Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat. It's really sad & disturbing that in a post 9/11 world this self-evident truth is so hard for some Americans to comprehend. It's really sad and distrubing that in a modern world people don't understand that manifests and invoices are handled at both the sending and receiveing ports.

so it seems to me that you're saying that achmed writes the manifest in his home country that says the box contains 'machine parts' .. and then his buddy mohamed in Newark 'verifies' that the box contains machine parts.

I certainly can't forsee any problems there..... why not let mexicans patrol and secure our southern border as well?????

Quoted: Quoted: AND JUST A LLITTLE 'HEADS UP' FOR THE GLOBAL TRADE CHALLENGED……… IT WILL MAKE ABSOLUTE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES 'PERCIEVED' SECURITY!!!!! DWP will still run and manage major container ports in 21 locations world wide. All the containers will still come into the US having being sealed and bonded in other ports. Nothing changed, absolutely nothing… ANdy Yep.

Logic, an apparently scarce commodity.

Quoted: Quoted: AND JUST A LLITTLE 'HEADS UP' FOR THE GLOBAL TRADE CHALLENGED……… IT WILL MAKE ABSOLUTE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES 'PERCIEVED' SECURITY!!!!! DWP will still run and manage major container ports in 21 locations world wide. All the containers will still come into the US having being sealed and bonded in other ports. Nothing changed, absolutely nothing… ANdy Yep.

Will you and Andy please stop with all these silly facts. Emotion should be the only true guide on this issue.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat. It's really sad & disturbing that in a post 9/11 world this self-evident truth is so hard for some Americans to comprehend. It's really sad and distrubing that in a modern world people don't understand that manifests and invoices are handled at both the sending and receiveing ports. so it seems to me that you're saying that achmed writes the manifest in his home country that says the box contains 'machine parts' .. and then his buddy mohamed in Newark 'verifies' that the box contains machine parts. I certainly can't forsee any problems there..... why not let mexicans patrol and secure our southern border as well?????

Because the people who load and unload containers inspect nothing. They just put the containers on trucks or trains and move them out as fast as they can so they can get the next ship in.

The United States Customs Service inspects containers and the people who load an unload the containers don't chose which containers they inspect. Customs does.

BTW, it wouldn't have been Mohammed in Newark, it would have been union Joe because the people who worked there would not have been changed out.

Quoted: Quoted: I was against the deal simply because AMERICANS CAN NOT OWN A BUISNESS IN THERE COUNTRY !!! Why should they be allowed to come to our country, take over a huge set of ports, open us up to possible terror entry points, and we are not allowed to own a fucking McDonalds or a Quicky Mart on there soil unless its partialy owned 51% by an ARAB.... Anyone who was for this deal needs to move out of the US. You truely arent an American. Really?  How much time did you spend serving the country?

Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fuckin' A!  I argued adnaseum with dport, vito and others about this;  I was called racist, ignorant about port operations, and a "nativist." Well, I guess myself and the other 83% of the American "racists" and rubes won a victory! Lesson to dport, vito and the rest of the Bush shills-never underestimate the gut instincts of the American people! So the company backs down and you claim victory? OK whatever. You still had not proven where the security threat was. As if saying it over and over made it so. The company backed down becaue when the news hit, the American people rejected the proposal. King George and you lost this one, suck it up. BTW the security threat?   Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat.  I know you don't get that, but MOST of us do. The American people rejected it, huh?  All I ever heard was some on here and Chuckie and company.

All the polls I saw said at most 17% of the American people supported it.  Jimmah' Carter and Sperm Stain Clinton were counted among the 17%.   Good company you keep there hero.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fuckin' A!  I argued adnaseum with dport, vito and others about this;  I was called racist, ignorant about port operations, and a "nativist." Well, I guess myself and the other 83% of the American "racists" and rubes won a victory! Lesson to dport, vito and the rest of the Bush shills-never underestimate the gut instincts of the American people! So the company backs down and you claim victory? OK whatever. You still had not proven where the security threat was. As if saying it over and over made it so. The company backed down becaue when the news hit, the American people rejected the proposal. King George and you lost this one, suck it up. BTW the security threat?   Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat.  I know you don't get that, but MOST of us do. The American people rejected it, huh?  All I ever heard was some on here and Chuckie and company. All the polls I saw said at most 17% of the American people supported it.  Jimmah' Carter and Sperm Stain Clinton were counted among the 17%.   Good company you keep there hero.

Let's see, you keep company with Chuckie Shumer and Dianne Fineswine, so stuff your assinine remark.

