Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (4647)	2/27/2006 2:21:29 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 71588

The thing that bothers me most about the Port deal is that Jimmy Carter says it's OK. That should make any American sit up and take notice, and be very afraid....he is a blithering idiot.... As I said, I'm on the fence on this one until we know more. But here is what Duncan Hunter said about the Chinese and the Clinton Administration deal at Long Beach CA in 1998... COSCO Doesn't Deserve Long Beach Port by Congressman Duncan Hunter house.gov Don't try to buy stock in the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO). There isn't any. That's because COSCO is not a corporation in any normal sense. The giant shipping company, presently attempting to take over the former U.S. Naval Station at Long Beach, is, for all practical purposes, the Merchant Marine for communist China. All parties to the debate over allowing COSCO to consummate the takeover agree on one major point: COSCO is totally under the command of and takes all its directions from the communist leadership in Beijing. On May 21, 1998, the House of Representatives passed the national defense bill which contained my amendment to strictly prohibit the President from issuing a national security waiver to allow COSCO to gain its own terminal at Long Beach. Several weeks earlier, the House National Security Committee voted to pass the ban by an overwhelming 45-4. A number of the members of Congress who voted for the ban did so after extensive briefings on the national security ramifications of the transfer. The ban that is currently in place sparked an outcry among China's apologists. For instance, I'm often asked, "Why ban COSCO after it has operated in lots of American ports for years and when it may simply move to the Port of Los Angeles if kept out of Long Beach?" The answer is that giving a 144-acre terminal to a merchant marine is much different from leasing them an office at someone else's terminal. The size of the property proposed for COSCO would make it very difficult for the Customs Service and our intelligence officials to adequately monitor everything COSCO brings to its U.S. compound. As more of COSCO's dealings come to light, their attempts to move into Los Angeles or gain a greater foothold at any U.S. port may be blocked as well. Problems with COSCO first came to public attention when the shipping company was implicated in the 1996 seizure of 2,000 Chinese-made AK-47 machine guns bound for street gangs in Los Angeles. Earlier this month, in the face of our concern for the current nuclear instability in southern Asia, a COSCO ship openly sailed from China to Pakistan with weapons materials and electronics destined for Pakistan's major nuclear weapons laboratory. It wasn't the first time. COSCO ships have long served as a vehicle for the transportation of strategic material to allies of communist China in support of programs such as the development of ballistic missiles, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. British authorities recently discovered 10 tons of Ammonium Perclorate, a key component of ballistic missile fuel, on its way from Xian, China to Karachi, Pakistan on a COSCO ship. Other COSCO shipments include heavy artillery and ammunition from North Korea to Syria, as well as weapons and spare parts from North Korea and China to both Iran and Iraq. It's clear that COSCO is not a normal corporation and it's clear that we should not reward them with their own terminal at Long Beach or elsewhere. Yet, President Clinton is currently considering exactly that. Fortunately, the Senate will vote on my legislation next week. We cannot forsake our national security in exchange for a few jobs unloading Chinese ships and I am hopeful the Senate will recognize this.