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

[edward]

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?

Do you realalize that is exactly what I stated. Anyone can be that designated person and they can be appointed on the presidents first day in office. Never the less there must be a designated person to sit in the presidents place and by law he and the whole committee must report to the president if there is the slightest chance that national security may be involved. They did not report to the president. And that is what this all boils down to.

Is the UAE trustworthy enough to manage our ports?

The fact that there will now be a second security hearing, and it will last the mandated 45 days, proves my point.

And again who was his designated member? And why all of the secrecy?

 

[Bystander]

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?

Do you realalize that is exactly what I stated.

Wellll --- mebbe not "exactly." From previous posts in this thread:

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

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.

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??

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

May I conclude that you wish to emend your previous remarks on the question?

Anyone can be that designated person and they can be appointed on the presidents first day in office. Never the less there must be a designated person to sit in the presidents place and by law he and the whole committee must report to the president if there is the slightest chance that national security may be involved.

On to the next misunderstanding: security questions will be raised, and security issues discussed in any review process; if such questions remain unanswered and issues unresolved at the conclusion of the review, it is to be reported to POTUS, and the higher level review take place.

They did not report to the president.

Committee chair: "You guys got any problems if we ask you to follow these extra security procedures?"

DPW: "Nope."

Chair: "Anyone got any other questions?"

Everybody else: "Nope."​

End of process.

And that is what this all boils down to.

Is the UAE trustworthy enough to manage our ports?

Not "manage our ports," but "operate the container terminals" at the ports with which P&O has contracts.

(snip)

 

[edward]

Meanwhile back on topic: Bush selling out on U.S. security.

Some points made by a senate republican:

By many accounts, the White House spent all weekend hammering out a compromise that would allow a 45-day review to go ahead, after saying last week that such further analysis was unnecessary. Sen. Susan Collins, the head Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, however, raised crucial credibility questions about the cabinet-level officials associated with the deal when she revealed a Coast Guard memo indicating that the agency has widespread concern about its ability to conduct an adequate threat assessment with the information known about the company.

Collins's committee was given a behind-closed-doors briefing late Monday afternoon where members learned additional classified information about the exact nature of the deal. Although the cabinet officials on the review panel had insisted she would be relieved by the details they could share with her in this setting, that proved not to be the case.

"I am more convinced than ever," Collins said after the briefing, "that the process [for reviewing this deal] was truly flawed, that the national security and homeland security implications of this proposed transaction were such that a 45-day investigation as called for in the law should have been undertaken."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060228/28dubaiports.htm

 

[SOS2008]

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: 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.

Bush makes Clinton look like an angel -- A more appropriate comparison would be to Nixon (except in foreign policy). Also, the sources I provided are credible, not conspiracy sites -- who the heck is Gold Eagle? Here's another one for you in regard to this thread:

The bin Laden group is represented in most Saudi cities (Riyadh, Damman) and in a number of capital cities in the region: Beirut, Cairo, Amman, Dubai.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html

And some more in general:

"The ex-presidents' club" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4288516-103680,00.html

"Bechtel tied to bin Ladens

Osama bin Laden family members invested $10M in an equity fund run by former Bechtel unit." - http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/05/news/companies/war_bechtel/index.htm

"AN IMPORTANT TENET of journalism is that you should always ask, 'Who benefits?'” - http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml Also "Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank" - Wallstreet Journal--the link has expired now, but the bank referred to is the Carlyle Group)

Back to the topic, and in follow-up to my post #229:

Dubai's Support of Arab Boycott of Israel Should 'Torpedo' Ports Deal, ADL Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 28, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200602\POL20060228b.html

From this morning’s Jerusalem Post:

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Jerusalem Post notes that “US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.” Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

From the BBC, 5/11/02:

“The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel,” said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

“The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations.”

…The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2403303.stm

The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.

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

Where will the Zionist funding for Republican campaigns come from now? Maybe Lieberman will finally start to pretend to be a Democrat.

 

[edward]

There is a good possibility that there are some motives other than just wanting " a friend in the Middle east" pushing this deal.

James Baker another Bush family supporter, was appointed by Bush as special envoy to resolve Iraqs massive debt. He is lobbying the UAE and other middle eastern countries to forgive all Iraqi debt. Iraq borrowed heavily to finance its war against Iran in the 80's. That debt has never been repaid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3415043.stm

Before the USA could ever profit from the sale of Iraqi oil ,the billions in debts of Iraq would have to be paid. Before the USA could use oil money to rebuild Iraq the debts would have to be repaid.

From another point of view:

There may be a dollars-and-cents argument just as important as the hearts-and-minds appeal. As Steve Liesman from CNBC told me today during an interview, the U.S. is running a $7 billion trade SURPLUS with the UAE, not including a recent $10 billion deal between the Emirates and Boeing to buy airplanes. We don't have many trade surpluses around the world and we don't want to start a trade war with some pretty big markets.

http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/02/port_politics.html

The UAE is to decide between purchasing Boeing or Airbus planes by the end of March. That would explain the rush to push the ports deal through.

