After a few days of fact finding and debate, do you now support or oppose the Dubai Ports deal?

If their help is in any way contingent on them managing our ports...then that should raise some red flags right there.

Are you familiar with quid pro quo - that is, An equal exchange or substitution? That's what at play here, like it or not. This is a reward to UAE for their helping us fight the war on terrorism. We cannot do it without help from countries in the Middle East. /p>

Support. I trust the President and I trust Rush.

I support it after much research, and General Pace, General Franks, and Colonel North coming out in favor of the deal.

LLS

Support

JIm, I'm still undecided and leaning toward opposition. I still would prefer to know the details of their responsibilities, and about those people in the company. Frankly, I find it difficult to not be suspicious of the Middle-East... all you need is 1 guy in the right place to coordinate a disaster....

After a few days of fact finding and debate I'm more opposed to the Dubai Ports deal than ever.

I don't believe the arguments being made for it.

The more I find out about it, the worse it seems to be.

I would hate to be on the side trying to sell this.

They will only look foolish later on.

"Our people are the employees, not foreign workers."

Only partly true.

You can bet that the ones making the decisions on hiring are probably not going to be Americans. A person of there nationality is going win out over an American in many cases. You will see the percentage of middle easterners who work at the ports increase. And we would never know which of them might be Terrorist operatives. Reporting a suspicious person or activity will become much more difficult due to upper management changes. Of course the UAE is going to say they will keep every thing the same. They are not stupid. PR is PR. I would like to see there legal obligation to actually do so. Because otherwise it is just a made in the pie fantasy.

I support the deal at this point but think it should have been nixed quietly some time ago. It's a political loser no matter what happens for President Bush and thus a negative in the WOT.

I support the deal because nixing it at this point sends out a big message "Arabs Need Not Apply" no matter whether they are allied with us or not. I wish that it were not so but it is so. Bush is trying to wrestle the Middle East into the 21 century on the theory that it makes for a safer America in the long run. I agree with that.

I also support the deal because the Dubai port in UAE is critical to the WOT. I must also assume that President Bush has assurances from same in case we are forced to deal with Iran.

The Bush White House is on a terrible run and they better get their act together. There are only two reasons for this political explosion, the first is that they knew it was coming but our alliance with UAE is so critical to the WOT and accomplishing the mission in the Middle East that they had to just suck it up and take the hit. The problem with that is that the hit may be so bad that democrats win back Congress and the WOT is lost by Congressional fiat.

The second reason is that the Bush White House has simply become incredibly inept.

A small silver lining is that we have the dems on record in favor of profiling but at what cost?

Another is that the ports will now get heightened scrutiny no matter who runs them but if the dems win Congress look for the nationalization of those ports and look for it with popular support.

I'm giving myself a headache, I'll have to quit.

Support!

This is all just needless hysteria. Foreign policy via poll!

I opposed it at first and I am now undecided. Mainly I hate that it has given the liberals something with which to bash Bush.

Tentative support. I believe there is strategic implications in a relationship with Dubai.

Support.

Undecided. Haven't processed all the info yet.

I would love to never have to rely on an Arab country for anything. And then again, I would also like to get a Porsche for Christmas. It just ain't realistic to think we can achieve our objectives without dealing with parties that may be suspect. We don't live in that perfect world.

Nope

Oppose

Republicans are losing the perception among the American people as the party to trust with national security. And the Dems will make them pay if the GOP can't turn that around.

Support.
Lots of reasons. No energy to debate. See ya.

The company will not handle port security.

I was cautiously coming around until I listened to this fellow on KFI640 yesterday evening. Here's his letter to Congress...

