Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.
By Joel Havemann and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


WASHINGTON - House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter
(R-El Cajon), seeking to derail a government-owned Arab company's plans
to manage port facilities in six American cities, said Thursday he
would introduce legislation not only to kill that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Hunter's legislation could affect the Los Angeles-Long Beach port
complex, where 13 of the 14 container terminal operations are
foreign-owned. "It makes sense in this new age of terrorism that
critical infrastructure be owned by Americans," Hunter said in an
interview. He said his proposal could apply not only to ports but also
to power plants and "other infrastructure that is critical to the
nation."

Hunter's plans put him on a collision course with President Bush, who
has vowed that he would use such a bill to deliver the first veto of
his presidency.

The furor has also proved awkward for former President Clinton and his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Facilities at the port of
New York are included in the sale, which she has strongly opposed. Her
husband, meanwhile, had apparently talked with leaders of the company
about a public relations strategy to rescue the deal. The company,
Dubai Ports World, is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the
sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates.

Hunter led a hearing at which Republicans and Democrats took turns
bashing first the company's corporate leadership and then
representatives of the executive branch committee that approved Dubai
Ports World's purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a
privately owned British firm that operates container terminals
worldwide. Among the assets included in the sale are operations in
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York and Newark, N.J.

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover,
which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company
has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S.
terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny.
That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines
whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies
seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for
initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the
bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

"You'd have to be a turtle with your head in the ground" not to realize
the political firestorm that would follow a decision to allow an Arab
company any role in U.S. ports, said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).

Eric S. Edelman, who as undersecretary of Defense for policy ranked too
high to have participated in the initial approval of the sale, said the
United Arab Emirates had been a model economic partner of the United
States and had supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Armed Services Committee members of both parties castigated the
Arab nation for harboring terrorists and allowing them to use its banks
to launder money.

Dubai Ports World officials were on the defensive during several hours
of questioning. "Dubai can't be trusted," Hunter said.

The company's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, responded to the
attacks, saying, "We are not a security risk."

The United Arab Emirates' role in maintaining the Arab boycott of
Israel has also fostered opposition to the deal, but the chairman of
Israel's largest shipping line came to Dubai Ports World's defense in a
letter to Sen. Clinton.

Idan Ofer, chairman of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, urged her to
drop her opposition, saying, "I sincerely hope this unnecessary
political storm will cease."

Dubai Ports World officials, meanwhile, said that Bill Clinton had
suggested they hire his former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, to assist in
their public relations campaign. Lockhart decided against doing so.

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's
hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in
U.S. hands."

Hunter said he would introduce his legislation next week. It would
require foreign companies to divest themselves of any operations
determined to be "critical U.S. infrastructure" by the Defense and
Homeland Security departments.

Hunter's legislation would go further than what has been introduced in
the House so far - a bipartisan measure backed by at least 90 House
members that would give Congress the right to kill the Dubai ports deal
once the new security review was complete.

Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, which tracks vessel movements at the ports, said that any
effort to bar foreign companies from operating port terminals would
"shut most of the major container ports down in the United States,
including Los Angeles-Long Beach.... That would be an absolute
disaster."

The foreign investment committee is concurrently investigating two
other corporate takeovers for their national security implications.

Dubai International Capital is paying $1.2 billion to buy Britain's
Doncasters Group, a manufacturer of precision components that go into
military aircraft and tanks. It has plants in Georgia and Connecticut.

And Israel's Check Point Software Technologies, a world leader in
online security, has agreed to buy Sourcefire, a Maryland-based company
with a similar mission.

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Why let Arabs earn the business on merit when we can give the business to
Bush cronies?

I hope the UAE reciprocates by banning the US military from using their
ports.

Maybe then something may sink in...

Amen!



