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

Skip to comments.

Brit Hume: Bush Will Reverse Ports Decision
NewsMax ^ | 2/19/06 | Carl Limbacher

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."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; decision; fns; foxnews; homelandsecurity; hume; newworldorder; reverse; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-285 next last
To: Alberta's Child

"The weakest link is the longshoreman, truck driver, law enforcement officer, etc. with a double-digit IQ who accepts a cash bribe from some Sicilian-looking guy to "look the other way" when a container gets processed at the port or an off-site warehouse."

Exactly. The unions are the weak link. This is about briber and paybacks. The Ports of Authority that do these contracts are all corrupt. The Ports Authorities, which are local patronage operations, make these contracts.


261 posted on 02/20/2006 5:52:20 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Dane

" what is your solution. Nationalize all the ports, create another huge beaucracy giving union goons and in to raid for more graft, or have a company that recruits the best western talent and will not be in charge of security at the port."

Can't reason with people with DD IQs. Most of these people have no idea how ports are run, how business operates or even the difference between Danes and the Dutch.


262 posted on 02/20/2006 6:04:21 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

"Why don't American firms want to do business with the Federal Government? Were there no American companies at all bidding for this project?'

Each Port individually writes a contract to operate to an operating company. This is NOT a federal matter. Ever hear of the Port of Oakland, Port of Tampa, etc. Several Ports have outsourced operations to a British company this company is being acquired in a pretty much standard M&A. The merger, like many, gets a federal review on anti-trust, natiional security and other matters. If the Feds tried to block this M&A it would, likely, end up in court.


263 posted on 02/20/2006 6:18:32 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet

" the administration is giving ports to UAE'

One of the most ignorant posts in the blogo-sphere.


264 posted on 02/20/2006 6:22:56 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

"any of these six ports that have "security-related concerns" over this corporate merger should simply set the wheels in motion on whatever process needs to be undertaken in order to terminate the current P&O Ports leases at these facilities.'

I know the hysterical idiots will not read this. The facts get in the way of their world view.


265 posted on 02/20/2006 6:25:09 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Brit is usually right.


266 posted on 02/20/2006 6:26:11 AM PST by veronica ("A person needs a sense of mission like the air he breathes...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epow
I agree the only tangible downside to this deal is the political fallout.

The interesting thing about that is the way the dems always overreact and then look stupid. I'm not sure how this plays out but could be more rope-a-dope from Rove.

I think the posts that point this squarely at the unions and democrat controlled Ports of Authorities may be on to something, factually AND politically.
267 posted on 02/20/2006 6:30:07 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

"No one will ever convince me that foreign ownership of domestic port operations is a sound idea"

How do you propose to change this?


268 posted on 02/20/2006 6:32:27 AM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

Why don't we just get it over with and pass a law banning Muslims from owning any businesses in this country, that will solve all our problems. </sarcasm>


269 posted on 02/20/2006 6:32:51 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Why don't we just get it over with and pass a law banning Muslims from owning any businesses in this country, that will solve all our problems.

Or nuke Mecca as the Tancredoites have been insisting, and just be done with it. Well, I have news for them. That won't solve anything. That's tantamount to punching a hole in a beehive.

270 posted on 02/20/2006 6:36:45 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida
Okay, I realize that could be true. Let me rephrase - Why don't American companies what to do business with state/local 'Port Authorities'?

And that begs another question - since these Port Authorities are generally created by state/local legislation/action, why is the federal government letting these contracts? If it is just for the federal operations at that port, then my initial question is still valid.

These Port Authorities also are most likely have a board of directors or management team placed by politicians not elected by the voting public.

I don't want to be or seam argumentative but questions do exist and I question this action (as I did the sale of the Panama Canal)
271 posted on 02/20/2006 9:05:57 AM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: floriduh voter

Our Congress has no say in the sale of a British company (P&O) or its financial dealing with other foreign companies. Now letting a contract for goods or services to them by our government they may have the ability to question.


272 posted on 02/20/2006 9:08:39 AM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

two words: Homeland Security


273 posted on 02/20/2006 10:43:10 AM PST by floriduh voter (http://www.conservative-spirit.org Tom Gallagher for Fla Guv www.tg2006.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida

One of the most ignorant posts in the blogo-sphere.

