Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chertoff Defends UAE Port Deal
Fox News.com ^ | 2/20/06 | Fox News; AP

Posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:25 AM PST by standingfirm

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending the Bush administration's review of an international shipping deal two days after one company in the Port of Miami sued to prevent an Arab-owned firm from taking over port operations.

Meanwhile, lawmakers also are considering legislation to stop foreign-owned companies from running U.S. ports.

Chertoff on Sunday said the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had carefully reviewed the Dubai Ports World purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff told ABC's "This Week."

That doesn't sit well with Miami firm Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a subsidiary of Ellery & Company Inc. Representatives from that company asked a judge to block the takeover of P&O,

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: chertoff; dhs; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-272 next last
Is is just me, or does something really smell about this UAE deal? Something inside me just wants to scream, "THIS IS WRONG." The US should monitor her own ports!!! Not some foreign company with a very questionable past.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the White House is in favor of this deal. You can't trust these people, I don't care how pretty they have talked to us about stopping terrorism. Don't we know by now that they talk out of both sides of their mouth?

Somone wake me up when it's over. It has to be a nightmare.

1 posted on 02/20/2006 7:28:26 AM PST by standingfirm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

...winning the war on terror.


2 posted on 02/20/2006 7:29:41 AM PST by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

Someone will be along shortly to tell you that you are a liberal, aligned with the Democrats. Thank you for your patience.


3 posted on 02/20/2006 7:30:06 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
Is is just me, or does something really smell about this UAE deal? Something inside me just wants to scream, "THIS IS WRONG." The US should monitor her own ports!!! Not some foreign company with a very questionable past

Huh there was no outrage when a foreign firm was already operating port container facilites at US ports.

BTW, notice how FOX News doesn't disclose they are partially owned by a saudi prince.

4 posted on 02/20/2006 7:30:28 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

Even if it would be safe for the UAE company to handle port security, it looks absolutely TERRIBLE and undercuts the argument (PR-wise) that Republicans are the national security party.

I continue to be disappointed by the way this war is being fought.

If Iran is not handled soon, the war will be a failure.


5 posted on 02/20/2006 7:31:22 AM PST by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
What stinks here is the hysteria and ignorance of "Conservatives" who should know better then to fall for a Democrat directed Press smear job.

Here is what the Port story is about. A DNC press release was sent out by Chucky Schumer for the Democrat Senate Election Committee. It is full of rumor, innuendo and guilt by association. A bunch of junk journalists picked up the story and with out checking a SINGLE fact printed the story. A bunch of meat head grandstanding Republicans Congress Critters on Kneepads, read the story and freaked out WITHOUT bothering to find out a single fact. The Security Agencies, who did all the investigation and background checks were blown off or sneered at by the Democrats, their junk journalists propagandists and Republican Congress critter Media whores. Meanwhile the FACTS of the case are being ignored in order for everyone to gleefully parrot a DEMOCRAT Press release.

HERE is the logical diagram on this story. A company based in UAE is taking over port operations. UAE is an Arab Country. Arabs committed 9-11. Bush is turning Port Security over to the Terrorists! Not ONE fact or logically valid assumption is presented in any of these stories. The fact that the Port Operation company has NO security functions is either willfully or inadvertently left OUT of the story. Instead it is all basically a racist, guilty by accusation and rumor smear job. The people who ACTUALLY know the facts like DHS etc are being laughed at or ignored so supposedly "Conservatives" can gleefully push Democrat Election Campaign propaganda. Simply amazing how willfully ignorant some "Conservatives" are about how the Junk Journalists lie to them. Just like Flush the Koran, Rather Gate, Fitzmus, Downing Street Memo and dozens and dozens of other LIES manufactured by the DNC and fed to the Failed Media, THIS story is a LIE.

6 posted on 02/20/2006 7:32:46 AM PST by MNJohnnie ("Close the UN, Keep Gitmo!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

I've read many threads on this subject. Every single one of your responses that I've seen on this subject (and they are numerous) start with "HUH". Very strange.


7 posted on 02/20/2006 7:33:13 AM PST by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
The US should monitor her own ports!!!

Isn't that what DHS is for?

8 posted on 02/20/2006 7:33:16 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

Has Bush gone insane?


