[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ping

[chasio649]

He's a traitor...put him on the list!!!!


/sarcasm

[CWOJackson]

"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."

Charles, I usually enjoy your writing but are you aware that the Saudi's already operate a commercial port facility in this country?

[cabojoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584576/posts

[Echo Talon]

I guess he didn't know about this Here

[gotribe]

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;

They'll be about as effective as UN inspectors in Iraq.

[Echo Talon]

"UAE-based firms have operated in Houston long time" thats the new headlines hows does this square with his thinking?

[Joe Boucher]

Sometimes I think our president isn't too savey. Then he goes out and wins.

[G.Mason]

"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."

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.

[CowboyJay]

Check this out:

Link Description

Apparently UAE, along with Somalia is one of the 2 biggest hotbeds for Al Qaeda. UAE has also been squabbling for some time with Iran.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html "because the treaties have not been made public, the exact alignment of the boundary with Saudi Arabia is still unknown; boundary agreement was signed and ratified with Oman in 2003 for entire border, including Oman's Musandam Peninsula and Al Madhah enclaves, but contents of the agreement and maps showing the alignment have not been published; UAE engage in direct talks and solicit Arab League support to resolve disputes over Iran's occupation of Lesser and Greater Tunb Islands and Abu Musa Island"

I think the argument that they might close the base if we don't let the deal go through is a little weak. We're the only thing keeping them from getting chewed-on by the big dogs.

[PeteB570]

Ahh, what about Texas? Arab companies have been involved with operating docks since the early 90s.

[Peach]

I wonder if Charles feels the same way about Saudi Arabia running some of our ports, which they already do.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584235/posts

[Delta 21]

[zook]

"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. "

This is one of the sillier arguments I've seen and I'm surprised to see it come from Krauthammer. Seeing as Dubai Ports World runs ports all around the world, including in Australia, it is highly likely that they are already familiar with security provisions. What they don't know about US security provisions, certainly they could figure out without actually managing them. And it's doubtful that US security provisions differ very much from those in Australia or other countries.

What this boils down to is that a lot of the critics, sadly including Krauthammer, find it necessary to now rationalize their initial Arabaphobic kneejerk reaction with "clever" little arguments like this.

[ohioWfan]

Charles is right most of the time, but not always.

If this were putting our security at risk it would not be happening.

I'll go with the authority of the U.S. military. I figure the Navy and Coast Guard and Tommy Franks know more about what's going on than an opinionator like Charles, no matter how smart he may be.

There is no additional danger to our country because of this deal. The President has been completely consistent on this from Day One.

[txrangerette]

I have heard CK expound his views on Brit's panel.

He was against the transaction being approved in the first place. He cited security concerns that DPW would learn our security measures that they otherwise would not know if not in this position. He then went on to say that to scuttle it now would do terrible damage to our alliances in the WOT and given that, the transaction and approval should stand.

I respect CK immensely, but I have not thought this was his finest hour. (My excuse for him is that the ENTIRE SITUATION is somewhat of a mess and I would dislike being in his pundit shoes right now.)