Posted on 02/23/2006 12:00:42 AM PST by Dane
Well, there you go...looks like you will have to post that article to every thread on the subject from now on. Freepers need to know.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586112/posts
Saudi Shipping Company “Controls” 9 US Ports
Sweetness & Light ^
Posted on 02/26/2006 7:13:19 PM PST by Andy from Beaverton
Saudi Shipping Company “Controls” 9 US Ports
Perhaps we can convince Shumer to go with profiling at airports now?
That playing both parties is standard influence-operation behavior. It is extra proof they are bad. It certainly isn't proof of a converse point.
We need Congress to vote against the ports authorization, at least absent HEAVY and VISIBLE EXTRA SECURITY PRECAUTIONS. Reversing the waivers that had been 'pre-negotiated' so irresponsibly. And find out who and where the influence-money coming from Dubai went. And make sure they are outed. This must not be allowed to be swept under the rug as Business as Usual. This will be a repeat of the Warren G. Harding administration otherwise.
The greenlight railroading of this has egregiously damaged the Party, and all of the GOP futures. We must take a principaled stand against a neglectful and national security-lax White House. I honestly don't think Condoleeza Rice has learned one thing from 9-11. She is still a Gary Hart Liberal. And she is who is running the "show." John Snowe is in lock-step with her. The "middle-bureaucracy" is getting the rap for this debacle...but it in fact was merely doing what it was told. It was told to 'make it happen' and 'paper over everything' so the procedures which were to 'thoroughly vet' this deal were corrupted from the get-go.
Evidence for this? The tidal wave of Homeland Security/Customs Officials and Dock Workers who objected on national radio...and requested anonymity fearing reprisals. Why do they fear reprisals? Because obviously the 'fix' is in. Let's get real here. Frank Gaffney is the real deal. And he clearly knows as much or more about this as anyone that the Administration has put up to schill for the deal... And he has been out of the DOD for over a decade.
The anonymity-requesting security officials also know more of the details of the proposed take over and of port operations than any Admiral (be they Navy or Coast Guard) or General (whose primary concern is the prolonging of our Middle East operations and footprint).
So rank here in fact does not lend to heightened 'credibility'...quite the contrary. As we saw that neither Rumsfeld, Charthoff, or Bush had even heard about this till this week, it becomes clear that Rice/Snowe tried to steamroll this through without any real reviews. They gave orders, and expected them to happen. Without higher review, which was meant to rubber stamp it.
There is only one argument adduced by the proponents that has any weight. The "lost face" issue. Of course, these proponents are the one who have created the situation where UAE face will get lost, and they should be duly punished for failing to kill the issue at a much lower level before it got to this point.
The simple fact is that the UAE has not cooperated in capturing Bin Laden (all protestations to the contrary...we are being played for saps there...just as Syria played Colin Powell for a sap) is there for all to see. The refusal to cooperate on Bin Laden's financials. The refusal to recognize his complicity. The refusal to reject his radical jihadist objectives. The fact that even post 9-11, 85% of UAE votes at the U.N. are AGAINST the U.S.
And DWP is a state-owned entity. Which is all by itself an extraordinary-risk 'red flag.' Nobody can properly be said to have 'vetted' that issue...as the UAE has proven to be politically extremely flighty...and it is the same ruler. We used to call Saudia Arabia an "ally" too. Had an airbase there. Guess what happened there.
So how do we negotiate this political no-win scenario?
There is one recourse left to us. And it is one we should take anyways.
We should pass legislation requiring that all U.S. ports be U.S.-managed...damn the costs. And no loop-holes. No importing into Canada or Mexican ports and then transhipping into the U.S. Thus the UAE will see that there was nothing 'personal' about it. Just simple, universal rules of the road that they themselves enforce. They don't let us run their ports.
The only other alternative is that we drastically step up port-side security and physically inspect the internals of every single container shipment by Customs at the docks. And maybe we should be doing that too. That would sure put a crimp in the Import Lobby's knickers. And likely cutback significantly the U.S. trade deficit and balance of payments avalanche looming. And it would drastically improve our safety. Kicking China out of our Port operations would be a real plus for our security.
Does anyone remember how China tried during the Clinton Administration to sneak into the U.S. covertly shipping containers of AK-47s and enough armaments to equip a brigade? Clinton did nothing to punish China. And this administration doesn't seem to remember it ever happened.
This issue is a litmus-test issue. Those who put their allegiance to Administration-partisan politics ahead of national conservative concerns about national security will be remembered...and will suffer accordingly.
And especially if those partisan politics are fuzzy-headed, or venal as they are increasingly appearing.
No?! Ya think?
Get real.
The point was that the mere claiming that someone is an "ally" or "has been vetted"...are just words. With no real substance. Look to real interests. And there we have a problem with the UAE.
We need Congress to vote against the ports authorization, at least absent HEAVY and VISIBLE EXTRA SECURITY PRECAUTIONS. Reversing the waivers that had been 'pre-negotiated' so irresponsibly... And find out who and where the influence-money coming from Dubai went. And make sure they are "outed." This must not be allowed to be swept under the rug as Business as Usual.
This will be a repeat of the Warren G. Harding administration otherwise.
