Posted on 03/02/2006 9:19:30 AM PST by MNJohnnie
(CNSNews.com) -- An additional 45-day government review of the controversial bid by a Dubai-owned company to operate some terminals at six U.S. ports will do nothing to change the minds of congressional Democrats like U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader.
"Congress must put an immediate halt to this deal that the (Bush) administration hastily approved in secret without input from the Congress or state officials and without a thorough review of how it might affect America 's security," Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
However, across town a group of current and former law enforcement officials urged patience while the new review of the deal involving Dubai Ports World (DPW) is conducted by an interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
"We have a 45-day opportunity to sort out what needs to be sorted out and come to a reasoned conclusion and move on from there," said Adm. James M. Loy, the former deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Loy did not fault those in Congress who have demanded further scrutiny of the DPW deal, saying that "it is absolutely the prerogative, the right and the obligation of the United States Congress" to do so in order to "satisfy themselves that the right actions are being taken in the best interests of the United States."
Rear Adm. Craig Bone, director of inspection and compliance at the U.S. Coast Guard, rejected some of the criticism that has been leveled at the Bush administration following its initial approval of the DPW takeover of the ports.
"The idea that no one's watching and that these people can do whatever they want with our ports is false," Bone said. "They are not responsible for the security operations that the Coast Guard or state law enforcement agencies are carrying out. It has been misrepresented as they will have access to all our security information.
The only people who possess that security information are law enforcement or individuals with security clearances, Bone asserted.
David Heyman, director and senior fellow of the Homeland Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, added that many of the nation's ports are already run by foreign companies.
"Over half of U.S. ports today are currently being operated by firms from countries like China, Singapore, Korea, and the U.K.," Heyman said. Dubai Ports World "is an international company with billions of investments and operations in India, Romania, Australia, Germany, Dominican Republic, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, all over the world," he said.
Contracts like the one involving DPW are normally approved by officials from 12 executive branch departments who sit on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The panel is chaired by the representative from the Department of Treasury.
The CFIUS website states that the original review of DPW lasted three months, during which time the committee "thoroughly investigated the transaction for national security concerns" and sought additional feedback from individuals with the Departments of Transportation and Energy "to widen the scope and expertise of the national security scrutiny."
"I was the individual who cleared on this process within Customs and Border Protection and reviewed all the material and there was nothing derogatory or any hesitation on our part in moving forward with supporting this decision," Jayson Ahern, assistant commissioner with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations, said Friday at the panel discussion sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Ahern admitted that in looking back on how the DPW transaction was handled, "we needed to have our political antennas up a little more throughout this process."
But Ahern did not waiver, saying Dubai Ports World was not a security threat. He noted that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the Container Security Initiative has required that the ports in 42 countries involving 75 percent of all shipments to the U.S. are monitored by American officials. The port of Dubai signed onto the initiative in March 2005.
Still, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are not budging from their view that the contract with Dubai Ports World should be scrapped.
"More than five years after 9/11, America is not as safe as it should be. Without implementing all of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and creating a comprehensive plan for securing our ports, the President and the Republican Congress have not fulfilled their sacred responsibility to keep Americans safe," she said.
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
Freepers might want to consider learning from this group's behavior. Riding a losing position down in flames rather then admitting error is foolish.
Let the fireworks begin
Israeli shipping company supports UAE port deal. To be on CNN later today.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588559/posts
(Just thought I'd post that here for the people who are trying to stir up a little trouble; not you Johnnie).
Sorry, there are too many xenophobic freepers who won't accept anything even remotely middle eastern from doing business in the United States, unless of course the're filling up their vehicle at the gas pump.
hannity, levin, NRO, and blankley, will not listen. They are afterall the self-proclaimed know alls and be alls(in thier swelled heads) the voice of conservatism.
You really are a Peach! Thanks for the link! Cannot wait to see what the attack line on Zim is going to be. I guess it will probably be something like they are "not real Jews" or something like that.
I would like to see Congress propose changing this vetting process from the Executive brqanch and placed with the Legislative branch. IMO.
brqanch - branch
It is utterly impossible for us to view this thing and its ramifications, which are largely unrelated to the ports in any way, without taking into context Islam, it's goals, it's executors (no pun intended), and it's track record into account.
Yet, you (apparently) and many others, most in fact, pro, seem to be doing just that.
Again, we woudln't have welcomed companies of "Germans" in during WWII to "run/operate/whatever" our ports, nor would we have allowed companies of "Russians" in to do the same throughout the cold war.
Now however, all of a sudden, there's no problem with it. Why? Because all of those pro seem to have no issues as they are blinded to the wreaking of havoc that Islam has affected on many parts of the world as they leave their own nations in a drastic state of shortcoming, in waxing extremely politely, regarding human and civil rights, particularly as they apply to religious freedom, which is not tolerated, .... BY THE KORAN!!!
So the dividing line here has become blurred and a red herring of sorts. The pros tend to believe that Islam is not bad, that just because a muslim "gives you his assurances" of 'being good' that he's completely honest, seems to have forgotten all the episodes of espionage and spying by those that on the surface throughout the 20th century were "just one of the guys," expect that Islam will all of a sudden revert from what it has been for a millenium and a half, and that Islam is somehow something other than what it is, namely a deception under an umbrella of religion, that spills over into all other aspects of life creating misery even to the point of death for many of those living in the hell under it.
You also have opted to stick your head in the sand regarding the lacks of freedoms that those non-muslim under Islamic rule "enjoy."
So while "the facts come out," your realm of "fact finding" and "due diligence" fall far short of where they need to extend. Sadly, it is thinking such as this that will be an enormous pillar in the erosion of the United States as we know it. We were already under way with the liberalization of America, that last thing that we need is a foothold for Islam to proliferate within our borders. But that's too late, they already have it!
So perhaps the argument is moot at this point and it's now merely a matter of how much we push the process along with further bending over to take one as we become the apologists for what Islam, and yes, that means muslims, do!
The cons realize this!
Oh, you're missing quite a few in that list as well! Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, and a host of others!
Funny, how many conservatives have become political opportunists simply intent on defending and supportiong a party while throwing what many thought was their ideology under the bus.
Whatever...
Yeah really as those "true conservatives"(hannity, levin, blankley, NRO, etc.) parrot schumer/hillary talking points.
Oh yeah, and most of America, which must include many, many conservatives!
Odd, isn't it! ; )
Vive La GOP! Isn't that right!
DeMint is slamming Boxer right now about her support to have non-US Citizens as airport screeners after 911. Classic.
According to a CBS poll that you beleive, but hey what the hell, I have some memos received by CBS saying you are a child abuser, according to your logic, they are true.
What you mean to say is that in your world "true conservatives" only carry the party's (GOP's) water, right?
How come we don't hear anything at all about Islam, it's track record (or sheer and utter lack thereof, in fact resembling a Hitleresque one) through the discussion of any of this?
Don't you think it's a "wee bit odd" about how we're constantly told that "it's only a few people of the 'radical' or 'militant' variety" that are fostering "non-Islamic" principles yet a good chunk of the entire world has succombed to their human rights attrocities?
Nahhhh! That never even entered your mind, did it!
Then again, shame on me, it's you Dane!!! I shoulda known.
Post over....
And no, don't bother answering the questions.
Vive La GOP! (Questioning the GOP not allowed)
Should we add Mr. Bloviating No Spin to the list?
Hi Dane...!
; )
Please repond to my reply #15.
If opponents of this deal really think this way, then all of the ones in Congress should PASS A LAW prohibiting Muslim owned companies from setting up shop in the United States. The President might even sign it if it is popular.
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.