The Washington Times And The New York Times Agree: When Is Hell Freezing Over?
Marcie posted the story this morning about the jail break in Yemen of 20 known al Qaeda terrorists. But I don't want to address that. I'd rather address this part of her post. It's the story from the NY Post over the Port Authority's idea that it's cool to allow a weak ally to have the security of New York and New Jersey ports handed over to the United Arab Emirates. To say the least, the New York Times isn't pleased.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxness to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
In all fairness, the administration hasn't said yes yet. This was part of a takeover of London based P&O, who handled the security originally. But I agree that the decision should be "no" from the administration.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although that nation is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has long raised questions about port security, is asking the Homeland Security Department to take a closer look at the impact of the takeover.
This is probably one of the rare times that I agree with Schumer. I would dive deeper into Dubai Ports. With what is going on in the Middle East and in Europe, we should be paying closer attention to the workings of our closest allies. Mark Steyn's piece in the WSJ back on the 4th of January painted a very bleak picture for the future of Europe as it slowly becomes more and more Muslim. Birthrates are up for them, down with traditional European, and they are permeating every facet of European society. This includes business, and without a proper and full investigation of Dubai Ports, they shouldn't be handling security for our ports.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
Normally, reading the Times op-ed page makes me want to punch my computer screen because it's either incredibly ridiculous, or utterly clueless. However, even we can point to some twinges of intelligence from the MSM from time to time. This is one of them. But as I stated in the title, the Washington Times agrees with the New York Times. On this issue these two papers are like Mary Matlin and James Carville; so different, but even they can see eye-to-eye on the important things.
Some of the country's busiest ports -- New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others -- are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?
No offense, but if your answer to this question is "yes," then please find another site to visit. I suggest DailyKos where your moonbat ideas regarding security would be better accepted by Markos "Screw them" Zuniga.
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department-dominated group which reviews foreign investments, allows such purchases. The committee approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports' current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm. The United Arab Emirates was home to Marwan al-Shehhi, a September 11 hijacker; the country is a transit point for al Qaeda, including several other September 11 hijackers; al Qaeda's financing activities have involved the UAE; al Qaeda finds sympathizers there with ease, as it does in other Arab countries. T
The Bush administration calls the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror. But the UAE plays the same game Saudi Arabia does of quelching terrorists at home and turning a blind eye everywhere else.
Yes we do, and I'd prefer we not play a game of Russian Roulette with countries that aren't friendly to us, or aren't serious in helping us deal with terrorism. If that's their stance, then they should be left in the cold, and that includes the money we're sending them. If you're not helping us, then you're hindering us. No more checks, no more nothing until you straighten up, and hold true to your word of being our ally.
It would be easy to caricature this sale: The purchase doesn't entail young Arab firebrands replacing longshoremen, nor would it displace American ownership. The storied British firm that currently owns them, the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., probably isn't much better equipped against terrorist infiltration than Dubai Ports World. But then, the poor state of port security is precisely the point.
We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country's weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation's maritime cargoes are inspected.
Which should give any common-sense American a moment of pause. If our ports are the weakest link in our defense against terrorism, then why would we want to hand over said securtity to a nation that is less than forthcoming and abiding to us as an ally in the war on terror. It makes no sense. If this goes through I'm not going to be happy with the president, or his administration; especially Michael Chertoff.
This deal appears to be all about money. Dubai Ports World is "a business and its money is the same color as everyone else's, only it's got more of it," one banker told the Baltimore Sun. Where does the money come from? As a private company, Dubai Ports World's claim of 20 percent annual growth since 2001 is all but unverifiable, and its inner workings opaque. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government.
For all we know, their money arrives in the hands of terrorists and sympathizers. We don't know for sure. This isn't Jimmy the Fish asking Uncle Tony for a job on the docks. The acquisition could be something more, such as a funneling point for terrorists coming into the nation, and should they have their "cover" blown through our internal security, it could be a point where they could escape back to the Middle East.
The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?
The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.
This is a decision that should be reached by a bi-partisan oversight committee in Congress, such as the one that oversees the Department of Homeland Security. But the foreign investment committee is a joke. These people have ZERO clue what it takes to secure the nation. And that is what this is all about--securing the nation from an attack by our enemies.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.
I think Hell is screaming for ice water at this point, and I think a pig just flew by our hotel window. Lord, both papers agreeing, both making the same valid, crucial points in this debate. In this day and age, we can ill afford to make a mistake like this. By allowing the UAE control of the security of our ports, I'm guessing we wouldn't have long to wait before that decision bites us. And if we are bit the next time, what if it is a nuke that's set off in New York, New Jersey, or worse, in Balitmore? Will the foreign investment committee stand up and take responsibility? Will the administration admit that their ideas for security--including control of the border--are hokey?
Don't hold your breath. This is one issue where I stand in opposition to the administration because the controlling the borders and watching our security here at home is part of that 12 word platform I have been citing since Hugh Hewitt first announced it:
WIN the War
Cut the Taxes
Confirm the Judges
Control the Spending
If this is approved to happen, we'll have screwed up point number one in that platform. And it will come back to haunt us.
