last few days, in dozens of different media outlets of all types (including here on FreeRepublic). And yet this is the only item in any of these articles -- aside from the comment threads here on FR -- where the facts about the exact nature of the merger/acquisition in question have been presented.
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.