Posted on 05/04/2006 8:06:30 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
The silence on Capitol Hill has been deafening.
On April 28, 2006 the White House announced the approval by President George Bush regarding the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) of its recommendation that Dubai International Capital LLC (DIC), a subsidiary of Dubai Holding and a Dubai government owned conglomerate, to assume the U.S. operations of Doncasters Group Ltd.
Just seven weeks prior, there was political posturing, grandstanding and outrage expressed by both political parties in the U.S. Congress when it was revealed, through the U.S. media, that Dubai Ports World, also of Dubai Holding, would takeover the United Kingdom company, Pinisular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), and its port operations of six major East Coast ports. It too had been approved by CFIUS. But now, the American public has heard nary a discouraging word, following this latest transaction.
On December 14, 2005, DIC purchased Doncasters, a privately held United Kingdom-based company, for US$1.24 billion. Doncasters is a leader in international engineering, manufacturing precision components and assemblies for the aerospace industry and military aircraft, components for industrial gas turbine engines used in military tanks, in addition to automotive turbochargers and medical orthopaedic devices. Also, DIC manufactures precision parts for defense contractors such as Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.
Presently, Doncasters operates 9 industrial plants located in the U.S., which includes manufacture of turbine fan parts for the U.S. Abrams Battle Tank, and sensitive components for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. The plants are based in Connecticut which has two factories and two in Alabama, with one each in Georgia, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, and South Carolina.
Connecticut and Georgia, however, are locations where manufacture of most of the sensitive technologies takes place. Georgia is home to Ross Catherall U.S. Holdings Inc., owned by Doncasters, which now must divest its interest to DIC. Ross Catherall supplies turbine engine blades for the U.S. Department of Defense and the military’s tanks. In Connecticut, New England Airfoil Products and Doncasters Precision Castings, manufacture precision alloy parts for both aircraft and tank engine parts.
But the national security implications of a foreign entity operating key factories that are Department of Defense suppliers might well have demanded the same call for scrutiny from the Congress as the P&O deal. According to Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY), who launched the immediate outcry for the lack of disclosure from both the Bush administration and CFIUS on the ports deal, stated on April 28th that “There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way, and second, this is a product not a service and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable.”
Schumer’s statement, however, is so transparent that it is now clear to those who were skeptical about the theatrics on Capitol Hill over the ports deal, were more right than they were wrong. For example, the only difference between the CFIUS investigation over the ports and Doncasters deals is that the port deal went through a 30-day investigation, rather than both a 30-day and 45-day review as in the Doncasters deal. The contents of the CFIUS review for the ports deal was revealed but to a handful of Congressional leaders and only subsequent to its recommendation to approve it, due to the outcry to the White House, which was so politically overwhelming.
To date, we do know that the President did distribute some of the classified information on the Doncasters deal to House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and other undisclosed lawmakers on April 28th. Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King (R-NY), also joining Schumer in his relentless criticism over the ports deal, has been brief in his latest statements regarding the Doncasters deal. “This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before.” But the CFIUS review, presided over by the Secretary of the Treasury, remains a secret process by law, accounting to no party or entity, during its review process. And CFIUS need only enjoin appointed underling representatives of 12 government agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
Representative John Barrow (D-GA) who represents the Congressional district, in which Ross Catherall is located, has a different point of view than his colleagues in New York, however. “We’ll never know if continuing down this path of selling of our national defense industries will end up hurting us in the long run. We all have to draw the line when it comes to selling our national defense establishment. We don’t want to outsource our military industrial complex one piece at a time.”
Barrow was not satisfied with denial of access as to the status of the CFIUS review or any details forthcoming since the deal has been approved by the President and remains unconvinced that American companies could not make the tank components necessary for the tank engines. He recently visited the Doncasters’ facility in Rincon, Georgia, joined by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. “Doncasters was more forthcoming than our government,” Barrow commented, with respect to the proposed deal.
Barrow and various other members of the Congress have proposed numerous pieces of legislation, since the ports deal, to provide more transparency between CFIUS and the Congress. This, they believe, would enable more Congressional input as well as oversight on key transactions involving U.S. national security assets and interests. But when and if such legislation will ever be realized remains in question. And the Congress as a governing body does not have a good track record for oversight generally of any legislation it passes, nor does the Congress project commitment in doing so.
