News Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[SOS2008]

The GOP-controlled House Appropriations committee has attached language to a Katrina relief bill that would block DPW from purchasing P&O. Bush is in trouble with the gulf states over the poor federal response to Katrina and cannot afford to veto that bill. Of course, he is pushing hard for a line-item veto, and he might have enough votes in Congress to give him that if the GOP leadership can keep their members in line. Personally, I doubt that he can get the line-item veto in this mid-term election year. Too many voters are already sick of Bush and the Congressional GOP do not want to share in his misfortunes next fall.

Right, and also Bush has his hand out for more money to fund the occupations (or what some people refer to as wars):

House Agrees To Vote On Ports
Showdown With President Likely

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A01

Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) will attach legislation to block the deal today to a must-pass emergency spending bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A House vote on the measure next week will set up a direct confrontation with President Bush, who sternly vowed to veto any bill delaying or stopping Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Co.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701229_pf.html

How appropriate. About the line item veto, I'll repeat what I posted in the Presidential Powers thread:

Bush asks Congress for "line-item veto" power

In striking down the Clinton-era line-item veto by a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court said Congress was not authorized under the Constitution to hand the president that power.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...O-UPDATE-3.XML

Hey, George "Record Deficit" Bush, NO! No more unconstitutional expansion of the Executive branch and your incompetent bungling!

We know Bush/Cheney have been trying to increase the powers of the Executive:

"dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier" - Bush, December 18, 2000.

Aside from Bush's very poor business background and horrible performance in regard to deficit spending, Congress would be foolish to give up any more power to the Executive, no matter who is the majority party.

The DP Port deal is sinking, but only because Republican constituents are against it.

 

[edward]

http://abcnews.go.com/

"Click on: "Ports at risk through truckers" for video.

What the he! has homeland security been doing with our money!

Each port has it's own security card. This means that an undividual trucker may have numerous cards. Many of the backgroud checks, if done, are done by local law enforcement agencies.

At some ports only a drivers license is needed. In this case it is easier to enter a port in an eighteen wheeler than it is to get on an airplane as a passenger.

The United Arab Emirates-based company that wants to take over the management of five East Coast ports wouldn't be in charge of security, despite all the posturing over security concerns. Security is the function of U.S.-controlled agencies such as the Coast Guard and Customs... If that makes you feel a bit more secure, it shouldn't.

Each day 11,000 truckers pick up and deliver cargo at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, with only a driver's license for identification, notes the Wall Street Journal. The lack of better ID cards is stalled over a bureaucratic debate over the kind of technology the cards would use. Meanwhile, the Journal notes, no one really knows who those drivers are, since counterfeit driver's licenses are readily available to anyone with a few hundred dollars in cash.

http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_3539873
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9629/

 

[Astronuc]

Congress Fires Warning Shot Over Ports Deal
House Panel Votes to Block Agreement With Arab Company
By ANDREW TAYLOR, AP

WASHINGTON (March 9) - After an election-year repudiation by a GOP-led House committee, President Bush hopes to avoid getting steamrolled in the Senate over a deal allowing a Dubai-owned company to take control of some U.S port operations.

By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday voted to bar DP World, which is run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

The ports provision was added to a must-pass measure funding the war in Iraq and providing new hurricane relief.

In the Senate, Democrats moved for a vote as well by trying to attach a measure blocking the deal to legislation designed to overhaul rules governing travel, gifts and their dealings with lobbyists.

Senate Republican leaders were trying to block a vote on the ports deal through a procedural vote that could occur as early as Thursday. That tactic was likely to fail, which could prompt Republicans to temporarily pull the lobbying reform bill from the floor in order to avoid an immediate defeat on the ports measure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_go_co/ports_security_35;_ylt=AszjXTet8XUpTYBb.ogJ8aITv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Bystander]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/united_arab_emirates

Now, it gets nasty: the Hague awarding damages against the U.S.; seizures of assets; suits in the USSC; all the other legal minutiae.

