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

[Cyrus]

Just becuase it is a first does not mean anything is wrong with it. They have to comply with the same laws that a US owned company would have to. They already said they are willing to make changes to any additional security measures the US Government would like to see done.

 

[SOS2008]

One of the frustrations we're having in this thread is that nobody even seems able to tell the public just exactly what it is that they will be doing once they take over. This shouldn't be such a difficult question to get answered, but we really still don't have a clear idea. I've gotten some glimpses from jobs P&O was hiring for, and some vague mission statements on the P&O and DP World websites, but NONE of it gives a complete picture of what they will be doing. They're in charge of something, somewhere there is money to be made in this deal or nobody would take over that job. About all I can glean is that DP World is aggressively expanding, and they needed this takeover of P&O to gain the status and reputation of a leader in that industry. I think I linked to whatever site I saw that on last night. So, they need the U.S., but does the U.S. need them too? And if so, why? I'm willing to listen to an hour long, or longer, Presidential press conference if Bush will please explain it all to us, and bring along the folks from DP World who are visiting and the folks from this secret committee, so nobody gets to weasel out and say the person with the answers isn't there. I want them all in the same room and I want answers out of them. Why should we trust them when they have given us zero information about the deal and given us zero reasons for that trust?

This is the story the media is missing, and the questions Congress is not asking--except to ask for a review in general.

One more thing that about makes my head explode here. The logic put forth by the admin so far is this: This deal is critical to the UAE, and it is critical to the perception of us among Muslims, hence our national security, that we allow a foreign agency controlled by a government with a dubious track record on terror to control a US port.

That would be Bushspeak, and I am still suspicious of what is in the water that affects people's logic.

I find it really hard to believe he appointed someone from DP World to a high level position back in January, yet didn't know anything about the goings-on with DP World, short of his newly appointed Maritime Administrator back-stabbing him, but aquisitions like this just don't happen overnight. It has had to be in negotiations for months, and even if he didn't know who was going to win the bids with P&O, someone had to know who the contenders were to start running background checks.

He might have been riding his bike, or on vacation, or preoccupied with warrantless wiretaps, or just a puppet on strings... The article rachmaninoff provided made it look as if these kinds of transactions take place all the time, and are usually so mundane as to not require direct presidential review. The lawsuit no doubt was unexpected, and now, well there is some 'splainen to do.

 

[edward]

Just becuase it is a first does not mean anything is wrong with it. They have to comply with the same laws that a US owned company would have to. They already said they are willing to make changes to any additional security measures the US Government would like to see done.

That is not the point. It is not just a security issue. For the last 60 years , state owned, meant either socialist or communist. They didn't even try to enter the U.S. business scene because our industry was so strong that they were driven out. In more recent years banks would loan money to companies that they may not have loaned to in ordinary circumstances, just to keep out anything that was socalist.

The recent Whirlpool purchase of Maytag to prevent Maytags purchase by China is a prime example.

Even now Bush harps on the state sponsored and state subsidized businesses in foreign countries accusing them of unfair trade practices.
ie They can sell goods at a lower price because of the finacial aid they receive from their government.

This is not just a first. It will set a precedent for the future.
DPWorld is the very type of state backed conglomerate that has been so stronly criticised and rebuked by Americans in the past.

 

[edward]

The link below provides an interesting interactive map of P&O (British) holdings in American ports. There seems to be eleven with an all or partial interest held by P&O, soon to be DPWorld UAE.

http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82863&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

 

[SOS2008]

Transcripts from CNN -- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/22/acd.01.html

First about laws:

Patrick Mulloy, an attorney who helped write the law, says the president should have known.

PATRICK MULLOY, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW EXPERT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: The process was not followed as Congress laid it out in the law.

J. KING: The law calls for the president to weigh in and to report his findings to Congress, if the initial review suggests the foreign investment could undermine national security.

MULLOY: Then, senior people get involved and start debating the merits, pros and cons.

J. KING: But Mr. Bush and his top aides were not involved in this deal, to the astonishment of critics, because the lower review, led by Treasury, did not warn of a national security risk that warranted presidential attention.

Only six months ago, the investigative arm of Congress raised alarms on this very issue, suggesting, Treasury is too biased in favor of foreign investment, and, as a result, "narrowly defines what constitutes a threat to national security, and is reluctant to initiate investigations for possible presidential action."

MULLOY: And that's what happens when you don't follow the law. You short-circuit it. And, then, you get yourself into trouble.

Then about security concerns:

P. KING: Oh, but, again, we don't know who all the personnel are with the company. We don't know what their hiring practices are. We don't know, for instance, whether or not those in the Dubai and Emirates government which brought about the recognition of the Taliban back in 1996, and was one of the only -- you know, one of only three governments in the world to recognize the Taliban, how much of an influence they still have in the government.

And how much influence does the government actually have on this company, since they are the principal owner of it? So, these are all real issues that should have been looked in to. And, under the statute -- you know, everything in the statute, as Pat Mulloy said before, cried out for a full 45-day investigation. What was the rush to judgment here? There's 24 years left on the lease.

COOPER: Well, the other two governments... who supported the Taliban were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of whom are, allegedly, our very close allies in the war on terror.

P. KING: Right. Right.

But, even on that point, Anderson -- on that point, for instance, I think Pakistan has been a very good ally. I would not want a Pakistani company, though, working on our ports, because I know -- and all of us know -- there is still a large Taliban influence in the Pakistan government, in the Pakistan intelligence agencies.

President Musharraf is a good ally, but his government is still infiltrated by Taliban and al Qaeda supporters.

