Posted on 03/02/2006 6:26:44 PM PST by AntiGuv
WASHINGTON - One of the most prominent House Republicans on military issues said Thursday he would try to scuttle a Dubai-based company's effort to manage U.S. ports as lawmakers' complaints about the Bush administration's handling of the issue continued to spread.
"Dubai cannot be trusted," said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and normally one of the administration's most trusted allies. He called the United Arab Emirates "a bazaar for terrorist nations" and asserted that the United States should not permit DP World to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.
"I intend to do everything I can to kill the deal," Hunter said.
Across Capitol Hill, lawmakers criticized the Bush administration anew following disclosures that the United States had launched a fresh investigation Tuesday into a proposed business deal by a second Dubai-owned company. Also sparking the furor was word of a previously unconfirmed investigation into a separate transaction by a leading Israeli software firm.
The government initially approved DP World's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. But on Sunday, the administration agreed to a 45-day investigation of potential security risks to quell a political backlash.
"Too little, too late," Hunter said.
Opening a hearing on the matter, Hunter said it was "quite remarkable" that the administration did not initially undertake a full review of security implications, given that the company is owned by the United Arab Emirates — "a bazaar for terrorist nations to receive prohibited components from sources from the free world and from the non-free world."
Hunter listed instances between 1994 and 2003 in which he said the country helped move materials for weapons of mass destruction, such as heavy water and high-speed electrical switches, to Pakistan, Iran and other countries. He plans to introduce legislation that would require U.S. companies to be the sole owners of infrastructure critical to national security.
The chairman's sharp remarks underscore the political tempest the White House has run into at a time when events in Iraq and renewed interest in the administration's failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina have pushed President Bush's popularity downward.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has sided with the administration on the DP World deal. He and the White House have praised the United Arab Emirates as a key ally in the fight against terrorism.
Congressional GOP leaders want to wait for the results of the administration's new DP World investigation before considering legislation to delay or block the deal.
House Democrats tried to force a debate and vote on legislation Thursday that would require the 45-day security review and congressional approval of the takeover. That effort failed on a procedural, largely party-line vote.
Leading Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee also asked the administration for details about all pending reviews of foreign business deals and any that have been conducted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The U.S. has conducted only 25 such investigations among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States since 1988. The panel, made up of 12 government representatives, judges the security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.
Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, complained that he learned about the second Dubai investigation from news reports, despite regular meetings and discussions with the administration and others on the ports issue recently.
"Maybe they still haven't gotten their act together over the last few days," said King, R-N.Y.
Senior U.S. officials told lawmakers they will try to inform Congress better in the future.
"We clearly have to do quite a bit in finding ways to provide you more promptly with the information you need," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the Senate Banking Committee.
Dubai International Capital LLC confirmed Thursday it faced investigation over its plans to buy a British precision-engineering company, Doncasters Group Ltd., with plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make parts used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.
The same U.S. review panel also is investigating plans by an Israeli software company, Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., to purchase a smaller U.S. rival.
Kimmitt said U.S. officials notified congressional leaders and oversight committees about the second Dubai-related investigation Monday. The company's lawyers were notified the following day.
And who in the hell do these numb nuts think is going to by the company??
Did these numb nuts ever think that there aren't many U.S. companies that has that kind of money to operate this business??
I've had my concerns about this deal .. but I was I hate even more are a bunch of blowhard politicians who don't think before the speak
What perplexes me intensely is why so many 'unexpected' people are taking this whole Dubai Ports spat seriously. I mean, I am by no stretch of the imagination any kind of Bushbot, and I just can't seem to figure out why this has become such a firestorm.
OK. I will consider myself better educated.
I noticed another FReeper say that an Isreali official came out in support of this deal today. I haven't had time to find the source of that but it somewhat deflates the "but the UAE doesn't recognize Isreal" barb.
If you find it could you let me know? thanks
If you can't find it, I'll just have to learn to live with it. Oh it'll be rough at first but after awhile the pain will go away and I'll try to get on with my life.
