Protect our ports: steam builds

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 20, 2006 08:33 PM

***At the suggestion of readers, I am opening up the comments section…have at it!…11:12pmEST comments closed…***

Good: Two GOP governors join rising bipartisan opposition to the White House’s secretive port sellout deal with the United Arab Emirates…

Two Republican governors on Monday questioned a Bush administration decision allowing an Arab-owned company to operate six major U. S. ports, saying they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states.

New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running the U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The British company, Peninsular and Oriental, runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

“Ensuring the security of New York’s port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World,” Pataki said in a news release.

“I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction,” said the New York governor, who is still in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy.

Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he is “very troubled” that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved an Arab company’s takeover of the operations at the six ports. “We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security,” Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.

Ehrlich says Maryland has the discretion to voice the contract. Pataki is asking the federal government to “share all critical relevant information made available to the Council on Foreign Investment during the course of the review of the purchase.” New York could cancel the lease for operation.

A company at the Port of Miami is suing to block the transaction.

Cal Thomas: “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.”

Rep. Peter King: “By having a company right out of the heartland of al-Qaida managing those ports without being properly cleared or investigated, to me is madness.” More:

King also responded to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s defense that the government typically builds in “certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns.” The House Homeland Security Committee chairman said that, despite Chertoff’s explanation on ABC’s “This Week,” he still has strong concerns about the inquiry. “When I talk to the people actually involved in the process, it was very cursory, it was very superficial,” King said.

He said he found out about the purchase, which transfers operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia to the Persian Gulf company, last Tuesday in meetings with senior Bush administration officials. “As I understand it, the whole process took only 20 to 25 days,” he said of the transaction. “There’s no way you can do a complete analysis in 20 to 25 days and that includes financial analysis.”

The Port Security, Maritime Security, and Homeland Security Blog is a good resource for news developments.

***

Frank Gaffney, who has led the whistle-blowing on the UAE deals, calls attention to more worrisome details:

Since a column raising an alarm about CFIUS’ decision appeared in this space last week, three new factors have come to light that compound the strategic folly of the UAE deal:

# First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World — on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?

# Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign “clients,” like the UAE.

# Then, there is the matter of financing the DP World takeover of Peninsula and Oriental. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. It must be asked: Who will the foreign investors be, and might they have malign intentions towards the U.S.? If American sources of capital are being sought, will the possible danger this transaction may create for this country be properly disclosed? For that matter, will the underwriters, Barclays and Deutchebank, reveal to prospective funders the real risk that the deal will ultimately fall through?

Frank concludes:

Call it a Harriet Meirs moment. Politics being the art of the possible, it is time to recognize that the Dubai Ports World deal is neither strategically sensible nor politically doable. It is time to pull the plug, and to reform the secretive interagency CFIUS process that allowed this fiasco in the first place.

***

Previous:

Banned in the UAE

Our ports, our sovereignty
Stop the port sellout

Posted in: Homeland Security

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
  2. Small Town Veteran
  3. Oblogatory Anecdotes
  4. The Bodie Specter
  5. ProCynic
  6. A Blog For All
  7. Sister Toldjah
  8. California Conservative
  9. ReidBlog
  10. Political Animal
  11. Political Animal
  12. Citizen Journal
  13. Right Minded
  14. Decision '08
  15. The Centre of the Universe
  16. HCS's and Gen's Place
  17. UNCoRRELATED
  18. Hoystory
  19. sensitive skin care
  20. best home business opportunity

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #53929
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:43 pm, Dan said:

    Just put union labor in charge at the ports.

    They’re start losing money so fast because of undeserved raises and poor work ethics and in no time the Arabs will have no choice but to sell.

  2. #53930
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:46 pm, Gen.JC Christian, patriot said:

    Mrs. Malkin, wouldn’t it be nice if we could build a concentration camp big enough to hold all of the brown people? Then, we wouldn’t be scared anymore.