 

[BobG]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/united_arab_emirates

Now, it gets nasty: the Hague awarding damages against the U.S.; seizures of assets; suits in the USSC; all the other legal minutiae.

I don't know about it being that bad.

But it is probably bad news for Boeing and its employees. UAE is (was?) a pretty important Boeing customer. Europe's Airbus and Boeing regularly compete for business in the Middle East - their airline industry is growing at around 8% per year vs. a US airline industry that's struggling a little.

All in all, I think some of the media have missed the mark on this by saying Bush's political antenna must have 'suddenly' fallen off. The real problem has been using fear to cover up for the lack of a coherent plan. It's hard to snap people back to reality if the President has been telling them to be scared silly for the last four years.

 

[Bystander]

Contracts aren't binding on U.S. firms, port authorities, government entities? Fidel picked up a trade embargo 45 years ago with that sort of behavior. Foreign trade is going to take a hit in more than the aerospace industry; this is not the business image to project to existing trade partners, nor to prospective trade partners.

 

[russ_watters]

DP has announced they will divest* their holdings in US ports. DP says they will sell the interests at no financial loss. How will they do that? And who will buy them? I guess they could sell them back to P&O, but there is no way they could do that without taking a loss. And politicians want them to sell to an American company, but what company would buy them and at what price? Many of the assets were sold to P&O in the past decade precisely because American companies didn't want them! Who wants to bet that our government (ie, us) is going to pay them the difference to compensate them for forcing them to sell?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-09-ports-deal_x.htm

*Something that has been lost in the rhetoric game about "blocking" the deal is the fact that the deal has already gone through - DP already owns the assets in question.

 

[russ_watters]

*Something that has been lost in the rhetoric game about "blocking" the deal is the fact that the deal has already gone through - DP already owns the assets in question.

Ehh, now I'm not so sure of this - I just read that the deal just closed yesterday. Still, one is left to wonder what Congress would have done had DB not relented - would they have siezed the assets? Regardless, I'm sure bullying a company into giving up something they legally bought will have consequences.

 

[edward]

DBports has valued the U.S. port holdings at $700 million.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3713372.html

That sounds like a lot for the U.S. government to spend, but if we compare it to some of our other expenditures in recent years which have yielded nothing in return, it sounds like a bargain.

The New U.S. Embassy in Iraq is a good example of money poorly spent.

The new embassy

Indeed, the massive $592-million project may be the most lasting monument to the U.S. occupation in the war-torn nation. Located on a 104-acre site on the Tigris river where U.S. and coalition authorities are headquartered, the high-tech palatial compound is envisioned as a totally self-sustaining cluster of 21 buildings reinforced to 2.5 times usual standards. Some walls as said to be 15 feet thick or more. Scheduled for completion by June 2007, the installation is touted as not only the largest, but the most secure diplomatic embassy in the world.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/32927/

Then we have shelled out over $10 billion in contracts to Halliburton to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure. Current oil production in Iraq is dismal.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121004A.shtml

We also have NSA spending $40 billion per year on God only knows what. For some reason all of their phone taps and e-mail interceptions didn't pick up on the DP World deal. At least that is what we are being told. That is a lot of money to spend to have a president who says he was not aware of the sale.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well this won't stand and it will be obvious to most of us why: This is inherently a ludicrous idea and Bush will rightly look a bit like a traitor to most people.

I stand by my statements. [from the top of page 2]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, since this is a national security issue, we have the right to regulate how this is handled. And just for comparison, foreign investors can't own a McDonalds in the UAE.

But I think the real lie here is that constant claim made by supporters of the deal that the UAE is so critical to US interests. So, port security is not? And frankly, I don't believe that the UAE IS critical as claimed. If they are truly what they claim to be - a peaceful country that does not support terror - then considering the neighborhood they live in, they need us more than we need them. If the contention is that killing this deal could make them turn on us, then they really couldn't be trusted anyway, could they.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, it seems that now the question at hand is: Who is qualified to manage US ports? According to several experts interviewed on CNN and I think The News Hour, US companies are not up to the task. So consider the implication for national security when we have been sold out, IMO, to the point where we are incapable of even operating our own ports! Talk about a hole in security!