COOPER: Supporters of this deal will say, look, if union -- American union longshoremen are still the folks working in these ports, as they're going to be, and the Coast Guard, and the Customs, and the Border Patrol are still in charge of security, why does it matter who actually manages the port?

P. KING: Because you would have -- assume that there is a problem with this company. And that's what we have to investigate to find out.
You would, then, have an enemy, you know, within our own defense perimeter. They would know what all the operations are, as far as security. They would know what all the machinations and mechanisms are within our ports. So, you would be giving them access to the ports, which they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the real danger here.

And about outsourcing concerns in general:

COOPER: But I don't think most Americans realize that just about all major American ports are run by foreign companies. I mean, you have got Chinese -- I mean, even here in New York, you have got, you know, a Chinese company running some of the terminals in the New York ports, or running, you know, terminals out there in L.A. You have got Dutch companies. You have got British companies.

P. KING: Mmm-hmm...

----------

ROBERTS: Certainly. ...in fact, 30 percent of container operations in this country are handled by companies that are based in third countries.

For example, in the Port of Baltimore, you have companies from Denmark, Taiwan, and Singapore that are involved in -- in container operations and terminal operations there.

So our government under Bush did not follow the law? And there are no security issues to be concerned about--Are we sure about that? And the Bush administration is selling America again to compensate for their tax breaks and bungled ventures of war? I can't believe it.

 

[edward]

Where did our distrust of islam come from

First of all it is somewhat unusual that a thread gets to the 14th page and is still pretty much on topic.

So where did many of us and the general John Q public get its distrust of Islam. (the hinge on which this thread at times has turned and twisted)

After 9/11 most of us had a great hatred for a certain well defined terrorist group. The real distrust of Islam has been ingrained in us by GW Bush. And it was done so in order to gain favor for the war in Iraq.

He has given hundreds of speeches and news conferences over the past three years and in each one he has repeatedly used the terms, Haters of freedom, doers of evil, axis of evil, relentless killers, haters of democracy.
And each and everytime these comments were aimed supposedly at radical Islam.

The problem has been that most people can not differentiate between Radical and moderate Islam, thus eventually Islam itself became the object of our anger and distrust. We can not look at two Islamics and tell the difference. The end result has been that the racism, and religious intolerance that exists deeply implanted in our minds, was put there by the very same man who now proclaims that It is perfectly safe for an Islamic company to operate a number of our sea ports.

 

[turbo]

That's the heart of the problem, edward. Bush is so cozy with the Saudis that when the 9/11 hijackers (overwhelmingly Saudis) struck us, he immediately arranged for rich Saudis (including Bin Laden family members) to be spirited out of the country, while US citizens were locked down, unable to use air transportation. For him to side with the UAE on this issue is more of the same. He cozies up to whomever can grease him, and demonizes everyone that he wants to attack. Every time he makes a speech, he mentions "9/11", "terror" and "Iraq" as closely together as he can and repeats it over and over, until the less-educated and less-informed of our citizenry is absolutely convinced that Iraq was behind the hijackings. This results in knee-jerk reactions in our populace against even the most moderate, peaceful Muslims. Spawning hatred is evil, and it plays right into the hands of the Zionists, who want to portray every Arab organization as "terrorist". If we don't have a conflagration in the Middle East involving Israel and Iran at a minimum, we should count ourselves lucky.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Edward, if a thread manages to stay on topic, please don't feel obligated to change that. This story may have a long way to go yet.

 

[turbo]

I picked up on that. Bush was backing this before he could even know what it was; according to what he says now.

Even if we assume only the best of intentions by all involved, there is a secondary issue of trust in competence. The Bush administration's ability to access the facts is known to be highly flawed.

Now that the cat is out of the bag - that David Sanborn (once head of European and Latin American operations for DPW) was appointed to run the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department, should we follow the money? This administration is rife with cronyism, and it seems that any of them can be bought for a price. Cheney refused to divest himself of his Halliburton holdings and right now, he is sitting fat and happy, thanks to all the no-bid contracts and overcharging in Iraq. I expect that our port security has just been sold the same way. This is our weak link, people. Fewer than 5% of the containers entering our ports are inspected and anyone of them could contain a dirty bomb or biological or chemical agents, along with some dispersive mechanism. Mayors and governors of major port cities should be on the news every night for as long as it takes for this travesty to be reversed. It only takes one well-placed person in a port authority to subvert security measures and allow an attack to proceed. It need not be the president of a corporation or the director of operations, it might only need to be a secretary privy to their information. Never underestimate the power of a funtionary holding a grudge.

 

[edward]

Edward, if a thread manages to stay on topic, please don't feel obligated to change that. This story may have a long way to go yet.

Your are correct sir.

Pace said the United Arab Emirates receives U.S. aircraft carriers in its ports, allows U.S. forces to use its airfields and airspace, and provides logistics support for U.S. forces.
”They’ve got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let U.S. use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots,” he said.

The port the carriers use is of course, Dubai, home of DPWorld (Dubai Ports World)

This whole scenario is starting to sound like something that wasn't quite good enough for Tom Clancy to write. Naa that's an overstatement.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ROVE has said that the deal can be delayed. I find it very interesting that Rove was chosen to do this.

On Thursday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told FOX News' Tony Snow that the Bush administration wants to make Congress is comfortable with the contract, even if it means the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. is slightly pushed back[continued]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185875,00.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem has been that most people can not differentiate between Radical and moderate Islam, thus eventually Islam itself became the object of our anger and distrust. We can not look at two Islamics and tell the difference. The end result has been that the racism, and religious intolerance that exists deeply implanted in our minds, was put there by the very same man who now proclaims that It is perfectly safe for an Islamic company to operate a number of our sea ports.

