Posted on 02/19/2006 10:30:27 AM PST by LibWhacker
The Bush administration will reverse its decision to allow a Dubai company based in the United Arab Emirates to gain control over several key U.S. ports, the Fox News Channel's Brit Hume predicted on Sunday.
"I don't think the administration will be able to sustain this," Hume told "Fox News Sunday." "I think it will have to reverse itself in some way or create some entity that stands between the company and the management of the ports."
"I just don't think [the decision] can stand," he added. "It doesn't sound good to let some Arab shieks to be in charge of our ports - that's what it comes down to."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed the ports decision, saying, "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the U.A.E., who avows to destroy Israel."
In a decision announced last week, the Bush administration's Committee on Foreign Investment approved the purchase of six major U.S. ports by the U.A.E.-based Dubai Ports World.
The move set off a firestorm of criticism, with skeptics complaining that banks in the U.A.E. have helped launder money for terrorists and that the country itself was home to Marwan al Shehhi, the Sept. 11 hijacker who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into Tower 2 of the World Trade Center.
On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Dubai deal, telling a Mideast news outlet: "There was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely."
Wow! I knew Bush was President of these United States, but I didn't think he was the arbiter for the British Monarchy. Damn! Talk about abuse of power! /s
You did say "Bush OK'd the deal" and to "read the papers".
Maybe folks don't know this, but the company that the UAE firm is buying is currently owned by British interests -- and the British government didn't have any concerns about the acquisition, either.
The UAE company isn't going to own a single U.S. port.
The UAE company isn't even going to own any terminals in a U.S. port.
And the UAE company isn't going to be in charge of security at these ports.
But it more closely resembles the Verizon acquistion of NYNEX. Same phone company, same people, different name.
The irony here is that a U.S. company operating port terminals would probably have more people on their payrolls categorized as "security risks" than a foreign-owned company would.
For example -- the directors of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey answer to the governors of New York and New Jersey. Instead of carrying out with this silly political grandstanding, Chuck Schumer should simply get on the phone with Jon Corzine -- his former colleague in the U.S. Senate -- and let him know how concerned he is.
Exactly right! I'd really be interested in what Jon Corzine says. I think I know what his answers will be though. I've already heard enough BS from Schumer.
For example, from the article:
In a decision announced last week, the Bush administration's Committee on Foreign Investment approved the purchase of six major U.S. ports by the U.A.E.-based Dubai Ports World.
It's a bad deal. Still hope he's right.
Did you bother to read the REST of my post? Obviously not, but if you had, you would have seen that I said that while it may be SAFE to give the contract to a UAE based company, it will be a POLITICAL disaster for Republicans if it goes through with their approval. If you're so hot to protect Bush you should see the fallout from that political faux pas coming at him and the Republican Congress like a freight train.
You will never convince the bulk of the American people that giving the contract to an Arab/muslim owned corporation is safe even without the MSM and the Dems misrepresenting it, which they will certainly do at every turn. So why throw away political ground in this important election year? If you haven't heard, there is a VERY critical mid-term election this year. Do you want to see Republican Senate and Congressional candidates beaten over the head with this issue by lying, opportunistic Dems and the MSM from now until November? If Republicans lose the House, Bush's agenda for the remainder of his term will be dead as a doornail in a Pelosi controlled House.
You need to stop being so focused on trying to deflect FR criticism of Bush and start considering the political side of the issue. Criticism from his detractors can't hurt Bush's chances of winning an election, but a major political mistake can stop him from accomplishing significant anything for the last half of his term.
Give me ten good reasons that have not already been addressed in this thread as to why it's a bad deal.
Still hope he's right.
Well, keep hoping. He's wrong.
Right. Nobody is focused on this as a political issue except the Democrats. They're using this misrepresented story as a mask of "national security reasons".
Any FReeper who was around before the 2004 elections will tell you that the Democrats didn't give one rip about national security issues, and they lost.
This business about democrats being concerned about national security interests is as phony as Murtha's "cut and run" bill in the House and John Kerry and Wesley Clarke and any number of other democrats running for political office running strictly as war heros.
This deal didn't suddenly happend overnight, but this about face by Schumer and the democrats is suspect.
Try convincing the American voters of that this summer when the Dems and their MSM cohorts are lying 24/7 about the matter.
IMHO, the greatest danger is not necessarily that the US will lose control of port security, it's that the GOP will lose control of Congress. This Congress is already hurting in the approval polls, think about what kind of lies and accusations the GOP candidates will be facing from the MSM and Dem challengers in the coming campaign if the administration gives the green light to this issue. I don't know about you, but I am unnerved by even the possibility that Nancy Pelosi could be Speaker next year, and every House committee could be chaired by some of the most anti-American, despicable, leftwing zealots ever to disgrace the halls of Congress. Turning Congress over to the current crop of far left Dems during this time of war would be like turning it over to the German-American Bund during WWII.
indeed. the republicans don't need this. as soon as Peter King called them last week and told them this was a problem, they should have moved the following morning to re-review the deal and get in knocked down. instead, they let it fester, the Dems rushed in, and now its serious story.
and if they don't move to kill it this week, there are going to be hearings, examination of who exactly lobbys for the UAE, who they lobby, etc. its going to be a mess.
Personally I don't give a rip what the Democrats do. The republicans sound just as concerned as they do, but for differing reasons than the democrats, and for the same reasons as the American people by-and-large.
Congress, led by the republicans will screen the issue. There's no need for FReepers to go off half-cocked.
"And then he goes on to say "we should not have them (any foreigners) running our ports."
Splitting hairs aren't we? Ok, here's the exact quote:
"I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company."
What's your point?
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.