Ooooh, a poll said so.  Yeah, liberals love polls.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was against the deal simply because AMERICANS CAN NOT OWN A BUISNESS IN THERE COUNTRY !!! Why should they be allowed to come to our country, take over a huge set of ports, open us up to possible terror entry points, and we are not allowed to own a fucking McDonalds or a Quicky Mart on there soil unless its partialy owned 51% by an ARAB.... Anyone who was for this deal needs to move out of the US. You truely arent an American. Really?  How much time did you spend serving the country? Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility.

That's real cute and typical of you..........cheap shots.  Apparently you didn't serve, did you.

My "claimed" military service.  How pathetic.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat. It's really sad & disturbing that in a post 9/11 world this self-evident truth is so hard for some Americans to comprehend. It's really sad and distrubing that in a modern world people don't understand that manifests and invoices are handled at both the sending and receiveing ports. Especially since the UAE are probably the most non-religous Secular (muslim in name only)  Muslim nations out there.

Read the Koran and get a clue LGB. To be Muslim is to believe in jihad! You can't be a Muslim and not believe in jihad... it's similar to being a Christian and not believing in Christ.

I'm tired of you fools who have absolutely NO understanding of Islam and its history of terror.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was against the deal simply because AMERICANS CAN NOT OWN A BUISNESS IN THERE COUNTRY !!! Why should they be allowed to come to our country, take over a huge set of ports, open us up to possible terror entry points, and we are not allowed to own a fucking McDonalds or a Quicky Mart on there soil unless its partialy owned 51% by an ARAB.... Anyone who was for this deal needs to move out of the US. You truely arent an American. Really?  How much time did you spend serving the country? Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That's real cute and typical of you..........cheap shots.  Apparently you didn't serve, did you. My "claimed" military service.  How pathetic.

Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosen profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat. It's really sad & disturbing that in a post 9/11 world this self-evident truth is so hard for some Americans to comprehend. It's really sad and distrubing that in a modern world people don't understand that manifests and invoices are handled at both the sending and receiveing ports. Especially since the UAE are probably the most non-religous Secular (muslim in name only)  Muslim nations out there.   Read the Koran and get a clue LGB. To be Muslim is to believe in jihad! You can't be a Muslim and not believe in jihad... it's similar to being a Christian and not believing in Christ. I'm tired of you fools who have absolutely NO understanding of Islam and its history of terror.

Yup the UAE loves Americans...until they don't get their way.


Dubai threat to hit back
By Roxana Tiron

Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

An industry official with knowledge of Boeing’s contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot “to knock” those relationships.

“Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region,” said John Dern, Boeing’s corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.

Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.

Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.

A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.

“In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. … I don’t think there are many options there,” the lobbyist said.

But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

“If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.”

Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.

Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added.

During the hearing, he warned about the implications of a negative decision on the ports deal: “So obviously it would have some effect on us, and I’d not care to quantify that, because I don’t have the facts to quantify it. It would certainly have an effect on us.”

Although owned by the Dubai government, the company at the heart of this controversy, Dubai Ports World, is trying to distance itself from any kinds of threats, said a lobbyist closely tracking the deal.

Another lobbyist monitoring the controversy said K Street still believes there will be a compromise that allows the Dubai deal to go through while meeting congressional security concerns, even though a bill aimed at that result, put forward by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), was widely repudiated amongst lawmakers Tuesday.

Senate leaders have indicated that they would wait to take action until the new 45-day Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review is completed.

Meanwhile, in London, DP World cleared the last hurdle for its take over of P&O. The Court of Appeal in London refused Miami-based Eller & Co., which opposed the deal, permission to appeal against clearances for the legal and financial measures necessary to implement the takeover.

P&O said it expects to file the requisite court orders, making the takeover terms binding on DP World, according to the Financial Times.

Elana Schor contributed to this report.


 




 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions
© 2006 The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fuckin' A!  I argued adnaseum with dport, vito and others about this;  I was called racist, ignorant about port operations, and a "nativist." Well, I guess myself and the other 83% of the American "racists" and rubes won a victory! Lesson to dport, vito and the rest of the Bush shills-never underestimate the gut instincts of the American people! So the company backs down and you claim victory? OK whatever. You still had not proven where the security threat was. As if saying it over and over made it so. The company backed down becaue when the news hit, the American people rejected the proposal. King George and you lost this one, suck it up. BTW the security threat?   Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat.  I know you don't get that, but MOST of us do. The American people rejected it, huh?  All I ever heard was some on here and Chuckie and company. All the polls I saw said at most 17% of the American people supported it.  Jimmah' Carter and Sperm Stain Clinton were counted among the 17%.   Good company you keep there hero. Let's see, you keep company with Chuckie Shumer and Dianne Fineswine, so stuff your assinine remark. Ooooh, a poll said so.  Yeah, liberals love polls.