It may be better to refer to Middle Eastern countries. The issue isn't that they are muslims but where their country is located and the sort of criminal/political issues they have. Would we even know if a british company that runs a US port isn't owned and/or run by muslims?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have been watching some of the defense of this deal, and one concern repeatedly voiced is that we are going to offend Muslims if we act to protect our own interests.

This from the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq.

 

[SOS2008]

I have been watching some of the defense of this deal, and one concern repeatedly voiced is that we are going to offend Muslims if we act to protect our own interests.

This from the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq.

If the deal went through, would our image be improved in the Middle East, particularly Bush's image? What has offended the Middle East is the history of our meddling in their affairs--most recently the invasion of Iraq, Bush's aggressive rhetoric in general, and treatment of prisoners, all of which make this bungled deal look like nothing.

 

[BobG]

If the deal went through, would our image be improved in the Middle East, particularly Bush's image? What has offended the Middle East is the history of our meddling in their affairs--most recently the invasion of Iraq, Bush's aggressive rhetoric in general, and treatment of prisoners, all of which make this bungled deal look like nothing.

Wrong question.

If the deal with UAE went through, would Bush's image among the general populace of Iraq or Jordan or Saudi Arabia be improved? Probably about as much as a deal with Spain would improve our image among the general populace of Mexico, Germany, or Japan. Most people in the Middle East will be as excited as the population of Omaha gets when Tulsa gets a new Intel plant (both Omaha and Tulsa are in the midwestern US, just as UAE and Jordan are in the Middle East).

The excuse that rejecting the deal will offend Muslims is as lame as objecting to the deal just because the UAE is a Middle East country. The only people that will be excited or offended are the people with a financial link to DP World.

The deal needs to be weighed on its own merits, not by where the country is located geographically.

 

[Bystander]

Quick recap:

P&O, royal charter, 1840, without permission of U.S. Congress (GASP);

P&O contracts with six independent port authorities in U.S. to operate container terminals, terms of contracts have to have been approved by State and DOC;

P&O concludes agreement for sale of container operations to DPW, another overseas corporation in a venue outside jurisdiction of U.S. Govt. (GASP), and terms apparently include transfer, or assumption of contract obligations with six port authorities.​

"Control" of ports has not been transferred. Contract obligations with ports for operation of container terminals has been transferred. That is, the loading and unloading of sealed containers inspected and sealed at ports of origin by customs inspectors paid at rates determined by governments of the ports of origin, is now in the hands of the same people as before, who are now to be paid by DPW rather than P&O. Are the checks apt to bounce?

 

[SOS2008]

DP World also would acquire terminals in 18 other countries, but only the U.S. is concerned. Why? Because the 9-11 attack involved hijackers from the UAE, and because the United States remains a more likely target than other countries. Knowledge of U.S. operations is a valid concern, and not irrational or simply bias against Middle Eastern countries. Especially since there is little confidence in Homeland Security's ability to implement proper precautions.

Though it seems to me that the UAE would take great care to prevent terrorist attacks simply because it would be bad for business, personally I don't like U.S. dependency on anything. People point out that globalization is not something new, and that container traffic is dominated by foreign companies. But that doesn't mean globalization is always done in a beneficial way.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that reviewed the transaction is run by the Treasury Department, and includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Why are foreign investment negotiations and review of big corporate mergers done:
a) by a committee run by the Treasury Department?
b) via a secretive review process (and perhaps not a very thorough one at that)?

The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.

It is no secret that this administration has pursued an aggressive antiregulatory agenda, and it has elevated corporate leaders to its highest positions. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department convened the panel that approved the ports deal, came to government after serving as the chief executive of the CSX Corporation, which was a major port operator when he worked there. (After he left, CSX sold its port operations to Dubai Ports World.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/opinion/22wed1.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

So additional concern is the lack of transparency in our so-called democracy. And that Americans are not the first consideration, but rather money, return of favors, and cronyism are what rule the day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From what I heard yesterday, it looks like we should expect legislation banning all foreign control of US ports.

Has anyone caught the bit with the UAE telling CNN that no interview would be granted until they tell Lou Dobbs to shut up - this was reported by Lou Dobbs.

Big fans of freedom of the press, obviously. Maybe this relates to their official support of a government that openly beat women in the streets - The Taliban.

Also

Sen. Carl Levin says the Bush administration ignored the law requiring a complete national security review of the port deal.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

The author of the law says that Bush broke the law in bypassing the 45 day review. He claimed that this review is required since the company is owned by the UAE government. This was also reported on Lou Dobbs but I didn't spot the quote.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Why are foreign investment negotiations and review of big corporate mergers done:
a) by a committee run by the Treasury Department?

Duties, tariffs, and other such odds and ends Treasury is charged with handling, when such negotiations and mergers affect this country.

b) via a secretive review process (and perhaps not a very thorough one at that)?(snip)

What secret? You can not possibly think that every person in Washington is going to ask permission of every last one of 300M people every time they take one step toward discharge of duties they've been elected, appointed, or hired to handle? The contracts were signed by local port authorities with P&O. They ARE transferrable. Those port authorities ARE bound by domestic and international law to those contracts.

If those local port authorities are engaged in activities which might be threatened by increased security restrictions imposed during the review process, I can understand their interests in breaking the contracts. Is that the case? Cocaine, other street-corner pharmeceuticals, bootleg CDs and DVDs are going to go up in price? Is that what the fuss is about?

