Posted on 02/19/2006 8:44:08 AM PST by radar101
Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff on Sunday defended the government's security review of an Arab company given permission to take over operations at six major U.S. ports.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."
London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
U.S. lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale, approved by the Bush administration, as a possible risk to national security.
"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. said on "Fox News Sunday."
"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.
Added Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), D-Ind.: "I think we've got to look into this company. We've got to ensure ... the American people that their national security interests are going to be protected."
At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.
"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."
"We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added.
Sen. Robert Menendez, who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."
In a statement, the New Jersey Democrat said, "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history. We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."
Chertoff said Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE.
Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
DP World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.
Frankly, I don't believe that "getting killed on this issue" is a good reason not to adopt some policy. By that reasoning we ought to pull out of Iraq right now, cuz we're sure getting killed on that issue.
I don't think President Bush should cater to people's ignorance and bigotry when determining what policy to follow. But as I said before, if someone can suggest a serious reason why the company in question shouldn't get the contract, then I'd love to read it. "What was Bush thinking?" doesn't cut it.
no, there are plenty of reasonable, positive voices out there regarding iraq. there is so such positive message available on why this UAE port deal should go through. none.
President Bush and his advisors. I count them. And sans any solid argument, I discount the views of those who have to run for re-election every two or six years and see this as a way of making political hay. And other than saying it's bad politics, you still haven't provided a good argument against the deal. If the UAE company doesn't get the deal, it'll most likely be a firm from Hong Kong or Singapore. I can't see how either is necessarily better than UAE.
the security concerns are the basis for the opposition. you refuse to believe those are even possible, so what's to talk about.
That's simply too vague. There are security issues with any company and there's no reason to believe that they're more acute with a UAE company--unless one simply doesn't trust Arab people. Numerous posters have suggested logical reasons why we are not at increased risk if we go with a UAE company.
So, given quite a few chances, you've failed to offer anything concrete. Maybe someone will think of something tomorrow, but for now I trust that the President and his people have explored this thing pretty thoroughly, just as carefully as they explored the need to move on Iraq.
The fact is that this port deal is a big political loser for the Republicans. I think that most of the country, the vast majority, the sheeple are opposed to this. It doesn't make any difference if the Arab company is thoroughly vetted. KILL THE DEAL, it will only hurt Republicans if we let it go through.
Chertoff is playing his end-game.
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.