 

[edward]

Oh yes, it seems that now the question at hand is: Who is qualified to manage US ports?

Although they are not necessarily qualified, I have a gut feeling that the Carlyle Group may make DPWorld an offer on the American ports.

 

[Cyrus]

Also, since this is a national security issue, we have the right to regulate how this is handled. And just for comparison, foreign investors can't own a McDonalds in the UAE.

That is a faulty argument. No one is trying to own anything in the UAE. The UAE can own property in the United States, because its legal for them to.

If they are truly what they claim to be - a peaceful country that does not support terror - then considering the neighborhood they live in, they need us more than we need them. If the contention is that killing this deal could make them turn on us, then they really couldn't be trusted anyway, could they.

That's very close minded and childish, no? Who said they would 'turn on us.' Only you have made such a wild claim. Why do they need us more than we need them, and what basis are you making this judgement?

Oh yes, it seems that now the question at hand is: Who is qualified to manage US ports? According to several experts interviewed on CNN and I think The News Hour, US companies are not up to the task. So consider the implication for national security when we have been sold out, IMO, to the point where we are incapable of even operating our own ports! Talk about a hole in security!

That has nothing to do with security. We already discussed the issue that the Coast Gard handles the security. That just has to do with ownership.

 

[SOS2008]

That has nothing to do with security. We already discussed the issue that the Coast Gard handles the security. That just has to do with ownership.

Strategic infrastructure has to do with security in and of itself. What is a number one strategy in time of war? Blocking ports and supply lines. It is not wise to be dependent on outsiders for anything related to national security in general.

 

[BobG]

Contracts aren't binding on U.S. firms, port authorities, government entities? Fidel picked up a trade embargo 45 years ago with that sort of behavior. Foreign trade is going to take a hit in more than the aerospace industry; this is not the business image to project to existing trade partners, nor to prospective trade partners.

I agree (the Boeing example is just one example where the impact might be felt first).

People overlook the idea that security is more than just military capability. Countries with close economic ties can't afford to fight wars against each other - or at least the reason for fighting had better be worth the economic damage you're doing to your own country by losing your opponent's business.

The other thing a lot of people fail to understand is what Islamic fundamentalists are actually fighting against. Israel and the US might provide good rallying points, but the real war is a fight against change - especially the cultural changes brought about by importing Western products. The goal is to create an atmosphere where either Islamic countries reject Western culture or Western countries find it too dangerous to do business with the Middle East. Either or both options achieve the same result - no outsiders changing traditional cultural values in the Middle East.

It would be a tough sell to persuade Muslims to reject Western products - the West provides some attractive products. Fundamentalists need to shift the focus to things they can win on - villifying Israel and US foreign policy and making the Middle East a less desirable place for Western countries to do business.

 

[Cyrus]

Strategic infrastructure has to do with security in and of itself. What is a number one strategy in time of war? Blocking ports and supply lines. It is not wise to be dependent on outsiders for anything related to national security in general.

This it very true and I agree; however, times have changed significantly as well. With the war on terrorism, all the experts have said we have to depend on outside nations in terms of intellegence gathering/sharing if we are to win. We simply cannot go it alone. The UAE is a major contributor to this information sharing, and it would damage relations in a region of already high tensions. I think the Bush administration went about a simple thing the wrong way, again as usual and made it seem a lot worse than it should have been. Personally, I would have more fears of China running our ports than I would the middle east. China has much more capability and technical know how to steal our nuclear information; which we do know they have tried to do in the past.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is a faulty argument. No one is trying to own anything in the UAE. The UAE can own property in the United States, because its legal for them to.

It wasn't an argument, it was a comparison as stated. The key point to which you did not respond was that this is a national security issue and we have a right to regulate infrastructure deemed critical. Ports are certainly critical.

That's very close minded and childish, no? Who said they would 'turn on us.' Only you have made such a wild claim. Why do they need us more than we need them, and what basis are you making this judgement?

