The contrairian indicator Patsy Buchanan has spoken. Therefore the UAE port deal must be good for the US and our foreign policy. Rush is right on this one.
Mainly because of the grosteque ignornace displayed in this sort of statement? "Control of our Ports" is firmly in the hands of local Govt Port Authorites. We are transfering control to NO ONE. The thing that has been so eye opening in all this is the grotesque ignorance and knee jerk hysteria on some much of the Junk Media who merely repeated the lies of a Democrat Senate Election Comittee Press Release instead of finding out FACT one about what the UAE Company would being doing, and all ready DOES DO, in US Ports.
For those ready to think instead of just blindly stamped in the direction the Democrat Election Year Propaganda demands of you, read this for the facts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584887/posts
The "Port" of Public Opinion The Patriot Post ^ | February 24, 2006 | Federalist - Patriot Post
Posted on 02/24/2006 10:28:57 AM PST by knightshadow
The port of public opinion...
Protests about the planned transfer of management for several U.S. seaports to a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates are fraught with almost as much confusion as fervor -- which explains why the current division within the political parties is almost as stark as the one between them. When Karl Rove, Jimmy Carter and The Los Angeles Times line up on one side of an issue, while Senators Bill Frist, Chuck Schumer and The New York Times line up on the other, something is seriously amiss.
Of course, the first casualty of political conquest is the truth, which is not to say that both sides don't feel genuine concern. In an effort to elucidate the issue, let us first distinguish between fact and fiction.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency panel that evaluates foreign financial interests in the U.S. with national-security implications, has approved the transfer of management of some port terminals (not the sale of these ports) in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Houston. The transfer is from a British owned company, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to Dubai Ports World, which is headquartered in the UAE. What this means, essentially, is that American managers and longshoremen will now get their checks cut by DPW instead of P&O. In other words, DPW will become one of many operators in these ports.
This does not put DPW in a position to act as an agent for al-Qa'ida, delivering weapons of mass destruction to their terror-cell operatives in the U.S., as has been suggested by some print and Internet tabloids. Direct responsibility for port security is shared by the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and state and local port authorities. Here it should also be noted that port-management priorities are wholly subordinate to port-security priorities. Of course, port-security operations, particularly those pertaining to interdiction of WMD, are augmented by the entire asset base of the U.S. military, its intelligence community and its law enforcement agencies.
Despite the rancor, the U.S. does not outsource the protection of our critical national-security infrastructure.
Approval of the DPW proposal underwent three months of interagency review. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, "This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not casual. Rather, it was in depth and comprehensive." This is the same review that management companies based in China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan underwent before being authorized to manage terminals in the port of Los Angeles. We might add, China now manages some terminals on both ends of the Panama Canal.
Foreign investment in the U.S., including port management, is nothing new.
As for the assertion that President George Bush should have known about the proposal, Frances Townsend, his senior advisor for Homeland Security, counters, "Rarely do these [reviews] wind up on the president's desk and that's only after there has been an investigation and there is some disagreement. This didn't get there because none of the agencies who reviewed it had any objection."
The public remonstration in this case is the result of a volatile combination of legitimate sentiments: a fundamental distrust of Islamic countries combined with a concern about the potential for terrorist exploitation of our busy shipping ports.
The distrust is warranted, particularly in the wake of 9/11. Not only were two of the hijackers from the UAE, but 11 of the Saudi hijackers traveled to the U.S. from Dubai, and $250,000 used to bankroll the 9/11 attacks was wired through Dubai banks. There were ties between Islamist emirs in the UAE and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the UAE recognized the Taliban government.
On the latter point, however, our intel sources indicate those ties enabled the CIA to confirm the location of bin Laden twice in 1999, but the Clinton administration declined to eliminate him. Bill Clinton has floated several excuses for why he did not act on this intelligence -- which all sank.
Further, Pakistani nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan testified that a UAE company assisted him with the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. However, as we noted two years ago, our sources indicate that Khan was either a CIA operative or a dupe and that the UAE cooperated fully with surveillance of Khan's contacts in Dubai.
Thus, if we want to punish the UAE because it has airports and banks, or because it has cooperated with CIA clandestine counter-proliferation efforts, so be it. There is, however, no suggestion of evidence that the UAE government had any knowledge, much less complicity, with the al-Qa'ida cell responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or any other attack on U.S. interests or personnel. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that the UAE, along with Kuwait and now Iraq, is a critical ally in the region.
Indeed, since 9/11 the UAE government has provided significant intelligence and staging support in the war against Jihadistan. They have actively participated in the pursuit of al-Qa'ida terrorists. In 2002, for example, UAE officials arrested and turned over to U.S. officials Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who conspired in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and masterminded the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In 2004, UAE officials arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, who trained thousands of al-Qa'ida operatives around the world. He was returned to U.S. interrogators in Pakistan.