9 posted on 02/20/2006 7:34:38 AM PST by Lexington Green (Hollywood Patriot - Now THERE'S an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk

I just don't want any more sales to foriegn powers, especially when even more money will flow into the hands of terrorists.


10 posted on 02/20/2006 7:35:50 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
Hope the other bidder was Haliburton. Let congress decide between Haliburton and the UAE company!!

If this is like most contracts the gov retains veto over key positions and can run security checks on all employees, most would be Americans and Longshoremen. It still is a bad idea, but being totally misrepresented by MSM. Surprise Surprise.
11 posted on 02/20/2006 7:36:30 AM PST by muskah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004597.htm

Give the contract to Halliburton

Just because Dems oppose something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This is a DUMB idea. It's worse than Harriet Miers. It's lunacy.

The quicker the administration climbs down and takes the lead on this - the better.


12 posted on 02/20/2006 7:36:40 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

You're not then only one who feels something is wrong with this deal. While I normally support the Bush administration's decisions, this one just seems to be WRONG. To let a foriegn power be in charge of any of our ports is a bad thing to do.


13 posted on 02/20/2006 7:37:03 AM PST by scooter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Just when I was questioning my responce to this issue along comes a reasoned posting. Thanks.


14 posted on 02/20/2006 7:38:09 AM PST by River_Wrangler (Nothing difficult is ever easy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muskah
Hope the other bidder was Haliburton. Let congress decide between Haliburton and the UAE company!!

Nope the other bidder was a Singapore company. If it had been Halliburton, schumer/hillary would be screeching 100 times louder.

15 posted on 02/20/2006 7:38:39 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie


"The fact that the Port Operation company has NO security functions is either willfully or inadvertently left OUT of the story."

That is just not true.

According to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185107,00.html

"DPW would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator is responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port, the port facility itself and the hiring of security personnel."


16 posted on 02/20/2006 7:39:54 AM PST by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh there was no outrage when a foreign firm was already operating port container facilites at US ports.

England hasn't attacked us since 1812.

BTW, notice how FOX News doesn't disclose they are partially owned by a saudi prince.

You've been told REPEATEDLY that he owns 5% of the parent company, Newscorp.

Dubai owns 100% of DP World.

17 posted on 02/20/2006 7:40:03 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
What stinks here is the hysteria and ignorance of "Conservatives" who should know better then to fall for a Democrat directed Press smear job.

I think you nailed it. The Democrats think they can use this issue to appear strong on security and drive a wedge in the Repbulcian party. However, there's political opportunity here that I would bet the White House is not ignorant about. Expect the WH to back down after a group of Conservatives angry over immigration use this isse to draw a distinction between themselves and the White House. Since there is no VP heir apparent the Republican party will be forced to "split" with the White House over the next few years. Republicans must reinvent themselves because people like to vote for someone who is "new and improved". Issues like this present an opportunuty for Republicans. Watch for more such things in the coming years and ignore the nonsense the press will write about Republicans being in "disarray", etc.

18 posted on 02/20/2006 7:40:12 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I just don't want any more sales to foriegn powers, especially when even more money will flow into the hands of terrorists.

A very noble position -- however, the Company running the port is already OWNED by a foriegn power. All of the ports mentioned are run by a British based firm. That firm is now being bought out by the UAE.

So, the port operations are not being sold to a foriegn power, they were already run by a foriegn power.

19 posted on 02/20/2006 7:41:06 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
You've been told REPEATEDLY that he owns 5% of the parent company, Newscorp

That cash infusion saved Murdoch from a takeover, but what the hey I guess you don't think a wahabbist saudi prince wouldn't call in some favors.

20 posted on 02/20/2006 7:42:53 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: commish

We aren't at war with Britian. Big difference, eh?


21 posted on 02/20/2006 7:42:56 AM PST by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dane

The Rats are just whining because their pals, the ChiComs aren't in on the deal.


22 posted on 02/20/2006 7:43:05 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
You said: "The fact that the Port Operation company has NO security functions is either willfully or inadvertently left OUT of the story.

Chertoff said: "In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel."

Well, which way is it? Believe me, I'm not some idiot just starting to pay attention. And I'm not someone who is just going to bow the knee just because the White House says it's OK. Our representative here is FL (Mark Foley-R) is also demanding a congressional look see. I agree with him.