 

[loseyourname]

Quick recap:

P&O, royal charter, 1840, without permission of U.S. Congress (GASP);

P&O contracts with six independent port authorities in U.S. to operate container terminals, terms of contracts have to have been approved by State and DOC;

P&O concludes agreement for sale of container operations to DPW, another overseas corporation in a venue outside jurisdiction of U.S. Govt. (GASP), and terms apparently include transfer, or assumption of contract obligations with six port authorities.​

"Control" of ports has not been transferred. Contract obligations with ports for operation of container terminals has been transferred. That is, the loading and unloading of sealed containers inspected and sealed at ports of origin by customs inspectors paid at rates determined by governments of the ports of origin, is now in the hands of the same people as before, who are now to be paid by DPW rather than P&O. Are the checks apt to bounce?

This raises a pretty damn good question. Does anybody here know what the responsibilities of Dubai Ports World will actually be after this sale is completed? All I could find was this:

Most Americans, he said, do not understand that Dubai Ports World would largely tend to crane and warehouse operations in some terminals at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The Coast Guard would continue to patrol harbors, customs officers to protect cargo, and the Transportation Security Agency to check the backgrounds of port workers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/ports.php

This sounds like everyone they hire will continue to go through exactly the same background checks they do now, and that security is completely out of their hands. The concern seems to be that they're going to now be able to place terrorist material into containers and get them into the US, which just doesn't make sense to me. Placing something in a container would have to take place at the country of origin, not here in the US, and would be subject to exactly the same security measures post-deal as ante-deal. They aren't going to be able to slip it through port security that they intentionally undermine because they aren't going to have any control over, or even any input into, port security. Am I wrong about this?

 

[edward]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

The author of the law says that Bush broke the law in bypassing the 45 day review. He claimed that this review is required since the company is owned by the UAE government. This was also reported on Lou Dobbs but I didn't spot the quote.

But Bush claims he knew nothing about the deal . Someone sure left him with an "ignorance defense".

 

[edward]

What secret? You can not possibly think that every person in Washington is going to ask permission of every last one of 300M people every time they take one step toward discharge of duties they've been elected, appointed, or hired to handle? The contracts were signed by local port authorities with P&O. They ARE transferrable. Those port authorities ARE bound by domestic and international law to those contracts.

Even Bush claims he didn't know about this until last Monday. We are at war and according to Bush's own words as far as national security is concerned neither law or the constitution apply to anything unless he says so.

The only people who knew about this were the review committe and the people who applied to the review committe. "That dog won't hunt" when we are at war. especially at war in the Middle East.

 

[edward]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/ports.php

This sounds like everyone they hire will continue to go through exactly the same background checks they do now, and that security is completely out of their hands. The concern seems to be that they're going to now be able to place terrorist material into containers and get them into the US, which just doesn't make sense to me. Placing something in a container would have to take place at the country of origin, not here in the US, and would be subject to exactly the same security measures post-deal as ante-deal. They aren't going to be able to slip it through port security that they intentionally undermine because they aren't going to have any control over, or even any input into, port security. Am I wrong about this?

Your link is entitled Bush tries to salvage deal

The background checks have been added only since this matter has come to the attention of congress. Bush didn't even know about the deal let alone any back ground checks previous to that.

Who does what differs at the six differen't ports. There are five more ports that P&O has an interest in.
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82863&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

 

[loseyourname]

Hey edward, can we just concede that Bush is an idiot and a fool and get on to the matter of whether or not this deal deserves to be blocked or approved and whether or not the acquisition might actually pose a security risk?

 

[edward]

Hey edward, can we just concede that Bush is an idiot and a fool and get on to the matter of whether or not this deal deserves to be blocked or approved and whether or not the acquisition might actually pose a security risk?

I'll try LYN

 

[edward]

Here is one more red flag that whoever is behind this deal will ignore.

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Carlyle Group

Could this be why Bush jumped to support the deal? [Also, IIRC, the Bin Ladens were in a meeting with GW Bush [senior] when the 911 attacks occurred. That really helps to instill trust].

Politicians affiliated with Carlyle
Alice Albright, daughter of ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

James Baker III, former United States Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, Staff member under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Carlyle Senior Counselor

George H. W. Bush, former U.S. President, Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003.

George W. Bush, current U.S. President. Was appointed in 1990 to the Board of Directors of one of Carlyle's first acquisitions, an airline food business called Caterair, which Carlyle eventually sold at a loss. Bush left the board in 1992 to later become Governor of Texas, where he was responsible for appointing several members of the board which controlled the investment of Texas teachers' pension funds. A few years later, the board decided to invest $100m of public money in the Carlyle Group.

Frank C. Carlucci, former United States Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1989, chairman emeritus and currently strategic business advisor. Also, former Princeton roommate and wrestling partner of present US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Richard Darman, former Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George H. W. Bush, Senior Advisor and Managing Director of The Carlyle Group

William Kennard, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle's Managing Director in the Telecommunications & Media Group

Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior Advisor

John Major, former British Prime Minister, Chairman, Carlyle Europe until May 2004, and other posts to the present

Frank McKenna, Canadian ambassador (effective March 1, 2005) to the United States, former member of Carlyle's Canadian advisory board

Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, Carlyle Senior Advisor

Anand Panyarachun, former premier of Thailand
Colin Powell, former United States Secretary of State

Fidel Ramos, former president of the Philippines, Carlyle Asia Advisor Board Member until the board was disbanded in February 2004

