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?
bttt
Here, still nursing a cold so I'll be in and out
Rush's tongue was drilling a hole in his cheek
I finally understand the hacksaw. I'm really curious how Jack's going to take care of Nina Meiers (I'm still in Season 2, although now 1/2 way through)...
I found you without the ping!
LOL
Let's just put it this way....he takes care of her "real good".......................with a little extra "ump".
Secrets Stolen From U.S. Fuel Russian Sub Program; Possible Hanssen Tie
Thursday, June 14, 2001
By Bryan Bender
Even as the U.S. and Russian presidents meet, the Putin government is moving to counter U.S. military might -- with technology from an unusual source: the U.S. Navy stolen by a division of Toshiba Electronics.
It appears that Russia has penetrated the American submarine program, possibly through the work of former FBI agent Robert Hanssen.
For years, Russia's underfunded navy has languished in port and new ship construction has virtually ceased. But two new vessels have been put to sea in recent weeks, surprising Western intelligence.
Early this month, the Russian navy began sea trials of a new, third-generation Akula II-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, the Gepard, in the White Sea. The Gepard is to be delivered for service in the Northern Fleet in July. Moscow has also deployed a Delta III nuclear ballistic missile submarine in the Pacific Ocean from the port of Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula - the first such deployment in months.
The attack submarine Gepard represents a fundamental surprise. The vessel was estimated to be five years behind schedule and was believed to be part of a vast body of evidence that Russia's fleet is in a poor state. The Gepard, however, represents an important qualitative, as well as quantitative, departure from recent shipbuilding trends.
In some respects, the new attack sub is believed to be superior to the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles-class attack subs. Capable of moving as fast and as quietly, the Gepard can dive deeper than the American vessels and has more firepower than its counterparts, according to Russian media reports and independent naval experts.
But the Russian ship program also appears to be aided by an unwitting suspect: the U.S. Navy. The Russian navy apparently has garnered significant technology that will enable it to make future submarines quieter and harder to detect. This technology probably has come from Russian espionage that has penetrated the U.S. submarine program, according to intelligence sources.
This from a Fox news report.
I say hook her to a beer wagon.
In classic Jack Bauer fashion.
I hope they replay that parody. I missed the first part of it :)
Good, I've come to hate her. Does Jack ever get a love interest or is he always too busy?
Rush is becoming a bigger jackass by the day. His rationalization of the Dubai deal is foolish. He and Bush are so invloved in this, "Lets be good to them and they will be good to us,BS." they are missing the point. This is a culture war!!!!
This is undoubtedly from someone who has not read the Muslim history or has spent any time reading their guidelines in the Koran. From,"Sword of the Prophet."
"The progression was from Dar al Sulh - when the Muslims are minority community, and they need to adopt temporily a peaceful attitude in order to deceive their neighbors - to Dar al Harb, when the territory of the infidel becomes a war zone by definition."
Trust a Muslim! You willing to bet your life on it?
I love his satire!
Jack's lifestyle keeps him from ever having a love interest that last more than a short time (at least through season 5)....Audrey is the worst one yet...very needy....
bttt
Woohoo... If you miss it, you don't know Jack!
That's too bad, but understandable.
Hello MNJohnnie,
Could you please include me in your ping list?
Good morning all. Hope I didn't leave anyone out.
Jo
Don't start giving away spoilers. I'm only to the end of Season One on DVD and have all of this season still unwatched on my DVR.
I already know Jack's wife in season one dies (the jacket cover on Season 2 DVDs gave that away), I have a feeling it's due to her stomach problem...don't wanna know [fingers in ears, eyes closed, nah nah nah nah nah...]
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.