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."

[massgopguy]

Well they weren't too civilised when they took my father's cousin prisoner at Bataan. You might want to ask the people of Nanking about military targets.

[Just mythoughts]

Yes they bit that juicy bait set out by bj and Hillry and their followers.

Here the liberals were trashing one of their key constituencies of their base and they will slink back all the richer, unscathed for their "racists" propaganda, salivating while the MSM points the accusing finger of what a bunch of racists conservatives really are.

[ex-Texan]

Nada por nada. If Bush does the deal, he may have to face angry people clamoring for his head. Angry people on both sides of the aisle. Michael Savage was saying a few days ago that this is the worst political crisis he has ever seen. He claims it is worse than Watergate. Savage is riling up people into a savage pitch.

[Paul Ross]

"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

Indeed. He is proved more right every day. Anyone who doesn't see the wisdom of this is, frankly, no American.

[GOP_1900AD]

Is national sovereignty "xenophobia?"

Is the love of one's own land "racist?"

[trubluolyguy]

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.

---

Yep. Duncan Hunter a know nothing Bush hater from way back. Bet he spends all his time at DU.

(sarc tag)

[trubluolyguy]

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?

---

How about terminate the contracts with countries who have a majority of their population that wants us dead? Can we do that?

[jamese777]

The Dubai Ports deal currently has 17% popular support according to yesterday's Fox News poll and it is primarily responsible for an overall drop in the President's positives as a leader in the war on terror. This deal, politically, could have long range negative implications for Republicans regardless of whether its the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.
Its a big loser politically, as is the President going to India to outsource more American jobs and give them American nuclear technology. Bad moves.

[GOP_1900AD]

You are 100% full of crap.

Although, I would say that the demogoguing of this by Leftist politicos is a fairly shallow tactic and disgusts me greatly. This is a conservative, not a liberal issue. The GOP's reluctance to embrace this issue only has meant the libs could run with it. Shame on us all.

[GOP_1900AD]

The enemy within does not bound itself to the Leftist parties. We have them among us as well.

[Paul Ross]

Thanks. I have long followed his record, and confirm that the positions he has maintained a consistent, conservative, pro-defense, pro-American position:

[GOP_1900AD]

Any Bozo could have seen that this would be a PR disaster. An utterly incompetent move on the parts of any and all who bought into it. Total disaster!

[GOP_1900AD]

That looks familiar! Hehe :-)

[trubluolyguy]

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.

---

Are you saying that muzzies don't wear towels on their heads? They don't ride camels? Mecca shouldn't be nuked?

[Just mythoughts]

"You are 100% full of crap. "

I suppose you should KNOW.

So you are not content with the fear mongering planted, well you have at it.

[trubluolyguy]

The enemy within does not bound itself to the Leftist parties. We have them among us as well.

---

That depends if you mean that folks who refuse to march in lockstep with GWB on every issue are an enemy, count me among them. If you think everyone on this forum is a Republican, you really ought to ask. You might be surprised. Conservative and Republican are NOT synonymous.

[OkeyDokeyOkie]

I am in full agreement with the Chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee's desire to protect our shores and our nation. My problem is with the same politicians who are obviously concerned about our homeland security not speaking out as advocates against the inherent threats of DPW in relationship with US sailors and airmen and civilian contractors. If the criticism of DPW is valid, then the safety of our military and of our civilian contractors has been jeopardized in a major way,since DPW holds almost total control of the support of our naval vessels and aircraft in the region. I would expect the Chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee to address that danger, but so far, he has not.

[sully777]

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.

---

Ignoratio Elenchi (Missing the Point) and False Cause arguments to name two logical fallacies in your post:

First, Rockefeller Center (RC) is real estate that is not a part of the WOT. It is not a part of our borders or Ports Authority. Why didn't you just use the World Trade Towers as an example?

Second, RC was bought by a Japanese company that was not an arm of the Japanese government. The Japanese company owned the property but could not alter global shipping manifests or bills of lading. The Japanese company was not notorious for illegal drug trade and money laundering as the UAE and its government company DPW are known to be according to our own CIA and State Dept.

Third, The Japanese in 1950 or 1985 never supported or financed terrorist groups such as Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, or recognize the Taliban up to the day the fell. Moreover, the Japanese never sought the destruction of Israel, our close ally and friend.

Forth, owning RC would not automatically boycott Israel.

Fifth, the comparison to 1950 is misleading. We destroyed Japan's capacity to fight any war and we occupied her territory militarily in 1950. If the UAE was totally under our military jusidiction such as Iraq I would have granted you a partial credit in this one section of argument.

Sixth, Japan was a staging area for the Korean Conflict in the Cold War (some call WWIII) because we occupied her after WWII (which was punishment for her evils). What the UAE deal is akin to is Soviet Russia controlling our port terminals in the Cold War, or the Japanese controlling our important terminals during WWII.

Finally, the truth leaking out that the Saudis, Singapore, and others control some our terminals does not sweep away the argument (An ergo logical fallacy). In point of fact, it shocks us that such things are true in a post 9-11 world. It also worsens the situation as a security and PR nightmare. And make no mistake, Bush's adament position on this deal above CFR, bloated budgets, permanent tax cuts, etc. is horrible PR that is destroying the base. His arrogance in the face of any contrary facts and opinion is enraging. His attacks on conservatives is divisive.

[sully777]

I shy away from Savage. I think Boortz, Reagan, Hannity, and most importantly reading the articles within the Free Republic are a more sound approach to this argument.

[sheik yerbouty]

Of course all these thoughts have nothing to do with the ARab Muslim attack on America, and the incineration of nearly 3000 Americans! Why would anyone harbor animosity for those who carried out the attack, and the governments that aided and abetted them at different points along the way? I guess "Political Correctness" is in order(sarcasm)!