Not just A poll commando joe-several polls.  Some of the same polls that show Bush's strongest supporters are getting tired of his duplicity.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession?

A cheeky British poser on the internet....

Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility.

That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z

Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z

... And when a Republican president finds himself at odds with 3/4 of his political base, maybe HE should rethink his position.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was against the deal simply because AMERICANS CAN NOT OWN A BUISNESS IN THERE COUNTRY !!! Why should they be allowed to come to our country, take over a huge set of ports, open us up to possible terror entry points, and we are not allowed to own a fucking McDonalds or a Quicky Mart on there soil unless its partialy owned 51% by an ARAB.... Anyone who was for this deal needs to move out of the US. You truely arent an American. Really?  How much time did you spend serving the country? Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That's real cute and typical of you..........cheap shots.  Apparently you didn't serve, did you. My "claimed" military service.  How pathetic. Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosen profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy.

Keep showing your ignorance.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fuckin' A!  I argued adnaseum with dport, vito and others about this;  I was called racist, ignorant about port operations, and a "nativist." Well, I guess myself and the other 83% of the American "racists" and rubes won a victory! Lesson to dport, vito and the rest of the Bush shills-never underestimate the gut instincts of the American people! So the company backs down and you claim victory? OK whatever. You still had not proven where the security threat was. As if saying it over and over made it so. The company backed down becaue when the news hit, the American people rejected the proposal. King George and you lost this one, suck it up. BTW the security threat?   Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat.  I know you don't get that, but MOST of us do. The American people rejected it, huh?  All I ever heard was some on here and Chuckie and company. All the polls I saw said at most 17% of the American people supported it.  Jimmah' Carter and Sperm Stain Clinton were counted among the 17%.   Good company you keep there hero. Let's see, you keep company with Chuckie Shumer and Dianne Fineswine, so stuff your assinine remark. Ooooh, a poll said so.  Yeah, liberals love polls. Not just A poll commando joe-several polls.  Some of the same polls that show Bush's strongest supporters are getting tired of his duplicity.

Polls are never manipulated to show what the pollster wants it to show.  And just how do these polls verify that "Bush's strongest supporters" even voted in these polls?

The fact that you believe this crap speaks volumes.

Quoted: Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z ... And when a Republican president finds himself at odds with 3/4 of his political base, maybe HE should rethink his position.

Once again, where is the proof that he is at odds with 3/4 of his political base?

Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z

I'm NOT in agreement with Feinstein, Dean and Shumer-are you so stupid as to think they really give a shit about port security?  They're just using this issue to jab at the Republicans, they don't give one infinitesimal shit about national security, if they did they'd be all over the wide open Mexican border.   For that matter, the Republicans pretending to fret over the port deal don't have the same concerns over the border either.

The Democrats are just putting on a show, and you seem to have bought it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was against the deal simply because AMERICANS CAN NOT OWN A BUISNESS IN THERE COUNTRY !!! Why should they be allowed to come to our country, take over a huge set of ports, open us up to possible terror entry points, and we are not allowed to own a fucking McDonalds or a Quicky Mart on there soil unless its partialy owned 51% by an ARAB.... Anyone who was for this deal needs to move out of the US. You truely arent an American. Really?  How much time did you spend serving the country? Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That's real cute and typical of you..........cheap shots.  Apparently you didn't serve, did you. My "claimed" military service.  How pathetic. Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosen profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. Keep showing your ignorance.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

Neither do you when you called me a liar in another thread when I posted I voted for this guy twice and gave time & money for his campaign.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession? A cheeky British poser on the internet.... A typical example of your evasion when called to account… ANdy

No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I was against the deal simply because AMERICANS CAN NOT OWN A BUISNESS IN THERE COUNTRY !!! Why should they be allowed to come to our country, take over a huge set of ports, open us up to possible terror entry points, and we are not allowed to own a fucking McDonalds or a Quicky Mart on there soil unless its partialy owned 51% by an ARAB.... Anyone who was for this deal needs to move out of the US. You truely arent an American. Really?  How much time did you spend serving the country? Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That's real cute and typical of you..........cheap shots.  Apparently you didn't serve, did you. My "claimed" military service.  How pathetic. Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosen profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. Keep showing your ignorance.  You have no idea what you are talking about. Neither do you when you called me a liar in another thread when I posted I voted for this guy twice and gave time & money for his campaign.

I still stand by that.  Actually, I didn't call you a liar, I said I don't believe you.  I have a hell of a lot more idea about what I am talking about than you do.  That is fortified with each of your posts.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z ... And when a Republican president finds himself at odds with 3/4 of his political base, maybe HE should rethink his position. Once again, where is the proof that he is at odds with 3/4 of his political base?

