just how much exactly are we supposed to ignore...turn a blind eye?
Posted on 02/16/2006 1:40:18 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.
DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals.
"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.
In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.
"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.
U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.
"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.
In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."
The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
That's sicko.
Right. So what facts that I have presented do you take issue with, and what facts are you presenting in rebuttal? Maybe your unsourced comment that "I've learned on another thread that the company will not be operating the ports?" Or maybe your rather strange reassurance that "the Feds are still overseeing security."
I confess, I'm rather outraged by this policy decision. But I'm also rather perplexed by the apologetics being offered in defense of it.
Since you and Dane seem to be of the view that this particular $6.8 billion buy out of P&O involves a couple of rowboats
just how much exactly are we supposed to ignore...turn a blind eye?
It is just the 1st step in Chucky Schumer and his Democrat Senate insane clown posse pushing for "Let's put the Govt in charge of the ports". It has the added benefit of allowing Chucky to posture as being "tough on security issues" while actually doing NOTHING serious. The Dems want this so they can swell union membership and there DNC campaign contributions like they did after 9-11 with the Air Line Baggage Screeners. IT is PURE total BS.
You need to read this again!! I'm typing this real slow for you, so please try to understand what I'm telling you. The "R" beside Rep. Vito Fossella's name means he is a Republican, NOT a Democrat. He has NOTHING to do with Schumer. They just live in the same state. He, unlike you, isn't fooled by the smoke screen coming from the Bush administration. He, unlike you and Bush, isn't trying to win the hearts and minds of terrorists, Muslims, Islamists. He, unlike you, and Bush, doesn't feel the love.
Vito sees the danger of a nuclear weapon being brought into the NY harbor on one of their ships and detonated in NY's harbor. Of course you live in MN, so that doesn't concern you, because there is no physical danger to you or your loved ones. You obviously don't care about Americans and their loved ones who live in NY or the other port cities that the Islamists will control. That's a selfish, narrow minded way to think, but so typical of you liberal Bush bots. I would be willing to give you a clue, since you obviously don't have one!!
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.
"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
NOW IT IS STARTING TO MAKE SENSE, AND IT REALLY MAKES ME SICK!
January 13, 2003, John Snow, CEO of CSX leaves and Bush nominates John Snow to be Secretary of the treasury
December 9, 2004, CSX World Terminals is purchased by DPW
January 24, 2006, David Sanborn leaves DPW and joins Whitehouse as new administrator of the Maritime Administration in the Transportation Department
Present, the fight whether to allow DPW into 6 US Ports
stop driving and become energy independent. or vote in people who will fight to subjugate that part of the world along with Venezuela. Because we need these people more than they need us. Sad to say but if you want them to keep taking our dollars for commodity, you are going to have to play nice on the trade front.
Shays and Foley voted against off shore drilling and ANWR. I'm not about to trust them on issues of national security. Know nothing of Vito. Tom's a good guy. Don't know why he's concerned.
There is circumstantial evidence of a quid pro quo in connection with the DPW deal to manage the ports. However, collusion between politicians and businessmen has gone on for a very long time, as far back as the days of Ulysses Grant. All the "reforms" passed to prevent the abuses, such as the recent McCain Feingold "campaign finance reform", is ineffectual in stopping the collusion.
You are right, it has gone on a long time
cha ching
NO, he is not.
Somewhat coincidental:
1994-1996 John Snow was chairman of business roundtable, a policity group of 250 exec's and played a major role in supporting passage of the NAFTA
1994-1996 - UAE has acceded to the WTO on 1/1/95
UAE becomes a member of WTO on 4/10/96
1/13/03 John Snow becomes Secretary of the Treasury
11/15/04 UAE signs free trade agreement
Honestly, I'm not saying anything, really.
Just giving out some facts. do with it what you'd like, it probably means nothing. More likely just a waste of my day coming across this info.
"NO, he is not"
thats why i asked the question :)
So you are saying that Tony is offering a lame-brained excuse? Okay. Are you able to present enough facts to support your contention that this is "an appalling" and "inexcusable" "lapse of judgement?" If so, present it on this thread. Otherwise, flamethrowing is so over.
So are you saying that Snow is part of some sort of secret cabal responsible for what? NAFTA? UAE in American ports? What is your point?
So, it is not enough to simply disagree with the President on a policy issue. You suggest that he must be "corrupt and useless."
The question of whether it is sufficient to inpect 80% of all incoming cargo is separate from the question of whether it is appropriate to have this company oversea these ports. Inspections are done by federal agencies, not the ports.
If only 80% of cargo is currently being inspected, there is nothing to prevent infiltration at port facilites now.
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.