The greenlight railroading of this has egregiously damaged the Party, and all of the republican hopefuls futures. We must take a principaled stand against a neglectful and national security-lax White House. I honestly don't think Condoleeza Rice has learned one thing from 9-11. She is still a Gary Hart Liberal. And she is who is running the "show." John Snowe is in lock-step with her. The "middle-bureaucracy" is getting the rap for this debacle...but it in fact was merely doing what it was told to do. It manifestly was told to 'make it happen' and 'paper over everything' so the procedures which were to 'thoroughly vet' this deal were corrupted from the get-go.
Evidence for this? The tidal wave of Homeland Security/Customs Officials and Dock Workers who objected on national radio...and requested anonymity fearing reprisals. Why do they fear reprisals? Because obviously the 'fix' is in. Let's get real here. Frank Gaffney is the real deal. And he clearly knows as much or more about this as anyone that the Administration has put up to schill for the deal... And he has been out of the DOD for over a decade.
The anonymity-requesting security officials also know more of the details of the proposed take over and of port operations than any Admiral (be they Navy or Coast Guard) or General (whose primary concern is the prolonging of our Middle East operations and footprint).
So rank here in fact does not lend to heightened 'credibility'...quite the contrary. As we saw that neither Rumsfeld, Charthoff, or Bush had even heard about this till this week, it becomes clear that Rice/Snowe tried to steamroll this through without any real reviews. They gave orders, and expected them to happen. Without higher review, which was meant to rubber stamp it.
There is only one argument adduced by the proponents that has any weight. The "lost face" issue. Of course, these proponents are the very ones who have created the situation where UAE face will get lost, and they should be duly punished for failing to kill the issue at a much lower level before it got to this point.
The simple fact is that the UAE has not cooperated in capturing Bin Laden (all protestations to the contrary...we are being played for saps there...just as Syria played Colin Powell for a sap) is there for all to see. The refusal to cooperate on Bin Laden's financials. The refusal to recognize his complicity. The refusal to reject his radical jihadist objectives. The fact that even post 9-11, 85% of UAE votes at the U.N. are AGAINST the U.S.
And DWP is a state-owned entity. Which is all by itself an extraordinary-risk 'red flag.' Nobody can properly be said to have 'vetted' that issue...as the UAE has proven to be politically extremely flighty...and it is the same ruler. We used to call Saudia Arabia an "ally" too. Had an airbase there. Guess what happened there.
So how do we negotiate this political no-win scenario?
There is one recourse left to us. And it is one we should take anyways.
We should pass legislation requiring that all U.S. ports be U.S.-managed...damn the costs. And no loop-holes. No importing into Canada or Mexican ports and then transhipping into the U.S. Thus the UAE will see that there was nothing 'personal' about it. Just simple, universal rules of the road that they themselves enforce. They don't let us run their ports.
The only other alternative is that we drastically step up port-side security and physically inspect the internals of every single container shipment by Customs at the docks. And maybe we should be doing that too. That would sure put a crimp in the Import Lobby's knickers. And likely cutback significantly the U.S. trade deficit and balance of payments avalanche looming. And it would drastically improve our safety. Kicking China out of our Port operations would be a real plus for our security.
Does anyone remember how China tried during the Clinton Administration to sneak into the U.S. covertly shipping containers of AK-47s and enough armaments to equip a brigade? Clinton did nothing to punish China. And this administration doesn't seem to remember it ever happened.
This issue is a litmus-test issue. Those who put their allegiance to Administration-partisan politics ahead of national conservative concerns about national security will be remembered...and will suffer accordingly.
And especially if those partisan politics are fuzzy-headed, or venal as they are increasingly appearing.
Tommy Franks is retired. And he is not concerned about terrorism. He is concerned about having a base somewhere...anywhere...in the middle east for our operations. And the UAE is the only one that will have us, and so we put blinders on and ignore the clear evidence of incompatibility and hazards to security. A lot of post 9-11 stuff is getting flat-out ignored by those suppposedly "thoroughly vetting". The fact the UAE point-blank refused to cooperate on Bin Ladens financials. The fact that 85% of their U.N. votes are diammetrically opposed to the U.S. positions. And isn't it interesting how much of the pre- 9-11 behavior is never, ever mentioned by the proponents, such as Pace, Franks, Rice or Snow?
We trust. But just like the Soviets, after the Meiers debacle...we VERIFY.
And he has already let us down. Again. This UAE deal clinches it.
The irresponsible waiving of the routine requirements for the business records being kept on U.S. soil and the requirement of a U.S. citizen officer of the company for purposes of legal process.... how much else did they waive? How many suspicious actions by the DWP or the UAE did they forcibly squint at to ignore in their "thorough vetting?"
And how high in the sky does it stink for all the DWP proponents to be shrieking about the completely irrelevant doctrine of "free trade."?
Bump! Clearly correct.
The administration has lost sight of the forest for the trees. Basing in the middle east is a tree. Keeping nukes from coming in our ports is the forest.
I find it weirdly ironic (if not downright maddening) that an Arab country can gain access to the control of six vital ports with 3 months of federal review and it takes the average homeowner nine months, in our county, to secure a building permit.
he has already let us down. Again. This UAE deal clinches it.
)))He hasnt let me down on the big issues of taxes and war on terror....and I think he deserves your trust..he is not the Soviet Union.
General Tommy Franks with his years of first hand knowledge and experience in national security, the middle east, the UAE, the war on terror, and who has no political agenda...
...or the emotional and tortured logic of those with an obivous political agenda?
Now that's a tough call.
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.