The Bush Administration did add some conditions to the agreement with DIC, however. One included that there would be assurances made that there would be no interruption of the supply stream of product, necessary for military operations, especially in a time of war. In addition, all manufacturing is to remain in the U.S. The need for those two agreement amendments alone implies the dangerous precedent being set with foreign entities having control of strategic U.S. assets. The absence of such language in the agreement would have left the flow of supply and the source of manufacture up to Dubai. Yet, the mechanisms in place in the agreement to police such requirements have not been publicly disclosed nor does the public know if the Congress will eventually get access to the agreement’s requirements.
Many U.S. economists project that as long as the U.S. is saddled with an over $800 billion trade deficit as well as being dependent on foreign oil from the Middle East, that more and more U.S. assets, whether strategic or otherwise remain at risk of being sold. While at the moment we do not have any alternatives for direct sources of petroleum, we do have control over which U.S. assets are sold off, keeping in mind the best interests of the American people and the U.S. economy.
But sadly, it appears that the ruckus from Congress over the ports deal not only inflamed the emotions of the American people, with respect to national security being put at risk, but was but a pretense in the name of political expedience. And such equivocation and lack of fortitude from U.S. lawmakers will continue to remain the biggest liability to U.S. national security and for the foreseeable future.
I want my campaign contribution money back!
"Watch my lips! No new oval office manufactured crises.
Oval office? Congress gets yet another pass.
More hysteria and stupidity from the knee jerk bigot squad.
Fools or Frauds?
Anyone who spends all their time on Freeper as a supposed "Conservative" whining because the Conservatives Republican glass is only 60% full and actively working to turn over that glass so they can fill it 100% to the brim with Left wing political poison is either a political fool, who is too dumb to realize what they are doing, or a political fraud who is only pretending to be "Conservative". So which is it, fools or frauds?
In 1776, I'm thinking folks like George B and most in Congress would have been hung, or shot...
Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, a country that continues to pay money to the families of homicide bombers and to the Hamas terrorist group. It appears to have been protecting Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s for some period of time. America was unable to bomb Osama's hideout because he was meeting with officials of the government of the UAE. That makes it an active supporter of terrorism. It is a threat to national security. Yet President Bush seems eager to bring UAE-based businesses into as many sectors of the economy related to national security as possible. Why?
The President argues that the deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS.) But as we learned during the Portgate deal, CFIUS has only disapproved one deal (by a Chinese company) since it was formed in 1988. The recommendation of CFIUS is essentially meaningless.
Where is the outrage? Where is the coalition that stopped the Portgate deal? Why isn't Congress on this issue, fighting to stop the terrorist government of the UAE from controlling a company that makes such vital military materials for our country? Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a leading opponent of the Portgate deal, has been quoted as saying, "This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before." How is that, Representative King? Dubai is still an active supporter of terrorism. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, "There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way; and second, this is a product not a service, and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable." Of course, he forgets the possibility of sabotaging the product, making it defective, or otherwise undermining the quality so that it will be damaging to our troops in the War on Terror.
Allowing Dubai to manufacture arms for us is at least as dangerous as allowing it to run our ports. Unfortunately, it seems as if the political leaders who helped stop the Portgate deal were just posturing.
Where Is the Outrage at Bush's Dubai Arms Deal?
President Bush approved a deal to allow a company from Dubai, the country that was forced to withdraw from the Portgate deal, to take over American plants that make parts for jets and tanks for the United States.
Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, a country that continues to pay money to the families of homicide bombers and to the Hamas terrorist group. It appears to have been protecting Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s for some period of time. America was unable to bomb Osama's hideout because he was meeting with officials of the government of the UAE. That makes it an active supporter of terrorism. It is a threat to national security. Yet President Bush seems eager to bring UAE-based businesses into as many sectors of the economy related to national security as possible. Why?
The President argues that the deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS.) But as we learned during the Portgate deal, CFIUS has only disapproved one deal (by a Chinese company) since it was formed in 1988. The recommendation of CFIUS is essentially meaningless.
