Posted on 02/21/2006 9:27:14 AM PST by STARWISE
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," said Frist. "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."
In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
"I'm not against foreign ownership," said Frist, "but my main concern is national security." He was speaking to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where Frist was doing a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Is it any surprise folks who are against this are now trying to tie this to Mexican border security? oy...
ping
Do you remember those Indonesians who were wearing Osama T-shirts off-loading U.S. relief supplies after the Sumatra tsunami?
I think this is bigger in concern and issue than mere nationalities, is my point.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we want to placate Dubai, why don't we just sell them all our government office buildings that are outside of the "ten miles square" set forth in the Constitution. That way, once the offices are vacated, we all win.
Please explain to us "Conservatives" why the same company that has over seen, for decades, the LOADING of many of the 9,000,000 containers SHIPPED to the USA each year is suddenly UNACCEPTABLE to oversee UNloading of these same containers at 6 US Ports?
Maybe, but they are right on the big picture. Like they said in post #3 'The last thing Americans want is to give ANY middle eastern nation (Israel exception) access to our country in any way, shape or form'.
Could you explain that position, because I actually sort of feel that way but don't know the facts. Thanks in advance to you or anyone else who can explain the position you express. I like to get both sides of this story and so far I've seen posts similar to yours but no one has actually explained that position.
No, I believe, rather, there's a relationship to the degree of NATIONAL SECURITY that people are concerned with and about, and, the obtuse to obfuscated conditions of border security...ports, borders...still the same concerns to most Americans, as with how those are being defended and managed.
This port deal appears to be the equivalent, theoretically and issue wise, to as if Bush had signed a deal with a firm in Mexico to patrol, monitor and police our southern border.
This column by Phyllis Schlafly should interest you:
"CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada"
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html
I wouldn't call it "hysteria."
I have doubts about that.
W aides' biz ties to Arab firm (Administration in bed with Dubai Port World)
The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
US Treasury-Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)
The Exon-Florio statute established a 30-day review following receipt of a notification. For those transactions for which an extended 45-day review (or "investigation") is completed, a report must be provided to the President, who must by law announce the final decision within 15 days. In total, the process can not exceed 90 days. The statute requires the President to inform Congress of his determination of whether or not to take action under section 721.
Oh yeah, great plan! Load up the Administration with a bunch of inexperienced, unconnected nobodies during a time of war. Luv it!!
I have a couple of different issues with allowing the UAE to take control of any American port not just the fact this deal represents six major US ports.
First, the UAE is a Muslim country. Terrorism against America is being funded and fought by Muslims. The 'conservative' or 'quiet' Muslims are not united in criticizing terrorism, they are simply not voicing any public opinion which tends to make me think they are just educated radicals waiting for the right moment to strike.
Second, having fought in a combat zone I know how American troops react to a few weeks of peace and quiet. They tend to get sloppy in regards to maintaining a high alertness. I'm going to the head or to the showers and I can leave my unloaded rifle here. Where three weeks earlier we would have had 24/7 a fully loaded magazine in locked in, safety on, within arms reach. If you went to another tent across the walk you took it with you but now because of a few nights quiet sleep it is ok to leave it behind and unloaded when you are going 300 feet away. That sloppy attitude last only until the next attack.
Civilians have no idea what I am talking about. If you think that civilian security guards give me any sense of security, you are way off base. They are looking at the girls walking by and doing the absolute minimum to keep their jobs. The are like a police force. They react after the incident occurred instead of maintaining high alertness and preventing the situation from every getting a foothold.
To think that UAE Muslim executives are going to have the same sense of pride and patriotism that I do towards America is simply horsemanure. They will view port security as an overhead cost that should be reduced because it impedes freight movement. The slower freight moves into and out of the port has one effect and one effect only in their eyes, lower profits. Reduce the time spent examining trucks, CONEX boxes, personnel background files and the profits multiply. Hurray!
Reducing the number of personnel doing security work and most certainly reduce the necessary qualifications for security personnel because all of these things which cost money will be their goals. Cut down the overhead costs will be a continual rant of the CFO's and lower executive managers. Let's increase annual bonuses by cutting overhead costs 10%. On and on.
I'm sorry but you can talk until you are blue in the face and you will never convince me that a foreigner, especially a Muslim is going to protect America to my standards. I want an America that is safe from terrorist attacks and it sure would be nice if the President thought the same way.
This deal has a smell to it that really stinks!
"'I'm not against foreign ownership,' said Frist."
I am.
Please explain to us "Conservatives" why the same company that has over seen, for decades, the LOADING of many of the 9,000,000 containers SHIPPED to the USA each year is suddenly UNACCEPTABLE to oversee UNloading of these same containers at 6 US Ports?
I would, and I do.
There is a big difference between controlling one end of a transaction and both ends particularly when the one we are talking about is the entry to this country
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.