President Bush approves of the United Arab Emirates, do you? The Bush Administration has previously stated that they do not want a blooming mushroom cloud to be the verification that America failed in the war on terror. However, I think by putting these cooks (UAE) in charge of the kitchen you are definitely cooking up a recipe for disaster.
I was worried this would not get enough attention. However, the bandwagon is rolling and I hope that only more inquisitive individuals pile on. We have been lead, no we have been told, the Bush Administration would never outsource the war on terror, and they also would never compromise American security. President Bush himself stated that he would never outsource any job involved in the war on terror. However, either the majority of American politicians have this wrong or the Bush Administration has been caught in a bold face lie.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday that, “The Bush Administration needs to show Congress why national security won’t be hurt by a deal that gives a company based in the United Arab Emirates management of six major U.S. ports,
… I think the anxiety and the concern over the deal that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate.” The United Arab Emirates is a country that was said to have allowed nuclear components to flow though its ports into areas like North Korea, Libya, and Iran.
Ridge did not necessarily say the deal was the wrong thing to do; he merely stated that we need more transparency. He went on to say that, “The bottom line is I think we need a little more transparency here…There are legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing and security measures — added technology in these ports that we need to upgrade our security.”
The real issue is that the tie that the United Arab Emirates maintains in the Middle East makes it a country with one foot on both sides of the fence. They have ties with America but they have also been found to have ties with devout terrorist organizations hostile toward Western governments.
The Bush administration has repeatedly stated that the United Arab Emirates is a key ally in the war on terror. However, numerous lawmakers have restated that it has been shown that the UAE has terrorist ties. Senator Charles Schumer denounced the deal by stating, “The UAE has a sad history with terrorism.”
Charles Schumer is not the only one concerned; several lawmakers have severely assessed the United Arab Emirates as inconsistent, and unpredictable, in considering its support of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East. Many congressmen also want President Bush to remember that the United Arab Emirates was one of only three countries in the world that considered the Taliban a legitimate government. How can they have diplomatic ties with the Taliban and then turn around and assure us of their integrity?
How concerned should you be? Very I would think.
President Bush Gives Away Port Security
Excellent post. Like your blog. Appreciate the comments you’ve posted on mine.
Putting aside whatever one might think about Dbai and the UAE I’m compelled to ask the following: why are we outsourcing our national security to any country. Even a friendly nation such as England should not preside over the security and due dilligence operations of vitally important access points such as naval ports. Is that what globalization has come to? We give you french fries, our popular culture, and cigarettes in exchange for a government contract to regulate our safety? This is also what happens when you have a party in power that prefers to privatize everything to the highest bidder. This is crony capitalism at its worst. I want to know who the hell is making money off this deal and how much cash they’ve given to the Republican Party.
Intrepid Liberal Journal
Actually I think Raymond covers this angle in his recent post “UAE : Has President Bush Turned Dubai Ports Deal Into Another Halliburton?”.
Like I stated in a previous comment, I don’t understand President Bush’s rationale when stating the Port Deal is safe for America. How can he regulate overseas corporations involved in the Port Deal, and ensure they will have an interest in America’s safety? And why would you even consider putting America in a compromising position?
I think there is another issue here. A 1993 statute requires a mandatory 45-day review when a foreign government wants to buy a U.S. asset…and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States quickly approved the deal in 25 days. I’m no lawyer, but I wouldn’t hesitate to say the Administration is again walking a fine line and possibly breaking the law.