I am talking about the arguements used by Bush, among others, claiming that this deal is critical. No, it is not childish and closed minded to distrust a country that would turn on us over a business deal. If attitudes are that fragile then they can't be trusted anyway. Would we worry about Great Brittain under similar circumstances? Of course not. Therein lies the difference and why this deal should have never been made. And in a time of war we should control all US ports.

That has nothing to do with security. We already discussed the issue that the Coast Gard handles the security. That just has to do with ownership.

Nonesense. Ports are large and complex, and ownership offers access and information. All information about operations, schedules, topology and function are available to the operators. You may have concluded one thing or another but that doesn't make it true. If you have been watching any of the dozens of experts on CNN and other news sources, you would know that this absolutely does affect security.

I also find it interesting that those who support this are suddenly so passive about security and worried about trade; as if one deal makes for isolationism - a disingenuous representation of the facts. And note that Bush et.al. caused the perception of this as bigotry by making the accusation in the first place. Why is it that those most worried about offending Muslims are the very people promoting this issue, when in fact it is about security. Those complaining the most are creating the very perception they allegedly are trying to avoid; and by design I would bet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has it occurred to anyone that we as a people are effectively being threatened [fear mongering] by our own government for putting security first?

Another point just made on The News Hour: Most investors in the US are from western europe and asia, not the middle east.

If the President were really interested in reducing tensions, he would make a great effort to assure the world that the American people have concerns about how the ports should be managed in a post 911 world, and that this in no way represents a general distrust of Muslims. It is about domestic security concerns and port management during a time of war.

But instead, he and his machine fuel the fire...

 

[edward]

Originally Posted by cyrusabdollahi
That has nothing to do with security. We already discussed the issue that the Coast Gard handles the security. That just has to do with ownership.

Strategic infrastructure has to do with security in and of itself. What is a number one strategy in time of war? Blocking ports and supply lines. It is not wise to be dependent on outsiders for anything related to national security in general.

Lets clear up something here. Although they are responsible for port security, The Coast Guard does not directly perform security duties at the ports. The Coast Guard reviews security plans that are submitted by the port operators.

Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002

On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, Public Law 107-295

The Coast Guard is the lead Federal agency for maritime homeland security. The Coast Guard’s homeland security mission is to protect the U.S. maritime domain and the U.S. Marine Transportation System and deny their use and exploitation by terrorists as a means for attacks on U.S. territory, population, and critical infrastructure. The MTSA contains several provisions relating to the Coast Guard’s role in maritime homeland security. The Act creates a U.S. maritime security system and requires Federal agencies, ports, and vessel owners to take numerous steps to upgrade security. The Act requires the Coast Guard to conduct vulnerability assessments of U.S. ports. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to develop national and regional area maritime transportation security plans and requires that seaports, waterfront terminals, and certain types of vessels develop and submit security and incident response plans to the Coast Guard for approval. Finally, the MTSA also requires the Coast Guard to conduct an antiterrorism assessment of certain foreign ports.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/06-03-03/06-03-03memo.html

The Coast Guard requires ports to develop port security plans, but those plans are frequently not shared with dockworkers.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/story/5578206p-5017864c.html

I would suggest that interested parties might want to read the entire link above before elaborating about how the Coast Guard is providing security.

 

[edward]

This it very true and I agree; however, times have changed significantly as well. With the war on terrorism, all the experts have said we have to depend on outside nations in terms of intellegence gathering/sharing if we are to win. We simply cannot go it alone.

You seem to be ignoring everything that has been posted about the dubious behavior of the UAE in the past. Did they do a 180 degree turn in the last several years? No, they just have money to spend since the price of oil doubled. And when it comes down to a worst case scenario, they are Islamic and they will support their Islamic brethren. That is not xenophobic, that is the hard truth.

The UAE is a major contributor to this information sharing,

You have no way of really knowing that. We have convienient relations with the UAE because they allow our ships and troops. Thats a fact. Do you remember the bombing of the Kobar towers in Saudi Arabia? Our troops and military ships are not allowed there.

and it would damage relations in a region of already high tensions.