As for Dubai Ports World, it already provides support for U.S. Navy ships in Jebel Ali and Fujairah, which accommodates more U.S. Navy ships than any other international port. DPW is also the primary support contractor for U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base.
Rising above the din, the real issue is this: America's seaports constitute one of many big holes in our border security, regardless of who manages the terminals. Despite the port security that exists both stateside and in the ports of origin, there is no guarantee that WMD won't be smuggled into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that land on our shores each and every day.
As we have noted before, when al-Qa'ida has mated the right nuclear core with the right weapons hardware (something they may have already succeeded in doing), getting that weapon into the U.S. will not be that difficult, regardless of who is managing and securing entry points. The harsh reality is that there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders, with even a modest degree of confidence, against importation of nuclear WMD hardware the size of a footlocker, and a fissile core the size of an orange.
This reality accounts for the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption -- take the fight to the enemy and endeavor to wage war on their turf, not ours. It is a reality for which pre-emption is our only option -- our only chance of preventing a catastrophic attack on our nation.
This is certainly not to suggest that we adopt the French border-security model -- one in which we throw up our hands and run away. Indeed, we need to be vigilant about territorial security. However, allowing a UAE company to manage some port terminals does not constitute a surrender from such vigilance.
For the public, there may be some psychological solace in the assertion that preventing DPW from managing port terminals is tantamount to securing our destiny -- but it is a false sense of security.
The public confusion, media hysterics and, consequently, opportunistic political posturing and demagoguery have all but completely obscured the facts pertaining to our relationship with the UAE and its shipping conglomerate, DPW. The Democrats have used this issue to leapfrog to the right of Republicans on national security, and some Republicans responded quickly by adopting the same line on DPW. Unfortunately, both are doing so at the peril of our national security.
Not only has President Bush declared, "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror," but has even threatened to veto any legislation to undo this deal. As he has yet to use his veto for any legislation (to our utter dismay, given some great opportunities), threatening a veto in this case can only mean that the consequences of derailing our relationship with the UAE constitute a grave threat to our national security.
Most likely, a compromise on UAE/DPW between the White House and Republican congressional leaders was brokered prior to public objections from Sen. Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. If that compromise is anything other than a "technical delay" in approving this transaction, we believe U.S. national security will suffer the consequences.
Feel safer now?
Brooks was brilliant on the Imus show this morning. He was spot on in his criticism of the opponents of the ports deal.
This post shows the weakness of the opponent's argument. THere is no evidence of real threats to security, just the appeal to our base fears. Some muslims are terrorists, therefore no muslims can be trusted. Some muslims are rioting about cartoons, therefore we can't trust any companies from the middle east. UAE may be our partner in the war on terror, but they are muslim and therefore can't be trusted to with ports they will pay us for yearly.
Thus the differences between different arab nations is whitewashed, the possibility of a "moderate muslim" is discounted, and blind bigotry is excused based on guilt by association.
THe opponents have the upper hand, because there is no "constituency" for the deal. There may be a lot of people who, having seen the facts, will support the deal -- but people like me have no real skin in the game. What do I care if DP World gets the ports or not?
Meanwhile the opponents are highly motivated and willing to fight for what they believe. This is what makes our government so disfunctional. Often the right thing is obscured because the majority is unmotivated while the minority, being directly effected, are highly motivated to make sure government works for them.
Indian gambling interests can pay off congress for legislation because most of us, while we would "oppose" gambling, aren't going to spend money lobbying to stop them. Every regulated industry has a great incentive to spend money to make regulations work for them, while the consumers effected have little interested in sending their dollars to support good government.
In this case, there are few supporters who love free trade so much they are willing to go strongly to the mat for this. Most of us admit that we WISH there was an american company to do the job.
But don't confuse the tepid acts of the supporters for lack of strengh in the rightness of the argument. IT may not be a no-brainer to allow the deal to go through, but those who claimed it was a no-brainer to STOP the deal were smoking something that they shouldn't.
Since Pat opposes it, I can now rest assured in my belated decision to support it.
Maybe instead of some "collective mania" we are simply witnessing a critical mass of talk radio, alternative media, blogs and so forth that allow mass discussion and debate regarding administrative decisions that were traditionally consigned to the smokey offices of the anointed decision makers in a public opinion vacuum.
We all need to write our President and tell him not to back down on this deal.
Got to pick on those neocon Jews. Pat's just afraid that any strain on the relation with our Arab 'friends' will hurt long-term chances of handing over Israel to the Palestinians.
Pat is an A$$hole...he has been salivating for an event such as this to couch his isolationist ignorance in...
