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
If I had a dollar, for every time, some silly called me "dude", I'd be able to buy P&O!
YOU SAID THAT HOWLIN CALLED YOU A LIAR.
SHE DID NOT.
You wanna apologize for that and stop belaboring this thing?
I never lied; you're so out of control you manufactured an attack in your own mind to justify your silly behavior.
Anybody who reads this thread can plainly see who attacked who; unless, of course, they're dead drunk or sumpin'
I think she likes it.............LOL.
In fact, I know she likes it; I've seen her do it repeatedly on other threads.
It's kind of a "routine" she does on some threads, if you get my drift.
No, I will not apologize to any butch or pansy for their own lies. She owes me several apologies, but I know I'll never get them because that would require more character than she possesses.
I can't, for the life me, figure out why she started this.
Me either. Maybe it's her hobby.
Oh, I've seen it before. As a matter of fact, she's done it to me.
You need to stop now; you're confused yourself to the point that you're really making a fool out of yourself.
And now I've been called a butch (lower case first letter) and a pansy, but those aren't personal insults.
You then went on to personally attack her, for NO plausible reason.
Why not just drop it and while you're at it, at lest try to refrain from continuing with the slurs. What in blue blazes does throwing in the word "pansy" do to help your argument?
*shrugs*
At that I will be signing off. Night butch...night pansy.
I know, I know.........I saw it. LOL
Is butch a personal insult, or isn't it? Make up your mind. Pansy is the male equivalent of butch. Which one are you?
ROTFLOL...........good night sunflower. :-)
I'm the one that's not drunk.
Who cares about Lou Dobbs and what he has to say? What's to refute?
Whatever short comings the UAE had regarding the cash flow from AQ prior to, and immediately after 9/11, has been thoroughly addressed since then and they are a MAJOR ally of ours now in the WOT. We have military bases there and they are one of our better sources for intelligence.
Dobbs is a huge and nasty critic of President Bush and his administration.
Furthermore, Dobbs is a suck up to Imus.
IOWs, Dobb's can always be counted on to bash Bush.
Pity, given that Dobb's show is supposed to be about money, investments and stocks, that he doesn;t talk about the 500 American businesses in the UAE or about the finicial damage that will be done, should this sale by the Brits fall through.
Night, Sundance.
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.