This is the fireball created when Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi of the UAE crashed UAL flight 175 into the South Tower of the WTC.
Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi
Posted on 02/20/2006 3:14:17 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The federal bureaucracy has made a strategic mistake that threatens to cost the President dearly. The question is not whether the ill-advised decision taken last week by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (known by its acronym, CFIUS, pronounced syphius) will be undone. Rather, the question is: By whom -- and at what political cost to Mr. Bush?
In the latest of a series of approvals of questionable foreign takeovers of American interests, CFIUS has given the green light to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to acquire contracts to manage port facilities in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company, Dubai Ports World, would do so by purchasing a British concern, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (“P and O”).
Experts have long identified America’s sea ports as weak links in the chain of our homeland security. With their proximity to major U.S. population centers, expensive infrastructure vital to the regional and, in many cases, national economy and their throughput of large quantities of poorly monitored cargo, they are prime targets for terror.
As a result, a case can be made that it is a mistake to have foreign entities responsible for any aspect of such ports, including the management of their docks, stevedore operations and terminals. After all, that duty affords abundant opportunities to insinuate personnel and/or shipping containers that can pose a threat to this country. Even though the company in question may not be directly responsible for port security, at least some of their employees have to be read in on the relevant plans, potentially compromising the latter irreparably.
At least the previous foreign contractors were from Britain, a country that was on our side before September 11, 2001. The same cannot be said of the United Arab Emirates, whose territory was used for most of the planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks. While the UAE’s government is currently depicted as a friend and ally in the so-called war on terror, its country remains awash with Islamofascist recruiters and adherents – people all too willing to exploit any new opportunity to do us harm.
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:
O 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?
O 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.
O 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?
In fact, that seems virtually certain now that talk radio, the blogosphere and the public have become aware of – and white hot about – this transaction. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and of Capitol Hill have made known their determination to prevent the transfer of control of U.S. ports to the UAE. In particular, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have been quick to seize on this issue as an opportunity to burnish their national security credentials at the expense of President Bush and his party.
So, the question recurs: How long will it take before Mr. Bush cuts his losses? This could be accomplished in one of three ways: He could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase – withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.
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.
No they won't, the US makes laws here not the Brits.
I doubt that DPWorld has the same ego investment in proving themselves "right" that you do. I expect that they're adults who are in it for the money and will do whatever it takes to maximize the return on their investment.
If I am wrong, then this deal is even worse for the American people than I fear.
I agree completely with Frank Gaffney on this one. Even though I am a Bush supporter, I don't agree with everything he does. He needs to use his authority to put an end to this deal. A local talk radio host said today that he has a contact in Washington, DC who told him that Kuwait and Qatar are going to kick our bases out of their countries----and that we will instead put bases in the UAE---and this port deal is a tradeoff. I'm not vouching for the truth of this as have no idea who the source is, but wondering if anyone else has heard this.
You mean Repubs?
"It will be approved by a British court on March 2nd"
You state that with such absolute certainty. Unfounded certainty, IMHO. A lot can happen between now and March 2. The offer can be withdrawn. P & O shareholder approval was prior to the political firestorm over here, where six of their major contracts lie; the board may become chary of selling, and rightfully so. And, there are governmental routes to quash the process as well.
This is the fireball created when Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi of the UAE crashed UAL flight 175 into the South Tower of the WTC.
Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi
"Bush is the stupidest President to ever occupy the WH."
With that statement, you qualify as the "stupidest poster" on FR. Talk about hyperbole....
DPWorld will have control of P&O on March 2nd. They may not have the contracts to operate, but will own the assets and infrastructure and if Congress nixes the deal, DPWorld has the right to seek restitution.
I kinda of find it funny that so many against Kelo, are more than happy to use it in this situation.
Like I said, get a grip. Congress has NOTHING to do with it. Try reading the CIFUS link. You never read links that tells you how this works. You just make unsubstantiated statements.
"A local talk radio host said today that he has a contact in Washington, DC who told him that Kuwait and Qatar are going to kick our bases out of their countries----and that we will instead put bases in the UAE---and this port deal is a tradeoff."
why would kuwait kick our bases out? we rescued them in the first gulf war.
So, in the interests of natinal security we cut them out.
yes. even Rush talked about the politics of this today, its bad. and apparently, the administration is going to play hard ball on this, so its going to go on and on. all we need is some revelation about whom might be on the receiving end of some UAE lobbying $$$s, and they will start caling this "Port Gate".
Rove is either totally tone deaf on this, or has been slapped down by other interests.
richard reid, shoe bomber and UK citizen.
john walker lindh(johnny jihad, US citizen)
And after this PR debacle he WILL NOT.
Again if the situation was reversed, presume that had Algore or Kerry ok'd a sniff of this absurd deal going through, FR would be going apesh*t.
In fact, if the Dems were swift, they'd have shut their traps and let it go through...THEN brought it up during the 2008 campaign as a SECURITY ISSUE.
America comes first in my book. Obviously, not in your book.
From what I have heard the committee has to reject it for the president then to get involved.
In fact, if the Dems were swift, they'd have shut their traps and let it go through...THEN brought it up during the 2008 campaign as a SECURITY ISSUE.
Good point.....but they don't think that far in advance...they live in the moment...
If it is basic contract law, we should take a look at the assignability clause....
"why would kuwait kick our bases out? we rescued them in the first gulf war."
The notion does sound suspect when you look at it that way, doesn't it?
Read the info instead. It's at the link to the CIFUS site.
From CIFUS
This order also provides for CFIUS to submit a report and recommendation to the President at the conclusion of an investigation.
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.