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
As a child, he was my most favorite part of the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus.
And now, I am going to do, that which I have almost NEVER done on FR...I'm going to name drop...................
HE WAS A FRIEND OF MY GRANDPARENTS AND I KNEW HIM PERSONALLY!
I don't give a damn that you found a name attached to the jpeg, nor that it told you that this picture is hanging in some bar in Florida! Mr. Kelly didn't call his character "HOWARD".
And, sweetums, you are still a LIAR!
Nope, all that "matters" to you, are flaming other people and trying to get them suspended.
That very well could be true, or they might just not see any threat whatsoever from this UAE stated owned company running the operations at 6 of our ports. Who knows, they may be right, but if they are wrong we all will suffer for it. IMHO that’s not a risk the USA should take if it can be avoided.
It wasn't a bar in Florida. I don't care if you knew Emmett Kelly, every occupant of WTC, everyone assigned to The Pentagon, and half our Founding Fathers.
I'm sorry I brought it up, I was wrong.
I suppose it's possible that they really don't recognize the threat, but I think they would if they considered it more important than politics.
When I read that, the first thought that came to mind was the Greeks and the Trojan Horse. Wonder why?
If you can entrust Dubai to host tens of thousands of UK and US expats, then you can trust them to run your ports...
Okay, so WHERE IS THE FLORIDA ROOM BAR AND GRILLE?
Where did you find the jpeg?
Nope, you really don't care about anything, except starting flame wars and getting people suspended or banned.
Let's get back to the beginning of this. You burst onto this thread and said that Howlin called you a liar. THAT IS A LIE! Ergo, yes, YOU are a liar!
Case closed, end of story, and the end of YOU!
Just a thought. If a dirty bomb gets into the U.S. while we have this contract with Dubais, wouldn't the political fall out for Republicans and the Bush Administration be far greater than if a dirty bomb were to get into the U.S. while we had a contract with a non-Arab company?
Will Dubais employees have access to information, the knowlege of which would make it easier to plant a dirty bomb? Your statement above suggests your answer to this second question would be no. If not why not?
My concern is the access to port information that present and future Dubais employees sympathetic to the cause of the terrorists, may have. What intelligence information the U.S. has on them is irrelevant to that question.
"Do you know that the 'employee' of DPW are mostly Americans and Brits?"
No, I did not.
I understand the UAE government and DUBAIS have been helpful regarding the terrorists since 9-11. I understand DPW will not be running port operations, but only the operation of the terminals, and the U.S. government and the Coast Guard will still be in charge of security of the ports. It is not as threatening a deal as it superficially appeared to be at the outset. Yet, I am more opposed to it now than I was then for several reasons.
I posed the questions in my previous post because I want to understand the issue better. I live just outside the city of one of those major ports (and I do mean just outside) and I am interested in the answer to the question.
I do believe if there is a dirty bomb attack while DPW holds that contract there will be a greater political fallout for the Bush Administration and the Republican Party than if such were to occur while a non-arab country who has no previous relationship's to terrorist organizations were holding the same contract.
Why couldn't a U.S. company assume the contract?
Thank you so much for sharing that, maica.
^^^^
Good morning. Your comment was very welcome. The folks who want to believe that this port management company want to destroy our ports, and want to believe that President Bush - who never forgets for a minute that we are at war - would agree to allowing our enemies access to our vulnerabilities, are just not thinking straight. They are as emotional as libs. It has been most sickening.
After WWII I learned how normal ordinary people could be swayed into believing that terrible things were OK at the time they were being done. For example, removing all Japanese-Americans from their West Coast homes seemed reasonable to most Americans at the time.
Trains full of certain types of people travelled through France, Germany, etc on their way to "labor" camps, and that seemed reasonable to people who saw that happening.
Now so many American people say they believe that we can change the hearts and minds of a huge part of the world, while at the same time saying "no matter how well you act, we will never trust you" to a country that is operating in a fair, cooperative and supportive way with us in this war against terrorists.
Why do these people refuse to look at the facts, and just rely on their mental images of bogeymen? I wish I knew.
- unless he didn't write the title himself.
$$$$$
little known fact, but sadly true - titles of articles are written by the editors of the page or the paper. Even the position of every article and choice of photograph in the paper is an editorial comment.
"The rest of you RINOS can pike and hike."
It's more than just Democrats and "RINOs" that oppose the ports deal. Handing over the ports to the UAE is a LOSING issue for the GOP:
Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/February%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports.htm
Yes, that would be the perception. It would not be fact, but most Americans are not concerned with facts.
Will Dubais employees have access to information, the knowlege of which would make it easier to plant a dirty bomb?
Any knowledge that Dubais employees have, will not make it any easier to plant a dirty bomb.
That's because 83% of Americans are uninformed. Sad but true.
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.