Ah yes... the 1/4 of true believers chimes in to defend the indefensible. I'll give you this LARRY... you are consistent.

Now tells us again LARRY old buddy... what exactly has GWB done during his 6 years in office that you disagree with?

Your criticism of him seems to be slipping my mind.

Quoted: Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z I'm NOT in agreement with Feinstein, Dean and Shumer-are you so stupid as to think they really give a shit about port security?  They're just using this issue to jab at the Republicans, they don't give one infinitesimal shit about national security, if they did they'd be all over the wide open Mexican border.   For that matter, the Republicans pretending to fret over the port deal don't have the same concerns over the border either. The Democrats are just putting on a show, and you seem to have bought it.

Talk about having "bought it".  That's hilarious, truly hilarious, for you parrot almost word for word what they have been saying.  You are the one who "bought it".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession? A cheeky British poser on the internet.... A typical example of your evasion when called to account… ANdy No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation.

You don't feel you need to verify all these "facts" when asked to?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z ... And when a Republican president finds himself at odds with 3/4 of his political base, maybe HE should rethink his position. Once again, where is the proof that he is at odds with 3/4 of his political base? Ah yes... the 1/4 of true believers chimes in to defend the indefensible. I'll give you this LARRY... you are consistent. Now tells us again LARRY old buddy... what exactly has GWB done during his 6 years in office that you disagree with? Your criticism of him seems to be slipping my mind.

What?  You have no proof?  You just made that up?  Figures.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Looks like Bush won't have to veto anything.    Dubai port deal They were a better friend to us than we were to them. Your "friends" hand off nuclear technology to Iran. What was your personal stake in this again? Care to prove that?

Well, the following isn't "proof" but read it and weep.  "Among the "other types of products" allegedly smuggled through Dubai, Johnson listed the nuclear technology now in the hands of Iran."


   



Former CIA Officer: Dubai Ports Not So Secure
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
March 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Political observers say that when two Republicans -- a liberal, New England senator and a conservative, Pacific Coast congressman -- come together to oppose a White House plan, the president had better take notice.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is known as one of the most liberal members of the GOP in Congress. She also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is known as a strong conservative and national security proponent.

While Collins and Duncan are often at odds on issues, they are united in their opposition to a proposal that would allow Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- to manage some operations at 14 U.S. ports.

Hunter announced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit majority ownership of any U.S. "system or asset - physical or virtual - that is so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such system or asset would have a debilitating effect on national security, economic security, or public health and safety" by foreign governments or companies. The proposal would direct the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to compile a "critical infrastructure" list of assets to be protected from foreign control.

While the legislation would conceivably cover a much broader section of U.S. commerce, Hunter made it clear that his immediate intent is to block a White House-backed deal that would give DPW some measure of control over port operations in Miami and Tampa, Fla.; Beaumont, Galveston, Houston and Port Arthur, Texas; Baltimore; Camden, N.J.; Davisville, R.I.; New Orleans; Norfolk, Va.; Philadelphia; Portland, Maine and Wilmington, Del.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), said Tuesday that the political differences between Hunter and Collins lend credibility to their opposition to the DPW plan and prove that it is not ideologically driven.

"The base is being fractured here. Whether it's the more liberal Republicans who would back Susan Collins, or the more conservative ones who respect Duncan Hunter a great deal, this is serious," Donnelly said. "When people of that caliber on both sides of the president's own party start raising questions, the president needs to pay attention."

Donnelly said she has not worked with Collins, who often disagrees with CMR on military issues, but she is familiar with Hunter and believes his opposition to the DPW deal is sincere.

"He must have good reasons and he may have reasons we don't even know about for doing what he's doing," Donnelly said. "He's known for doing his own investigations and he may be doing that now."

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer who now heads the Business Exposure Reduction Group (BERG), believes he knows what could be motivating Hunter, Collins and other members of Congress to oppose the DPW deal.

"There is current intelligence that individuals with ties to jihadist terrorist groups have sought refuge in Dubai/UAE, within the last three months," from countries that are considered sympathetic to terrorists, Johnson said. "They felt more secure going to the UAE."

But President Bush has personally defended DPW, arguing that all security concerns have been addressed.

"If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward," Bush said Feb. 28.

The president noted that DPW is purchasing a British company that currently holds the contracts to the port operations and that other U.S. ports have been managed by foreign-owned companies for years.

"What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports," Bush asked, "but not a company that has been secure, been cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?"

But Johnson challenged the president's assertion that DPW-run ports are secure.

"When you look at three of the top world ports for smuggling, counterfeit and contraband activity, those are, by my count, Hong Kong, Dubai and Panama. Dubai Ports World controls two of the three" Johnson said, referring to Dubai and Hong Kong.