No Foreign control of U.S. Seaports

STATEMENT OF THE U.S. SEAPORTS COMMISSION
Opposed to Foreign Control of U.S. Ports of Entry
By Jon Moseley, Executive Director, for release on Monday, 2/27/06

Foreign governments must not be allowed to have any form of control of ports of entry into the United States. The U.S. Seaports Commission urges Congress to over-turn the internationalist decision of a secretive, little-known government panel allowing the takeover of six major seaports by a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. For exactly the same reasons, we urge eviction of communist China’s Chinese Overseas Shipping Company from Pier J at Long Beach, California. Realistically, Congress should phase out all foreign ownership of ports over a five year period.

The assertion by the proponents of the proposed contract that the U.S. government will handle security at these seaports, is false. The U.S. Coast Guard and Homeland Security have regulatory authority. Companies and ship lines submit security plans for approval, with occasional inspections. But the actual implementation of security procedures is carried out by the companies themselves, through self-reporting and voluntary compliance. Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Carter reluctantly admitted this to The Washington Times. Ships selected for inspection as high risk sometimes sit overnight waiting for inspectors. So high risk cargo would sit in the custody of the foreign terminal operator at night, with no one else monitoring the ship. And foreign executives will have the authority to wander at will through major U.S. seaports.

Dubai Ports World would have direct day-to-day management control over harbors less than a mile away from the wreckage of the World Trade Center in New York City and in busy Baltimore harbor -- only a 90 minute rented-truck drive from the nation's capital, Washington, D.C.. As with China’s COSCO operating Pier J at Long Beach in Los Angeles harbor, employees of Dubai Ports World physically inside the United Arab Emirates will have access to all of the United States’ state-of-the art security procedures for our seaports, as well as all information about on-going shipments.

The Middle Eastern government-owned company would know virtually everything important that there is to know about security systems and procedures we use to protect and safeguard U.S. seaports. Even if the company itself is completely honest and sincere, Islamic terrorists could steal U.S. security plans from out of the company’s headquarters in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, coerce or torture information out of Dubai executives inside the UAE, or have low-level employees photocopy them in Dubai offices. Islamic terrorists would know exactly how to defeat security at all American seaports.

We sharply dispute that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviewed this transaction for dangers to national security. Senate testimony revealed that only one CFIUS meeting on this was ever held. In government, 30 days is barely enough time to write a final report, when coordinating 12 different agencies. After 5 years as a federal bureaucrat, it is apparent that no actual investigation took place within the 30 day deadline mandated by statute. CFIUS did not invoke the second, 45 day review period, yet is thoroughly scrutinizing an Israeli company CheckPoint seeking to buy a small Maryland software firm. A $6.8 billion transaction involving the major ports of entry into the U.S. was not taken seriously by the government of the United States.

Did we forget the hundreds of billions of dollars that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy? One terrorist act involving U.S. seaports could easily cost the American economy a trillion dollars. As a foundation of economics, private parties must not shift their costs to the taxpayer. Seaport security must be paid for by the companies that profit from international trade at the expense of domestic manufacturers.

This is not anti-Middle Eastern. The country is shocked to learn that any foreign companies control U.S. ports of entry after 9/11. The U.S. Seaports Commission has been warning for years about Pier J in Long Beach, California controlled by COSCO, an arm of the Chinese military. Foreign governments don’t have to actually control U.S. ports of entry to sell us their products or have “respect” from us.

We are told that Americans are doing most of the work at the seaports. Super. Why not let Americans do all the work, and keep the profits here at home? If Americans are actually running our seaports now, and have the real-world experience, why would they need a foreign company supervising Americans? Is the national security of the United States now for sale to the country with the winning bid?

American firms are fully qualified to run these ports, even with higher labor costs. And these seaports of entry are vital to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. A “port of entry” historically and legally (and even under the privatization concepts like OMB Circular A-76) is an inherently governmental function, reserved to the U.S. government. Yet these are arms of foreign governments now controlling or proposed to control U.S. points of entry.

The China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) and Dubai Ports World (DPW) are both companies controlled by and functioning as, arms of the governments of Communist China and the United Arab Emerites. A significant number of the over one million Americans who work at U.S. seaports, will be answering to their bosses whose strings are pulled in Beijing and Dubai.