Park Tae Joon, former prime minister of South Korea

Robert Zoellick, former United States Trade Representative and current Deputy Secretary of State

The Saudi Arabian relatives of Osama bin Laden (not Osama bin Laden himself) were also minor investors in Carlyle until October 2001 when the family sold its $2.02 million investment back to the firm in light of the public controversy surrounding the bin Laden family after September 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group#Politicians_affiliated_with_Carlyle

I believe the above information is accurate. It is often cited without any apparent reprisals.
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcarlyle.htm

A video from CNN:
Bush Family Ties to the UAE
http://www.democrats.com/bush-uae

 

[turbo]

If those local port authorities are engaged in activities which might be threatened by increased security restrictions imposed during the review process, I can understand their interests in breaking the contracts. Is that the case? Cocaine, other street-corner pharmeceuticals, bootleg CDs and DVDs are going to go up in price? Is that what the fuss is about?

The fuss is over the fact that UAE was the place where the 9/11 highjackers' money got laundered, and where a couple of the highjackers came from. The people operating cargo-handling equipment, warehouses, etc, at ports are not in charge of security, but they are in a unique position to observe security operations, the usual timing of inspections, locations of inspections, routes the security details take, the timing of shift changes, etc. This is all stuff a terrorist would dearly love to know if he wanted to use commercial shipping to get WMDs into the US.

The fact that the Bush administration tried sliding this through quietly as a "done deal" gives the impression that they knew that there would be a public backlash once the details got out.

 

[SOS2008]

The fuss is over the fact that UAE was the place where the 9/11 highjackers' money got laundered, and where a couple of the highjackers came from. The people operating cargo-handling equipment, warehouses, etc, at ports are not in charge of security, but they are in a unique position to observe security operations, the usual timing of inspections, locations of inspections, routes the security details take, the timing of shift changes, etc. This is all stuff a terrorist would dearly love to know if he wanted to use commercial shipping to get WMDs into the US.

The fact that the Bush administration tried sliding this through quietly as a "done deal" gives the impression that they knew that there would be a public backlash once the details got out.

This is in follow-up to Ivan's post as well--according to this source:

http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

DP World has been "poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported."

In the meantime a report entitled :"House Homeland Security Cmte. GOP Chair: "There Are Real Issues Here And The White House Should Realize It"... by NBC has been spiked. There are more concerns that have been coming to light. For example the port in Dubai is one of the major ports in the world involved with smuggling of counterfeit and contraband, and they have close ties to a host of shipping companies, including those owned by the Bin Laden family.

I was watching the McLaughlin Group the other night, and in an exchange with Mort Zuckerman of US News, John McLaughlin revealed that when he (McLaughlin) was in Dubai eight months ago, he encountered an Israeli mission to Dubai that was there with the intent of opening business contacts in Dubai. But the only source reporting this is:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/184FCB4A-39BD-4A0A-B38B-81FCFBD951BE.htm

Hmm, so maybe this is about sweetening a pot on many levels, including talks with Israel? (Has anyone seen Chertoff lately--what's his role in all this?)

It isn't just the security issues that are of concern, but from day one I have wondered about the "why" of it all. As usual we see secretiveness and contradiction, such as when/how much Bush knew about the deal. This is bothering.

Speaking of flip-flops, Frist never ceases to amaze me. He has now come out in support of Bush and the port deal. How can he (Frist) review national security of our ports in a day or two without any hearings or testimony? Did he watch a video tape? I think he's the one who is brain dead. (Or getting some kind of kick-back?)

 

[edward]

The Bush family has been in bed with the Carlyle Group for years. And what has the Carlyle Group been up to?:

Back to Dubai...Carlyle bought CSX World Terminals in 2003 for $300 million and just two year's later flipped it to the company now known as Dubai Ports World for a near 400% profit at a cool $1.12 billion. Again nice work, and a sweet price. Especially since John Snow had all but ran CSX into the ground. Since 1991 CSX's profits have shrunk drastically with its stock underperforming its rivals' by more than 65%

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/23/14935/2494

There is a lot of info in the link on who influences what in regards to the Bush family and the middle east. Oh what a tangled web they weave.

Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room. It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected, and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly important.

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=6793&hed=Carlyle

It appears that this deal goes so deep it may reach all the way down into the sewer.
For the Bush family it is just business as usual. For the rest of us: When do we get America back?

It appears that the old "follow the money" quote is the way to get to the bottom of this rotten deal.

 

[SOS2008]

The Bush family has been in bed with the Carlyle Group for years. And what has the Carlyle Group been up to?:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/23/14935/2494

There is a lot of info in the link on who influences what in regards to the Bush family and the middle east. Oh what a tangled web they weave.

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=6793&hed=Carlyle

And with the Saudis in general. Information about the Carlyle Group isn't easy to obtain, because they like it that way (imagine that).

But since the start of the "war on terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $3.5bn - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.

For more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html

Here is what Wiki has about it:

"The Carlyle Group is a Washington, D.C. based global private equity investment firm."

"Critics of the Carlyle Group frequently note its connections to various political figures" (including both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.) because of "conflicts of interest when political decision makers have their own personal wealth linked to such investments." "...It is a private equity firm that owns controlling or partial interests in a portfolio of companies, some of which are contractors for the military (though this is the area for which it is most well known)."