"The White House is allowing commercial interests to trump any concern about security," Johnson said. "And I think Republicans like Collins and Hunter are smart enough to recognize that that's a non-starter."

Johnson's company has been investigating port operations in Dubai on behalf of a client as part of a federal racketeering lawsuit.

"One of the things we observed in the course of collecting evidence in that case was cigarette smuggling that started with cigarettes that would come out of Europe and the United States, go to Panama and then were shipped to ... ports in Dubai," Johnson said. "We also had evidence and saw direct evidence of other types of products being smuggled through Dubai, going into Pakistan through Afghanistan and going into Iran and going into Iraq."


"If Dubai Ports World runs the smuggling operations or allows them or does not enforce any kinds of preventative measures in Dubai, just think what could happen in any of these other ports," he continued, "The techniques required to smuggle nuclear material or weapons are no different from those required to smuggle cigarettes or other less lethal, not as dangerous material."

As an example, Johnson referenced a 1992 terrorist attack in which a smuggler was led to believe he was transporting contraband cash on a flight full of Jewish merchants. Unknown to the smuggler, he was, in fact, carrying a bomb, which Johnson said, "blew the plane out of the air."

While President Bush has praised the governments of Dubai and the UAE for their cooperation in the war on terror, Johnson said Americans should listen carefully.

"It would be one thing if the owners of Dubai Ports World were the same individuals in the United Arab Emirates who are cooperating with us in the efforts to combat terrorism, but they are not," Johnson said. "There are elements in the UAE government that are helping us and there are elements that are not helpful."

Johnson believes many in Washington who tentatively support the president in the controversy could be converted into opponents if they would honestly ask themselves one question, which he calls "the gold standard."

"Would Israel allow Dubai Ports World to run its ports at Haifa? If the answer is 'yes,' then we should say 'okay,'" Johnson said. "But, you know what? The answer is 'no.'"

Make media inquiries or request an interview with Jeff Johnson.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.


 

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession? A cheeky British poser on the internet.... A typical example of your evasion when called to account… ANdy No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation. You don't feel you need to verify all these "facts" when asked to?

Just for you precious-I've been a full time cop for the last 27 years, the last 20 in a fairly large town. Now what have you done since '73?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Theocratic Muslim Arabs controlling manifests and invoices of cargo coming in to the United States is a primia facia security threat. It's really sad & disturbing that in a post 9/11 world this self-evident truth is so hard for some Americans to comprehend. It's really sad and distrubing that in a modern world people don't understand that manifests and invoices are handled at both the sending and receiveing ports. Especially since the UAE are probably the most non-religous Secular (muslim in name only)  Muslim nations out there.   Read the Koran and get a clue LGB. To be Muslim is to believe in jihad! You can't be a Muslim and not believe in jihad... it's similar to being a Christian and not believing in Christ. I'm tired of you fools who have absolutely NO understanding of Islam and its history of terror.

What does the Koran say? 'there must be blood and severed limbs in order for Allah's religion to stand on it's feet'. We are at war with an enemy that wants to see the destruction of our civilization. This enemy transcends national boundries, governments and ethnicities. Islamics of every sect, tribe and nation of the arab world want to see the destruction of the west and Islam ruling the world. There is no room to play patty cake with the enemy. UAE controling our ports is not a benefit to the United States and therefore it should not be considered. We have bases in Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We can use other ports if they decide to go and pout. Fuck 'em.

I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke...

Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing?

A: Because he can walk on water,of course.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession? A cheeky British poser on the internet.... A typical example of your evasion when called to account… ANdy No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation. Translation: We'd die laughing if we knew what your highly dangerous 'chosed' profession is…

Actually you wouldn't be laughing-you be crying like a hysterical bitch because you were done wrong, and you'd be calling me.  
I never called it "highly dangerous."

Quoted: No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation.

Yes you do.   If you wish to support and/or win your argument, you need to provide reliable data or sources of information to help buttress your side of the debate.  

Not only that, you ridicule other folks patriotism and their jobs, yet you refuse to state what form of employment provides your daily bread.  Why?

My knowledge of container shipping tells me that, if Al-Qaeda or Iran had a nuke--they could easily smuggle that nuke into the USA.  It doesn't matter who or what owned or controlled the ports of the USA.

THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT SMUGGLING OF NUKES, DIRTY BOMBS, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS INTO THE USA IS TO INSPECT EVERY SINGLE CONTAINER THAT COMES INTO US PORTS.  Presently, about ONE PERCENT of containers are inspected.

Those of you worried about the Dubai and US ports are ignorant and NOT cognizant of the true hazards involved.  It doesn't matter who runs US ports.

