Yesterday the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly (62-2) to stop the Dubai Port Deal in its tracks, far short of the new 45-day review, and there are claims that enough votes will be available to overturn a Presidential veto. Even if this is only a political move by Republicans in the House to keep their Democratic brethren and challengers from getting to the right of them on issues of “national security”, it does appear to be strongly appealing to the majority of the American people on both the left and right. This port deal has genuinely struck a nerve, and the Bush Administration has not handled it well, not by a looooooooong shot!

Michelle Malkin, against it from the beginning, writes:

But if they are guilty of anything, the House Republicans who are revolting on this issue are guilty of doing something the incompetent staffers at the White House can’t seem to do very well these days: listen and respond effectively to their constituents. When all is said and done, security-minded Americans would rather not see management of terminals at our U.S. ports in the hands of an Arab state-owned company whose government officials not only provided cover to Osama bin Laden before 9/11 and created a ripe environment that facilitiated al Qaeda financing and remained a logistical hub after 9/11, but who also still maintain a catch-and-release policy toward terror suspects, deny the existence of our established ally, Israel, and may be providing material support for terrorism even as they welcome U.S. military forces to their shores.

The Chinese have tried, and succeeded to infiltrate port operations out here in Los Angeles with much support from the Democrats when Clinton was in office. From the LA Times a few weeks ago, a rather surprising negative review of CA Senator Barbara Boxer:

This brouhaha is reminiscent of 1998, when Cosco proposed moving from its berth at the Port of Long Beach to a shuttered naval station on the other side of the port that was being converted to a container terminal. Congress, fearing the company was a front for Chinese spies, scotched the deal.

It remains mystifying why anyone would consider a closed naval station, its buildings demolished and equipment long gone, to be a more effective platform for spying than Cosco’s present terminal. But opponents of the Cosco deal, mostly Republicans, won a political victory over the Clinton administration.

Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal, none tops Boxer’s performance. She said last week that she would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-owned or not, from buying port operators. Memo to Boxer: 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the U.S., are run by foreign-owned companies. She later told The Times that she meant such deals should get greater scrutiny, not be banned. (…)

Boxer had a more enlightened view in 1998, when she supported the Cosco move. (…)

One possible explanation is that the Cosco deal was heavily backed by a Democratic administration, while the Dubai Ports World deal is heavily backed by a Republican administration. But that would mean Boxer is working against the interests of her state in order to score cheap political points. She would never do such a thing. Would she?

Although the Chinese are often suspected and recently caught in industrial/military spying, their money was good enough for the Clinton administration. So, in this era, the Republicans blocked one deal — big deal! Cosco still runs terminals at Long Beach. The Chinese are still stealing our latest and greatest military advances. Makes you wonder what committed Islamic terrorists/sympathizers embedded in one of the Dubai companies could do, with enough time, enough planning — enough will. On 9/11 we witnessed the answer to that question.

I read all the arguments the administration floated in favor of the deal. I understand the political considerations involved for us not to be considered as Islamophobic. Still, every time I think about an Arabic country having any type of control over our ports, even if it’s only pushing paper, it makes my skin crawl.

I’m glad that the House has acted. I hope that Bush keeps his veto pen sheathed and lets the deal die. Sure, there will be political fallout — Oh, you betcha – Just gotta get to work and help minimize the damage! (db)

Technorati Tags: Dubai, port deal, Barbara Boxer, House Appropriations Committee, Michelle Malkin

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 9th, 2006 at 10:05 am and is filed under UAE -- Our Buddies?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.  |   Print This Post  |   Email This Post

Recently Posted:

• “Young Mattie Fein” Political Ad — Hot Linkage & More . . .
• Just Bloggin’ Around: VJ Day Video, Ground Zero Mosque, Obaminations & More . . .
• We The People — An Open Letter To President Obama
• Remembering Annie & Some Hard-Life Lessons
• Obama’s Nightmare In The Gulf
• Obama’s Exectuive Order Banning Federal Funding of Abortion Proves To Be Just More B.S.
• American Women — Takin’ Names, Kickin’ Butt!
• Now Obama’s F’ing Up NASA!
• Happy 4th of July Y’all!
• VOTE!