Posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
*SNIP*
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
*SNIP*
This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Ping
He's a traitor...put him on the list!!!!
/sarcasm
Charles, I usually enjoy your writing but are you aware that the Saudi's already operate a commercial port facility in this country?
They'll be about as effective as UN inspectors in Iraq.
"UAE-based firms have operated in Houston long time" thats the new headlines hows does this square with his thinking?
Oh, what kneejerk horsecrap. Krauthammer plainly states:
"Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling, too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)"
You patently didn't even bother to read the article, before posting. Try again.
Sometimes I think our president isn't too savey. Then he goes out and wins.
The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one
Don't kook now, but the spinmiesters are stepping back from the abyss.
It is still (President) Bush's fault, but we must make the best of it now.
You stated "I guess he didn't know about this," and then linked to an article entitled "UAE-based firms have operated in Houston long time." As Krauthammer's plainly, lucidly demonstrates: your Pavlovian, drive-by assumption was not only absurd, but demonstrably false.
Again: read, first... then post.
The good news, and where Charles makes a common mistake, is we're not allowing them to run any U.S. ports.
Kuwait also runs terminals in NJ
And the money goes where?
The same place it goes now, to a foreign concern operating the facility, into local taxes and services and to local workers.
And Kuwait being a middle eastern country already running terminals in Newark, NJ is also false huh? Give it up Kent
And it goes into building mosques, madrassas, and into training and armming terrorists. Personally I don't like paying them to kill our soldiers.
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.