Quoted: I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke... Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing? A: Because he can walk on water,of course.

Way to duck and evade.  I await proof that 3/4 of his base is pissed at him.  That was the question.  Are you going to address that or just continue with your silliness?

Quoted: I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke... Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing? A: Because he can walk on water,of course.

NYPatriot I hope you're arguing with these idiots strictly for your own entertainment, because they're so in lock-step with their hero that any criticism is dismissed by 'em as blasphemy.

I've posted a couple of articles on this thread that they have yet to comment on.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke... Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing? A: Because he can walk on water,of course.   Way to duck and evade.  I await proof that 3/4 of his base is pissed at him.  That was the question.  Are you going to address that or just continue with your silliness?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Looks like Bush won't have to veto anything.    Dubai port deal They were a better friend to us than we were to them. Your "friends" hand off nuclear technology to Iran. What was your personal stake in this again? Care to prove that? Well, the following isn't "proof" but read it and weep.  "Among the "other types of products" allegedly smuggled through Dubai, Johnson listed the nuclear technology now in the hands of Iran."     Former CIA Officer: Dubai Ports Not So Secure By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer March 08, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - Political observers say that when two Republicans -- a liberal, New England senator and a conservative, Pacific Coast congressman -- come together to oppose a White House plan, the president had better take notice. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is known as one of the most liberal members of the GOP in Congress. She also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is known as a strong conservative and national security proponent. While Collins and Duncan are often at odds on issues, they are united in their opposition to a proposal that would allow Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- to manage some operations at 14 U.S. ports. Hunter announced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit majority ownership of any U.S. "system or asset - physical or virtual - that is so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such system or asset would have a debilitating effect on national security, economic security, or public health and safety" by foreign governments or companies. The proposal would direct the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to compile a "critical infrastructure" list of assets to be protected from foreign control. While the legislation would conceivably cover a much broader section of U.S. commerce, Hunter made it clear that his immediate intent is to block a White House-backed deal that would give DPW some measure of control over port operations in Miami and Tampa, Fla.; Beaumont, Galveston, Houston and Port Arthur, Texas; Baltimore; Camden, N.J.; Davisville, R.I.; New Orleans; Norfolk, Va.; Philadelphia; Portland, Maine and Wilmington, Del. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), said Tuesday that the political differences between Hunter and Collins lend credibility to their opposition to the DPW plan and prove that it is not ideologically driven. "The base is being fractured here. Whether it's the more liberal Republicans who would back Susan Collins, or the more conservative ones who respect Duncan Hunter a great deal, this is serious," Donnelly said. "When people of that caliber on both sides of the president's own party start raising questions, the president needs to pay attention." Donnelly said she has not worked with Collins, who often disagrees with CMR on military issues, but she is familiar with Hunter and believes his opposition to the DPW deal is sincere. "He must have good reasons and he may have reasons we don't even know about for doing what he's doing," Donnelly said. "He's known for doing his own investigations and he may be doing that now." Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer who now heads the Business Exposure Reduction Group (BERG), believes he knows what could be motivating Hunter, Collins and other members of Congress to oppose the DPW deal. "There is current intelligence that individuals with ties to jihadist terrorist groups have sought refuge in Dubai/UAE, within the last three months," from countries that are considered sympathetic to terrorists, Johnson said. "They felt more secure going to the UAE." But President Bush has personally defended DPW, arguing that all security concerns have been addressed. "If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward," Bush said Feb. 28. The president noted that DPW is purchasing a British company that currently holds the contracts to the port operations and that other U.S. ports have been managed by foreign-owned companies for years. "What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports," Bush asked, "but not a company that has been secure, been cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?" But Johnson challenged the president's assertion that DPW-run ports are secure. "When you look at three of the top world ports for smuggling, counterfeit and contraband activity, those are, by my count, Hong Kong, Dubai and Panama. Dubai Ports World controls two of the three" Johnson said, referring to Dubai and Hong Kong. "The White House is allowing commercial interests to trump any concern about security," Johnson said. "And I think Republicans like Collins and Hunter are smart enough to recognize that that's a non-starter." Johnson's company has been investigating port operations in Dubai on behalf of a client as part of a federal racketeering lawsuit. "One of the things we observed in the course of collecting evidence in that case was cigarette smuggling that started with cigarettes that would come out of Europe and the United States, go to Panama and then were shipped to ... ports in Dubai," Johnson said. "We also had evidence and saw direct evidence of other types of products being smuggled through Dubai, going into Pakistan through Afghanistan and going into Iran and going into Iraq." "If Dubai Ports World runs the smuggling operations or allows them or does not enforce any kinds of preventative measures in Dubai, just think what could happen in any of these other ports," he continued, "The techniques required to smuggle nuclear material or weapons are no different from those required to smuggle cigarettes or other less lethal, not as dangerous material." As an example, Johnson referenced a 1992 terrorist attack in which a smuggler was led to believe he was transporting contraband cash on a flight full of Jewish merchants. Unknown to the smuggler, he was, in fact, carrying a bomb, which Johnson said, "blew the plane out of the air." While President Bush has praised the governments of Dubai and the UAE for their cooperation in the war on terror, Johnson said Americans should listen carefully. "It would be one thing if the owners of Dubai Ports World were the same individuals in the United Arab Emirates who are cooperating with us in the efforts to combat terrorism, but they are not," Johnson said. "There are elements in the UAE government that are helping us and there are elements that are not helpful." Johnson believes many in Washington who tentatively support the president in the controversy could be converted into opponents if they would honestly ask themselves one question, which he calls "the gold standard." "Would Israel allow Dubai Ports World to run its ports at Haifa? If the answer is 'yes,' then we should say 'okay,'" Johnson said. "But, you know what? The answer is 'no.'" Make media inquiries or request an interview with Jeff Johnson. Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief. E-mail a comment or news tip to Jeff Johnson. Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Like you said, it is not proof, so why should I "read it and weap"?  You have yet to prove any of your allegations.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession? A cheeky British poser on the internet.... A typical example of your evasion when called to account… ANdy No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation. You don't feel you need to verify all these "facts" when asked to? Just for you precious-I've been a full time cop for the last 27 years, the last 20 in a fairly large town. Now what have you done since '73?