So should we try to buy a friend like Stalin did with Germany?

I think the Bush administration went about a simple thing the wrong way, again as usual and made it seem a lot worse than it should have been.

The administration seems to be very good at that. The situation in Iraq is a lot worse than it was supposed to be.

Personally, I would have more fears of China running our ports than I would the middle east. China has much more capability and technical know how to steal our nuclear information; which we do know they have tried to do in the past.

Actually China is currently running the parts of the Port Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Port of Oakland, where their ships dock.

 

[Cyrus]

It wasn't an argument, it was a comparison as stated. The key point to which you did not respond was that this is a national security issue and we have a right to regulate infrastructure deemed critical. Ports are certainly critical.

Ok, replace argument with comparison.

That is a faulty comparison. No one is trying to own anything in the UAE. The UAE can own property in the United States, because its legal for them to.

Happy? Back to your point, yes we do have a right to regulate infrastructure deemed critical. But if you want to make that argument then why did you bring it up when the UAE was involved and not the British? If one were to make the claim that the British are our allies, the same can be said of the UAE.

I am talking about the arguements used by Bush, among others, claiming that this deal is critical. No, it is not childish and closed minded to distrust a country that would turn on us over a business deal. If attitudes are that fragile then they can't be trusted anyway. Would we worry about Great Brittain under similar circumstances? Of course not. Therein lies the difference and why this deal should have never been made. And in a time of war we should control all US ports.

Ok and again I ask you, other than yourself, who has said that the UAE would turn on us? What proof do you have that the UAE will 'turn on us' if this deal does not go through? Do you have an official statements from the UAE government saying that? I find it funny that you would trust Great Britian, but not another country. Do you think that Great Britian will put our interests first?....I smell double standards.

Nonesense. Ports are large and complex, and ownership offers access and information. All information about operations, schedules, topology and function are available to the operators. You may have concluded one thing or another but that doesn't make it true. If you have been watching any of the dozens of experts on CNN and other news sources, you would know that this absolutely does affect security.

I would like to see some of those clips if you have any, as I have seen Rumsfeld, Rice, Michael Chertoff and others say that this deal is safe. (Now they are all Bush apointees, so I would like to see others views if you can show me some, but I am afraid they are the experts though.)



Edward, based on that snip you provided, all I see it saying is that the Coast Guard is to review additional security steps taken by the companies and to review their incident response plans. It does not say that this is what the Coast Guards operations are limited to.

 

[Cyrus]

You seem to be ignoring everything that has been posted about the dubious behavior of the UAE in the past. Did they do a 180 degree turn in the last several years? No, they just have money to spend since the price of oil doubled. And when it comes down to a worst case scenario, they are Islamic and they will support their Islamic brethren. That is not xenophobic, that is the hard truth.

I'm sorry, you have got to stop giving your opinion on what a government of another country will or will not do. Please show me governemnt statements made by the UAE saying that they will take on this policy, and the well talk.

You have no way of really knowing that. We have convienient relations with the UAE because they allow our ships and troops. Thats a fact. Do you remember the bombing of the Kobar towers in Saudi Arabia? Our troops and military ships are not allowed there.

Yes I do, all the high ranking US government officials have said so. I do not know about the Kobar towers, please explain it. I don't see what Saudi Arabia has to do with the UAE...they are two different countries.

The administration seems to be very good at that. The situation in Iraq is a lot worse than it was supposed to be.

That's because they half ass everything.

Actually China is currently running parts of the Port Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Port of Oakland.

So why no outrage for them? (Whispers double standard...)

 

[edward]

CYRUS

I can't force you to read the links.

Develops guidance for oversight of post-licensing activities associated with the development of deepwater ports including the design, construction, and activation phases, environmental monitoring programs, operational procedures, risk assessments, security plans, safety and inspections

The Coast Guard does not run every day security at the ports. They are far too small to do that.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/mso5.htm

 

[Cyrus]

I will read your links Edward; however, in the mean time I would appreciate a response to your claims about how the UAE government will side with other middle eastern countries by default, and how what happened in Saudi Arabia is tied to the UAE?