You are right. The administration has nothing to do with it. Send out a press release and tell all the reporters not to ask the administration any questions about the port deal, because they have no say in it, nothing to do with it, and besides,...people think that if would be indicative of "the most ignorant posts in the blogo-sphere."


274 posted on 02/20/2006 12:04:39 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I have no love for the unions. I just like the problem to be stated clearly and accurately. We are not selling the pors, and they will not be run by towel-heads. The fact that unions have their own dirty hands is another issue.


275 posted on 02/20/2006 12:52:19 PM PST by Inkie (Attn Dems: Loose Lips Sink Ships -- but hey, I guess that's your goal))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida

Can't reason with people with DD IQs. Most of these people have no idea how ports are run, how business operates or even the difference between Danes and the Dutch.


####

True, and this apparently includes a lot of the so-called press.


276 posted on 02/20/2006 1:01:10 PM PST by maica (We are fighting the War for the Free World. Democrats and the media are not on our side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: epow

National defense/homeland security is by far the Repubs strongest point in the minds of the general public, why allow the Dems to knock a big hole in that strong point when it isn't necessary?

####

This is true, and I bet our arrangements in Dubai are among the best in the entire world for knowing what is being placed in containers and on ships. One of the changes that was made immediately after Homeland Security was set up was a system of scrutinizing shipments before they ever get loaded, much less get offloaded in the US.

And like the NSA surveillance system, the White House, Chertoff, et al, do not want to describe chapter and verse of what we are doing. So folks who want to make cheap political points will weaken our surveillance defences rather than let a system work for the benefit of all of us.


277 posted on 02/20/2006 1:08:52 PM PST by maica (We are fighting the War for the Free World. Democrats and the media are not on our side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Thanks for the link:

In 1993, in response to a sense of Congress resolution, CFIUS membership was expanded by Executive Order 12860 to include the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In February 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was added to CFIUS. This brought the membership of CFIUS to twelve under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Treasury. The other members are the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

It would seem that the current situation is complicated by the selling company not being an American company, so now one foreign company is selling to another foreign company. I wonder how long the P&O have had these contracts? No one seems to know.

278 posted on 02/20/2006 1:24:50 PM PST by maica (We are fighting the War for the Free World. Democrats and the media are not on our side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
The contracts were "let" by the Ports. What the US government is approving or disproving is the sale of P&O to DP World. If they approve the sale DP World takes over the contracts. It is pretty simple contract law and a slightly complex M&A review process.

It is the board of directors of the Ports that are the most corrupt. They hire an executive who lets out the operating contract w/ board approval of course. The Ports could (maybe with penalties) cancel these contracts at any time.

Not sure why there are not US based companies that do this. I've heard of one based in Panama awhile back. Of course the Port does not have to let this contract. Operations could be managed by the local Port executive.
279 posted on 02/20/2006 3:46:52 PM PST by Sunnyflorida ((Elections Matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Let's finance our largest global adversary's militaristic desires.

Let's forget about the Panama Canal and a Chinese presence there.

Let's allow COSCO to ply our coastlines and most vital ports.

Let's let foreign nations run our ports.

Let's continue to allow people to come here from terrorist states.

Let's continue to allow our national home to be invaded by three to five million unknowns each year.

Let's cut back our military.

Let's close as many bases as possible.

Let's cut our Navy in less than half.

Let's destroy about 95% of our nuclear arsenal.

Space, aw let's go through the motions, burn off as much funds as possible and achieve nearly nothing.

Space, let's watch other nations progress while we act as if we're impotent.

Education, hey let's double the budget of a department that is hell bent on destorying our values system.

Education, let's continue to allow the DOE to produce students that place something like 19th in the world.

Yes, none of this matters. Those of us who think they do are just way too easily disturbed.

GO D.O. !!!

Blackbird.

280 posted on 02/20/2006 5:45:45 PM PST by BlackbirdSST (Diapers, like Politicians, need regular changing for the same reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-285 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