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."
the parallelism between this hot topic and our border problem is fascinating.
Want to expose the hypocritical left? The Port issue is perfect. Nail down their reasons why we should fear a UAE company winning the contract bid. Point out that only a small fraction of the muslim/arab world are radical and/or dangerous, and sit back and laugh at the "intolerance".
Once you get enough of their thoughts and beliefs out in the open, pivot to the US - Mexico border issues (potential for terrorist crossings/assistance, explosion of gang crime due to influx), and see where they stand.
You will find many decent Hispanics and uncountable false-outraged Dems who are very vocal about how we are being sold out by Bush or setting ourselves up for disaster with this Port Transfer, but will immediately brand you a racist/nationalist etc if the Strong Secure Border issue is brought forth.
Like I said, the parallel between these 2 topics is fascinating.
Love it! Buy Danish.
I love it!
Halliburton would face more opposition from the Demonrats than the Arabs. Take dat to de bank.
Look, I don't care if this was decided ten years ago. I just found out about it and I can't stress enough how I disagree with the concept. If I have mistaken you for a Bush supporter, then excuse my perception. It doesn't change my opinion on this measure. What's next, the PLO being contracted for White House safety? We why not, the Secret Service could blunt and real problems right?
Doesn't matter how "safe" it is (because I hear the ports would still be run by good old US dockworkers' unions). It's more bucks into the coffers of our enemies. They have previously used their money to finance terror. We shouldn't give them any of OUR money to carry on their nefarious two-faced treachery.
Agreed.
Nice. Well deserving of the title, biggest of all whining apologist Bush sycophants on FR.
By Jove, I think you have it!
It's so true! Some of these freepers lately must be on the payroll of the RNC. Can't figure out any other explanation.
Might I remind you that by placing our security in the hands of union dock workers were are...
Placing that security in the hands of people who...
At least in part have crooked union bosses running things...
Those crooked union bosses use union funds to back socialist / communist sympathizing candidates...
Those candidates use talking points that sound as if drafted by Osama Bin Laden himself...
Union members that often express their opinions of conservatism by roughing up men, women and children...
Well pardon me if I'm not going to buy into that national security plan hook line and sinker.
DHS now maintains a presence at foreign ports where U.S.-bound cargo originates. How ironic is it that -- despite all the incessant complaints about the U.S. "ceding its sovereignty" in these trade arrangements -- these countries have actually ceded quite a bit of their sovereignty to us?
Perhaps so, but we should want it to be different (that is, minus the graft and corruption).
For the same reason why I am "on their side" on this one . . . because I am far more analytical than I am politically biased. I look at every issue and gather as many facts as possible before reaching a conclusion (something sorely lacking these days, it seems) -- and quite frankly I don't give a sh!t if my conclusion conflicts with someone's political agenda.
Dock workers' (Longshore men's) union used to be communist-infiltrated, assume that has changed.
Has it escaped you what 19 people did who went through our so-called security processes? You're signing on to a deal that will bring thousands of them into our most concentrated population centers. Even if only 2% are problematic that's going to present a real problem. Who knows which people make up the 2%.
Opinion polls in Middle-Eastern nations show that significant portions of their populace loathes the United States.
Is any of this sinking in?
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.