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
??????????????????????
Gosh, aren't you embarassed to post that? It's been all over the news.
Lol! Since you think that applies to you, I'm not about to disagree! Congratulations on a nice job of outing yourself.
Say, some poster had a quite funny description of the quisling keyboard ranger- he was guessing scrawny and fidgety- how close did he get?
Not at all; that's YOUR venue; dear. ;^)
Could it be that the Australians aren't having an election this year?
And they don't have a Hillary (or a Frank Gaffney, for that matter)?
Sounds like you're speaking from experience.
Kindly keep your sexual persuasions to yourself.
Honestly, aren't you surprised God didn't strike her dead when she started carping about the UAE considering what she gave China?
I know "security" was a sloppy foray into the absurdly optimistic.
At least (as far as we know) Hitler didn't convince him operations of British port by Germany was a "good idea."
It wasn't a congressional committee, it was the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). You can google it with UAE to get the answer regarding the 30-day review process.
Sigh, again you are welcome to say what you like. My point was not about Gen. Franks. It was about the practice of Lobbying, your reaction to the thought that people that I respect would do such a thing is a bit uncomfortable.
If you look up Lobbying firms in DC you will learn there are thousands. Why? because that is how the game of influence is played. It happens on a daily basis but you do not realize it. If you would like to spend your time accusing me of slander you may, I have said repeatedly that I have no evidence that Gen. Franks has ever taken part in it. THat does not seem to disuade you from a argument I am not making.
My apologies for upsetting you, I was merley sharing a bit of information about motivational strategies in media explosions ( like this one) that many people probably didnt realize. No ill intent, just throwing out the info.
and it gives you goose-pimples, as well as a sexual glow,
270 posted on 02/25/2006 8:51:58 PM PST by nopardons
- What kind of signal does this send the world, including our allies, that the United States can be so easily manipulated by lies?
- What kind of signal does this send the rest of the world, including our allies, when the rhetoric driving this is put up for examination?
What kind of message does this send the rest of the world about investing in America?
What will happen when economic retaliations begin?
No, you're missing the boat here with respect to the whole issue. You should examine Schrillerie's recent commentary on all that. Its truly and staggeringly fascinating. No shrill anger, subdued tone, and she was hitting the Demoncrat talking point about port-security (a `John - I was in Vietnam - Scary` election plank).
You watch how this unfolds: much ado 'bout nuttin'
P&O, the BRIT firm, didn't own any ports either. They, just as the UAE firm, who bought P&O, LEASED terminals situated AT our American OWNED ports!
I don't drink alcoholic beverages, but you must have consumed many a bottle of same, to have so fried your brain.
Please elaborate.
That Congress had alreay approved of the deal? Fine I missed it then, do you have a link?
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.