Posted on 02/25/2006 4:21:24 PM PST by SwordofTruth
On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."
The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn’t it even more dangerous for a company owned by the UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?
There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.
Security experts repeatedly have said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have gone mostly unheeded.
In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the Bush administration dismissed security concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by the committee, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently, money talked louder than common sense.
In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, DN.J., who are members of Collins’ committee, have raised concerns. New York’s Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined; it is real."
The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration’s "laxness to a new level."
Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under Committee on Foreign Investment rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.
Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."
Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.
Cal Thomas writes for Tribune Media Services.
cal@calthomas.com
Not just the investment we would turn away, but the retaliation from other countries.
Ask Tommy Franks if he is being paid by anyone to put out a statement to the press. Unfortunately many of the generals can not turn down Middle East Lobbyist money to make positive statements in the press. I am not saying Tommy Franks is but this happens all the time in the media.
What you need to ask yourself is.... " why is this person making this statement?" What is in it for Tommy Franks to make such a statement? Was he on the decision commitee? If not why would he add value to this article?
Why should we trust an Islamic-owned company to perform this job and not suspect that they may be building a trojan horse? That's the only question I have. If you have answers that do not involve dismissing the questioner's motives please advise. Else, back off.
>>>"For Gods sakes, Slick Willie leased shipping ports to comapanies controlled by the Chinese Red Army"
That too should be rolled back. It was treasonous then, and it's treasonous now. Letting in a stinking Trojan horse that increases the odds of another mega-terrorist attack is treasonous.
Possibly because he has more first hand knowledge and experience in dealing with the war on terror, national security, the UAE and the middle east then those who keep perpetuating the lies.
Starting with a lie right out of the gate.
For instance? Who has been paid to put out a statement?
>>>"I'm wondering what the economic backlash will be if this takeover is defeated for this reason."
Any chance the War on Terror has any economic backlash? Or, is the War on Terror over? Do they love us now? Time to bring all our troops home? I don't think so.
You really should add a new note to your tune...
No, I don't need to ask myself any of those questions.
That's because I don't rely on anybodies opinion. I try get the facts, think for myself and then come to my own opinion.
None of that necessitates one asking themselves your for-mentioned questions.
You're a bundles of facts. Good night.
Of course you don't think.
Oops, sorry. I forgot to type the word "so" on the end of that.
It is a common practice in DC. Middle eastern lobbyist money is awash in DC. I can not tell you specifics but you should know that it exists. I am not saying it is happening in this case but you should be aware of the practice.
They won't be handling any security at the port level. All they will be doing is securing their leased terminals.
Their security guards will be US citizens.
The chance of a dirty bomb getting into the US is the same, regardless of the company that leases the terminal.
"Foaming at the mouthers"? You have to remember that it was Bush himself who said we're at war. Not that I needed him to tell that after 9/11 but I hardly consider it a good idea then to let a nation with alleged terrorist ties start managing port terminals without a little congressional oversight first. It has nothing to do with being spoonfed propaganda and buying it like a robot but exercising a little common sense.
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.