23 posted on 02/20/2006 7:44:00 AM PST by standingfirm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: battletank

Nice strawman -- we are not at war with the UAE either -- we have military bases in the UAE.


24 posted on 02/20/2006 7:44:09 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

PING


25 posted on 02/20/2006 7:45:38 AM PST by Dewy (1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish; cripplecreek
So, the port operations are not being sold to a foriegn power, they were already run by a foriegn power.

The British company isn't owned by England, it is private and has stockholders.

However, DP World IS state owned, by Dubai.

26 posted on 02/20/2006 7:47:09 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: commish
we have military bases in the UAE.

We have troops in a lot of places we shouldn't trust.
27 posted on 02/20/2006 7:47:43 AM PST by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: commish

Nice strawman -- we are not at war with the UAE either -- we have military bases in the UAE.

-

Is it safe for our service persons, to leave those bases?


28 posted on 02/20/2006 7:48:59 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: battletank
...the port operator is responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port...

Load and unload those boxes over there.  Check.

...the port facility itself...

Turn the lights off when you leave.  Check.

...and the hiring of security personnel...

They might do themselves a favor by rehiring the security detail already in place.

29 posted on 02/20/2006 7:49:23 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: battletank
We aren't at war with Britian. Big difference, eh?

No, but I would prefer to buy my gas from an American company. I've traded for years at Amoco, then all of a sudden it says bp. It took some time to realize this is British Petroleum.

Are there any American-owned gas companies left? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot to choose from. Quick Shop?

30 posted on 02/20/2006 7:49:35 AM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: commish; jv1
Maybe but this freeper has a different take on it.

I agree, as I frequently travel to Dubi. They tolerate us, they are not our friends.

Post 7

31 posted on 02/20/2006 7:51:10 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Aliska

Conoco is one, Cenex is another, I've even fueled up at an Exxon station last Thanksgiving.


32 posted on 02/20/2006 7:51:46 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dane
That cash infusion saved Murdoch from a takeover, but what the hey I guess you don't think a wahabbist saudi prince wouldn't call in some favors.

You think 5% is a controlling interest?! LOL

33 posted on 02/20/2006 7:53:29 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
If he traveled there frequently, he would by now know it's spelled Dubai.
34 posted on 02/20/2006 7:53:53 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

Chertoff has just squandered his credibility.


35 posted on 02/20/2006 7:54:57 AM PST by Lexington Green (Hollywood Patriot - Now THERE'S an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

Has anyone dares speak the M-word in all of this?

UAE is a Muslim country.

Look at the news. Muslims are becoming radicalized. All around the world.

The third world war is escalating - it is morphing into a true clash of civilizations. President Bush, while I support and respect, is remarkably naive about some of this.

Democracy and free trade are not magic. There is a philosophy in western cultures, which combine with them, to create the good characteristics of America.

Democracy combined with, for example, Pakistan - created another Taliban. Free trade combined with the Peoples Republic of China - destroyed our industrial base.

It's time for some REALPOLITIC for a change.

We need to start looking out for ourselves. The world is becoming dangerous. The PRC (probably coordinating efforst with Russia) is methodically orchestrating *our* encirclement.

We're the target. Bigtime.

WAKE UP PRESIDENT BUSH.


36 posted on 02/20/2006 7:55:09 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
If he traveled there frequently, he would by now know it's spelled Dubai.

Never made a spelling error or missed a key? You're a perfect typist? I don't pick at anyones grammar or spelling. It calls undue attention to mine. And that's pretty thin evidence on which to call another freeper a liar.

37 posted on 02/20/2006 7:57:06 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
We should monitor our own ports.

This is mostly a political/media thing (heh, that ironically, our side started while pointing out how insane the Chaney hysteria was)

The thing is we weren't doing it before. It was a British company and a Chinese company that did the port security before. The UAE company just bought them.

The whole question is should Bush have stepped in and noticed and said 'no way', but its not like they directly made this kind of call.

Anyway, this 'argument' is waaaaaaay to suspicious for most non-engagued Americans, and I think Bush will back down on it. Which I have to say I don't mind.