Publius II
Marcie posted the story this morning about the jail break in Yemen of 20 known al Qaeda terrorists. But I don't want to address that. I'd rather address this part of her post. It's the story from the NY Post over the Port Authority's idea that it's cool to allow a weak ally to have the security of New York and New Jersey ports handed over to the United Arab Emirates. To say the least, the New York Times isn't pleased.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxness to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
In all fairness, the administration hasn't said yes yet. This was part of a takeover of London based P&O, who handled the security originally. But I agree that the decision should be "no" from the administration.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although that nation is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has long raised questions about port security, is asking the Homeland Security Department to take a closer look at the impact of the takeover.
This is probably one of the rare times that I agree with Schumer. I would dive deeper into Dubai Ports. With what is going on in the Middle East and in Europe, we should be paying closer attention to the workings of our closest allies. Mark Steyn's piece in the WSJ back on the 4th of January painted a very bleak picture for the future of Europe as it slowly becomes more and more Muslim. Birthrates are up for them, down with traditional European, and they are permeating every facet of European society. This includes business, and without a proper and full investigation of Dubai Ports, they shouldn't be handling security for our ports.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
Normally, reading the Times op-ed page makes me want to punch my computer screen because it's either incredibly ridiculous, or utterly clueless. However, even we can point to some twinges of intelligence from the MSM from time to time. This is one of them. But as I stated in the title, the Washington Times agrees with the New York Times. On this issue these two papers are like Mary Matlin and James Carville; so different, but even they can see eye-to-eye on the important things.
Some of the country's busiest ports -- New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others -- are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?
No offense, but if your answer to this question is "yes," then please find another site to visit. I suggest DailyKos where your moonbat ideas regarding security would be better accepted by Markos "Screw them" Zuniga.
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department-dominated group which reviews foreign investments, allows such purchases. The committee approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports' current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm. The United Arab Emirates was home to Marwan al-Shehhi, a September 11 hijacker; the country is a transit point for al Qaeda, including several other September 11 hijackers; al Qaeda's financing activities have involved the UAE; al Qaeda finds sympathizers there with ease, as it does in other Arab countries. T
The Bush administration calls the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror. But the UAE plays the same game Saudi Arabia does of quelching terrorists at home and turning a blind eye everywhere else.
Yes we do, and I'd prefer we not play a game of Russian Roulette with countries that aren't friendly to us, or aren't serious in helping us deal with terrorism. If that's their stance, then they should be left in the cold, and that includes the money we're sending them. If you're not helping us, then you're hindering us. No more checks, no more nothing until you straighten up, and hold true to your word of being our ally.
It would be easy to caricature this sale: The purchase doesn't entail young Arab firebrands replacing longshoremen, nor would it displace American ownership. The storied British firm that currently owns them, the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., probably isn't much better equipped against terrorist infiltration than Dubai Ports World. But then, the poor state of port security is precisely the point.
We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country's weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation's maritime cargoes are inspected.
Which should give any common-sense American a moment of pause. If our ports are the weakest link in our defense against terrorism, then why would we want to hand over said securtity to a nation that is less than forthcoming and abiding to us as an ally in the war on terror. It makes no sense. If this goes through I'm not going to be happy with the president, or his administration; especially Michael Chertoff.
This deal appears to be all about money. Dubai Ports World is "a business and its money is the same color as everyone else's, only it's got more of it," one banker told the Baltimore Sun. Where does the money come from? As a private company, Dubai Ports World's claim of 20 percent annual growth since 2001 is all but unverifiable, and its inner workings opaque. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government.
For all we know, their money arrives in the hands of terrorists and sympathizers. We don't know for sure. This isn't Jimmy the Fish asking Uncle Tony for a job on the docks. The acquisition could be something more, such as a funneling point for terrorists coming into the nation, and should they have their "cover" blown through our internal security, it could be a point where they could escape back to the Middle East.
The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?
The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.
This is a decision that should be reached by a bi-partisan oversight committee in Congress, such as the one that oversees the Department of Homeland Security. But the foreign investment committee is a joke. These people have ZERO clue what it takes to secure the nation. And that is what this is all about--securing the nation from an attack by our enemies.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.
I think Hell is screaming for ice water at this point, and I think a pig just flew by our hotel window. Lord, both papers agreeing, both making the same valid, crucial points in this debate. In this day and age, we can ill afford to make a mistake like this. By allowing the UAE control of the security of our ports, I'm guessing we wouldn't have long to wait before that decision bites us. And if we are bit the next time, what if it is a nuke that's set off in New York, New Jersey, or worse, in Balitmore? Will the foreign investment committee stand up and take responsibility? Will the administration admit that their ideas for security--including control of the border--are hokey?
Don't hold your breath. This is one issue where I stand in opposition to the administration because the controlling the borders and watching our security here at home is part of that 12 word platform I have been citing since Hugh Hewitt first announced it:
WIN the War
Cut the Taxes
Confirm the Judges
Control the Spending
If this is approved to happen, we'll have screwed up point number one in that platform. And it will come back to haunt us.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home