In Panama, the entrance/exit ports are also controlled Communist China. Li KaShing, the principal stockholder of the supposedly “private” company that controls the seaports at both ends of the Panama Canal – Hutchison-Whampoa –– is acknowledged in U.S government files as being an agent of Communist China. Those seaports transship containers bound for the United States, and some 17 percent of all containers coming into U.S. seaports either come through the Panama Canal or are transshipped through the seaports of the Panama Canal – through a Communist China dominated firm.

America’s policy encourages privatization, yet these are all government-controlled firms. Government control is not pro-business, contrary to the arguments in favor of the current policy. It is ludicrous to argue that the only way to get a better price for the management of our nation’s seaports is to have foreign governments take them over.

Astonishingly, China’s COSCO controls an expanded Pier J at Long Beach in Los Angeles Harbor, even after Chinese Gen. Xiong Guang Kai threatened to ‘rain nuclear bombs on Los Angeles.’ Should Los Angeles feel secure? COSCO is owned 100% by the communist Chinese military, and COSCO ships have been deployed in Chinese military exercises and are designated as zhanjian, or “warship.” Hong Kong’s Ming Pao newspaper reported that China’s Navy is stepping up its refitting of China’s COSCO ships for use in war. Just last summer, yet another Chinese General threatened a nuclear attack against the U.S. Curiously, the General did not lose his job…! Delivery of a nuclear bomb on board a cargo ship would offer no warning and leave no trace of its Chinese origins after the ship was vaporized.

U.S. Customs caught the Chinese Overseas Shipping Company smuggling 2,000 fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles - destined for Los Angeles street gangs – aboard The Empress Phoenix. The guns were manufactured by China’s Poly Technologies, which is owned and managed by the Chinese government. Court documents reveal that Poly Technologies planned to expand their smuggling into the U.S. to Chinese-made hand grenades, mortars, RPG-7 anti-tank rockets and hand-held anti-aircraft missiles capable of knocking commercial airliners out of the sky.

The U.S. Seaports Commission (and its parent organization U.S. Public Policy Council, originally the U.S. Intelligence Council) have warned about Communist China's control of vital U.S. seaports for many years. We have distributed nearly 2 million copies of 2 books, including China Doll: Clinton-Gore and the Selling of the Presidency and Stealth Invasion by Roger Canfield and various special reports. We founded the annual Western Conservative Conference to speak out on this issue, recruiting 35 conservative public policy organizations as co-sponsors. We will continue reminding Washington policymakers that the national security of the United States should not be sold out to campaign contributors or business interests beholden to Beijing, Dubai or any other foreign country. We have documented in meticulous detail how campaign donors influenced U.S. public policy in the past, and we hope that this influence can be overcome now to reverse a policy that is not in the national interest of the United States, and which has our citizens very alarmed.

We call upon both the United States Senate and House of Representatives to conduct extensive hearings on the issue of the management of United States seaports and whether foreign owned, controlled or dominated companies should be allowed to enter into contracts such as that proposed by Dubai Ports World and the contracts held by the China Ocean Shipping Company.

The United States Seaport Commission urges Congress to overturn the proposed contract of Dubai Ports World, and to remove the presence of the China Ocean Shipping Company from Pier J in Long Beach, California.

(--30--)

Please visit our website at: www.USSeaportCommission.org.
The U.S. Seaports Commission is a project of U.S. Public Policy Council, originally the U.S. Intelligence Council

United States Seaport Commission

Originally the U.S. Intelligence Council & now a project of the U.S. Public Policy Council
13295 Blueberry Lane #102C l Fairfax, VA 22033 l (703) 378-7944 l Fax (703) (703) 378-7948
www.usseaportcommission.org l info@usseaportcommission.org
Office of the Executive Director l Jon Moseley

Contact Jonathan Moseley: 800/222-5016