Worries escalate over sale of U.S. port operations to Arab firm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does hubris cause the kind of brain pharts that makes a leader not recognize that secret committee deals threatening national security--while he himself constantly reminds us "we are at war"--are unacceptable? It's either that, an obsession with obfuscation, or money changing hands in back rooms.

Dang, ease up on the big words Longeyes this poor old cowboy had to run
some of that by the dictionary.:D However I think your on to something
here perhaps the folks in power just don't give a ----.
 
A couple thoughts here. If UAE is officially a trusted ally, how do you tell them they can't play?

In checking the Dept of State website, I notice Condi Rice is scheduled to be in UAE this coming week. Interesting timing.
 
I don't like it. Turning over our ports to outsiders it idiocy, let alone those who wouldn't care if America burned from coast to coast.

At least when it was a Brittish company it was a company in a country who is an Ally, truly an ally, not just an ally to look good on paper for politics. How many UAE guys have bled for the US? How many Brits? Vice-versa?

England is and has been our ally, UAE is an ally just to look good. And reguardless who the union or customs is, if you own something you can make cracks in it.
 
I don't know - Chertoff was making the rounds today defending this deal. He said that a bunch of competent public servants reviewed the deal and "provided assurances". It's one of those "trust us, we're the government and know more than you do" deals. Before reading the following article, have an air sickness bag handy.

Homeland Security director says government review provided ‘assurances’

WASHINGTON - 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 have a very disciplined process, it’s a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security,” Chertoff told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press.”

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.

“We don’t take a risk. What we do is we require a very careful review—we have the FBI involved, we have the Department of Defense involved—of what the challenges are. We have, in fact, dealt with this port before because we deal with it overseas as part of our comprehensive global security network,” Chertoff said.

“We’ve built in, and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don’t happen. And, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment.”

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.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said she would support legislation to block foreign companies from buying port facilities.

“I’m going to support legislation to say ‘No more, no way.’ We have to have American companies running our own ports ... Our infrastructure is at risk,” she said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Added Sen. Evan Bayh, 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.
 


"60 Minutes" did an excellent story on this, this evening. And they brought up all the concerns that have been mentioned here, particularly the issue about Dubai having supported terrorist activities. OTOH, they pointed out that this company would run the port, but not be in charge of it's security. That's still a US government function. They also equated this with our handover of the Panama Canal.

Bob
 
As you've read, I don't hold with foreign control of strategic assets, but these senators who are pursuing bills to deny any foreign company control of our ports are reacting too quickly - I hope it's real recognition of a poor decision and not politically motivated for headlines. Stopping the sale or at least slowing it is the first order, the second is, IMO, is a serious senate/house review of the whole process... including why everything (it seems) is classified. (This is one area where I agree with the standard delay of oversight.)

Global economy pressures entering the mix could have a significant effect on the language of any bill. What American company - if any - would participate is another detail. And, for drill - is the 6.8 billion going to P&O shareholders or to whom? Is the 25% max foreign ownership of U.S. companies locked in cement or "negotiable"?

Too many questions and I'm not into it enough to know them all, so I must leave it to others. I just hope the action taken is positive for the U.S. and not part of its demise.

-AndyB
 
RealGun said:
A couple thoughts here. If UAE is officially a trusted ally, how do you tell them they can't play?

In checking the Dept of State website, I notice Condi Rice is scheduled to be in UAE this coming week. Interesting timing.

More interesting timing. The President's speech topic today is energy. I don't believe insulting UAE would be good energy policy right now, especially with petroleum production, storage, and processing facilities wrecked by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

What I am concluding is that there is team coordination, both now and in the past. Not a bad thing necessarily, not really a conspiracy,...just interesting.
 
I don't believe insulting UAE would be good energy policy right now, especially with petroleum production, storage, and processing facilities wrecked by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

Yeah, sure, I get it, hand 'em the keys to the country so we can grub for oil. Love it.

If the main thing the U.S. has to offer the world, besides the Big Stick, is a consumer economy of three hundred million ravenous beaks, we'd better get real and start charging for that to rebuild this nation's core strengths. If we don't we're going to be cutting one humiliating deal after another.
 
What I am concluding is that there is team coordination, both now and in the past. Not a bad thing necessarily, not really a conspiracy,...just interesting.

No, not really a conspiracy, just thirty years of benign neglect in terms of realistic energy policy?