  3. #53931
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:48 pm, Jim P said:

    Sorry, but for once in my life I am going to have to disagree with Michelle on this one. From what I can tell, the UAE bought out an English company here. The people who would ultimately be running the ports are going to pretty much be the same people. Also from what I understand, the UAE has some of the most high tech equipment on the planet. Democrats have always complained that republicans need to take a more nuanced stand regarding arab countries, well here is one. The UAE is a big friend of the United States. They bought out the company fair and square. If it wasn’t them running it, it would be the brits. There are plenty of Al Qaeda sympathizers in England as well. I think that denying them what we would have given England is basically hurting relations with one of the few good friends we have in the Arab worls. We would only be doing it because it is a MUSLIM country, nothing else. The US would still be providing the Visa’s and most things wouldn’t change, just the ownership of the company. I think conservatives are in an uproar without looking at the realities.

  4. #53932
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:48 pm, GK said:

    Info here on how to expose anti-Americanism during casual debate :

    http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/02/an_easy_way_to_.html

  5. #53933
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:51 pm, RW-(the original) said:

    Jess-I think you and I are lone voices in this. It sounds bad on the surface, but usually sane conservatives are acting like moonbats with this pack mentality.

    I did a post about it and I welcome anyone to please drop by and give me REAL REASONS why this is wrong. It sounds like it is wrong, but I want to know why.

  6. #53934
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:52 pm, Gen.JC Christian, patriot said:

    Mr. O’Reilly hates the French more than the brown people. I’m not sure if that makes him more or less patriotic than me.

  7. #53935
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:57 pm, Ray said:

    What, have you all caught a case of Bush Derangment Syndrome? Is this michaelmoore.com or michellemalkin.com? Now that the MSM (mainstream MOONBATS haha!) is running stories on this I know it’s just another hatchetjob, oversimplifying a complex issue just to besmirch the people who are trying to protect us! The Bush Team knows what they’re doing! Do you honestly not trust them with safeguarding our OWN ports when they’ve done such an amazing job in protecting us from Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Your questioning of this decision simply provides succor to our enemies! I mean if right wing conservative patriots won’t back the administration, what message does that send to them and our troops?

  8. #53936
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:58 pm, patriotboy said:

    Chertoff says that he can’t get into details because of national security reasons. Hmmm, what could those reasons be?

    Laundering Al Qaeda protection payments though the UAE would qualify as something you’d need to bury in a security classification. Kickbacks would another. Any other guesses?

  9. #53937
    On February 20th, 2006 at 10:59 pm, Pete L. said:

    Letting any foreign controlled company manage our ports is a very bad idea. There are many security issues here, not the least of which is having to discuss security classified stuff with personnel whose background the USA does not know and can’t check.

    UAE has laudered money for the terrorists and weren’t some of the highjackers formerly residents of UAE. We cannot trust them- period.

    The process that is used to review purchases by foreign entities needs revamping, and it needs a process that is help in the sunshine. That would clean it up. I read only one or two out of a couple thousand were ever turned down. Washington will do us in sooner than we think out here is the Red States.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Waking up to deadly diversity

November 24, 2009 12:02 PM by Michelle Malkin

40 Comments | 0 Trackbacks

9/11 families issue call to action

November 23, 2009 10:04 PM by Michelle Malkin

99 Comments | 5 Trackbacks

Never forget. Act now.

Diversity engineers at the Naval Academy

November 11, 2009 06:44 PM by Michelle Malkin

67 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

The 14th murder victim of the Fort Hood jihadi massacre

November 11, 2009 02:14 PM by Michelle Malkin

49 Comments | 4 Trackbacks

P.C. in the U.S.A.: A deadly, bipartisan infection

November 11, 2009 10:26 AM by Michelle Malkin

104 Comments | 7 Trackbacks

The Fort Hood memorial: Livestream

November 10, 2009 01:44 PM by Michelle Malkin

156 Comments | 2 Trackbacks


Categories: Homeland Security



Mudville Gazette

» The five-year plan

Gay Patriot

» The O So Hip Obama
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook