Posted on 03/01/2006 1:20:56 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Bennett is a wind bag and a self promoter. I hope this deal goes down the toilet, it should, but why do we need any foreign country's companies to handle these ports? Are there no American companys who can handle this? Are we all that inept?
Further there are 21 ports involved in this from Portland Maine to Corpus Christy, also a number of ports in Vancouver BC. Haven't heard Bennet mention that. This story was well on line before he or Brit, for that matter, latched onto it. Were they waiting for a signal?
Bush sure doesn't take security that seriously. Open borders and Arab Port "Authorities".
Not so sure. even Bush is now using the "if" word regarding approval. Last night with Vargas on ABC World News Tonight.
Is somebody maintaining an official list of long-standing conservatives who have fallen out of favor with the Bushbots? We can add Bill Bennett to that list now.
"Actually, I think having the UAE run it will concentrate our efforts to keep things secure"
I'm not specifically picking on you, but this argument ... I've seen it many times before in the past week or two, and the logic is so convoluted as to boggle the mind. I guess nothing focuses attention upon ports like having a Muslim nation heavily involved in them, huh?
And why would that be?
The USA should not gamble away its security.
My question relates to the terminals. If the deal falls through will these terminals shut down? If not who will run them? If so, what will happen to all the workers?
Talking about keeping things secure, I wonder why there hasn't been a similar backlash against the Chinese controlling ports on the west coast?
Does the British government own the company that has been managing the port operations? I have not seen that claim. I have seen many, including the President, seek to compare these two companies, and countries, but one cannot compare a government owned company with a privately held one.
The Debate On The Ports Deal(Risk Factor: British Company Management About The Same As The UAE)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587394/posts
STRATFOR (Subscription) ^ | 02/28/06 17:35:30 | George Friedman
http://www.stratfor.com/
"Some argue it's easier for al Qaeda to enter the US. We find that doubtful. Al Qaeda operatives -the real ones not the wannabes-if out there, could enter by any number of means. If they try to slip a bomb into a container ship, it won't be one sent from a Muslim country -there the scrutiny level is too high. It would be under a flag no one would suspect, like Denmark. Given what it means to "operate a port," the risk to the US from having a British company manage its ports is about the same as from the UAE: Has anyone noticed holding a British passport these days is no guarantee of loyalty to Western ideals?"
The UAE continues to support terrorism in Israel...Why would you think they want to shut down terrorism...
Money obviously isn't an issue...They have more money than they can count...
And Bill Bennett is right. This port deal should be scrapped. It's a matter of national security.
It's a no-brainer.
"I wonder why there hasn't been a similar backlash against the Chinese controlling ports on the west coast?"
There was a huge uproar over the COSCO deal, which was squelched. But, in the meantime, leases were quietly signed. Nobody noticed. They're noticing now.
That's good......wasn't COSCO involved with smuggling in AK-47's or something like that to some of the CAL street gangs a few years ago?
"Money obviously isn't an issue...They have more money than they can count..."
Loss of profit does tend to be cited as a motivation not to attack, not just in this instance, but also regarding China.
But, I've often wondered at the expense we've incurred in the WOT thus far; compare that to lost profit on the ports deal and which is the smaller dollar amount? Wars cost money, and can be waged in any number of ways. Profit foregone or lost investments can be considered a cost of war, and one that pales in comparison to the cost of large scale conventional warfare.
Something like that. I'm thinking they were not actually AK-47's though.
Hey Bill, you know Sheik Makhtoum is a great Craps player. Maybe you can join him for a game!
I prefer to take advice from Victor Davis Hanson. Sorry, Bill.
What rankles is the rabid ignorance and shrill arrogance of the Port Deal Critics. They simply REFUSE to listen to the facts. Even THIS piece is full of factual inaccuracies and out right misstatements. It show a complete and utter refusal to actually LEARN the facts.
This has been going on for two weeks now, there is no excuse for this level of factual ignorance of the part of people of Dr Bennet's intellectual caliber.
NO...he isn't a flamethrower, but he doesn't even want the 45 day investigation.
Now, having said that...several freepers have rightly pointed out that whatever investigation there is, will be mostly a rhetoric and campaign scrum..instead of an intellectual exchange...
I am having a REALLY hard time with some of the Conservatives' attitudes about this...NOT because I back the deal..I am still undecided, but even the Conservatives aren't willing to cut out the rhetoric and name-calling until after the 45 days is up!!!
The EU gives money to Hamas. They continue to support Terorism in Israel. When do we boot all the Euro trash out of economcy? BTW, your statement about the UAE is a lie.
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.