"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Targets Foreign Role at U.S. Sites
Legislation would seek to kill a plan to transfer port control to an
Arab firm, and could affect other deals on national security grounds.
By Joel Havemann and Richard Simon, Times Staff Writers
March 3, 2006


WASHINGTON - House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter
(R-El Cajon), seeking to derail a government-owned Arab company's plans
to manage port facilities in six American cities, said Thursday he
would introduce legislation not only to kill that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Hunter's legislation could affect the Los Angeles-Long Beach port
complex, where 13 of the 14 container terminal operations are
foreign-owned. "It makes sense in this new age of terrorism that
critical infrastructure be owned by Americans," Hunter said in an
interview. He said his proposal could apply not only to ports but also
to power plants and "other infrastructure that is critical to the
nation."

Hunter's plans put him on a collision course with President Bush, who
has vowed that he would use such a bill to deliver the first veto of
his presidency.

The furor has also proved awkward for former President Clinton and his
wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Facilities at the port of
New York are included in the sale, which she has strongly opposed. Her
husband, meanwhile, had apparently talked with leaders of the company
about a public relations strategy to rescue the deal. The company,
Dubai Ports World, is owned by the government of Dubai, one of the
sheikdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates.

Hunter led a hearing at which Republicans and Democrats took turns
bashing first the company's corporate leadership and then
representatives of the executive branch committee that approved Dubai
Ports World's purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a
privately owned British firm that operates container terminals
worldwide. Among the assets included in the sale are operations in
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York and Newark, N.J.

A British court Thursday denied a legal challenge to the takeover,
which, if appeals fail, will become final next week. But the company
has separately agreed to postpone taking over management of the U.S.
terminals for 45 days to give the Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States time to subject the takeover to greater scrutiny.
That committee, made up of 12 government representatives, determines
whether national security might be compromised when foreign companies
seek to buy American industry or invest in it.

Legislators castigated members of the foreign investment committee for
initially approving the purchase at a relatively low level of the
bureaucracy, with no involvement of Congress, Bush or his Cabinet.

"You'd have to be a turtle with your head in the ground" not to realize
the political firestorm that would follow a decision to allow an Arab
company any role in U.S. ports, said Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).

Eric S. Edelman, who as undersecretary of Defense for policy ranked too
high to have participated in the initial approval of the sale, said the
United Arab Emirates had been a model economic partner of the United
States and had supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Armed Services Committee members of both parties castigated the
Arab nation for harboring terrorists and allowing them to use its banks
to launder money.

Dubai Ports World officials were on the defensive during several hours
of questioning. "Dubai can't be trusted," Hunter said.

The company's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, responded to the
attacks, saying, "We are not a security risk."

The United Arab Emirates' role in maintaining the Arab boycott of
Israel has also fostered opposition to the deal, but the chairman of
Israel's largest shipping line came to Dubai Ports World's defense in a
letter to Sen. Clinton.

Idan Ofer, chairman of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, urged her to
drop her opposition, saying, "I sincerely hope this unnecessary
political storm will cease."

Dubai Ports World officials, meanwhile, said that Bill Clinton had
suggested they hire his former spokesman, Joe Lockhart, to assist in
their public relations campaign. Lockhart decided against doing so.

"We seem to be our own worst enemies," Hunter said at Thursday's
hearing. "We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in
U.S. hands."

Hunter said he would introduce his legislation next week. It would
require foreign companies to divest themselves of any operations
determined to be "critical U.S. infrastructure" by the Defense and
Homeland Security departments.

Hunter's legislation would go further than what has been introduced in
the House so far - a bipartisan measure backed by at least 90 House
members that would give Congress the right to kill the Dubai ports deal
once the new security review was complete.

Manny Aschemeyer, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, which tracks vessel movements at the ports, said that any
effort to bar foreign companies from operating port terminals would
"shut most of the major container ports down in the United States,
including Los Angeles-Long Beach.... That would be an absolute
disaster."

The foreign investment committee is concurrently investigating two
other corporate takeovers for their national security implications.

Dubai International Capital is paying $1.2 billion to buy Britain's
Doncasters Group, a manufacturer of precision components that go into
military aircraft and tanks. It has plants in Georgia and Connecticut.

And Israel's Check Point Software Technologies, a world leader in
online security, has agreed to buy Sourcefire, a Maryland-based company
with a similar mission.

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Yeah that was a hoot Dave, and the Clintoons against each other.

