Can You Believe This

[joycenalex]

He said he was a united, not a divider, this proves it! He's finally managed to unite everyone in the house and senate !

*SNORT*

[lizbud]

By Cal Thomas

Feb 20, 2006


On Sunday, the Australian government issued the following alert to its citizens: "We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets."

The United States has approved a business deal that would turn over the operation of six major American ports to a company that is owned by the UAE, the very country Australians are to be wary of visiting. The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isn't it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Security experts have repeatedly said American ports are poorly protected. Each year, approximately 9 million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Repeated calls to improve port security have mostly gone unheeded.

In supporting the sale decision by a little-known interagency panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Bush administration dismissed security risk concerns. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said the sale of the ports for $6.8 billion to Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by CFIUS, which, he said, considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry. Apparently money talked more than common sense.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, congressional Republicans and Democrats are forging an alliance to reverse the decision. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has announced plans for her Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs to hold hearings. Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. - both members of Collins' committee - have raised concerns. New York's Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have also objected to the sale. Clinton and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expect to offer a bill to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

In the House, Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn.; Mark Foley, R-Fla.; and Vito Fossella, R.-N.Y., are among those who want to know more about the sale. In a House speech, Foley said, "The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real."

The UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. A New York Times editorial said the sale takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level."

Members of Congress may wish to consider that the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government before the U.S. invasion toppled it.

The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission to a Chinese company to purchase the U.S. oil services company UNOCAL. Six years ago, when a Chinese company took control of the Panama Canal from the United States, retired U.S. Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Congress must stop this sale of American ports to foreign interests and, in an era of terrorism, prevent any more potential terrorist targets from falling into the hands of those who wish to destroy us.


Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.



This paragraph was especially wierd.

" The Department of Homeland Security says it is legally impossible under CFIUS rules to reconsider approval of the sale without evidence the Dubai company gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. Congress should change that law"

[Lady's Human]

One of the problems with US Federal Law is that there are thousands of pages of documentation to wade through to find information about anything. For instance, the CFR (combined federal regulations) covering workplace safety is 4000 pages. We desperately need to simplify this. Many laws currently on the books are outdated, and need to be changed, but Congress (House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike) spends too much time on peripheral items and not enough time on doing their jobs. As an example, one of the reasons Congress has not delcared war since WW2 is that there are thousands of regulations that would instantly kick in, covering everything from wages to price controls, that have not been revised since they were enacted following WW2.

In short, Congress needs to get off of their butts and get their hands dirty rather than pandering to constituents.

[lizbud]

LH, Who was talking about Federal Law? All committes, and panels
created serve at the pleasure of the President.

Anothere important difference in this deal is that the British company
that is being bought out by the UAE company. The British company was
a publicly traded company & the Arab company is owned by the state.

[Lady's Human]

Liz,

The reason I mentioned federal law is that the approval panel is set up by public law, and has been reviewing these transactions since 1988. It is under the treasury department, however it is not a creation of an executive order.

Frankly, I wouldn't agree with any overseas entity running US ports, whether it be Great Britain or the UAE. There is just too much vulnerability when security procedures are openly available to a foreign entity, such as what gets searched, why the containers are being searched, etc.. It's an open fact that only around 5% of containers are searched, but we don't need to broacast how that 5% is selected, and port managers would be privy to that information.

[lizbud]

Liz,


Frankly, I wouldn't agree with any overseas entity running US ports, whether it be Great Britain or the UAE. There is just too much vulnerability when security procedures are openly available to a foreign entity, such as what gets searched, why the containers are being searched, etc.. It's an open fact that only around 5% of containers are searched, but we don't need to broacast how that 5% is selected, and port managers would be privy to that information.

I agree. There are some public figures who have tried to raise the subject
of the lax security at American ports, but nobody seems to want to listen.

[lizbud]

A very good article.


Now is not the time to be stubborn

Ruben Navarrette Jr
Washington Post Writers Group
Published February 24, 2006


SAN DIEGO -- The imbroglio over allowing a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates to control six U.S. ports--in Miami, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark and New York--has brought to light one of President Bush's shortcomings.

Although he holds the most important job in the world--the one that brings with it the most accountability--Bush hates having to explain himself to the American people, members of his own political party, Congress, the federal judiciary, you name it.

That's a problem.

To be a good president, you have to know how to take criticism and admit mistakes and not simply hunker down and threaten to crush dissent.

It helps to have what George H.W. Bush dismissively called "the vision thing," but you also need the persuasion thing. You need to know how to win people over to your side and put together a compelling and thoughtful argument that goes beyond: "We're going to do this because I said so."

This isn't Bush's strong suit. As I've written before, steadfastness and conviction are virtues, but being a leader means being able to persuade your constituents. Bush doesn't seem to have the willingness, or even perhaps the skill, to make a persuasive argument and sell his point of view. It's not just that Bush can be stubborn and bullheaded. That's a given. It's that he seems more comfortable dealing in the world of decrees, which he expects to be accepted by everyone without question.

And now that he has been challenged on the port issue, his first instinct is to strap on his six-shooter and basically tell congressional critics in both parties: "Go ahead, make my day." In five years, Bush has never vetoed a piece of legislation. But now he's threatening to break the streak by vetoing any attempt by Congress to blow up the port deal. It's a bad move.

Like just about everyone else in the world of politics, except those strangest of bedfellows Jimmy Carter and John McCain, I think the port deal is a goofy idea.

It's nothing personal. I'd like to think I'm not dabbling in racism or racial profiling, especially since I've spoken out against both a lot since Sept. 11, 2001, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so again. I'd feel differently if this were an Arab-American company--one that had links to the United States--instead of one owned and operated by a foreign government.

This isn't about racism. At most, it's about nationalism. And it's also about common sense.

Despite the Bush administration's assurances that the UAE is a friend and ally, you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of the source. From Harriet Miers to Katrina to illegal wiretaps, the White House has been wrong a lot lately. How can we be sure it's not wrong again this time?

I'm not convinced that the UAE has the cleanest of hands. It was home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and served as a base for them and their fellow mass murderers as they were planning the attacks. Was the UAE government in the dark about that, or did it simply turn a blind eye? Until we know for sure, we should be safe rather than sorry.

The whole idea of putting an Arab-run company in charge of managing our ports makes about as much sense as putting a company owned by the Mexican government in charge of managing our borders. Again, a Mexican-American company, different story. But the Mexican government has its own agenda with regard to illegal immigration: that is, to encourage as much of it as possible and use it as an economic engine. What exactly is the agenda of the UAE?

I'd love to see Congress block the deal. I also wouldn't mind if governors in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and other affected areas made good on threats to pull their ports out of the deal. That should settle everything. No ports, no dice.

With only about 5 percent of the cargo entering this country getting a once over, our ports deserve more attention than they've been given since Sept. 11. Americans love fighting the last battle by beefing up airport security, or indulging their nativist dislike for immigrants by building walls and fences. But they never think much about the ports and the possibility that bad guys with bombs will come not by air or land but by sea.

I guess Bush doesn't think that'll happen. He may even have a persuasive argument to that effect. If so, let's hear it.

----------

Ruben Navarrette is a syndicated columnist based in San Diego. E-mail: [email protected]