Posted on 02/27/2006 8:10:15 AM PST by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584887/posts
The "Port" of Public Opinion The Patriot Post ^ | February 24, 2006 | Federalist - Patriot Post
Posted on 02/24/2006 10:28:57 AM PST by knightshadow
The port of public opinion...
Protests about the planned transfer of management for several U.S. seaports to a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates are fraught with almost as much confusion as fervor -- which explains why the current division within the political parties is almost as stark as the one between them. When Karl Rove, Jimmy Carter and The Los Angeles Times line up on one side of an issue, while Senators Bill Frist, Chuck Schumer and The New York Times line up on the other, something is seriously amiss.
Of course, the first casualty of political conquest is the truth, which is not to say that both sides don't feel genuine concern. In an effort to elucidate the issue, let us first distinguish between fact and fiction.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency panel that evaluates foreign financial interests in the U.S. with national-security implications, has approved the transfer of management of some port terminals (not the sale of these ports) in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Houston. The transfer is from a British owned company, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to Dubai Ports World, which is headquartered in the UAE. What this means, essentially, is that American managers and longshoremen will now get their checks cut by DPW instead of P&O. In other words, DPW will become one of many operators in these ports.
This does not put DPW in a position to act as an agent for al-Qa'ida, delivering weapons of mass destruction to their terror-cell operatives in the U.S., as has been suggested by some print and Internet tabloids. Direct responsibility for port security is shared by the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and state and local port authorities. Here it should also be noted that port-management priorities are wholly subordinate to port-security priorities. Of course, port-security operations, particularly those pertaining to interdiction of WMD, are augmented by the entire asset base of the U.S. military, its intelligence community and its law enforcement agencies.
Despite the rancor, the U.S. does not outsource the protection of our critical national-security infrastructure.
Approval of the DPW proposal underwent three months of interagency review. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, "This review definitely was not cursory and it definitely was not casual. Rather, it was in depth and comprehensive." This is the same review that management companies based in China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan underwent before being authorized to manage terminals in the port of Los Angeles. We might add, China now manages some terminals on both ends of the Panama Canal.
Foreign investment in the U.S., including port management, is nothing new.
As for the assertion that President George Bush should have known about the proposal, Frances Townsend, his senior advisor for Homeland Security, counters, "Rarely do these [reviews] wind up on the president's desk and that's only after there has been an investigation and there is some disagreement. This didn't get there because none of the agencies who reviewed it had any objection."
The public remonstration in this case is the result of a volatile combination of legitimate sentiments: a fundamental distrust of Islamic countries combined with a concern about the potential for terrorist exploitation of our busy shipping ports.
The distrust is warranted, particularly in the wake of 9/11. Not only were two of the hijackers from the UAE, but 11 of the Saudi hijackers traveled to the U.S. from Dubai, and $250,000 used to bankroll the 9/11 attacks was wired through Dubai banks. There were ties between Islamist emirs in the UAE and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the UAE recognized the Taliban government.
On the latter point, however, our intel sources indicate those ties enabled the CIA to confirm the location of bin Laden twice in 1999, but the Clinton administration declined to eliminate him. Bill Clinton has floated several excuses for why he did not act on this intelligence -- which all sank.
Further, Pakistani nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan testified that a UAE company assisted him with the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. However, as we noted two years ago, our sources indicate that Khan was either a CIA operative or a dupe and that the UAE cooperated fully with surveillance of Khan's contacts in Dubai.
Thus, if we want to punish the UAE because it has airports and banks, or because it has cooperated with CIA clandestine counter-proliferation efforts, so be it. There is, however, no suggestion of evidence that the UAE government had any knowledge, much less complicity, with the al-Qa'ida cell responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or any other attack on U.S. interests or personnel. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that the UAE, along with Kuwait and now Iraq, is a critical ally in the region.
Indeed, since 9/11 the UAE government has provided significant intelligence and staging support in the war against Jihadistan. They have actively participated in the pursuit of al-Qa'ida terrorists. In 2002, for example, UAE officials arrested and turned over to U.S. officials Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who conspired in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and masterminded the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. In 2004, UAE officials arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, who trained thousands of al-Qa'ida operatives around the world. He was returned to U.S. interrogators in Pakistan.
