Skip to comments.Brit Hume: Bush Will Reverse Ports Decision
Posted on 02/19/2006 10:30:27 AM PST by LibWhacker
The Bush administration will reverse its decision to allow a Dubai company based in the United Arab Emirates to gain control over several key U.S. ports, the Fox News Channel's Brit Hume predicted on Sunday.
"I don't think the administration will be able to sustain this," Hume told "Fox News Sunday." "I think it will have to reverse itself in some way or create some entity that stands between the company and the management of the ports."
"I just don't think [the decision] can stand," he added. "It doesn't sound good to let some Arab shieks to be in charge of our ports - that's what it comes down to."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed the ports decision, saying, "It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the U.A.E., who avows to destroy Israel."
In a decision announced last week, the Bush administration's Committee on Foreign Investment approved the purchase of six major U.S. ports by the U.A.E.-based Dubai Ports World.
The move set off a firestorm of criticism, with skeptics complaining that banks in the U.A.E. have helped launder money for terrorists and that the country itself was home to Marwan al Shehhi, the Sept. 11 hijacker who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into Tower 2 of the World Trade Center.
On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Dubai deal, telling a Mideast news outlet: "There was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely."
Kerik of New York says its safe. Condi Rice says it's safe. And quite possibly it will be. But appearances mean a lot and frankly it just does not LOOK safe to have UAE controlling an area where we have been told we are weak. A bomb or something transported through a shipping container.Mr President. Somebody else needs this contract, not a UAE company.
I agree with Brit and Lindsey. This port deal must be stopped.
Even so, why take the political hit -- an obvious loser -- and the potential security hit, which could lead to a HUGE political loss?
Does Halliburton lack the expertise to run ports?
How about the Madrid transit authority or the London bus company.........
Anyone bother to notice there are NO actually facts reported about this Company? Notice the whole story is based on guilty by association and rumor? So you have a smear job press release from the Dems vrs what the Security Agencies say "It's ok". Funny how "Conservatives" are falling all over themselves to push Chucky Schumer's Propaganda line.
The Danes are a seafaring people.
Plenty of Peoples Liberation Army front companies have just the experience needed - and the political hit will be a lot smaller. ;)
Maybe you need some new kneepads. Your incessant defense of anything Bush is just sickening.
The Arabs are the on-record owners, but the management for Arab outfits are the Brits. Arabs attend the meetings and sign the paperwork, but the Brits pull the strings. Not Brit politicos - Brit businessmen & managers.
Maybe a contact on the UAE company if it shows terrorist ties..
There you have it. Brit says that it doesn't "sound" good.
And what will you say when the President does reverse this decision?
The pressure is mounting and he will make the right call.
Chucky and Hillary talk and it doesn't "sound" good.
My thoughts exactly! Someone has to run these ports... It would be priceless if they got the contract.
Hope Brit's right. If they reverse this there's hope they will reverse their stance on guest worker amnesty.
BTW good backround on this sellout over here:
The self-aggrandizing and blatant political pandering on this story is unbelievable.
Two questions, folks . . .
1. From a national security standpoint, what exactly does anything could happen in this country with this UAE-owned company operating terminals at a number of ports?
2. What exactly can be accomplished by a terrorist with this UAE-owned company operating a port terminal that cannot be accomplished already today with a Dutch, Danish, British, or American company operating the terminal?
.....Anyone bother to notice there are NO actually facts reported about this Company.....
It has been reported that the company bought by the Dubai company is the parent of Maersk/Sea land. In my view they are about the best in the business. They run the absolute best steamship and logistics operation there is.
People can't distinguish between someone with finiancial control and day to day operations. There won't be a hoard of towelheads running off all the union stevedores who actually run the ports.
The capitalist Arabs may actually less corrupt than the existing union workers.
Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security concerns over a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports.
If it's really about national security then why bother to contract any foreign company.
"... lawmakers, in a letter to Snow, requested that his committee conduct a full 45-day investigation of the transaction, saying it's essential for national security.
"Federal law requires the president or his designee investigate the impact on national security of a foreign acquisition if the acquisition 'could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States,' reads the letter signed by Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., as well as Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., and Mark Foley, R-Fla.
From my count, that is four Republicans and three Democrats that are asking Sec Snow for a full review before proceeding. Not an unreasonable request under the circumstances. And I trust Sen Tom Coburn's judgment on this matter. I don't know if Britt Hume will be proven right or wrong on this one. We shall see.
Really. The only thing worse than having Arabs in charge of our ports would be having Democrats in charge of them.
Well, I for one don't see how a free trading globalist can raise one word of objection to this. Either you believe in free trading globalism or you don't. Which is it folks?
The UAE came up with the bucks. Money talks. It's ruled for the last fifteen years when it comes to globalism and free trade. What's different about this deal?
When Loral Corporation gave MIRV, Gyro and other technologies to the Communist Chinese facilitating them implementing multiple warhead ICBMs with accuracy to fifty feet, all you heard were hoots of laughter when some of us said this is precisely why we shouldn't be dealing with China.
So lets hear it. What's worse than nuclear weapons targeted on our cities? Open ports? Hell, COSCO vists our ports hourly. What's to stop ten of their ships from melting down in our harbors?
Yep, lets hear it globalists. There's really no problem with the UAE running our ports is there?
When I was in 8th grade, over twenty years ago, I had a wise teacher teach my class that "buying American" was not the best way to go. She was brilliant and exposed hardcore unions to us. It was the first time I started thinking about things besides picking zits.
This acquisition of P&O Ports by the UAE company was announced months ago. If these people really gave a sh!t about security concerns related to the deal, they wouldn't have waited until the story made headlines on Fox News and CNN before expressing these "significant concerns."
"The Danes are a seafaring people.
SKOL! You win for best post, my fellow Dane...LOL
Must have been a socialist. Never buy American when a cheap imitation will do. Gotta support those chicoms and other socialist nations that will provide us our cheap goods.
LMAO, you know if this was going on with Clinton in the oval office he would be all over it like stink on Shi'ite!
Or the Chinese.
Hmmmm. But that's the same thing, ain't it?
The only thing worse than having Arabs in charge of our ports would be having Democrats in charge of them.
Nuff said :)
Now THAT would really raise the Moonbats' ire ... the howling at the moon would be deafening!
I'm pretty sure they despise Halliburton more than they hate the UAE ...
The cost of paying these guys not to work was offset -- by a wide margin -- by the dramatic decline in theft from the piers with several thousand fewer workers there.
LOL. But I would be much happier to see them doing it.
It doesn't really matter how "safe" the UAE company running these six ports would be, it is stupid to give the opposition anti-War 'rats ANY issue where they can look stronger on defense and homeland security than the President.
So, I think that the UAE "deal" needs to be rethunk, and it was obviously misunderthunk.
So now here come Chucky Schumer and his Insane Democrat Senate Clown posse to the "Rescue". There NEXT spin lie will be "Gee there is just too much risk of these operations being in private hands, we better place the Feds in charge like we did with the Airline Screeners.
What a sweet game for the Democrat Senate Election team headed by Chucky. Grandstand like they are tough on security and get the "Conservatives" to fight the PR battle for them. The for the Coup get the Conservatives to set up PR so the Dems have an excuse to move MORE private business into the Publics Sector. End result? The Govt Unions getting thousands of new workers added to the Union rolls that the Dems can then squeeze for Campaign "Contributions" Yeah, that is really the sort of result "Conservatives" should be pushing for!
I've observed Brit long enough to know his sources are very close to the White House, very close.
Therefor on that alone, I'd bet Brit is right.
While we're at it, let's give the Panama Canal over to the Communist Chinese along with the Long Beach, CA Ports. /sarc
Yours is the best post on this topic yet. If President Bush caves it will show he is a hypocrite of the first order, indistinguishable from Hillary! and Schumer.
Hum just more of the Bush doctrine, like having Mexico in charge of our borders...
What I've noticed is that among people on this forum who actually know how U.S. ports work there are very few reservations. And the level of "grave reservations" among people in and out of government is inversely proportional to their actual knowledge of these port operations.
The fact that it took almost an entire week for our representatives in government to even get the facts straight on this one tells me all I need to know about how things get so f#%&ed up so easily in this country.
I've noticed that once Bush comes up with a plan, the I.Q. of his most ardent supporters goes down in direct proportion to the absurdity of the deal. Thanks for playing. Please don't forget to pick up your consolation prize on the way out.
You know this is going to come as a shock to you but there are times when you have to get past party politics, it's not always us versus them, especially when it comes to national security. Rarely do I agree with democrats and even though they're probably using this for political purposes their message is still correct, the deal needs to be stopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.