...he doesn't even have the courage to outright postulate his clap trap...rather he delivers it in a tangential rhetorical...
What a jack ass...
"blood and soil"? I know the origins of that..
Pat has degenerated into a real enemy of this country and of the conservative cause. Just disgusting.
Go Pat Go, you're so full of it, when you finally go, MSNBC will go broke just cleaning up your HAZMAT, you ASSHAT.
If that is true then so are STATE owned companies which, golly gee, Dubai Ports is.
"for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed"
Horse pucky. History tells a whole differnt story of Islam. When, oh God when, are we all going to tell the truth?
Fact Sheet on Acquisition of P&O Ports by DP World American Association of Port Authorities ^ | Feb 2006 | American Association of Port Authorities
Posted on 02/24/2006 11:07:33 PM PST by endthematrix
The U.S. Public Port Industry
The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) represents more than 80 public authorities in the United States. These state, county and city government agencies own and develop seaport facilities to handle both domestic and international maritime commerce being imported to or exported from the United States. U.S. ports and waterways handle more than 2.5 billion tons of trade annually. The majority of our nation’s overseas cargo flows through AAPA member ports’ facilities.
While some public ports operate their own cargo terminals, many serve as “landlord” ports, leasing portions of their facilities to private terminal operating companies. While some of the private companies operating terminals in the United States are U.S. corporations, many are non-U.S. businesses that operate terminals worldwide or are affiliated with the foreign flag steamship lines that carry the cargo. All terminal operators, whether public or private, must comply with Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) and must have facility security plans reviewed and approved by the U.S. Coast Guard, as indicated below.
Port Security
Port security is the top priority for AAPA members. Protecting this vital part of our transportation infrastructure is critical to our nation’s economic growth and vitality.
The federal government takes the lead in protecting America’s ports. The Department of Homeland Security, primarily through the activities of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, run many programs to secure our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maritime security and reviewing and approving security plans for vessels, port facilities and port areas which are required by the MTSA. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for cargo security, and screens and inspects cargo entering the U.S. through every U.S. port.
Other cargo security programs include the Container Security Initiative (inspection of U.S. import cargo by CBP prior to leaving the outbound foreign port), use of radiation detection equipment to screen for weapons of mass destruction, use of other non-intrusive inspection devices, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) which encourages maritime stakeholders to verify their security measures. The Port Security Grant program and the pending implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) are also important parts of America’s port security portfolio to provide layered security.
While the federal government takes the lead on waterside and cargo security, overall security is a shared responsibility with port authorities, facility and vessel operators, and state and local police providing additional security. The MTSA also establishes local security committees to evaluate and make improvements in each port.
DP World Acquisition of P&O Ports
P&O Ports is a terminal operating company that operates marine terminal facilities worldwide, including several terminals in the United States owned by public port authorities. Some press accounts have not accurately stated the nature of the business transaction involved or the resulting impact on U.S. port operations. DP World’s purchase of P&O Ports would involve the operation of specific terminals or provision of stevedoring services (vessel loading/unloading) at some ports, but DP World would not “own,” “control,” or “take over” those ports (which would continue to be owned by the port authorities). DP World would not be solely responsible for facility security at any of the involved terminals, and the federal government would continue to be primarily responsible for maritime and cargo security.
AAPA has not taken a position on the issue.
Yes, just don't tell that to a globalist - in their sick world that is bigotry.
Go Pat Go!
Long before Sept 11, I was of the mind that we needed, as a country, to do something dramatic to curb the ability of so many dictatorial islamic regimes to deflect the anger and unhappiness of their own populations toward the United States, instead of at their own corrupt governemnts.
After September 11th, I knew that we were faced with only two choices. We would have to (1) Kill a billion muslims, or (2) Try to fundemantally change them by changing their forms of government, and thus at least some of their ideology.
UAE is not what any of us would really consider to be a "freindly" nation, no matter what business they already do here in America, and no matter how much money they gave to Katrina victims. If this was Norway, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That said, we haven't decided that it's time to kill them all either. DPW is a business. I am a believer that international business ties make the world a safer place. After all, what business would want to destroy thier own cash cows, unless they are all truly insane?
We have to ask ourselves, do we, as a nation, beleive that ALL muslims are terrorists? If the answer is no, not all, then we should support this transaction. Otherwise, we are doing an injustice to the free market, and a majority of the UAE, who are most likely just people trying to make a buck. If the answer is "yes", then pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and spark up the nukes! Because, we're just wasting time and strategic advantage.
But, I don't believe that. I couldn't support Bush, or the idea that spreading democracy was at all a practical solution if I did.
Therefore, I fully support the idea of tighter security requirements on DPW, and more Homeland Security involvement at the ports. To do otherwise would be criminally negligent. But, the deal should happen.
ping