(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Posted on 02/26/2006 6:45:40 AM PST by YaYa123
"...Clearly a lot of the criticism has been xenophobic. Notwithstanding pro forma demurrals, the driving theme here is that “Arabs”—usually talked of generically as if there were no difference between those in Dubai, say, and those in Baghdad or Benghazi—can’t be trusted to operate American ports. When Bush says the posturing on Capital Hill is sending the wrong signal to some of the few friends the United States has left in the Arab world, he’s right..."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Ahhh, the perfect Rovian Storm. Sean Hannity even got sucked into it (unless he was part of the setup). Michelle Malkin went nuts over it. Rush Limbaugh did not - he's far too smart.
But who, more generally, do we have here using broad racial stereotypes to generate hysteria among the poorly informed: LIBERALS! LIBERALS! Liberals, who condemn just about any criticism of even terrorists as racism, are branding ALL Arabs as dangerous enemies of the United States! LIBERALS are using racism to gain political adavantage!
The perfect Rovian Storm. Again. I love it. Rove and Bush are geniuses.
ping
THis article is moronic.
I'm supposed to feel better about Dubai running US container shipping since half the terrorists in the world run around freely there?
US officials and press chose to kowtow on the Cartoon War. That's not how the populace feels. I think it's just great that US public opinion demonstrating its dislike and distrust of Arabs is publically vented here. No free pass for repressive regimes that harbor terrorists and launder their money.
They help us in Iraq? Great. We can use them just like they use us. It doesn't mean we have to give them the keys to the store.
Thank you for the ping, Cannoneer No. 4!
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
If this is true, "Part of the money underwriting the 9/11 attacks on the United States went through Dubai’s banks and moneychangers." Then, isn't it also true that all of the money went through American banks?
"The perfect Rovian Storm. Again. I love it. Rove and Bush are geniuses."
That's why Bush's approval rating is at 44% (down from 49% pre-Dubai) and 64% of Americans oppose the Dubai ports deal. (Rasmussen polling)
Give me a break. This Dubai ports deal will put Hillary in the White House unless something is done to stop it soon.
LOL!
Well, I'm sure they didn't plan all this, but it does make them look like geniuses. Kind of like the Miers nomination.
My own 'perfect' solution would be to replace the EAU with Halliburton.
Wow, it's going to dictate the outcome of an election two and a half years away??
Can you possibly be more hysterical?
Give me a break. Have you EVER heard of leadership?
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
If we followed you, and you are following manipulated polls, we be cutting and running out of Iraq.
Develop a back bone and even you could become a Freeper!
Indeed, the message that he is not the supreme monarch............
UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.
P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.
President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. said after the briefing she expects swift, bi-partisan approval for a bill to require a national security review before it is allowed to go forward.
At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.
But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.
"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, comprised of officials from 12 government departments and agencies, including the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security, approved the deal unanimously on January 17.
"The structure of the deal led us to believe there were no national security concerns," said Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson.
The same day, the White House appointed a DP World executive, David C. Sanborn, to be the administrator for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation. Sanborn had been serving as director of operations for Europe and Latin America at DP World.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R- Va., said he will request from both the U.S. attorney general and the Senate committee's legal counsel a finding on the administration's interpretation of the 1992 amendment.
Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal. Kimmitt said Congress is periodically updated on completed CFIUS decisions, but is proscribed from initiating contact with Congress about pending deals. It may respond to congressional inquiries on those cases only.
Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley stated in a letter to Bush on Feb. 21 that he specifically requested to be kept abreast of foreign investments that may have national security implications. He made the request in the wake of a controversial Chinese proposal to purchase an oil company last year.
"Obviously, my request fell on deaf ears. I am disappointed that I was neither briefed nor informed of this sale prior to its approval. Instead, I read about it in the media," he wrote.
According to Kimmitt, the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13. CSP posited the sale as the Treasury Department putting commerce interests above national security.