In the book House of Bush, House of Saud, author Craig Unger states that Saudi Arabian interests have given 1.4 billion Dollars to firms connected to the Bush family. ...Nearly 90% of the 1.4 billion, about 1.18 billion, refers to Saudi Arabian government contracts awarded to defense contractor BDM in the early to mid 1990s. At that time BDM was owned by the Carlyle Group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group

The Carlyle Group has managed the financials for the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC), primarily a construction company also with connections to Bechtel:

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker writes about the connections of Bechtel, the Bin Laden Group/family, and Bush, and past, administration officials, "The bin Ladens have a ten-million-dollar stake in the Fremont Group, a San Francisco-based company formerly called Bechtel Investments, which was until 1986 a subsidiary of Bechtel. ...Riley Bechtel, is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Bechtel Group, and is a member of the Bush administration.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bechtel

And SBC is involved in many other areas:

The Bin Laden Group is currently participating in various fields of activities including telecommunications, real estate and oil production. All the projects of the corporation are concentrated within the Arabian Peninsula, although it as an office and a few proprieties in the United-Sates and in Europe as well.

http://www.theworldjournal.com/2002/osamabusiness.htm

Most of the Bin Laden Group's activity is in Saudi Arabia. The Info-Prod database lists hundreds of companies owned by the family in a wide range of fields. ...They have a tourism company and a shipping company.

...An indirect connection between President George W. Bush and the bin Laden family was created via Texas entrepreneur James Bath. Bath was Salem's commercial representative in Texas from 1976-1988. During that time, he invested $50,000 in Bush's company, Arbusto Energy. In 1990, Bush told The Houston Post that he had never had any business dealings with Bath. In 1999, his spokeswoman said that, apart from the investment in Arbusto, Governor Bush had no business with Bath.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
(Sound familiar? Hint - Abramoff?)

Once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, [Osama] bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia to work for the family construction firm, the bin Laden Group. He became involved in Saudi groups opposed to the reigning Saudi monarchy, the Fahd family.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/

Until 9-11, according to Wiki:

The Saudi Arabian relatives of Osama bin Laden (not Osama bin Laden himself) were also minor investors in Carlyle until October 2001 when the family sold its $2.02 million investment back to the firm in light of the public controversy surrounding the bin Laden family after September 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group

Also in an attempt to avoid any association with the suspected terror mastermind, one of the Bin Laden group's subsidiaries changed its name in 1999, from Bin Laden Telecommunications to Baud Telecommunications Company (BTC).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bin_Laden_Group

Though many remain skeptical that the family would ever completely cut Osama off:

Despite their repeated avowals to have broken off all contact with him, not all of the brothers have completely ostracized him. Two of Osama's brothers and one of his sisters made it to his son Mohammed's wedding in Kandahar in January.

In a March 1997 interview with CNN's Peter Arnett, bin Laden was asked whether his relatives had asked him to cease his activities. His response revealed the close connection he still has with them: "They pressured me many times," he said. "My mother, my uncle and my brother came to Khartoum nine times and asked me to come back to Saudi Arabia and to apologize to King Fahd."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

Finding information on DP World is even harder. The basics are here: http://today.reuters.com/investing/...222:MTFH99493_2006-02-22_17-07-19_N22406644:1

Other than that, we know of questionable relations between the UAE and Osama, and we know the UAE owns DP World.

WASHINGTON -- The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission's report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaida leader.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-portbin24.html

The difficulty in obtaining information only attests to the need for investigation into DP World, and more openess from the Bush administration.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh dear lord - I hadn't checked this thread in a while (I'm only looking now because of SOS's reference in another thread). It really has become just another F911 conspiracy theory thread. Michael Moore was lying to you, guys, and you can do 6 degrees of Bin Laden just as easily as you can do 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

A girl I went to high school with (I didn't know her, but I'm sure we passed in the hall once or twice...) was in a Kevin Bacon movie, so that's 2 degrees to me and now 3 degrees to all of you. Congratulations - now you'll always win that game...

On a more sinister note, I met Colin Powell when he gave a speech at the Naval Academy a few years back, so that means that any connection between Bush and Bin Laden also hits all of you - so all of you must have been involved in 9/11 as well.

 

[russ_watters]

One irony I couldn't pass up:

The difficulty in obtaining information only attests to the need for investigation into DP World, and more openess from the Bush administration.

Difficulty in obtaining information? Most of your sources were newspapers - it doesn't get any easier than that!

 

[SOS2008]

One irony I couldn't pass up: Difficulty in obtaining information? Most of your sources were newspapers - it doesn't get any easier than that!

If you look at the backgrounds of the main players in the Bush administration you will see business affiliations (Harkin, Halliburton, etc.) that were acquired without qualifications and despite track records of ineptitude, for example. If you look at the Bush administration you will see more of the same--cronyism, ineptitude, greed, etc. For those who question authority (which I highly recommend), and for those who believe people remain fundamentally the same through life (for example the trait of lying) it is natural to wonder why BushCo does anything it does.

Also, when there is secretiveness, contradictions, and vague information, it will lead to speculation. For example, there is speculation that the deal was done in preparation for military strikes against Iran. The Bush administration brings this on themselves, and the same applies to management style in a company. I trust them as far as I can throw them.

 

[edward]

It appears that according to federal law , the president or his designee, was supposed to be on top of this from the very beginning. OK We have been told that Bush supposedly was not aware of this sale, or the investigation, so how did he appoint someone to represent him??

EXON-FLORIO PROVISION

Introduction. The United States has traditionally welcomed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and provided foreign investors fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment with few limited exceptions designed to protect national security. The Exon-Florio provision is implemented within the context of this open investment policy. The intent of Exon-Florio is not to discourage FDI generally, but to provide a mechanism to review and, if the President finds necessary, to restrict FDI that threatens the national security.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

We could say that he didn't find necessary, but Bushco is saying that there was an adequate investigation. So who was his designee?