As for Dubai Ports World, it already provides support for U.S. Navy ships in Jebel Ali and Fujairah, which accommodates more U.S. Navy ships than any other international port. DPW is also the primary support contractor for U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base.
Rising above the din, the real issue is this: America's seaports constitute one of many big holes in our border security, regardless of who manages the terminals. Despite the port security that exists both stateside and in the ports of origin, there is no guarantee that WMD won't be smuggled into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that land on our shores each and every day.
As we have noted before, when al-Qa'ida has mated the right nuclear core with the right weapons hardware (something they may have already succeeded in doing), getting that weapon into the U.S. will not be that difficult, regardless of who is managing and securing entry points. The harsh reality is that there simply is no way to secure U.S. borders, with even a modest degree of confidence, against importation of nuclear WMD hardware the size of a footlocker, and a fissile core the size of an orange.
This reality accounts for the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption -- take the fight to the enemy and endeavor to wage war on their turf, not ours. It is a reality for which pre-emption is our only option -- our only chance of preventing a catastrophic attack on our nation.
This is certainly not to suggest that we adopt the French border-security model -- one in which we throw up our hands and run away. Indeed, we need to be vigilant about territorial security. However, allowing a UAE company to manage some port terminals does not constitute a surrender from such vigilance.
For the public, there may be some psychological solace in the assertion that preventing DPW from managing port terminals is tantamount to securing our destiny -- but it is a false sense of security.
The public confusion, media hysterics and, consequently, opportunistic political posturing and demagoguery have all but completely obscured the facts pertaining to our relationship with the UAE and its shipping conglomerate, DPW. The Democrats have used this issue to leapfrog to the right of Republicans on national security, and some Republicans responded quickly by adopting the same line on DPW. Unfortunately, both are doing so at the peril of our national security.
Not only has President Bush declared, "The UAE has been a valuable partner in fighting the war on terror," but has even threatened to veto any legislation to undo this deal. As he has yet to use his veto for any legislation (to our utter dismay, given some great opportunities), threatening a veto in this case can only mean that the consequences of derailing our relationship with the UAE constitute a grave threat to our national security.
Most likely, a compromise on UAE/DPW between the White House and Republican congressional leaders was brokered prior to public objections from Sen. Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. If that compromise is anything other than a "technical delay" in approving this transaction, we believe U.S. national security will suffer the consequences.
Feel safer now?
While the entire US political-wonk class is frothing out the mouth over the sale of "port dock concessions to the United Arab Emirates" in a fashion I havent seen since the great "Flouride Wars of the 1950's", it turns out that "Emirates Air" and its subsidiary "Emirates Sky Cargo" has Passenger and Cargo Terminal Space at JFK.
That's John F. Kennedy INTERNATIONAL Airport, formerly known as "Idlewild"
That's in New York City, New York State.
You read that right.
Passenger Terminal Space and Cargo Terminal Space.
New...
York...
City...
John...
F...
Kennedy...
Cargo...
Terminal...
Space...
http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/02/thank_you_for_f_1.php
Fox = Islamo Fascists (locked inside the coop)
Dog = UAE (locked inside the house)
Meaning the UAE may be our watchdog.
Factually incorrect and wholly hysteric nonsense. Security for Ports is, and will be continued, to be the responsibility of Local, State and Federal Agencies. Since terminal employees are the most likely source of corruption and smuggling, they will NOT have access to "Sensitive information".
This is just more hysteric nonsense spewed by Chicken Little Talk Show Hosts too arrogant to admit they know NOTHING about this topic. The security staff a company operating a terminal hires, which will be the SAME staff now employed by P&O, is the same sort that sits at the desk in your office building. They are there to tend to things like loss prevention and vandalism, NOT fighting terrorists. The way to think about the Port Deal is think of an Airport. The Slips at the Port are like the gates at the terminal. Many Airlines run some of the gates, the overall airport, including security, is provided by the Local Govt agency running the airport. Air Port cops, for example, are NOT hired and employed by the airlines. In the case of Ports, Security is provided by local, state and Federal authorities NOT the Terminal manager.