There are also minor installations all over the place, but those listed above are the indespensible ones for now.
I'm red-faced for passing along mis-info before, but I'll get over it!
I am amazed too. Schumer? No surprise at all. Hillary? No surprise. Reid? Nothing coming out of his mouth would surprise me. I've scraped smarter stuff off of my boots. Collins and Snowe? Anything for camera time. But the other Pubbies, including the pundits, are a puzzle. Sean Insannity cornered himself with his own mouth (not unusual) but he usually self-corrects.
LOL Don't do anything rash, please! I would think it came from an article posted on FR and under the keyword 'ports' or 'dubai' but I haven't had the time to look. Too busy clacking out my opinions. ;^)
If I understood your previous post only the Jebel Ali is in the UAE. Is that right?
Duncan Hunter did stop Cosco in 1998. This is one congressman that would make a good president.
http://www.house.gov/hunter/cosco99.htm
NEWS FROM
CONGRESSMAN DUNCAN HUNTER
52d District, California
Member, National Security Committee
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Procurement
www.house.gov/hunter
____________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 17 September 1998
AGREEMENT REACHED TO BAN COSCO FROM LONG BEACH
SENATE RECEDES TO HUNTER LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON, DC---Members of the House and Senate agreed today to deny the President the authority to issue a waiver allowing the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) to lease a terminal at the former Long Beach Naval Station in California. The House passed the prohibition on the waiver authority, authored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), in approving its version of the defense bill by a vote of 357-60 on May 21, 1998. The agreement today came as Representatives and Senators wrapped up their work on the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization bill.
Who is THEY? That's the question.
The same U.S. review panel also is investigating plans by an Israeli software company, Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., to purchase a smaller U.S. rival.
This first deal was done in December.
This Arab company has taken over plants in Georgia that manufacture critical[and I'm sure classified components for our tanks and planes and they just now all of a sudden decide they need to do a security investigation?
Now we have an Israeli firm trying to buy a software company which has not yet been approved and they've been investigating them beforehand [as they should all foreign investors when there is a chance for a security breech]for a number of weeks.
Let's see. They're concerned about a security leak to Israel because the defense department uses some of the software and they're concerned about the danger of technology transfer. But they weren't concerned about the same possibility of a technological transfer to an Arab state?
This is the state which was used by Al Queda to plan the bombing of the U.S.S.Cole and from which the cell in Yemen received their instructions and from which we received little co-operation at the time of the bombing.
This is also the state that Al Queda was using to laundry it's money and it was from there that the 9/11 scum received their funds and money used in the twin towers attack.
However when it was found out they did co-operate fully on that one.
Seems to me we don't have our security priorities in proper order.
Yes, Jebel Ali is in the UAE. It's the primary logistics installation for our naval forces in the Persian Gulf; Manama in Bahrein is the primary deployment installation (according to the info I just looked up).
Why should they stand by someone who's betrayed conservative principles repeatedly, and who's made one spectacular public policy blunder after another during his second term?
What conceivable asset will a president with a sub-40% approval rating be to Republican incumbents and aspiring officeholders this November?
Thanks for the update. He probably would make a good president.
I wish he was my Representative.
My Representative is one of those who promised to step down after three terms, but who changed his mind after redistricting gave him a seat for life. And he's a bot who agrees almost 100% with Bush, except that he panders to the "powerful political forces" in the San Joaquin Valley.
I'm voting against him in the next election.
I'm understanding that managing the ports is not the deal. Actually the deal is the managing certain terminals in the ports. Is this correct? If so, those saying that ports are going to be managed by the UAE are intentionally misleading, right?
Good.
(BTW varmints, Don't bother telling me you'd rather have an American company handle it, that isn't our reality.)
I would guess one of two things would happen. Either the British company would still sell to DPW with the exception of their American interests or Singapore might purchase P&O because DPW might back out. Either way the American investment would go to a foreign company since either it would be Singapore or the Brits would retain their interest or
It wasn't a secret. Just because Savage and some politicians started to yell about it doesn't make it a secret.
The article in question:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588659/posts
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.