The Exon-Florio statute established a 30-day review following receipt of a notification. For those transactions for which an extended 45-day review (or "investigation") is completed, a report must be provided to the President, who must by law announce the final decision within 15 days. In total, the process can not exceed 90 days. The statute requires the President to inform Congress of his determination of whether or not to take action under section 721.

The president was left out of the loop, Congress informed him!

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to politics before the Bush admin? Cronyism (the other two are matters of opinion) is an enormous part of what politics is all about.

 

[russ_watters]

Edward, earlier in the thread there was discussion about the committee that "approved" the sale.

 

[edward]

Edward, earlier in the thread there was discussion about the committee that "approved" the sale.

I am well aware of that Russ. The post above has a direct link to the Treasury Department and to the exact function of that committee.

The rules require that the president or his designee oversee the investigation and then report their findings to Congress. This was not done. Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs? You're absolutely certain that the DPW acquisition of P&O is that unique an event?

 

[edward]

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs? You're absolutely certain that the DPW acquisition of P&O is that unique an event?

There have of course been many sales of American assets to foreign countries. There have likewise been many international buy outs and mergers.

I am confident in saying that this is a first for America in two ways.

1. This is a first in that a country known to have recently given aid to an enemy has been considered.

2. It is also the first time that a state owned company has been given consideration for the acquisition of American assets or operations.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS, I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to politics before the Bush admin? Cronyism (the other two are matters of opinion) is an enormous part of what politics is all about.

I understand that cronyism has always been a part of politics. Under Bush the "conflict of interest revolving door" is spinning out of control, and the total lack of merit (couldn't Bush appoint Brownie to be Ambassador to some harmless country?) and lack of ethics (the list is too long) is astounding. These topics have been discussed in overlapping threads with a wide array of evidence provided, and I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to it?

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs? You're absolutely certain that the DPW acquisition of P&O is that unique an event?

I was searching for information about China making a bid--I thought to manage a port in L.A., but don't have time to look further at the moment. To reiterate what edward posted:

According to the Treasury Department's web site, the relevant part of federal law, the "Byrd Amendment" to the Defense Production Act, calls for an investigation of a transaction if:

-- the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

-- the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Further, I found this exchange at today's Senate Armed Services Committee briefing of great interest:

"The statute says an investigation shall be made, that's mandatory if the acquisition could affect the national security of the U.S.," Levin said. "It seems to me it is obvious, it is clear, even by your own actions-the fact that additional requirements were imposed here-that this acquisition could affect the security of the U.S," Levin told Kimmitt. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) made a similar point.

"If you want the law changed, I don't care which administration you represent, if any administration wants the law changed, this or a previous one, come to congress and change it. But don't ignore it," Levin said.

"...We didn't ignore the law," Kimmitt responded. "We might interpret it differently. But the fundamental facts here (are) concerns were raised and they were resolved. If they hadn't been resolved then the national security would have been effected."

"If the national security could be affected this law requires an investigation," Levin countered. "Not just what you call a resolution of concerns... if the executive branch doesn't like it come to Congress and change it. Don't interpret it away. That's my plea to any executive branch."

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) the Senate committee's chairman who called the briefing and who has given every impression of supporting the administration's position on the deal, was clearly struck by the Democrats' argument.

"I must say as a lawyer myself, reading this myself, on the face, my colleagues raise a legitimate question," Warner said. He requested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales prepare a legal memo explaining how his and prior administrations' rationale have interpreted the statute.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/02/white_house_may.html

"...if the executive branch doesn't like it come to Congress and change it. Don't interpret it away." Where have we heard this before?

 

[edward]

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs?

Do you have a link for that. Most of the COFIUS members are existing cabinet heads with the Secretaty of the treasury at the top of the list.

Regardless that would pretty much puts the clamps on Bush's statement that he didn't even know about the acquisition.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

 

[Bystander]

There have of course been many sales of American assets to foreign countries. There have likewise been many international buy outs and mergers.

I am confident in saying that this is a first for America in two ways.

1. This is a first in that a country known to have recently given aid to an enemy has been considered.

Quite a few dealings with NATO members from 1965-1975.

2. It is also the first time that a state owned company has been given consideration for the acquisition of American assets or operations.

Various dealings with Shell and Aramco come to mind.

 

[Bystander]

Originally Posted by Bystander
POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs?

Do you have a link for that. Most of the COFIUS members are existing cabinet heads with the Secretaty of the treasury at the top of the list.

Regardless that would pretty much puts the clamps on Bush's statement that he didn't even know about the acquisition.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

[sarcasm]In your position as janitor at the Qwik Shop, you are designated to clean the bathrooms three times a day; this of course implies that the store manager knows the nature and location of every bit of noxious material you are required to deal with during discharge of your designated duties.[/sarcasm] This is one of the features of delegation of power, duties, responsibilities, and other minutiae of government; various types of tasks are allocated to various departments, committees, and other functionaries under the a variety of higher authorities which are then free to play golf, or tend to more important things.

 

[edward]

[sarcasm]In your position as janitor at the Qwik Shop, you are designated to clean the bathrooms three times a day; this of course implies that the store manager knows the nature and location of every bit of noxious material you are required to deal with during discharge of your designated duties.[/sarcasm] This is one of the features of delegation of power, duties, responsibilities, and other minutiae of government;......

So what you really mean is that you have no links.

POTUS is required make individual appointments for every instance in which foreign acquisition of another foreign corporation occurs?