We of course must add to this information the fact that, unlike Saudi Arabia, the UAE does allow American troops to be stationed and to train there. The UAE also allows our carriers in their ports.

Are we buying a friend in the middle east?? Nothing is ever as it seems.

 

[SOS2008]

Confirmed and acknowledged:

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — Lawmakers raised new objections on Tuesday to the proposed takeover of some terminal operations at six United States ports by a Dubai company..."

Based "on a report that the parent company of state-owned Dubai Ports World honors an Arab boycott of Israel"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/p...bd1681723&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Not forgetting this:

"Bush refuses to deal with radical Hamas group
President: Palestinian militants must first agree to accept Israel’s existence" -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11027180/

And now:

"GOP unease spreads to security issues
More Republican lawmakers willing to challenge Bush" - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11612274/

Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with upcoming 2006 elections would it? Where were these congress men and women before now?

 

[edward]

Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with upcoming 2006 elections would it? Where were these congress men and women before now?

They certainly have had no problem with Bush playing the "media blitz Islamic fear factor Game" for the last five years.

Talk about being out of touch: The administration can't understand why the majority of the American people are opposed to this take over of American ports by a state owned Islamic company, even though Bush has been the one handing out repeated doses of, "grave and gathering danger".

As of this morning my local newspaper has had 19 letters to the editor concerning the port take over, all 19 were against it.

If they had spent the last five years giving the UAE or other Islamic nations a big friendly build up it might be differen't, but people would still have doubts because of 9/11.

This administration has become toally bizarre. What are the thinking? This is starting to sound like something that will require an "insanity" defense.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

What a silly analogy.

We are not discussing degrees of separation here. We are talking about business dealings. These are not random isolated connections, these are ongoing business dealings.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the conservative business philosophy. Business is separated from ideology, religion, and patriotism.

You must have heard the expression. "that's business".

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, one of the critical lies in F911 is that Moore stuck together events, associations, and dealings that were separated in time and space. The biggest piece of B.S. is the stuff about the Carlyle group. It is an investment company, and just because a wealthy construction family (the Bin Ladens) and a wealthy oil family (the Bushes) invested in it (even if mebers of the one family were on the board) at the same time doesn't mean they were in any way actually connected to each other. And of course, that doesn't even take into account the fact that Osama was essentially disowned by his family.

 

[russ_watters]

Based "on a report that the parent company of state-owned Dubai Ports World honors an Arab boycott of Israel"


Not forgetting this:

"Bush refuses to deal with radical Hamas group
President: Palestinian militants must first agree to accept Israel’s existence"

What do those two things have to do with each other?

 

[turbo]

Apparently, Al Qaeda had infiltrated the government of UAE years ago, and in 2002 delivered a warning to the UAE to stop arresting their allies.

The document, a letter from the al Qaeda terrorist organization to the United Arab Emirates government, mainly warns UAE officials to stop arresting al Qaeda's "Mujahideen sympathizers." The second paragraph begins with a potentially chilling boast: "You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned."

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=SCHRAM-02-28-06

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, one of the critical lies in F911 is that Moore stuck together events, associations, and dealings that were separated in time and space.

An example from SOS's post 231...

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

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.

It is nice enough to come right out and say it in the quote she provided that it is an indirect link - meaning it's the Kevin Bacon game of degrees of separation:

Bush->
James Bath->
Salem bin Laden->
Osama bin Laden

That's 3 degrees of separation - if you let go of the fact that Bath and Bush never met! (in 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you have to at least have been in the same room as one of the people involved). I wonder if Bath and Salem bin Laden ever met...? And to call an investment a "business dealing", while factually true is uselessly general. If I buy gas from a nearby Texaco, it can be said that I have "business dealings" with Texaco. In fact, I have never sat down in a business meeting with anyone from Texaco and James Bath likely never sat down in a business meeting with Arbusto. And yes, some will point out that it says Bath "invested" - so that likely means stock. A $50,000 chunk of stock is a pittance - it is not a major investment. Not even enough to make it worthwhile to go to an annual shareholder's meeting.

 

[SOS2008]

An example from SOS's post 231...

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...ontrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
It is nice enough to come right out and say it in the quote she provided that it is an indirect link - meaning it's the Kevin Bacon game of degrees of separation:

Bush->
James Bath->
Salem bin Laden->
Osama bin Laden

That's 3 degrees of separation - if you let go of the fact that Bath and Bush never met! (in 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you have to at least have been in the same room as one of the people involved). I wonder if Bath and Salem bin Laden ever met...? And to call an investment a "business dealing", while factually true is uselessly general. If I buy gas from a nearby Texaco, it can be said that I have "business dealings" with Texaco. In fact, I have never sat down in a business meeting with anyone from Texaco and James Bath likely never sat down in a business meeting with Arbusto. And yes, some will point out that it says Bath "invested" - so that likely means stock. A $50,000 chunk of stock is a pittance - it is not a major investment. Not even enough to make it worthwhile to go to an annual shareholder's meeting.