Where is the outrage? Where is the coalition that stopped the Portgate deal? Why isn't Congress on this issue, fighting to stop the terrorist government of the UAE from controlling a company that makes such vital military materials for our country? Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a leading opponent of the Portgate deal, has been quoted as saying, "This investigation was a significant improvement over what happened before." How is that, Representative King? Dubai is still an active supporter of terrorism. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, "There are two differences between this deal and the Dubai ports deal. First, this went through the process in a careful, thoughtful way; and second, this is a product not a service, and the opportunity to infiltrate and sabotage is both more difficult and more detectable." Of course, he forgets the possibility of sabotaging the product, making it defective, or otherwise undermining the quality so that it will be damaging to our troops in the War on Terror.
Allowing Dubai to manufacture arms for us is at least as dangerous as allowing it to run our ports. Unfortunately, it seems as if the political leaders who helped stop the Portgate deal were just posturing.
I believe there are more "moderates" (those who stand for nothing but straddle the center line) than conservatives in the Republican Party. Therefore, I think the glass is about 35% full. Sixty-five percent is quite a leap.
As far as spreading venomous poison and being a political fool, I believe there are enough doing that in our elite Political Class as it is.
Do you really want muslims to be in charge of ANY security in the United States?
Do you truly want 12 million illegal, gullible illiterates (numbers being steadily increased as we discourse)clogging our arteries?
Should we just sit back and allow things to "take their course" until we are suffocated?
It is not I, sir or madam, that pretends to be conservative.
Indeed.
Some like johnny (above) want us to assume a fetal position and take it like a true "conservative." Otherwise, according to him, we are whining fools who poison the water trough of the GOP.
Name calling begins in the 3rd post.
Curious how the flame bots that go nuclear anytime the words Islam or Muslim come up fail completely to recognized the fact that that vast bulk of the people doing the fighting and dying for US in the War on Terror are Arab Muslims.
Amazing how rabidly arrogant the American Know Nothings, who never even been outside their own trailer park much less the country, are about the rest of the world. They are proof positive that ignorance is NOT bliss.
I agree, what is going on? Why is it OK for foriegn goverments to buy private Enterprises here in the USA. It is out ragious that we are selling private companies to foriegn government. What's next, are we going to sell Boeing to AirBus.
Deep down you probably know that but because it appears that you have an axe to grind you will continue to grind away.
I see nothing patriotic or intelligent in your insults and rantings and I do indeed have an irrational fear and HATE of muslims and what their garbage religion teaches.
Is not Dubai owned by the UAE, is it not a government owned company?
Run away and hide under your bed Fredie. The rest of us will save you butt despite your paranoia.
Follow the money. The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics.
Very well said!
Taht is not true. It had a lot to do with security. Allowing a nation that is an active supporter of terrorism to control our ports (and thus to control the manifests) would have been extremely dangerous.
Johnnie, you sweet talker! Still the flatterer, but no one will share your tent?
Too baaaaaaad . . . . .
Environmentalist blockades preventing us from drilling for our own resources, banning development of nuclear power. The behind the scenes weakening of our sovereignty, of our constitution in favor of world government run by the unelected elite in the UN.
We are in debt, and because of that assets were sold, and will be resold, and sold again on the open world market. Perhaps if we didn't spend so much of our capitol on foriegn oil, developed our own energy resources instead we would be able to buy some of them back.
I don't think there is much Bush CAN do other than to do what he did, put conditions on this legitimate sale of a company. It's up to our lawmakers to define protections for sensitive operations such as military manufacture and supply, especially guarding secrets of manufacturing we don't want getting out of the country. Why didn't congress do this before? It's good thing Bush saw the need for conditions.
It's wrong to think we make all of our military equipment here in the USA. In fact we import a great deal of it. Aircraft parts are made at several Canadian plants for example. We MUST however ensure that critical components and secrets do not fall into the wrong hands, or can be restricted in any way that could jeopardize our defense and strike capabilities. We do live in a capitalist system, and we must allow legitimate business to be conducted. Just as long as it doesn't effect our military capabilities and secrets, or allow any of it to fall into enemy hands.
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.