It would not. OBVIOUSLY the most likely security threat would be a corrupt shipper.
Thanks Johnnie - we'll agree again when the port deal's over. :)
I would like for you to be right.
But the way popular opinion has been manipulated around this, if it had happened during the week before the election, the Democrats would have carried the day.....with ignorant slogans and fear.
Rather than having congress involved, I would like them to lessen their involvement, by reducing the red tape and lowering the tax burden of American companies. Do so few realize the financial advatage a foreign company has if it does not need to provide the fringe benefits to its non-US workers? Imagine how much is saved by a UAE company that is not required to pay minimum wages to its home office secretaries and the money saved by not paying 15% Social Security, Medicare, insurance, unemployment, and not to mention the huge taxes imposed on US companies.
Whatever his reasons... he obviously doesn't see Iraq as an integral part in the war on Islamo-fascism. If properly viewed in this perspective... failure is NOT an option.
I've heard and documented that UAE supports Israel.
I've heard and documented that UAE does not support Israel.
At least we have an rapid response mechanism like the Blogs, Freeper etc now. At one time there was NOTHING to counter the Democrat Spin machine. Democrats have one huge vulnerability. To get elected Democrats have to actually CAMPAIGN and that is what trips them up. These PR things give the illusion of working, they do not provide the SUBSTANCE of victory. After all, which side has won significantly in the last 3 elections cycles?
Because Labor Unions owe one party (AKA the Democrats) and THEY are not in the least interested in making American Businesses competitive.
[...Support and recognize are two different things...]
Thank you for this clarity. My confusion is
with the semantics. Leaning toward "FOR".
I agree. But that implies (correctly) that "ours" isn't playing right now and "theirs" is.
Our problem is even our talk show hosts spend all most all their time talking about the Democrat's stage managed Media template. Notice how the Saddam tapes just vanished?
Good point. Rush and Bush and Rummy...everyone ran from those. Why? Why did they run from the Clinton/Osama deal? Something's fishy there, but what is it?
Think the timing of this Port Hysteria PR stunt was accidental?
Yes. I think Cheney did it.....just kidding!
At least we have an rapid response mechanism like the Blogs, Freeper etc now. At one time there was NOTHING to counter the Democrat Spin machine. Democrats have one huge vulnerability. To get elected Democrats have to actually CAMPAIGN and that is what trips them up.
I'm afraid the blogs are the preachers to the choir. Echo chamber syndrome, etc. Does it really affect anyone that's not already polarized? For example, I think there's something up on the Saddam tapes/Syria/WMD, and I'm an avid reader of blogs....yet I can't convince anyone who's skeptical because, why? There's no "consensus". And unfortunately, the Washington 'Priss' Corps actually has a lot to do with filling in that background noise.
These PR things give the illusion of working, they do not provide the SUBSTANCE of victory. After all, which side has won significantly in the last 3 elections cycles?
Yeah. Repubs won 2004 so they could turn and stab Bush in the back in Feb 2006. I'm waiting for Peter King's new bumper sticker: "Throw Bush under a Bus in 2006!"
I won't watch a show where the characters routinely curse.
Well yes Sam, I agree whole heartedly with you just find it painful to admit to myself. Infuriatingly I am not POTUS. If I was I would hire about 30 nasty smash mouth talking heads and would be running over the Dem and their press minions so hard and so frequently they would wake up each day even more confused about which gender they were. Fist, McCain, Hagel and all the other RINO wanna bees would be wondering just how the hell they might managed to get this rabid tiger off their tails. It would be worth getting impeached just to kick their over egoed, under resumed asses ONE time. :-)
Are the Shieks of the UAE muslim or not?
I would say that just going along with the Shieks just because they say that they are nice guys may get you and your family killed.
What is so compelling about this "deal" that would make people throw all caution to the wind?
I am fearful that political correctness has infested our country deeper than I could ever have imagined.
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.