Kimmitt said because the 2005 Chinese proposal had caused such an uproar before it ever got to CFIUS, the lack of reaction to the Dubai deal when it was reported on last fall suggested it would not be controversial enough to require special notification of Congress.
Central to the debate is the fact that the United Arab Emirates, while a key ally of the United States in the Middle East, has had troubling ties to terrorist networks, according to the Sept. 11 Commission report. It was one of the few countries in the world that recognized the al-Qaida-friendly Taliban government in Afghanistan; al-Qaida funneled millions of dollars through the U.A.E. financial sector; and A.Q. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear technology smuggler, used warehouses near the Dubai port as a key transit point for many of his shipments.
Since the terrorist attacks, it has cut ties with the Taliban, frozen just over $1 million in alleged terrorist funding, and given the United States key military basing and over-flight rights. At any given time, there are 77,000 U.S. service members on leave in the United Arab Emirates, according to the Pentagon.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England warned that the uproar about the United Arab Emirates involvement in U.S. ports could risk alienating the very countries in the Middle East the United States is trying to court as allies in the war on terrorism.
"It's very important we strengthen bonds ... especially with friends and allies in the Arab world. It's important that we treat friends and allies equally around the world without discrimination," he said.
The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a "dirty bomb."
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A "risk analysis" is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship's history, the cargo's history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.
None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.
Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.
"The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said.
The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.
Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.
"The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Muldoon.
In a January report, the Council on Foreign Relations pointed out the vulnerability of the shipping security system to terrorist exploitation.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. customs agency requires shippers to follow supply chain security practices. Provided there are no apparent deviations from those practices or intelligence warnings, the shipment is judged low risk and is therefore unlikely to be inspected.
CFR suggests a terrorist event is likely to be a one-time operation on a trusted carrier "precisely because they can count on these shipments entering the U.S. with negligible or no inspection."
"All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a 'trusted' shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers," CFR wrote.
"Develop a back bone and even you could become a Freeper!"
I don't see any reason to hand our ports over to a country which facilitated 9/11 by tolerating extremists and allowing al-Qaeda to launder money. If "having a backbone" means handing our country over to the enemy, then I'd rather not have one.
We need somebody in our government to stand up for American sovereignty and border security!
Now we are giving aid to the new Hamas neo neo nazi so called gov't again?
While we're at it, why dont we ask the Bin Laden construction Co. to help out with the plans for the new WTC site?
Of course some high level dems backing this deal, if/when something goes terribly wrong because of this deal, it's all that "Evil Bush's" fault.
Handing the dems a victory in 2006&2008 practically gift wrapped with this one.
Sure, there is all sorts of security around the outside of the containers, but according to statistics, only 5% are checked for the contents. Whats to stop the contents of some container making its way out so some cell like the Buffalo six? We know there are still active cells in America, we know that the plans to overthrow the world have been made by al queda, and part of the plan is economical, hmmmmmmmmmmmm how about buying up some shipping interest in the US, is that not an economical part of the plan. Are all of the DP workers terrorists? probably not if any, would it make the terrorists job easier, "heck yes! idiots"- Napolean dynamite.
If it wasn't for some many Republicans AGAINST this deal, it's enough to switch parties to independent and make the GOP work harder for my vote.
I still support W, but not on this.
Arab countries don't deserve big US contracts, they deserve more "tough love".
If the Republican party doesn't start standing up for BORDER SECURITY and SOVEREIGNTY, then a lot of CONSERVATIVES are going to vote third party or stay home in 2006 and 2008.
I will never vote for another open borders elistist internationalist again.
The key to a strong, safe America is SECURING OUR BORDERS and keeping Islamic extremists out of our country.
Haliburton does NOT run ports. It BUILDS infrastructures like ports.....and it's building infrastructures in Iraq and around the world as we speak (or type,heheh).
OTHERS (contractors specializing in the peration of specific infrastructures) lease, buy or operate the things Haliburton builds.
Leni
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.