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
"Personal attacks"... oh brother. Just how sheltered is your life?
You posted to me out of the blue at #304. Evidently you decided a comment I posted to Stellar Dendrite at #266 required you to defend yourself, despite the fact that you aren't mentioned at all in that post. That is a subject rich with humorous potential, but not worth exploring.
If you think this silly exchange has been "personal attack" then perhaps you should stick to chatting with your little friends who will reassure you that you are important, and wonderful, and ought to be on American Idol or something. Keep posting to me and I'm likely to keep making fun of you, assuming I don't have something more important to do, like scratching the dog.
What I don't want to see is a democratic Congress, which I'm convinced passing the deal will give us.
Even the UAE is A-OK with a delay and a thorough investigation. They are clean and they know it.
I thank God for that small favor...lol."
A time and place for everything, my dear.
Politics? I doubt the majority of the people objecting to this deal care one whit for politics; they are more than likely rejecting it because they simply do not trust a UAE state owned company running the operations at our ports. And how could rejecting a deal with a UAE state owned company cause us to lose the WOT? It would seem to me the best way to fight the WOT is to protect the homeland first and foremost, and for most Americans that would mean rejecting this deal based on security concerns.
The democrats are already publishing articles in the ME newspapers slamming Bush for being such a big target, and claiming America is in trouble due to tax cuts. A lot of folks on this board have knee-jerked a knife right into the GOP's back. And they're laughing at you for helping them.
Arguing over this same topic on another site.
It amazes me how many Americans, Freepers and even Congressmen have no clue how our port system operates.
They may come up with some sort of compromise after investigating it all, anything is possible.
I sure hope it doesn;t weaken POTUS or the GOP, but that;s the aim of the hearings and investigation.
they simply do not trust a UAE state owned company running the operations at our ports
How many ways and how many times do you all have to be told that they are NOT GOING TO BE RUNNING THE OPERATIONS AT OUR PORTS?
In Boston, it's TWO TERMINAL BUILDINGS -- out of 182.
The processes of port security are being implemented irregardless of who owns the port operations. As far as bad stuff getting into this country, that part of the scrutiny gets done at the ports of origination. Nothing gets out of a port without a thorough top to bottom check with instruments and X-Ray. Ships will stay even if the offending radiation may be a ceramic paint that has some kind of residual radiation in the clay that was used in it. And we have no idea of what are the capabilities of our spy satellites. If you want to know about infiltration, read Ann Coulter's Treason. In this case, the infiltrators today may have a darker shade of skin than Soviet spies (If they are Islamo terrorists). Infiltrators without a strong security operations, can get in irregardless of who owns the port operations. And smart infiltrators will outsmart any security that uses race as a indicator of who to watch. Most of the port security is done by the U.S. Coast Guard. I am sure the Navy Department does close background checks on its Officers. The U.S. Coast Guard has a few good men. We must also try not to let Hollywood fantasy films shade our fears of some kind of Terminator detonating a container in New York Harbor with his cell phone. That's not going to happen. We have the technology Captain.
Well, perhaps when you pay attention to the facts, you'll see why you will be proven wrong.
And I'll agree with Texasfoever here; if you GOP purists succeed in dumping George Bush over this deal, you better hope you're got all those One Percenters lined up for 2006 and 2008, because the Bush supporters are SICK TO DEATH of the opporutnists stabbing him in the back.
And I'm not donating to ANYBODY who takes part in making their "bones" on George Bush's back.
Period.
My first concern was and still is national security. I well realize the democrats are exploiting this big-time and a democratic Congress would be a huge disaster for this country. It's exactly why I'm hoping they end the deal quickly and get it over with. That way people will most likely forget about it long before next November.
Me neither. Not one.
Hear that Lindsey? Hear that Trent?
Color you clueless.
November's a long way off. In politics two weeks can be ancient history.
FGS, who do you think you're talking to?
I replied, because what you said was ridiculous, off topic, and a slur against EVERYONE who is in disagreement with you and you know it; or should.
I probably have lead a far less "sheltered" life than you. OTOH, I know what a personal attack looks like here and for you to now deny that you make them, is patently ridiculous and obfuscation.
Keep attempting to insult me and all you WILL do, is show just how shallow, juvenile, and pathetic you truly are. Nobody has to try to insult you; you do that to yourself.
This guy should visit Detroit Metro and count the number of ethnic-arabs working at TSA or on the ramp....
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.