The best part is the news to introduce legislation not only to kill
that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Sounds like a good ideal to me.

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

In article .com, Joe
wrote:

Yeah that was a hoot Dave, and the Clintoons against each other.

The best part is the news to introduce legislation not only to kill
that deal but also to
prevent foreign companies from controlling facilities determined to be
critical to U.S. national security.

Sounds like a good ideal to me.

Yep. Should depress the company values very effectively.

Now, if/when other countries start doing the same thing to US firms,
you'll be all in favour of the idea, won't you?

Lessee - nationalisation used to be a dirty word to the free market
capitalists of the USA.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa............ ..

Another hypocrite reveals himself.

PDW

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

In the cold war we did not let the Russians make propellors for our
submarines.
Or fuel for our trident missles now did we?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

In the cold war we did not let the Russians make propellors for our
submarines.
Or fuel for our trident missles now did we?

We were at odds with the Soviet Union then.

Are we at odds with the UAE now?

Max

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Sort of..
They can not be trusted, and would chopp your head off in a heart beat
if it was in the best interest of the UAE.

They know how to protect themselves, did you see the posting on all
that is required to open a business in the UAE?

Even if we are not at odds with them ....allowing ANY foreign country
owned companies to run our ports is stupid. Something is totally ****ed
up if we need them here to do the job for us.

Hunter was right when he said "We seem to be our own worst enemies"
"We should require critical U.S. infrastructure to remain in U.S.
hands."

Do you dis-agree with Hunter?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

The Ruskies make rocket engines for us now.

The US got some metallurgical technology from the Nazis in exchange for some
US technology.

The Japs were the only ones making low noise figure transistors for the US
military in the 70's and 80's.

Mitsubishi made the propeller milling equipment for US submarines.

Numerous Israeli companies make some very sophisticated missle radome
measurement and design equipment and sell to both the US and Red China.

Loral provided all the key info for China to upgrade their ICBM's aimed at
the US.





"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's not Nationalisation but an issue of national security.

In the cold war we did not let the Russians make propellors for our
submarines.
Or fuel for our trident missles now did we?

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

The Ruskies are our comrades now since we can crush them at any time.

Sounds like a trade with the Nazi's. We musta did better since we
crushed them.

Re training the Japs to make us transitor radios was needed to break
the cycle of imperial ignorance and worship.
I have no problem sourceing parts from other countries as a last
resort, but never turn over to them what we can do and rely on for
national security.

Proof on the Mitsubishi milling BS ?

We own Isreal.

Loral should be burned to the ground...... if true... and they knew
what they were doing IMO.
A stiff prison term at the least for it's decision makers.

Joe

Throwing Sand in the Arabs Vasaline
 

Toshiba, not Mitsubishi on the 7 and 9 axis milling machines:

http://www.japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol04/41/gill41.pdf


US Companies improving Chinese missle capabilities:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050907/orfr.ob8-k.html

http://www.secinfo.com/dr89b.z21s.d.htm


Russian rocket engines on US military rockets:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/prog...80730-eelv.htm

Loral, from the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...980617-kan.htm

We own Israel? Read on about what we own:

http://www.ussliberty.org/


Joe, in case you haven't figured it out, US defense contractors routinely
give our enemies technologies so they can stay in business building even
better technologies. If the US was truly superior to its enemies (which it
could be) the defense industry would go out of business. Why do you think we
have wars so often?

As far as training the Japs to make transistors, they are the ones who never
needed training. Never has US semiconductor capabilities matched the
Japanese.

What about parts from other countries not as a last resort but because they
are simply the best? There is no second choice to the best.





"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Ruskies are our comrades now since we can crush them at any time.

Sounds like a trade with the Nazi's. We musta did better since we
crushed them.

Re training the Japs to make us transitor radios was needed to break
the cycle of imperial ignorance and worship.
I have no problem sourceing parts from other countries as a last
resort, but never turn over to them what we can do and rely on for
national security.

Proof on the Mitsubishi milling BS ?

We own Isreal.

Loral should be burned to the ground...... if true... and they knew
what they were doing IMO.
A stiff prison term at the least for it's decision makers.

Joe