That's not what I asked for.  So, you have been a cop for 27 years, whoopty fucking doo.  

I asked you to prove all these claims you make on this subject.  So far, you have offered ZERO facts.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z I'm NOT in agreement with Feinstein, Dean and Shumer-are you so stupid as to think they really give a shit about port security?  They're just using this issue to jab at the Republicans, they don't give one infinitesimal shit about national security, if they did they'd be all over the wide open Mexican border.   For that matter, the Republicans pretending to fret over the port deal don't have the same concerns over the border either. The Democrats are just putting on a show, and you seem to have bought it. Talk about having "bought it".  That's hilarious, truly hilarious, for you parrot almost word for word what they have been saying.  You are the one who "bought it".

UM the difference is, I mean it.  For them, it's political posturing.  If you think otherwise, again I point you to their position on the wide open Mexican border.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke... Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing? A: Because he can walk on water,of course.   NYPatriot I hope you're arguing with these idiots strictly for your own entertainment, because they're so in lock-step with their hero that any criticism is dismissed by 'em as blasphemy. I've posted a couple of articles on this thread that they have yet to comment on.

You have posted articles.  I have commented.  Even you said it was not proof.  Typical of both of you, make statements and then waffle like crazy when asked to provide any kind of REAL proof.

Neither of you can, that's why you don't.

And you call us idiots.  You are a laugh riot.

Hey dport,

Harold Ford Jr. (D) is a congressman from TN who is seeking Bill Frist's senate seat this fall.  He is running ads that show him at one of our ports claiming that Bush sold our ports to the UAE.  We all know that this is horseshit and that it was the port terminal operations that we proposed to lease to them.  He also makes a claim that we should not outsource our national security...which is also horseshit because the USCG and DHS oversee port security.  GWB has done a poor job of articulating these FACTS to the US citizens, and now we have libtards like Ford, Jr. who comes from a whole family of corrupt politicians and racists spinning this debackle like it is they who are strong on national security.    I thought you might be interested in this spin.  

I still think we need to reevaluate our commitment to homeland security in terms of ports and borders, but W squandered a great opportunity to A: explain how this deal made sense, or B: strike the deal down from a position of authority.  Either way he played it, he could have avoided taking the asswhoopin' he's taken over this.  

What is your take?

Blake

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Benedict Arnold served the country too...quit drawing on your claimed military service to give yourself credibility. That comment was over the top.  ryann, when you find yourself in agreement with Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein, Howard Dean, and Chuckie Shumer, you might want to rethink your position.z I'm NOT in agreement with Feinstein, Dean and Shumer-are you so stupid as to think they really give a shit about port security?  They're just using this issue to jab at the Republicans, they don't give one infinitesimal shit about national security, if they did they'd be all over the wide open Mexican border.   For that matter, the Republicans pretending to fret over the port deal don't have the same concerns over the border either. The Democrats are just putting on a show, and you seem to have bought it. Talk about having "bought it".  That's hilarious, truly hilarious, for you parrot almost word for word what they have been saying.  You are the one who "bought it". UM the difference is, I mean it.  For them, it's political posturing.  If you think otherwise, again I point you to their position on the wide open Mexican border.