Is "team coordination" the new term for the globalist agenda of the New World Order?
 
Last edited:
Have you ever wondered what it would be like if Congress was completely composed of THR/TFL folks? :D :D

-AndyB
 
Ironbarr said:
Have you ever wondered what it would be like if Congress was completely composed of THR/TFL folks? :D :D

-AndyB
You bet! "I promise you pot in every chicken and a Thompson in every household!"
Biker
 
longeyes said:
No, not really a conspiracy, just thirty years of benign neglect in terms of realistic enery policy?

Is "team coordination" the new term for the globalist agenda of the New World Order?

You really need a break.
 
Bush is the one who needs a "break," my friend.

And Americans need a break from his destructive policies.

It's nice to know he's just discovering that this nation is addicted to oil. Do say. Maybe he'll discover that Some of Us are addicted to illegal immigration next month?

Bush is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum refried with too much lard.
 
longeyes said:
Bush is the one who needs a "break," my friend.

And Americans need a break from his destructive policies.

It's nice to know he's just discovering that this nation is addicted to oil. Do say. Maybe he'll discover that Some of Us are addicted to illegal immigration next month?

Bush is an enigma wrapped in a conundrum refried with too much lard.

But why bring the Syndrome to every thread?
 
Ironbarr...

Not to answer for Longeyes, but Tom Tancredo is, IMO, a much better option.
Biker
 
is their anyone else out there who'd be better? Just a question.
I believe there is, question is could they win, money picks the two
front runners and we elect (we think) the lessor of two evils. Sad way
to run a country.
 
Anyone better?

Here's the problem: the gauntlet we call the nominating process.

America has incredible talent--but it's not being heard. A LOT of people see what's happening to America. Put a thousand of THR's hard-core members together as a new Congress and see if we can come up with some rational policies. I'm betting we could.

I like Tancredo. Tom McClintock, in California, would be great. There are others, though not, from I can see, in the most eligible ranks. We don't have to settle for mediocrity.

Hey, give Steve Jobs six years and see what he comes up with. He's not afraid to try things, we know that. Put Burt Rutan as head of your tech advisory committee. How about Gen. Pace to run Homeland Security?

I see some rising talent in the talk radio ranks. There's hope for a newfangled populist/Libertarian movement emanating from the airwaves, fronted by some very energetic, articulate people who could make waves in politics.

Bush, to me, is a half-gestated version of what many of us were hoping for as a salvific force to stop or at least slow down The Insanity. Maybe he's trying to be the second coming of Bill Clinton to please The Old Man? I don't know. I just know he's digging us in deeper. "Portgate," for me, was it, "The End," a flagrant flight of hubris that even those who didn't get the border problem couldn't ignore any longer.
 
I will await more info. Why? I know nothing about how ports are ran. I do know there are no US Companies that run any of our ports. Why is that? And guess what the only company that maybe could do this would be that evil Hailburton. I mean there are no US Companies that do this type of work. None bid. None do it. I will wait and not go off knee jerk im the way the MSM wants us to do. There are too many unanswere questions. Who wil they hire? Do we know or just imagine it will be ARABS working there. Will they be screened in someway? I do not know the answers and neither is the MSM telling us.
 
As another addendum, this would give Dubai Ports World control over the very ports that pass at least 40% of war materiel shipped on behalf of the Army in support of Iraq operations.

Does this even make STRATEGIC sense, especially if SHTF in Iran? Considering that money for 9/11 DID come out of the UAE as well?

To me, this just doesn't make any sense at all. We might as well give them the keys to the Pentagon.
 
At one time we had strategic programs that kept so much production capability, raw materials and such domestically produced in case of a war. In the case of raw materials, we stockpiled them here in war reserve. As far as I know, we don't do that anymore.

Now we are selling the physical plant that we would need to sustain ourselves in a war for cheap consumer goods. The port deal is just another example of that mentality. Someday soon we will reach the point where our industrial capacity will no longer sustain a force of any useful size in combat. When we depend on overseas production facilities and just in time shipping to sustain our forces we will no longer be able to project power like we do today.

The port deal is another example of the administration talking out both sides of it's mouth. They wonder why support is fading on the home front. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can't say, "Hand over some of your rights and freedoms so that I can keep you safe from the menace of terrorism, and this is a war like none we've ever been in and may last for decades." and then in other areas (like selling control of the ports to people who may be our enemies) showing us that they really aren't serious about the war.

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top