So by your logic BushCo claims of connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, removed to between Iraq and Al-Qeada, removed all together is faulty? Good to hear that. The main point you were making is that this is all conspiracy theory. Unlike your source about Y2K, these are credible reports that show BushCo clearly has association with the Bin Laden family. Is that not enough to have concern? Do we need a video showing Bush talking directly with Osama? There may be one out there waiting to be discovered.

Returning to the topic of DP World, I stated long ago my concern about the "why' of it all, and "why" aren't we managing our own ports. Now this is where the debate is going.

 

[edward]

This is not about degress of separation or any other kind of separation.
It is about money and connections.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/klein

( A very long read for those who might be interested.)

And we have another connection between the Carlyle group and the UAE ports deal.

What does Dubai Ports World have in common with CSX, Treasury Secretary John Snow, and the Bush Family? The Carlyle Group is the answer currently gaining ground on the Internet.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49096

 

[turbo]

And we have another connection between the Carlyle group and the UAE ports deal.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49096

Well, at least the Bushies can't dismiss World News Daily as a radical left-wing outlet. They are about as conservative as you can get.

 

[Amp1]

Turbo-1, Good post (#261)

I'm sure Bushco will claim they had no knowledge of the implications of the port deal in light of that revealing document. Guess the NSA and CIA were bumbling along again.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...ubContrassID=0

Quote:

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.

Their is a credibility problem here because of the source, as I have outlined with bold type.

The man is a compulsive liar, which is common with untreated alcoholism. He also doesn't know Jack Abramoff. (right)

 

[russ_watters]

The main point you were making is that this is all conspiracy theory.

Yes.

Unlike your source about Y2K, these are credible reports that show BushCo clearly has association with the Bin Laden family.

Huh? Clinton passed real laws expanding the power of FEMA to deal with an expected crisis. The entire point of the six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon demonstration is that Bush clearly does not have a direct association with the Bin Laden family, much less a direct connection with Bin Laden himself, as you are implying you believe.

Is that not enough to have concern?

Someone Bush never met invested a trivial sum of money in a company Bush owned for someone else Bush never met - no, that is certainly not enough to have a concern.

Do we need a video showing Bush talking directly with Osama? There may be one out there waiting to be discovered.

Certainly, that would qualify as showing a direct link. But don't you see what you are doing? You are basing your concern on the assumption that they actually did have personal contact, when your own inormation shows that they did not.

 

[SOS2008]

The United States of oil
No administration has ever been more in bed with the energy industry -- but does that mean Big Oil is calling Bush's shots? First of two parts.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Damien Cave

Nov. 19, 2001 | The Bush administration's ties to oil and gas are as deep as an offshore well. President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc. -- a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming -- for more than a decade.

The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it, according the Center for Public Integrity.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/11/19/bush_oil/index.html

Two major investors in Bush's company (Harken) were Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz. - http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0318/047.html

The Carlyle Group defines the next phase of power: a Washington-based private equity fund with a difference. It is headed by Frank Carlucci, former CIA director and defense secretary under Ronald Reagan and lifelong friend of George Bush Sr. Bush (also once director of the CIA) sits next to Carlucci on the board with a portfolio specialising in Asia and does not hesitate to communicate with his son on concerns of regional relevance to Carlyle such as Afghanistan or the Pacific Rim. Bush Jr was once chairman of a Carlyle subsidiary making in-flight food.

...On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html

Plane Carried 13 Bin Ladens
Manifest of Sept. 19, 2001, Flight From U.S. Is Released
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 22, 2004; Page A07

At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, were allowed to leave the United States on a chartered flight eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to a passenger manifest released yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4014-2004Jul21.html

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today pointed out that the recent spate of terror attacks on Israel has lent new urgency to the need for former President Bush to resign from the Carlyle Group, an international investment firm with close ties to the government of Saudi Arabia.

The former president, the father of President Bush, worked for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, meeting with them at least twice. The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been “disowned” by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and was a major investor in the senior Bush’s firm. Other reports have stated his Saudi family have not truly cut off Osama bin Laden.

In the wake of Judicial Watch and other criticism of its ties to the bin Laden family business, the Carlyle Group reportedly no longer does business with the bin Laden conglomerate. Yet the Group, among other conflicts of interest, reportedly has a major business relationship with the Saudi Arabian government, which many have criticized for its lack of cooperation in America’s war on terrorism and its financial and other support for terrorist attacks on Israel and U.S. interests.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1685.shtml

Back to the main topic -- Aside from whether the DP World deal represents a threat to our national security or not, it seems Bush does something hypocritical, unconstitutional, or downright illegal almost daily. Amazing!

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[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.