More evasion.  You can't prove anything you say, so you try to change the subject.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke... Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing? A: Because he can walk on water,of course.   NYPatriot I hope you're arguing with these idiots strictly for your own entertainment, because they're so in lock-step with their hero that any criticism is dismissed by 'em as blasphemy. I've posted a couple of articles on this thread that they have yet to comment on. You have posted articles.  I have commented.  Even you said it was not proof.  Typical of both of you, make statements and then waffle like crazy when asked to provide any kind of REAL proof. Neither of you can, that's why you don't. And you call us idiots.  You are a laugh riot.

You're being ridiculous though. You've said that you don't believe the polls and you think that they are fixed, but you also demand proof. What kind of proof would satisfy you? Do you wish to see a signed petition from 2/3 of the Republican voters stating that they are against the deal? Will you accecpt anything that anyone offers as 'proof' that the American people are opposed to this deal? Is there anything that will change your mind, or have you already determined your position and dug in your heels?

Quoted: Hey dport, Harold Ford Jr. (D) is a congressman from TN who is seeking Bill Frist's senate seat this fall.  He is running ads that show him at one of our ports claiming that Bush sold our ports to the UAE.  We all know that this is horseshit and that it was the port terminal operations that we proposed to lease to them.  He also makes a claim that we should not outsource our national security...which is also horseshit because the USCG and DHS oversee port security.  GWB has done a poor job of articulating these FACTS to the US citizens, and now we have libtards like Ford, Jr. who comes from a whole family of corrupt politicians and racists spinning this debackle like it is they who are strong on national security.    I thought you might be interested in this spin.   I still think we need to reevaluate our commitment to homeland security in terms of ports and borders, but W squandered a great opportunity to A: explain how this deal made sense, or B: strike the deal down from a position of authority.  Either way he played it, he could have avoided taking the asswhoopin' he's taken over this.   What is your take? Blake

Actually, I think anyone who actually thought about it, as you and others have done, he would not need to explain it.  Now, there are members of this board who have bought into the dummycrat bullshit, hook, line, and sinker.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suffice to say I'm pretty sure with my chosed profession I've faced more physical danger than you did with a handful of years in the navy. And pray tell, what is the 'chosed' profession? A cheeky British poser on the internet.... A typical example of your evasion when called to account… ANdy No, I just don't feel like I owe you an explanation. You don't feel you need to verify all these "facts" when asked to? Just for you precious-I've been a full time cop for the last 27 years, the last 20 in a fairly large town. Now what have you done since '73? That's not what I asked for.  So, you have been a cop for 27 years, whoopty fucking doo.   I asked you to prove all these claims you make on this subject.  So far, you have offered ZERO facts.

Um I brought up what I do because you were throwing out your military service to give yourself some credibility.  I responded with the fact that I've probably seen more shit that you have in 4 years in the navy, and I was challenged to announce what I do.
I've offered many a cogent agrument as to why this port deal is a bad thing, all you do is bash and question whether or not I even voted Republican.

Now that's cleared up, back on topic-do you really think the Democrats have a genuine interest in national security when they oppose this?  Do you really think I DON'T have a genuine interest in national security when I oppose it?

Why won't you say what you've done since '73?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm going to pretend that I'm LARRYG for a minute & tell a little joke... Q: Why dosen't Pres. Bush need a boat when he goes sailing? A: Because he can walk on water,of course.   NYPatriot I hope you're arguing with these idiots strictly for your own entertainment, because they're so in lock-step with their hero that any criticism is dismissed by 'em as blasphemy. I've posted a couple of articles on this thread that they have yet to comment on. You have posted articles.  I have commented.  Even you said it was not proof.  Typical of both of you, make statements and then waffle like crazy when asked to provide any kind of REAL proof. Neither of you can, that's why you don't. And you call us idiots.  You are a laugh riot. You're being ridiculous though. You've said that you don't believe the polls and you think that they are fixed, but you also demand proof. What kind of proof would satisfy you? Do you wish to see a signed petition from 2/3 of the Republican voters stating that they are against the deal? Will you accecpt anything that anyone offers as 'proof' that the American people are opposed to this deal? Is there anything that will change your mind, or have you already determined your position and dug in your heels?

Polls prove nothing, that much was made clear when bubba was President.  Polls say our guns are evil, is that proof?

Yes, a signed petition from 2/3 or 3/4 or whatever number you make up is the only proof there is.  If you want to believe the polls and offer them as proof, have at it.

My position is based on facts about this matter, not dummycrat hysteria that many have bought into.