Cancel This Deal, Diplomatically (Bill Bennet-Important Read)

National Review ^ | 3-1-06 | William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn

[STARWISE]

The Dubai Ports World deal can’t work.

Dubai Ports World, the subsidiary of the United Arab Emirates, has now asked for a 45-day review from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to investigate security concerns over the control of six U.S. ports. This is to the good, calming calls for congressional action as well as subsequent threats of a presidential veto. Many lobbyists have been hired, charges alleged, fact-sheets disseminated, and polls put in the field. Still, questions remain to be asked, questions that none of the above D.C. responses have addressed.

(snip)

But better than asking questions, a back-channel message should be sent to the UAE to withdraw this deal, much as China withdrew its UNOCAL bid last year. This deal will not stand public deliberation; it confuses things.

(snip)

Never has the president been further from the base on these issues than now. But, by having the UAE withdraw its offer, the issue will be taken off the table — it can be corrected and ended; otherwise it will live and bleed for at least another 45 days.

(snip)

No matter how many assurances we are given that our government will remain in charge of this security, the cargo will be managed and coordinated by a foreign-owned company whose country has anything but a strong record in preventing terrorism. In short, when all the smoke is cleared, the UAE is not a country of tried and true reliability like, say, Great Britain. There is a difference between Great Britain and the UAE, many differences in fact, and we should not be instructed otherwise.

[STARWISE]

"Here is what rankles Americans, and what should rankle the administration: We are being asked to not only trust our ports to be partially run by the UAE, but we are additionally being asked to support a multibillion-dollar arrangement that supports an authoritarian regime. The message of the Bush doctrine has been blurred. We have been led in this war by the great call to and for freedom in other countries — "the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time," as the president put it in his powerful Second Inaugural. This calling applies to nowhere else as direct as it does to the Middle East."

[Darkwolf377]

The Dubai Ports World deal can’t work.

Wanna bet, Bill?

[steelcurtain]

This isn't about control of ports, just terminals.

[STARWISE]

Confused again BTTT .. he's hardly a flamethrower.

[el_texicano]

And Bill's hardly a heavy weight on the national scene. Him and Sean Hannity...sigh.

[finnman69]

there is no way this deal is killed

[STARWISE]

You're right. Bill Bennet is typically so level headed .. I am taken aback by this.

[newgeezer]

By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn

Copy-and-paste is our friend.

[Yo-Yo]

Go back to what you know, Bill.

[TexasCajun]

Wanna bet, Bill?

[steelcurtain]

It's one thing to debate the issue - and I admit there are good points to be made on both sides - but it's quite another to misstate the facts. That what those who call this "selling the ports" or "control of the ports" are doing, just like those who call the intelligence-gathering of foreign phone calls made by terrorists to U.S. accomplices "domestic spying."

[mikeus_maximus]

There is a difference between Great Britain and the UAE, many differences in fact, and we should not be instructed otherwise.

We heard moralizing to the contrary, on this very board, yesterday. We were told essentially that anyone who makes such a distinction must be a racist, Bush-bashing, non-conservative. That conlcusion is brought to us by the same mentality that said opposition to the Harriet Miers nomination must be sexist.

[tsmith130]

By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn

Copy-and-paste is our friend.

Whoa, good thing you corrected that or I wouldn't have had a clue who wrote this. /sarc off

[narby]

No matter how many assurances we are given that our government will remain in charge of this security, the cargo will be managed and coordinated by a foreign-owned company whose country has anything but a strong record in preventing terrorism.

Kinda like the UK, that owns these businesses now?

Actually, I think having the UAE run it will concentrate our efforts to keep things secure, which they aren't now. At the same time, it gives motivation to the UAE to help us shut down terrorism worldwide, lest they lose their business.

In the end, I don't think it matters who writes the paychecks of the longshoremans union. If terrorists want to sneak in stuff, they will, probably over the Canadian border that we aren't watching at all.

[Darkwolf377]

Nice to see someone got it. :)

[newgeezer]

Yes, and misspelled Keywords are worthless.

[TexasCajun]

I think Bill is reduced to the quarter machines these days.

[rightinthemiddle]

But we ask the UAE to trust us with an Aircraft Carrier in their ports?

[PISANO]

One question I have for ALL the naysayers like Bennett, Ingraham, Sean etc etc..........WHO will operate the TERMINALS if NOT DPW?

GB's business in NOW OWNED by DPW and the ONLY other nations capable of doing this kind of work is Singapore, and China?

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping