Armed Services Chairman Opposes Port Deal

UPI.com ^ | 3/03/2006 | Staff Writers

[ex-Texan]

WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) -- A top Republican has declared opposition to allowing a Dubai government-owned company to assume control of operations at U.S. ports.

House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter said the United Arab Emirates has a "terrifying" record of allowing the transshipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction through its country to Pakistan, Iran and other countries.

The controversial deal will give Dubai Port World, Inc. control over P&O North America, a shipping and port terminal operator with a presence in 21 American ports on the East and Gulf Coast. P&O runs public port terminals -- where cargo is loaded and unloaded -- in at least six major U.S. ports.

The $6.8 billion takeover is now expected to be complete by next week, despite an ongoing 45-day security investigation by the U.S. government to address concerns about the company's ownership and possible vulnerability to terrorist infiltration.

The White House's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the deal in January without conducting the 45-day investigation required by law. White House officials said the investigation is only required if members of the committee raise national security concerns.

Hunter said that in 2003, despite U.S. protests, United Arab Emirates customs officials allowed 66 American high-speed electrical switches, which can be used for detonating nuclear weapons, to be sent to a Pakistani businessman with ties to the Pakistani military.

"Dubai can't be trusted with our critical infrastructure. United Arab Emirates officials have been instrumental in the transshipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction components," said Hunter. "To those who say my views smack of protectionism, I say: America is worth protecting."

[ex-Texan]

More likely than not, the title to your house is already owned by a foreign lender or holding company. That is, if your are paying a mortgage. No Big Deal, right? So what difference does it make if an Arab want to buy it? Makes no difference to the U.S. government, ergo, makes no dfference to me. Saw the news yesterday about Yale admitting a former leading member of the Taliban. He is probably going to be tapped for Skull 'n Bones. In the end, if the White House does not care it means Americans do not care.

[lewislynn]

Hunter said that in 2003, despite U.S. protests, United Arab Emirates customs officials allowed 66 American high-speed electrical switches, which can be used for detonating nuclear weapons, to be sent to a Pakistani businessman with ties to the Pakistani military.

"Dubai can't be trusted with our critical infrastructure. United Arab Emirates officials have been instrumental in the transshipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction components," said Hunter. "To those who say my views smack of protectionism, I say: America is worth protecting."

That line of Hunter's is so lame. Did his staff spend a week coming up with it. I guess coming up with a slogan is easier than laying out the facts to support his case.

Ignoring the facts is what's lame.

[WatchingInAmazement]

Duncan Hunter did stop Cosco in 1998. AT least he's being consistent!

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.(snip)

[sully777]

Sections of Mexican Border Called Virtual War Zone (Ft. Worth Star Telegram)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1589050/posts?q=1&&page=51

To: Fruitbat

WTH's W waiting for on this!

He's trying to secure a deal with a Mexican company owned by the Mexican government to enforce our immigration laws. Apparently, no one wants to do the job here and they can do it much cheaper. It's all part of the new global economy. Yeah, Yemen and Iran already guard our border with Canada. China and Russia are protecting the Pacific for us. And we leased a consortium of Liberian/Nigerian navy ships to patrol the Atlantic. Finally, the UK has given Somolian pirates access to Diego Garcia in a new strategy, apporved by their courts and not their Parliament, to patrol the Indian Ocean on the cheap.

It's a great plan. I hear no one disobeys laws because everyone involved makes enormous amounts of tax money.


25 posted on 03/02/2006 11:47:53 PM PST by sully777

Post #25 is intended as a parody of the UAE situation, as seen through a different context--namely running our borders.

The way I hear it, the US Border Patrol said it didn't sign off on it, then after someone got hold of them, they released a document this week saying the deal was great for America. Safest, most effective form of protection for our borders against illegal aliens is to use Mexicans. Anyone against the idea is no doubt a racist and too stupid to understand the complexities of today's world. (Sarcasm still on)

26 posted on 03/02/2006 11:54:31 PM PST by sully777

[mlc9852]

"Do you suggest that all current contracts with foriegn ownership of terminal berths be canceled, those terminals shut down and those Longshoremen layed off until an American stevedore company can buy the contracts?"

No - just those with ties to terrorism and who think Israel should not exist.

[putupjob]

This guy better tune into Rush Flim Flam who has the Bush administration marching orders. It's all ok...It's all good...The deal is already done....Dubai related operations have no security baggage associated with them. UAE is so on our side. Bush said so.... I feel better already.

[AmishDude]

I'll bet if they outlaw unions at the ports, a US company would be willing to do it.

You think the Dems will go for that deal.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Hunter's my Congressman. He's pretty good overall--but his staff has been buffaloed more than once by the Legacy Media-Political Complex.

[Just mythoughts]

Maybe the Congress will "federalize" the ship parking business, just think how many positions they can create opening every container that gets unloaded. (Sarcasm)

Liberals are in need of campaign funding the old fashion 'union' way.

[sully777]

UAE's DPW currently ILLEGALLY boycotting Israel. If the Ports Deal goes through, we will be effectively boycotting Israel (our only trusted long term ally on the War on Terror

Ah, what the hell does it matter. We are giving ourselves carte blanche to run Israel's foreign policy, giving large chunks of land to Hamas (who is financed and supported by the UAE).

Bush is looking to be Israel's worst best friend.

[cgk]

Duncan Hunter On the Issues

[GOP_1900AD]

Some statements from my FR homepage. Someone needs to get up there at the next RNC major meeting or even the next GOP Convention and say things like this. Whatever happened to the Barry Goldwaters of yore?

---

As a former "moderate" and former believer in the naive utopian views contained in, among other texts, Thomas L. Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" I have developed a unique geopolitical perspective.

Since beginning my awakening process in 1996, I have increasingly embraced a hybrid of neo-Clausewitzian and worst-case approaches to geopolitical analysis that would make all liberals, and even certain factions within the GOP, cringe. It goes without saying, that Communists, Marxists, Nazis, Fascists and other procrustean types hate me.

Specifically, I believe that war between great powers is inevitable and happens in a recurring cycle which cannot be broken by any but Almighty God. The sooner we accept this, and structure our lives, our expectations, our geopolitics, our economics, and our strength of will, to this reality, the better it will enhance the chances for the long term survival of Western Civilization. This might seem counterintuitive, given the conventional anti Clausewitzian "wisdom" that great war has become so destructive as to make all conceivable unlimited wars fought between great powers immoral. However, consider the ultimate end state of the current conventional "wisdom" - is it any different from what would be brought on by the mentality of "better Red than dead" or, the more current variation, "better Muslim than dead?" There has been no consensus whatever that the next great war shall be the end of all times or that certain "worst case" wars against large nuclear armed powers (or axes of them) are unthinkable under all circumstances. Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a CIA veteran, among others who have done so, has presented analyses which completely refute the ideas of "nuclear winter" and "total destruction." I postulate that should we ever be so unfortunate as to be put in a situation where we have not explicitly prepared to fight and win a war against the greatest powers, up to and including a full nuclear exchange, and, we face another world war axis, we may well think to ourselves that we desparately want to live, and that we do not envy the dead. We might well castigate ourselves for failing to consider the obvious fact that war between great powers is the most likely eventual outcome and that no peace lasts forever. Shame on us for dreaming naively otherwise!

When the gallows at Nuremburg dispatched Evil Incarnate, many mouthed the words "never again." Sadly, it would have been possible to predict, as early as 1946, that this was but a shallow platitude. The Trial of the Century convicted only a fraction of a certain Nazi contingent of the overall totalitarian monster. It did not indict, per se, totalitarianism. In all but Western Europe, totalitarianism was given a pass. The cancerous cells were never eradicated. And, predictably, they have again taken root. Islamism, National Bolshevism, neo-pan Sinicism, neo-pan Slavism, and a number of other mass psychotic polities, have risen to the surface once again, and have merged with the general envy that less capable countries (and even internal factions sympathetic with them) have toward the West and toward the US (and Israel) in particular. "Never again" is now impossible. So now the only question is, when "it" happens again, who will be the fiends, who will be the victims, where will it happen and how badly? To shy away from this only means that one is dreaming of the impossible. How naive.

This is but part of an overall hard line far, true, Burkian Right, conservative outlook, mindful of the Western Tradition, which gives me an immense source of personal accomplishment and is embodied in my tag line.

If I can incite raging maniacal tantrums in all shades of Leftists, while at the same time bringing out ad hominem attacks by those who abuse the word and mistakenly proclaim themselves as "Conservatives" (but who are really of the Jacobin, anti conservative stripe, wanting no rules and no moral code in force, and who actually harm the Right, not to mention society as a whole) then I must be doing something right (um, make that Right!).

When you see not only the Left but also many who proclaim themselves to be "conservatives" actively undermining Western Civilization and selling out the USA to enemies foreign and domestic, including anti Western nation states, then the time for drastic measures may be nigh.

---

At various times since my sign up date, there have been false claims and misconceptions regarding my beliefs. While I may criticize certain factions whose power in the GOP slowly increased throughout the 20th century (e.g. Progressives, Libertarians, Free Traders, Big Tenters, Grover Norquist bootlickers, etc) I have an explicit goal of tough love for the GOP. I have no hidden agenda; my agenda is open. In essence, I believe strongly that for the GOP to become *THE* party for the 21st century, we must diligently study best practices from our past. Of note, I frequently meditate on the Republican Party Platform of 1900. This platform included balanced fair trade, a strong national defense, strong national sovereignty, responsible currency management, and a generally pro USA and pro Western Civilization stance. It is the essence of a rare time in our history where we were financially, geopolitically, and spiritually ascendent all at the same time. I think that we still don't fully comprehend the great harm done by Czolgolz' bullets. I urge all here to meditate on these things, and to consider how to move the GOP from a receding, reactive, increasingly liberal stance, to a stance of taking initiative and becoming the leader in both political and geopolitical development of the USA and Western Civilization. Some will label me a throw back to primitive ways, but as I see it, my ways are reflective of the true future and of the primacy of the greatest civilization ever to grace God's green Earth.

---

I loath the 3rd Way, the Norquist Arabists and Transnational Progressives, and pledge to fight these movements with all my might. The 3rd Way, Norquist Arabists and the Transnational Progressives are unmistakable enemies within of the USA and the West. No matter how high in position any of them are, if they commit treason, then the full weight of the law must come down on them and make examples of them which shall be remembered for 1000 years.

---

About my handle: Firstly, it signifies my promotion of the principles of the GOP platform of 1900 A.D. Secondly, with my overt use of "A.D." as opposed to nonsense such as "CE," I am boldly stating my belief that Western Civilization owes its life to Judeo-Christian and Romano-Hellenic underpinnings. God Bless America and God Bless Western Civilization.

---

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." ---George Washington, 1793

[massgopguy]

It could be used as one. It's strategically located near two chinese restaurants.

[Austin Willard Wright]

The xenophobia fostered by conservatives (just read the comments on this site about towel heads, "turn Mecca into a parking lot," camel jockeys, etc.) has has come back to bite.

[meandog]

Well if I put my house on the market and the highest bidder is a Muslim and I refuse to sell to him. I wonder what the government will do to me? Do you suggest that all current contracts with foriegn ownership of terminal berths be canceled, those terminals shut down and those Longshoremen layed off until an American stevedore company can buy the contracts?

Let's put the Dubai World deal in proper perspective, shall we?

1. We are at war
2. We are at war against a Wahabbi-influenced Mecca-bowing enemy who is every bit fanatical as emperor-worshipping Bushito-crazed Japan was in WWII.
3. Both the Japanese and Arabs used/use suicide as a weapon.
4. The Japanese were more civilized, however, because kamakazi was directed only at military targets--Arabs target civilians, women and children.
5. To achieve victory over Japan in WWII, we defeated not only their military but also their Bushito culture where the emperor was exalted.
6. To gain victory in the WOT we must do the same to radical Islam.
7. The DWP deal stinks because it would be too easy for some minor functionary Islamist to infiltrate DWP headquarters.
8. A ship, lets say in a Liberian port, could be then laden with explosives but its cargo manifest falsified.
9. It could then be directed to a U.S. Port.
10. Finally, it was a racist policy in reflection, but you couldn't sell that house in WWII to Japanese--the government had them all in camps.

[Reagan Man]

Cong Duncan Hunter is doing a good job on this issue. Standing up and speaking out in the name of American interests is always good to see coming from any CongressCritter. Especially a GOP CongressCritter. Some folks around FR don't like seeing free speech and political dissent allowed. They'd rather see free speech stifled and political dissent abolished. Well, as long as Dubya is Prez anyway. LOL

[Echo Talon]

http://www.hunterforcongress.com/

[massgopguy]

I'm not happy about the deal. Just like I wasn't happy about the Japanese buying Rockefeller Center in 1985. I would have been even less happy had they done so in 1950 and I'm sure the outrage would have been similar since it would have been only nine years since the attack on Pearl Harbor. But in 1950 Japan became an important ally in the Cold War as a staging area for the Korean War.

[sully777]

Re: The $6.8 billion takeover is now expected to be complete by next week, despite an ongoing 45-day security investigation by the U.S. government to address concerns about the company's ownership and possible vulnerability to terrorist infiltration.

The White House's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the deal in January without conducting the 45-day investigation required by law.

---

Can the President sidestep Congress constitutionally?

[Paul Ross]

...it is upsetting to read comments like these coming from the House Armed Services Committee Chairman who has not, as far as I can determine, expressed any concern about the fact that DPW provides virtually the exclusive support for our US Navy ships in the UAE ports of Jebel Ali and Fujairah.

So? What makes you think he's happy about that either? But obviously their not going to slip a nuke into their OWN HARBOR for detonation! That's where this differs.

If they are real allies, they can take some rejection too.

As far as Duncan Hunter's consistency, I like this example clipped from an interview with Lou Dobbs a couple weeks ago:

But what we need to do is identify critical infrastructure, and that goes beyond the ports, whether its power grids, transportation lines.

CONGRESSMAN HUNTER: (I recommend in a pending bill that) We identify critical infrastructure. And rather than requiring another review, we simply ban anyone who is not a United States company, which has a board of directors, which is approved by DOD and by Homeland Security from owning that particular critical asset.

DOBBS: Hallelujah.

HUNTER: That's what we need.

DOBBS: Now, you know what some idiot is going to say, Mr. Chairman? Some idiot is going to say that's protectionism.

HUNTER: Well, you know, I think America is worth protecting.

DOBBS: I couldn't agree with you more. How is it we've gotten to a point where there is even an issue about a foreign government owned company or a foreign government owning U.S. key strategic assets?

HUNTER: Lou, it's the same as when we had the Port of Long Beach, the port officials coming in with their eyes glazed over, having talked to the local lobbyists, and they talked not about the Chinese -- the People's Liberation Army owning the naval base, they talked about a corporation, and this idea of free trade, that if you mask one of your military services by calling it a corporation, which the Chinese do regularly, you can do anything with free traders and with capitalists, because somehow that glazes our eyes and it blinds us.

And so we have to pull back. Let's take a new perspective. Let's look at critical infrastructure. Let's stop it.