And why do you insist in shouting my name Edward?

 

[-Job-]

It bothers me a great deal to think that government officials and the current administration may be putting their own affairs, priorities, and interests before those of the country. And to think that they may be coming on aftwards to give public addresses and deny everything, lying to the people they should be serving, and potentially endangering them, making decisions that don't reflect what the american people want, etc. All of this, just thinking about it, drives me insane. I can't stand incompetence.

 

[edward]

I'm sorry, you have got to stop giving your opinion on what a government of another country will or will not do. Please show me governemnt statements made by the UAE saying that they will take on this policy, and the well talk.

Whether or not this issue is my opinion is merely your opinion.
I have given numerous links to support what I have stated.

And yet you would ask me to provide a statement from the UAE government that shows that they can not be relied upon? I hardly think that they would publish something of that nature. So we must rely on what they have done in the past. What they have done in the last few years is not enough to prove that they are a long term friend or that they would betray Islam to maintain our favor. This is a country who heavily supported the Taliban. The Taliban is the epitome of extremist Islam. The UAE wants to step into the New world without leaving the old. They contradict themselves.

....................
So why have they changed in recent years, and this is my opinion. it is all about money, wealth and power. They want to be a global financial power and the Las Vegas of the Middle east.
....................

But yet at the same time they are Islamic. They will continue to live under Sharia law of Islam and with the Koran as their constitution. And most importantly, in a worst case scenario, they will support Islam.

Yes I do, all the high ranking US government officials have said so.

That would be the same high ranking U.S. officials who said that there were WMD in Iraq and that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms.

I do not know about the Kobar towers, please explain it.

We had troops stationed in saudia Arabia during and after the first gulf war up until 1996. The last of the troops were housed in the Kobar towers in Rihad. The extremest Islamics saw this as a disgrace to have the "unclean" American soldiers living in their most holy country. They bombed the Towers. Our troops were brought home.

I don't see what Saudi Arabia has to do with the UAE...they are two different countries.

Yet they are one people under Allah. Saudi Arabia is still heavily populated with Islamic extremists The UAE has a small army with most of it's enlisted soldiers being Pakistani. In as much, the UAE could be over run by extremists very quickly.

That's because they half ass everything.

I got to agree with you there.

So why no outrage for them? (Whispers double standard...)

It is in a way, but the Islamics are the ones who have been demonized by Bush for the last four years. As I have stated before: Bush spent nearly five years playing, "The Islamic Fear factor Game with the American people." It worked.

 

[Art]

And so it ends...

DP World Unveils Port Operation Sale Plans

By TED BRIDIS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 15, 2006; 11:34 AM

WASHINGTON -- A Dubai-owned company said Wednesday it plans to sell all its U.S. port operations within four to six months to an unrelated American buyer and laid out new details about how it plans to pursue the sale under pressure from Congress.

DP World said that until the sale is finalized, its U.S. businesses will be operated independently. The announcement was the first time DP World described its plans for the U.S. operations as a "sale" and indicated it would retain no stake in them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031500763.html?nav=rss_politics

 

[turbo]

Who would like to take odds that tht DPW "sale" will be to the Carlisle Group or to a Halliburton subsidiary?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Dubai government delayed the $1.2 billion takeover of a military-equipment maker, the second time in a month that a takeover by the Middle East emirate has been jeopardized by U.S. security concerns.

...Dubai's purchase of Doncasters, which was agreed on Dec. 14, may ignite a political debate in the U.S. similar to that caused last month by the emirate's $6.8 billion purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. DP World had to agree to sell interests in six U.S. terminals. Revenue from Doncasters' U.S. plants, which make parts for tanks and military aircraft, account for about 40 percent of total sales. [continued]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aOj8mWpC3ZIg&refer=europe

I was joking the other day that perhaps we should outsource the armed forces. Anyway, I'm glad to see that this is all resulting in closer scrutiny of pending deals. IMO this was sorely needed.