Thanks for the little red ? that clears things up a bit.

But the President is supposed to be notified before the investigation even begins yet he claimed to know nothing about anything.

 

[russ_watters]

I am well aware of that Russ. The post above has a direct link to the Treasury Department and to the exact function of that committee.

The rules require that the president or his designee oversee the investigation and then report their findings to Congress. This was not done. Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

Actually, the piece you quote says that Congress must be notified in cases of an "extended review". Since not even Bush was aware of this (apparently), it probably got just a cursory glance that raised no eyebrows, so it wouldn't really qualify.

But at the same time, the committe was the representatives of Bush. He appointed them to their positions, didn't he? I have a representative in Congress and he doesn't personally inform me of all of his actions, but he is my representative because he was put there by the people he represents. I think you are attaching a meaning to that word that it doesn't have and overreading your source.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand that cronyism has always been a part of politics. Under Bush the "conflict of interest revolving door" is spinning out of control, and the total lack of merit (couldn't Bush appoint Brownie to be Ambassador to some harmless country?) and lack of ethics (the list is too long) is astounding. These topics have been discussed in overlapping threads with a wide array of evidence provided, and I'm compelled to ask if you've paid much attention to it?

As a matter of fact, I haven't paid much attention to all the conspiracy-theory-type-stuff flying around in here. It is a waste of time and laughably silly. But if you really think Bush is somehow unique in his cronyism, you can find the same (or worse) about Clinton with a simple Google. But one (ok, two) high level example comparison: Brown's failure at FEMA is seen as the ultimate example of Bush's cronyism leading to a failure. But Clinton had even higher-level failures: his SecDef and SecAF both resigned for separate incidences of failure to adequately peform their jobs.

And even the conspiracy theories can be matched. The Clinton-Y2k-FEMA conspiracy theory is still out there even though it is 5 years out of date, but it isn't any more absurd now than it was then. And allegations of Bush leading us toward a police state are equally rediculous. What did you say 6 years ago to the speculation that Clinton would sieze dictatorial power following the Y2k crisis? In 3 years, when nothing happens except a peaceful and normal handover of power to the next president, what will you say then?

Just compare then and now:

"Martial Law" sounds so conspiracy theory-ish that many dismiss the whole concept out-right after hearing the term...

It doesn't matter what you call it, it's still the same. Y2K (naive) optimists and virtually every PR assurance routinely claim the following:

There's not going to be major power outages. There will be no food shortages. Telecommunications will work just fine. Everything that matters in the U.S. will be repaired. "We're well on our way".

HMMM...If that were undoubtedly correct, then why are extensive military plans being made to deal with widespread civil disorder and infrastructure failures?...

I believe infrastructure failures will be so disruptive the military will have to step in and "control" certain sectors of the economy if it is to remain functional. This is in addition to general civil disorder and looting accompanying the Y2K transition period...

Sufficient legal authority currently exists under the Stafford Act to allow federal resources to be utilized in response to a Y2K-related disruption if, upon application from a states governor, an "emergency declaration" is made by the President of the United States. While FEMA has no authority to respond to the causes of Y2K disruptions or to provide technical assistance for "Y2K fixes," it can respond to the physical consequences of Y2K disruptions if they constitute a threat to lives, property, public health and safety pursuant to the Presidents "emergency declaration."

[Watch for the "emergency declaration" in December or January. Then the fun begins.]

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/dfisher070599.html

Shockingly similar to the current conspiracy theories being generated about the Bush admin, isn't it? Laughably silly in hindsight, certainly, but did you guys consider it a realistic possibility in 1999? In 2008, these absurd conspiracy theories about Bush will look no different in hindsight from this one about Clinton.

 

[Bystander]

So what you really mean is that you have no links.

You said,

The rules require that the president or his designee oversee the investigation and then report their findings to Congress. This was not done. Again I ask, How did Bush appoint a designee if as he claims, he was not aware of the P&O to DPWorld sale?

which implies that you believe that he has to appoint someone for each and every case. I asked a rhetorical question which was intended to get you to consider the possibility that there are enough cases of this sort that it might be possible that an appointee would be expected to handle more than a single case.

(snip)

 

[edward]

You said,


which implies that you believe that he has to appoint someone for each and every case. I asked a rhetorical question which was intended to get you to consider the possibility that there are enough cases of this sort that it might be possible that an appointee would be expected to handle more than a single case.

(snip)

No, this merely means that if the president does not personally sit on the committee, he must appoint a designated person in his place. And once again I mention that Bush claims to have no knowledge of the acquisition. So who did he appoint as his designated committe member?

The key here is that only committee members of cabinet level can notify the president if there is a security issue. (which would require the extra 45 day investigation) The Coast Guard objected, but the Coast Guard falls under The Department of Homeland security and DHS overruled them.

WASHINGTON - The Coast Guard warned in December that the proposed takeover of some U.S. port operations by a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates raised "intelligence gaps" that made it difficult to assess the deal's possible threat to national security.
Its cautions, however, didn't trigger a 45-day investigation into the transaction, which would have been required if a Cabinet-level agency had raised such concerns. The Coast Guard is a division of the Department of Homeland Security.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13976607.htm

Interagency rivalries and failure to communicate resulted in 9/11.

 

[Bystander]

No, this merely means that if the president does not personally sit on the committee, he must appoint a designated person in his place.(snip)

Have you failed to grasp the concept that the chore of listening to a bunch of corporate lawyers can have been delegated years ago as a collateral duty? It's not something that requires an appointment every time there's a corporate merger?