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."
ping
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.
Odin Akbar!
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:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580589/posts?page=65#64
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.