In all reality, the UAE firm has so much invested and owns so many major ports, they would probably be totally professional... but I don't think you can make that argument to most people UNLESS you explain there is no American firm to do this, and IF there was, it would be a "Halliburton" type company, which the libs would hate for 'getting all the port jobs' anyway.
38 posted on 02/20/2006 7:57:24 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (I'm in no Al-Samood for this Shi'ite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
This sounds like a good idea. We could also privatize the U.S. Border Patrol and take contract bids from Central and South America. Nuts on this proposal.

Muleteam1

39 posted on 02/20/2006 8:03:15 AM PST by Muleteam1 (MEDIA-CRITY - news of low quality and value and assumes brainless consumers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

My understanding is they will be in charge of screening cargo.

Bad idea.


40 posted on 02/20/2006 8:05:10 AM PST by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Never made a spelling error or missed a key?

Of course not.

You're a perfect typist?

I do well typing at rates between 95-110 wpm.

I don't pick at anyones grammar or spelling.

Occasionally I do.  I've been on the receiving end of such critique, never made a fuss over it.

It calls undue attention to mine.

Sorry it bothers you so much

And that's pretty thin evidence on which to call another freeper a liar.

The biggest lie is how this story is being presented and misrepresented by the media, from a faxed DNC press release.

41 posted on 02/20/2006 8:06:35 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (Proud to be a cotton-pickin' Republican on the GOP Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
In all reality, the UAE firm has so much invested and owns so many major ports, they would probably be totally professional... but I don't think you can make that argument to most people UNLESS you explain there is no American firm to do this, and IF there was, it would be a "Halliburton" type company, which the libs would hate for 'getting all the port jobs' anyway.

Dubai had to get a loan to swing this deal.

DP World to borrow $6.5b to fund P&O acquisition

"The borrowing entity is Thunder FZE, the acquisition vehicle set up by DP World, although the term loan has a guarantee from PCFC (Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corp, DP World's holding company)," Mikou said.

Which brings this troubling tidbit into play.

PCFC sukuk shows Dubai's support for Sharia funds

And this:

UAE, Palestine to set up a joint investment firm (Hamas)

42 posted on 02/20/2006 8:11:54 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
The biggest lie is how this story is being presented and misrepresented by the media, from a faxed DNC press release.

Can you prove that?

I first heard it from Pete King last week, before ANY Dems were on the bandwagon. And I read the first article posted on FR Feb 11th. Also before the Dems input.

43 posted on 02/20/2006 8:15:15 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

indeed, King was the first person from congress I heard chime in on it. only when the Dems saw the white house wasn't going to make a move to reverse it, did they pile on. and it will continue to get worse if its not reversed - hearings, inquiries into the UAE lobby efforts, etc.


44 posted on 02/20/2006 8:18:37 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Aliska

Welcome to the global economy.

We've made the Emirates wealthy by purchasing their oil,
now we b!tch that they choose to spend it here.

What would you have them do with their wealth? We go on
endlessly about how capital should be unfettered and
that the protectionists are misguided, and now this?

The Emirates are our partners whether we like it or not,
by virtue of their having us by the short hairs. Those
that don't like it should reconsider their use of petroleum
products.


45 posted on 02/20/2006 8:19:35 AM PST by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

How dare you be logical. The media wants you to be peeing in your pants over this 'outrage' by the Bush oilmen.


46 posted on 02/20/2006 8:19:44 AM PST by OldFriend (MSM ~ controversy, crap, & confusion.....compliments of Alan Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rahbert

UAE can be our trading partners without being given the task of screening cargo coming into our ports.


47 posted on 02/20/2006 8:23:12 AM PST by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

It's Harriet Myers all over again.

We gain nothing by having the UAE screen the cargo coming into our ports.

Another embarrassment and refusal to fix it until a large political cost is paid.


48 posted on 02/20/2006 8:24:50 AM PST by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: oceanview
indeed, King was the first person from congress I heard chime in on it. only when the Dems saw the white house wasn't going to make a move to reverse it, did they pile on. and it will continue to get worse if its not reversed - hearings, inquiries into the UAE lobby efforts, etc.

I don't understand why Bush always waits until there's a furore to make a statement. And he isn't infallable. Look at Miers and the Mexican border. And his ROP schtick. *sigh*

49 posted on 02/20/2006 8:25:28 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Someone will be along shortly to tell you that you are a liberal, aligned with the Democrats. Thank you for your patience.

LOL --- wonder who that 'someone' will be?

50 posted on 02/20/2006 8:25:43 AM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-272 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson